Loading...
1992 07 01CHA~SEN PLANNING COMMISSION RE61J~ MEETING JULY 1, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Brian Batzti, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad and Steve Emmings. Tim Erhart arrived during discussion of item. 3. MEMBER5 AJ~aENT: Joan Ahrens ST~FF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Pianner II; and Tom Scott, City Attorney ' PUBLIC HE~ING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECI~_ATIO~__ _~E_~'ItLOT_ FOR NID~qE_u~.SHT~ HEIGHTS HOME--RS ASSOCIATION, Publtc Pre~ent: Name ~<~dr~ Mary Jo Moore Tom & Ann Metz MichaeI G. PlehaI Tom Huntington Mary Onken Mlck Saul/Sharon Carlson Richard NeIson William Finlayson 3231 Dartmouth Drive 3201 Dartmouth Drive 6210 Elm Tree Avenue 6300 Dogwood Avenue 6221 Greenbrier Avenue 6321 Dogwood Avenue 6241 Elm Tree Avenue 6320 Fir Tree Avenue Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzii called the public hearing to order. 8atzli: Is the dock encroaching in the dock setback area? Aanenson: No it's not. It's at the minimum, 10 feet. Yes. Batzli: Boats then are on the opposite side away from the setback area? Okay. We're going to open it up to public comment now. Again, if you'd step up to the microphone and give us your name and address, if you'd like to address the Planning Commission. Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been here a number of times and I guess quite honestly I don't want to be here. I don't want to be fighting neighbors. The Heights I realize is one of the oldest established neighborhoods with a recreational beach and even though there's a setback, the docks are set like T's with lifts and to me, .from the lake, it looks like they are encroaching on the property owners. The adjacent property ownsrs. It also, to me appears that they've expanded substantially in the last. Whoops, I lost it. They've. expanded '"~"- substantially plus they've added a raft that's right out from these docks and these boats and to me it's unsafe. I personally keep quite a distance from it but I don't know if other people coming in would keep a distance~J At any rate, I think any expansion Is out of the question. This i~_~/ small lakeshore Ici and I recommend or I request, my opinLo~.~j~~ Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 2 should not be expanded beyond '82 and ! realize it's been there 'for a number of years. One of the first. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Now you aren't at one of the adjacent properties but you do live on the lake? Zs that correct? Mary Jo Moore: Yes. I'm a iakeshore owner. I do have an association on each side of me however. Bill Finlayson: What is her address? Batzii: I'm sorry, could you give your address again. Mary Jo Moore: 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I'm in the Shores. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Bill Finlayson: I'm Bill Finlayson. I'm the Beach Chairman for the Minnewashta Heights Beach Association. I' live in Minnewashta Heights. 6320 Fir Tree. I have a number of, well maybe I-do. These are documentation of our. Emmings: We have it in our packet. Aanenson: I made copies of it. They have it in their packet. Bill Finlayson: Oh good. Okay, fine. These are documentation of the past years of people who owned boats and people who had boats... Minnewashta Heights is an association of approximately 73 homes. The-centerpiece of that association ts Lot 9. A well maintained lakefront property where our members can swim and boat and enjoy Lake Minnewashta. We have good relationships with our neighbors and take any concerns that they may have seriously. Over the years we have made boat slips available to our members and we've always regulated the number of boats that can be put at the dock. 'We've always in the past been able to accommodate those members who would like to have boat slips but as of last year all slips have been used and we are currently running a waiting list of one person. In 1981 the Heights had 17 people signed up for boat slips. Today we use the number 14 as our number for what we use. We haven't grown over the years. We've always been, worked with that number or approximately thereof. And we've always tried to keep those numbers constant. I don't understand what Minnewashta Shores is feeling that.they are being encroached on their property. Mary Jo Moore: I'm speaking on my own behalf. Bill Finlayson: I understand. She mentioned a swimming raft. The swimming raft has been there for, I don't know. Probably more than 10 years. It's always been there as far as I know. It's the same as any swimming raft on Lake Minnewashta. It's in it's proper spot anchored to the bottom and it has reflectors all the way around the raft. That's the same as any swimming raft you'll find out there. ! don't understand how that ever even came up. I believe that's all I have right 'now. Is there any questions that I can answer from you people that you have? Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 3 Batzli: Are you requesting room for 14 boats or 177 Bill Finlayson: We are requesting room for 14 boats. In 1981. we had 17 boats signed up. I believe the count was 6 and room for 14. We've always used the number 14 pretty much as our number that we work with. Batzli: Did you move in in 19877 Bill Ftnlayson: I moved in in, let's see. Approximately 6 years ago. What would that be? Batzli: That was just the first time your name showed up on the list of boats. That's why I asked. So you weren't around in '81 but you have been there since '877 Bill Finlayson: Yes. Batzli: Okay. So .you're relying on these documents to tell you how many boats there were back then right? Bill Finlayson: Yes. Which is fairly good documentation. Batzl i: Okay. Bill Finlayson: Some of those names on the list don't live there anymore. Are gone now. Batzli: Okay. I'm sure if we have more questions, we'll' speak up. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Tom Metz: My name is Tom Metz and I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. The purpose of my coming here again is, if everybody truly understands what We did for '81 and how we arrived at that baseline. And as.I sat here last week and we talked about Pleasant Acres and we talked about the baseline means the amount of boats in the water. Rnd baseline in 1981 and the purpose of that, to go back. I don't know if anybody Wants to go back but there was a lot of reasons why we arrived at the 1981 baseline. If somebody would like me to review that, I can go on. If that's a moot issue, then we don't need to. Is anyone not familiar with how we arrived at those figures and how it was a compromise with Carver County Parks. It was a compromise with what they called a riparian/non-riparian-homeowners. It was a compromise with the outlot owners. I mean are all of you people kind of aware of how that arrived? And even you people are sitting here asking for? Emmings: Maybe we don't. My understanding of why we're using '81 is that's the year that we first had a beachlot ordinance so that any beachlot that was established after that date had to be under the ordinance and any other beachlot was grandfathered in at that point. That's what's been explained to us by staff. Tom Metz: Okay. The reason for this whole thing, and because I've been involved in. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 4 Emmings: Now when you-say the reason for the whole thing. Tom Metz: The reason for the '81 baseline, okay. The reason for the "81 baseline was, at some point we had to arrive at what we called a riparian and non-riparian use of the lake. Riparian being for every 20 acres of lake there is an access for a boat, there's a non-riparian. And riparian on the homeowners, non-riparian is the non-lakeshore owners. And if you go with DNR rules and regulations, they say that the non-riparian use for a lake such.as Minnewashta is 1 boat per 20 acres. Surface acres of lake. There's 700 acres of lake. There's 35 boats should be the non-riparian use of that lake. [ mean this is part of a DNR document and that's how they establish access. With that then, ali of the people in Mln~ewashta, so we had Minnewashta Heights and all of the different organizations came up with an agreement. Is let's try to maintain this use. We had number one was Carver County Parks came in. Carver County Parks came in and they wanted a total of about, they were asking for, let's say they could have gone up to 60-70 boats. We maintained and agreed that to, if Carver County would restrict themselves to their 15 and 25, 40 boats, that then we would go back to all of the existing, what we called outlots and we would freeze them at the 1981 baseline. We would then, by that control there'was no more access to Lake Mlnnewashta. So that established it. We had a DNR regulation of somewheres around 40 boats. By the time we had, the park came in at 45 boats and by the time we had the 3 or 4 different' acres, we were up to almost 90 boats. So we were 2 times let's.say the DNR regulation for a, what they call a non-riparian use of the lake. And the purpose of this was for all of us, we saw Carver County Park as something that would be our biggest ally or our biggest enemy and'how would we control that. Well they agreed 'to those type of guidelines so long as we would maintain the rest of the lake through nc.more access to it. Through maintaining what outlots that we had with what we called a'grandfather clause. So that's how we arrived at the 1981 baseline and 'that was the purpose of this thing. $o when we talk about expansions, you wonder why..I mean I have no reason to come here but to say that when we allow 'last time, we went from the Pleasant Acres. They went from 6 to 10 boats so I say well we go up 40~. Excuse me. My 'mouth is a little dry. We go up 40~ so what happens then is theoretically in mY mind we come back to Carver County that all of a sudden is our biggest ally and they're going to say, well you're increasing all of these outlots. All of this other access to the lake. Therefore we want to take our access and bring it up 40-$0~. $o we can have another 30-40 boats on there. Well I think that defeats what all of us are here for and that's my primary purpose is to maintain the quality of the lake we've got and we've done that through this 1981 baseline. And as you allow increases to this, you're opening up something that we're all going to. I mean we who have kind of agreed to maintain that lake will find something that in the future we're going to overuse that'lake so. That's my purpose. The second reason, if you ask my opihion on that lot, to drive down that lake and to look at one, what is it, 50 foot? I think it's 50 foot and you see 14 or 15 boats or 17, whatever's on that and you see all of the adjoining homes that have 2 boats, I mean that's not right. Why should people have to drive on that lake and look at that type of a congestion on an outlot? They have access for maintaining-their 1981 baseline through coming the park Just like anybody else. I think. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page $ Emmings: How does this help us know what they had in 817 That's our problem you understand. If we know what they had in 1981, wa'ii leave it there. The problem is documentation of that. Tom Metz: Yeah. $o the burden that we agreed last time, the burden.of proof. We had documentation that says, I don't know whether there's 14. If there are 14 boats and they're not asking for an increase, I have no problem with that. Zf there's 13 boats and they're asking, and we have the documentation that says there's 14 boats, I mean it's up to other people to prove. The burden of proof is on them to prove that they have 17 or 18 boats. Whatever they're asking for. $o all I'm asking you is to maintain that '$! baseline for those specific reasons. It's an overall plan of controlling the lake. Anything else? Batzli: Let me ask you one question. Is this baseline agreement with the Park, is it in writing somewhere? Is it, I mean who came up with this? Tom Metz: There's a guy by the name of Mike Litticoat and through his other people from the Park. I mean I served on when Naegele sold the park to Carver County and then Carver County had, what they tried to do was develop this park. So we had a park development committee fOr the next 6, 7, 8 years. And finally in about 1981, the agreement ~as just with, they started out with 15 boats and that .little mini and then they asked for an increase. When Naegele sold the property to them, the condition on the property sale was that they would only have 15 boats of 15 horsepower or less access to that lake. Minnewashta, the Park came back. This was about '65. Maybe in about '75 they said that they wanted to increase this useage and so at that point it was stalled until about 1981 and then it seemed to. be an agreement that we would all live by. Well, if you talk to Carver County, that's an agreement they're willing tO abide by and I think that for the rest of us, once we break those guidelines rules, on what basis can we hold them to their agreement? So the man you would contact is Mike Lltticoat. You talk about Carver County Parks, we don't have any more than an agreement with. We have a conditional use permit with the City of Chanhassen. Carver County and City of Chanhassen have a conditional use permit and in that conditional use permit there's a total of 35. 15 and 25, 40 boats. That's all they're allowed to use and they control that through the trailer accesses that they have in the park. Batzli: Who is this Litticome person? Tom Metz: Litticoat is the head of Park and Recreation for this District. I mean for the Carver County. He is the head man for Carver County Parks. Emmings: As part of that effort,.were there any surveys done on the lake to see what the, you know how many boats were at. what places on the lake and particularly in the beachlots? Tom Metz: I think only it was Chanhassen's, when you, somebody went out and made a count of the boats at that time. I don't think there was anything more sophisticated than that. And it was boats in the water and last time you went with, the way I inteKpretted what you'did last time was you took the 12 boats in the water and you took the 5 boats, or 5 and 5 is 10. So you gave them a total of 10 boats. Well,-in essence those boats Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 6 that weren't in the water were not Part of that '81 baseline. And I don't know what Minnewashta Heights has here. But that's what I know.' That's what we fought so hard for and that's the purpose of.this whole thing is to, there's a purpose of it. There's a plan and if you check with Carver County and if you check with the City of Chanhassen, they have a conditional use permit or a permit. Whatever it's called, with Carver County Parks and that spells out the amount of boat access. That spells out that we have closed all other private access. Private or public access to Lake Minnewashta and all of the access comes through the park. Does that make sense? Batzli: No. It's interesting information that I haven't heard before. Emmings: Are you aware of these agreements or documents? Krauss: I've had occasion to work with Mike on a number of, well a number of instances. In fact he's been down here before you on occasion for park expansion projects. And Mike did explain to me that there is a CUP between the Park 8card and the City. It does limit their, there's 2 boat landings. They're limited in size and I think they're also limited to the size of the motors that can be put in on each one. And it was under' those guidelines that the City authorized the Park to go forward. I'm not aware of any recipient agreement that binds the City to anything. It's a CUP and there may have been some understandings but as Mike. explained it to me, it was a CUP for the Park to build their facility. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Tom Huntington: Hi. I'm Tom Huntington. The President of the Minnewashta Beach Area. Actually the Association. Just one comment to bring us back on focus that-we're talking Minnewashta Heights here. We're not talking expansion. We're talking 14. Not the 17 that we had documented in 1981 of actual people that were on the lake and had their boats in our area. And I just wanted to be clear and reiterate the fact that it is based on the ruling that the way I understand it, from what I've read, is-that we are to go back on the 1981 number of boat counts that were on the area at that time. And we have documentation to back that up if need be or actually people that we can contact if that has to be done. Any questions? Conrad: Yeah. Our inventory pretty much tracks those docked when we 'did it and that's a point in time. 6 in Tom Huntington: Is there something where you? Conrad: ...saying there were 14 boats. Tom Huntington: Well actually 17 as of 1951'.- Conrad: Those were assignments. Were there boats on the water? Tom Huntington: Actually I am newer to the neighborhood. I've been in the neighborhood for 5 years. I couldn't actually say myself but what I understand. Planning Commissi Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 7 Conrad: You see that's real important for us. We're trying to be as fair as we can but boats on the water is a really key issue. Bill Finlayson: Yes but. your counts are...don't know how many boats were out, at the dock at the time or. Basically what your count. Tom Huntington: If somebody went down today. BIll Finlayson: If you asked the same question, were there actually boats there? Then we'd have to give you the same answer. Ne don't know- without... Conrad: The only thing I'm raising is, it's real consistent, our records. .If they weren't consistent, then I'd sort of... Emmings: I can tell you this. I can see this from mY house. This beachlot and there's no question in my mind that 7 boats for '91 is wrong. That is dead wrong. It's way short. There were at least twice that many boats there. Tom Huntington: Yeah, so that visual count there was not accurate and I've been on the lake for 5 years and I kno~ last year... Emmlngs: It's also very clear. Bill Finlayson: Also, the record, keeping gets much better since I'took over in 1991. Ne had 14 boats. They're maybe not in all the time... Batzli: Is there anybody here tonight who is in the homeowners 'association or was around back in '817 Tom Marx: I've been in that area...I've lived there from '70-'75. In 1981 there were 14 boats there, what does our record say? How many were.in the water then? Conrad: 6 boats. Tom Metz: ...prove, the burden. That-'s what we said all... The burden of proof has got to be on somebody else.. They've got to come up with the... Nell prove it. Hot us. Conrad'- Well Tom, just so you know the Association has given us a listing of individuals who were assigned slip positions throughout for the last 15 years or whatever. Tom Metz: Kind of like the ordinance we had before that said we had access because they were part of the covenants... Everybody' had access to the beachlot. That was part of the covenants. That was the argument before and we're giving everybody...on this '81 baseline and all we're doingl is destroying it for ourselves. You look at me. I'm really not the bad guy here and I hope you don't co,ne out, I don't care. I really don't care but I think the long range plan...- Planning Commission Meeting 3uly l, 1992 - Page 8 Bill Finlayson: It's important to note that the '81 count that said 6 also mentioned the number 14. Tom Metz: I'm asking who mentioned 147 The City? Batzli: Yeah, the City. Tom Metz: The City... Batzli: Okay, would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mike Plehal: My name is Mike Plehal and I live in Minnewashta Heights. My address is 6210 Elm Tree Avenue. My wife and ! have lived there for about 3 1/2 years. Looked in there. We wanted to be on a lake but are unable to afford it. It's out first home but the access and the boat slip availability was very appealing to us. So I Just want to make sure that before any decisions are made, a number of us came into this aTea keeping that in mind and we looked at the home and decided on the home and bid on the home knowing that there were really plenty of boat slips down there.. And if there was a year or two waiting period, that that really wouldn't be a problem. But that's a very, very' appealing thing to us. ParticulaTly that particular area I think is Just straight middle class and you go down to the lake and the value is twice probably or more compared to the rest of the houses right within the neighborhood.- Emmings: Let me ask you a question Mike. I walked down there tonight on the dock and where I see your assignment is for '92. Co you know what this map looks like? You're assigned number 4. Mike Plehal: Yes. Emmings: Your slip is right next to the main dock on the inside. Hike Plehal: Yes. Emmings: And now there was a boat lift there and no boat when I was there. Mike Plehal: Right. The storm that came through here about 2 w~ks ago, we happened to be up north at the time. Broke the boat free from the lift- and. Emmings: The lift looked like it was bent out of shape. Mike Plehal: Yeah. It totaled both the lift and the. boat. Emmings: And so where's your boat? Mike Plehal: The boat is totaled. Emmings: Okay, and it's gone off the lake? Mike Plehal: Yeah. We pulled it off. Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 9 Emmings: [f the City went down and counted today, they'd see no boat. They'd see a spot. There's a lift. There's kind-of a lift that looks like it's seen better days sitting in that spot but there wouldn't be a boat but there'd be a space. Conrad: lift. I don't have a problem. I think that's real clear. You see a Emmings: '81. I don't know if it's always so clear. And if it was clear -in Conrad: Did they have boat lifts? Emmings: I think so. Mike Plehal: That's all I have. Emmings: Alright, thank you. Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Rich Nelson: Yes, my name is Rich Nelson. I live at 6241 Elm Tree Avenue with my wife Nannette and we like Mike just moved in recently. Much more recently than he did. March of 1992. ' And again, I guess our big decision in moving into the area was the access to the lake and when you see on the map that you have there, the boat lift. Or I guess the spot that I'm assigned, my boat is not down there today. I have-a boat. It's in my' garage and I'm in the process of looking for a boat 'lift to keep the boat down there safely and securely. I've been out on the lake here probably 3 or 4 times this season and it's very enjoyable out there: It's not crowded. I mean from what I've seen. Being out there Saturday and Sunday, prime time use. There is absolutely no problems with congestion or excess traffic out there. So I just wanted to point that out as well.' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mary Onken: Hi. I'm Mary Onken. I live at 6221 Greenbrier. We moved up here about 7 years ago and I also was very attracted by the lake lot. I have some secretary notes from a long time ago, starting about 2974 and they talk about, about 20 years before your ordinance that talked about how this space was filling up even then. So I think the 24 boats has been a long standing thing for us. We haven't expanded. I agree with your need to regulate the lake. In the little time that we've been here, about the last 7 years, I've seen changes. There's quite a bit of building around the lake and I can see where these homeowners associations can put an awful lot of access to the lake. I think the park is a very fair way to regulate the number of people coming in. I think we pretty well all agree in the Minnewashta Heights group that we Just want to maintain our status quo. What we have. We're not looking for expansion. We want to be good neighbors. We want to see the lake regulated in a way that will keep it in very good shape. Shifting to another subject a little bit. I know it isn't the object of tonight's deal but I've seen a difference in the water quality. My nephew also did some studies when he went to college to look into the different ways to save lakes. I wonder if the commission would Planning Commission Heeting July ~, ~992 - Page lO also, or whether your Planning Commission would look into ways that the sewer water and the waste water or storm se~er water could be cleaned up before it comes into the lake. Right now I think it 3ust pretty much goes right in. Batzli: We are actually in the process of, we have a task' force, the Surface Water Quality Task Force. Right now 'I think they're devoting a substantial amount of time to plotting the lakes that we have and the quality and trying to put some projects togethers. If you do want'to follow up on that, I encourage you to talk to Paul in our Planning Department. It's been a very active group and we're moving ahead and I think we're actually leading a lot of the communities in the State as far as putting something like this together and getting going on it. Mary Onken: I think that's great. So I think we support your, what you're trying to do and we don't want to expand. We want to stay where we are. Thank you. - Conrad: What do you have in your book on 19817 anything that we should know that we don't know? Mary Onken: Oh I don't know. I was reading this and. I had to guess what years you would be focusing on initially. So I think even back, I think it was in '74 they talked about 14 boat slips. Space for 14 boats. Conrad: anything that you could show in there that says that can give us more information on actual use? Emmings: In '81. Conrad: Be real persuasive. Mary Onken: I'm sorry, but I don't have tha~. I think looking at the number of boats that are in the slips is kind of akin to looking at my garage and my driveway and trying to figure out how many cars I have. On any given day maybe 4 of us will be done and there won't be any cars at home. and on another day, the whole works might be there so counting the number of boats at a particular time I think is kind of a strange way to arrive at how many boats were there. Farmakes: Do you pay for your assignment? Mary Onken: Sorry. Farma kes: Do you pay the association for your assignment? Mary Onken: For my boat slip? Yes, we started voluntarily additional assessments for the boat slips and we have a dues for the association of which most of that association dues goes for insurance. Farmakes: Do you keep records of those payments? Bill Finlayson: Yes. For 3 years now we've collected for boat slips. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 11 Farmakes: Okay, but not for '8i? ' .- Bill Finlayson: No. But we have a Treasurer who would keep track of that. Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to add'ess the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmlngs moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was clo~ed. Batzli: Ladd, why don't Ne start at your end. Conrad: Are the neighbors to this beachlot, are they part Of the Association? Bill Finlayson: All lakeshore people are part of it. ..' Conrad: They are? Anybody here? Bill Finlayson: Do you have a map on this? Those homes are. Conrad: Anybody here that lives next door? We haven't heard any problems- with the swimming beach? The issue goes back. ! think everything that ! see is fine except for the number of boats and I guess I still haven't been persuaded. I'll wait for maybe some'other input from the Planning Commissioners. It's a mighty small lot and it's Just a mighty small lot. I think it is a little bit at risk in terms of safety but if we haven't heard any problems. The neighbors aren't complaining, then I'm.fine with that at this point. I think the staff has recommended marker buoys and I think that has to be done. The only other issue other than, in terms of what the association is requesting, is boats. And I guess ! 'm still not, I haven't been moved from the 6 in the inventory but maybe somebody on the commissioner can sell me. I think the other ones, what we're trying to do is be real fair in terms of the beachlots that are coming in. Trying to somehow make some sense out of what we're doing and the last thing we want to do is really take away some rights that you've got. We hate that. We're not comfortable. Yet on the other hand, as you've heard Tom Nerz talk about the other thing we're trying to. do is merge the needs of the lake. Not necessarily the riparian o~ners but the needs of the lake and the safety issues and there are a number of boats that can be on the lake without making it a hazard. And that's really true. It is 20 acres per boat. Minnewashta probably has more boats allocated to it than are safe conditions. Part of that is the problem of the park. But it's also a problem of beachlots too...and also a problem with homeowners. But anyway, that's right now, ! think everything's okay other than the number of boats. I guess somebody has to, I haven't seen anything to move me. I think if the homeowners showed me a picture or somebody showed me something in 198!, I think I could. Obviously the dock can take 14 boats. It's built to fit but I haven't seen the use yet that can sway me. 8atzli: So you would recommend 6? Conrad: Right now that's what I'm thinking until I hear the rest of you. Planning Commission Meeting 3ul y 1, 1992 - Page 12 8atzli= Matt? Ledvina: I understand the arguments as it relates to boats being out of the water and boats being out on the lake and the intention for the homeowners association for the number of boats. That seems to be, they've done a good Job of laying that out. And I think if that, if they can indeed prove that they intended to have 14 boats, and those boats in use on that lot, I think that ~ould be a reasonable number to allow. I'm a little bit concerned about the documentation that's been submitted.to us. You know they appear to be older diagrams and such but there's' really no authors identified and ! think this is the documentation that's provided really swaps me in terms of going with the 14 boats but, and it seems to be' certainly legitimate but I would like to see the names of the individuals that were involved in preparing the lists. Bill Finlayson: If you'd like to see originals. Ledvina: Well, would you happen to know the individual that for. example, determined the 1981 assignments and wrote the list? ! mean is that readily available? Bill Finlayson: There ~ere various Beach Chairmans. You'll notice documentation...there~s diagrams so people took various amounts of effort depending on who those individuals were over the yeats. Some just...notes and some did more than that. But they're all authentic and I have the originals and the names that appear on, many of those names don't live in the neighborhood. Conrad: Do you have By-Laws? Bill Finlayson: Yes. Conrad: ~nything that relates to the dock assignments in the By-Laws? Bill Finlayson= ~ctually it hasn't been a very big problem in the past, so it hasn't been a very big priority. But recently in recent years now, at our last meeting we had asked for a committee to draw up Just what you're asking for. More stringent rules because it hasn't been a problem before so it Just hasn't gotten done. Now it has to be done... We don't have rules per se. We will probably next year. Ledvina: Well it's a difficult issue and the other items of the inventory and the requests, I don't have any problem with. ~gain the real issue is the number of boats that are requested here and I am leaning toward allowing the 14 that you have currently documented here but I am open to other discussion. That's it for me. Batz I i: 0 kay. Steve. Emmings: Like I say, I'm a little bit, I personally experience this beachlot every day so I think I'm being objective about'it but I want everybody to know that I do. My house .is tipped at Such an angle that I actually look a little bit to the east so I look straight out the end of my house. I can see this a few lots over. Frankly, it bothers me less Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 13 than I might have thought it does. It's a very =mail piece of land. think they do a very good job' of keeping up the shore area. It's way too =mail for the number of boats that are on it. There'=, anybody who'd say anything eisa is, welI. It's ridiculous. But nevertheless, that's not what we're here to decide. No~ you get, you have to have 200 feet of lake=hors and 30,000 square feet to get one dock with 3 boats you kno~ so you can see that proportionately you're way over. I've always thought that it crowded the neighbors a lot and I think that's very unfair to the direct neighbors but you know, the neighbors on each side aren't here tonight. When they've got a chance to say their piece, they ar. en't here and that's, ...if you don't speak up, sometimes you can't get heard. I think they've adjusted this year somewhat and I think it's less of a problem this year than it has been in past years'but to me it does not appear that they're back inside the setback but it may Just be deceiving when you try to eyeball it. It's congested over there. The thing that bothers me the most about it is the light they have out there all night long. If they've got one of these big, bright lights out there and that's probably important maybe for safety and the use of it but that impacts me and I .don't Ilks it but, I don't even see that on here as an issue. I don't know if that was there in '81. As far as the ~lmming raft goes, I know that's been there as long as, I've been out there since '82 and I. kno~ that swimming raft has been there at least as long as I have been. $o we come right down to the nitty gritty here which is the number of boats. If I had to bet, I'd say that there are more boats now than when I was first out there in '82. It just looks like it but I never counted them back' then so I don't know either. So when I look at the documentary evidence that ~e have, which think is ail we've really got to go by., I see the list of 1981 assignments and that's i7. And then when you look back in the history, in i979 it shows 12 and '78 it shows, I'm not sure what it show. It sho~s 11 I think with space= for tS. In '77 it sho~s i2 boats. 8ut as you look back here, and back in '76 there's a total of 14 and the dock is always basically in the same configuration. So if I decide on it based on this information that we have in front of us, I don't kno~ any other way to go but with the 14. Even our own surveys, when they say 6 with room for 14, that suggests to me that same dock configuration was there. Ho~ c0uid they count the, how could you count a space without, you know what I mean? You're not making up those spaces. Those docks are out there with the main dock wi.th the arms coming off it. Even that suggests to me that it's a 14 boat dock. Conrad: Is intent good enough for you? Emmings: No, but I know when I look dan here at 7 in '91, there is no, absolutely no question in my mind. There are the same number of boat= there this year as there were last year. I really looked at it last year because I knew this was coming so I looked at it more closely. 'I didn't count the boats but I looked at it more closely. And I'd say ii= anything, right now when I was out there today, there were fewer boats than there were last year. At the peak. And you know that boats aren't there ail the time. So that makes me suspect that the numbers. $o I don't know. I'd like to see it restricted to 3 boats. If I had my way, I'd say they can, you have 3 boats and that's it but we clearly don't have that ~r. We've got to try and get at the number that was there and we've ~ot to try and make sure that we've got a fair number and we've got to make sure that it doesn't ever expand any more. And based on all of the stuff that they've Planning Commission Meeting July !, 1992 - Page 14 shown us out of their records, I'd go along with the 14 boats. I don't like it but I'd go along with it. - Batzli: Anything about marker buoys? Emmings: Um, well sure. I don't really have any way to judge whether it makes it safer or not to have the-buoys. If our staff thinks that it's important for safety purposes, I certainly wouldn't contest that.' Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: I would go along with staff recommendations on this. Back up the buoys. It seems to me that for anyone who has, went through the exmense of putting out dockage, it's quite expensive. ~nd if the City documented that there are 14 spaces there for dockage, the fact that there only happened to be 6 boats there at the time. I guess, maybe they were out on the lake or maybe they were in the shop or something. I'm willing to believe them. That that's what they had there and it made the intent of the '81 ordinance. Or '82, if it was enacted in January of '82. 8ut that's in line with that and I don't think we have anything to say one way or the other that that's now what was there that's conclusive. $o that being the case, I'm willing to take their word for it. 8atzll: Okay. Well, I remember being at this beachlot back in '78 thru, well '76 thru about '80. I had a good friend in the nelgh~rhood and ! remember going down there. There ~ere a lot of boats back then. I never counted them. ! remember swimming to the raft. I mean all this stuff was there. Whether the boats were physically in the water at the time this thing was counted, I guess I kind of take Jeff's approach that, I can't imagine that peopled in't have. You know people that had slips maybe pulled their boats in and out occasionally. I guess I'm not goin{; to guess that. I believe that there were probably more than 6 boats from my recollection on those docks so I'm going to go with the 14. that they're -' requesting. I think it's reasonable. The only. thing I would like, I would like staff to double check this an~le on the park. Make sure there's nothing in writing regarding this or some other survey. Aanenson: The conditional use permit? Batzli: Yeah. And I'd like to see the marker buoys out. ~nybody have a motion? I'd love to hear it. Conrad: You were there in '787 Emml rigs: ' 76. Batzli: Well yeah, throughout school with friends. College. Conrad: And do you feel the staff inventory was not? Batzli: I seem to remember more boats than 6 but I couldn't say for sure how many that were there. Conrad: If there are 14 boats, where does the swimming beach go? Planning Commission Meeting July 1, i992 - Page i5 Bill Finlayson: The boats stay on the west side of the dock. The swimming beach is on the east side of the dock so they don't infringe on each other. They don't take away, the boat people do not take away any rights of the swimming beach. The majority of the lot... Conrad: 50 feet. Okay, so you've 'separated boats from swimmers. Bill Finlayson: 60 feet. Emmings: The dock runs down the middle and the boats are all on the west and the swimming is on the east from my observations. Conrad: But basically the boat access is over...neighboring property owners. You really couldn't have boats on your own $0 feet but as long as the swimming beach is separate. Okay. The homeowners aren't here complaining. Emmings: I'm going to move that the Planning Commission'recommend approval of the Minnewashta Heights Non-Conforming recreational beachiot with basically everything that our report says that the Minnewashta Heights Rssociation has requested with the addition of or with these following changes. That the boats at the dock would be 14 and that if marker buoys will enhance the safety of the swimming beach, that they be installed. Who's made that determination? Aanenson: Well the concern was the raft is way out beyond the length of the dock. Quite a ways out there. Actually the length of the swimming beach is probably only $ to 10 feet at the most so it'd be a linear swimming beach on the way out to the raft. Just when you get out to the raft there's not a conflict with the boats coming in. So I think it's appropriate to say that we will check to make sure if it will enhance it or not. Emmi rigs: Okay. Conrad: So the buoys would have to surround the ~aft? How would the markers? Aanenson: That's what we'd have to look at. Bill Finlayson: Marker buoys, will staff, if marker buoys are required, will you diagram for us...? Batzli: Is there a second to Steve's motion? Ledvina:. Second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Earnings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Coe~aisslon recommend approval of the Non-Conforming Recreational .Beachlot Permit for Minnewashta Heights with one seasonal dock, 150 feet in length, 2 canoe racks, 14 boats docked, swimming beach and a a~lmming raft, which staff' will look at ~o see Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 16 if market buoys w{ll enhance the safety of the 8~tmtng raft. dill voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who didn't vote and the motion carried. Batzii: And when will it go to the City Council? Krauss: The 27th. Batzli: July 27th this issue will go before the City Council and I encourage you to follow the issue up. Rs I indicated, we recommend. make the final decision. Thank you all for comin~ in' They PUBLIC HE~J~ING: INTERIM USE ER~IT FO~ E/~RTH~O~K/MINI~ OF R GR~VEL PIT. LOCATED NO~TH OF HWY. 2i2 RND ERST OF THE CHICAGO ~ NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY. MOON V/~LLEY (Tim Ehart arrived to the meeting during discussion of this item and Steve Emminge left the meeting during discussion of this item. ) Public I~esent: Dave Johnson 821 Creek~ood (Left written comment) Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Dennis & Catherine Bartholow 9841 Oeerbrook Lane Emily Pischleder Tom Oalyonrod Jeffrey Michell Gerald Bertsch Rick Sathre Tom Zwiers 185 Pioneer Trail 8280 West Lake Court 9961 Deerbrook Drive 8556 Irwin Road, 81oomington Sathre-Berquist, Consultant Engineer~ Moon Valley Aggregate David Johnson had to leave the meeting early and-left this written statement to be included into the record. TO: FROM: Chanhassen City Council David Johnson 821 CTeek~ood Re: Moon Valley Gravel Site. Ladies/Gentlemen: Due to time constraints I am unable to be-present to present concerns over the further mining of the Moon Valley site. Rs an occupation I am a realtor. I am keenly interested in how one area of a development can affect other areas of development. Unless extreme caution is used in upfront agreements, the end result can be and most often is unacceptable. Planning Commission Meeting July 1. 1992 - Page 17 It is in this spirit that I express my concern as a resident but also as a person employed in the real estate industry, that an end use plan be proposed that is acceptable to the city, specifically the adjacent homeowners. Once an acceptable plan is accepted, there must be a financial instrument in place (i.e. payment bond, letter of credit, etc.) to insure that the plan accepted is carried out. A cost of restoration of $50,000. was proposed at a previous meeting. I believe this to be severely inadequate to accomplish even the most minimal restoration and believe that realistic costs must be addressed now- up front! It is my concern that the operator's .past conduct to residents and city concerns may be indicative of how future agreements or concerns are handled by this operator. Frankly, I do not see that this operator has earned anyone's trust and I am concerned that this may be a pattern. Please be careful. David S. Johnson Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Does anyone on the Commission have a question they want to ask Paul before I open it up to further public comment? Farmakes: I have a couple of questions. Is that bond listed in here? Krauss: The letter of credit? Farmakes: No. It says $40,000. in here. Krauss: ! believe there's another condition that. Farmakes: Yeah but it doesn't have a financial amount. Krauss: No. What we intend to do, and I was speaking for the City Attorney. By the way, we have Tom Scott from the City Attorney's office here tonight. One of the things that we would like to do is we have a working relationship with the DNR forester. We'd like to get his input as to what he thinks the cash value or what it would actually take to do that job and we would insert that, if it gets through the Planning Commission tonight, we would insert that into the conditions for the City Council approval. Farmakes: I'm curious where the $40,000. or where that amount came from? Do you feel real comfortable with that? Krauss: Frankly, whether I feel comfortable with it or not isn't the question. The City Engineer's office does. They have a.rule of thumb that they use for, an acre of disturbed area costs x number of dollars to finish grade, reseed and maintain erosion control and it's a formula they've used ' pretty standard for a number of years on development projects. And that's Planning Commission Meeting July i, 1992 - Page 18 where that number was generated from. So they're comfortable with it and I'm. Farmakes: Is that formula the same on a piece of farmland as it is on a bluff area? Krause: I honestly don't know the answe~ to that. I suspect it probably is. There's a little room for fudging in it I suppose to recognize difficulty but this area, the area that they're mining up on top is in fact farmland. It is relatively flat. The grades that will result from this are relatively flat. That's not the work on the bluff line. The only work that they would have to be doing on the bluff line is the reforestation on that lower ponding area. Batzli= Anything else Jeff? Farms kes: No. Batz11: I see the applicant's here. Would you like' to respond to the conditions and otherwise, address us. Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, I'm Rick Sathre from Sathre-Berquist. I'm the engineer for Mr. Zwters on this portion of his operation.' Tom Zwters is here with me tonight. Well staff's done a very thorough job as usual and you've got a lot of information before you. I think what I'd like to do is share a little bit of information and then I'd make myself available for questions. I made a few transparencies as well and I'll try to help to educate a little bit you, and perhaps the neighbors. I think there's some people here that are very interested and maybe I can help them too. This is a blown up map that's on the gTading plan drawing that shows the north 45 acre parcel that Mr. Zwiers owns with the relationships to the railroad corridor on the west side, the large lot single family neighborhood the. opposite side of the railroad corridor and the'large tracts to the right side of the mite are in Eden Paririe and directly below the word site, the next parcel mouth of that is the Moon Valley gravel pit area. Down running along the bottom side of the drawing you can see 169 and then the lake. Rice Lake across the highway. So I guess the urbanized neighbors are to the northwest, across the railroad corridor. This might be clear as mud from this distance but this is what's called a USGS or United.States Geological Survey map which shows 10 foot contours since 1958. It was updated in 1972. The site was, the contours shown On here weren't altered in 1972 by USGS when they updated their mapping. South of this line on the bottom side here, this the pit area. What you see there is the bluff before it was mined. When it was a ski area. I remember driving by there many times as a kid with my parents in the 50's'and seeing.those big gravy slopes when it was, when they had the ski rope or the rope tow going up the hill. The north triangle is what we're talking about really tonight. The 45 acre area that's not been mined. I moved that same .map up a little bit. In that '58 mapping, this lO foot contour mapping, the trees on the site at that time were, it's real hard to read here. I brought the original of this map if anybody wants to look at it. There was a significant treed area to the west and on the very southwest corner of the 45 acres we're talking about tonight. This is still forested. This is then. Then the easterly portion of the 45 acre tract was and is still forested as well. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992- Page 19 But even in 1958 the mined area down low was basically a hole in a ground. I think you can see the structure now. It's a house or something down there at the base of the slope. This is the 45 acre piece. Again, down at the bottom. Down at the south end is the,'beyond that horizontal line the mined area.. The area that's stil! being mined. North of that line this 45 acre tract. Again, the southwest part down here ha= mature trees~ This ie south facing, eouthwee~ facing bluff. The area, moat of the area north of this red l£ne is open land. As Mr. Krauss indicated, there's been agriculturally used and so it's only treed around the edges in the steeper sloped areas. The ravine system, there's a deep-erosion scar that leads up into Eden Prairie to the east and another scar that ~eads down into the railroad cut. Nhen that railroad was built, ever so long ago, that ma~or earth moving operation. There were deep cuts made to the north and big fills to the south. Nell, that slope probably ~asn'~ handled very well so that has eroded. The blue arrows on this drawing show 'the direction of water flow now. So there's a bluff line here, bhe water that fa~s on the south and west and south and east sides of ~hat line actually go toward the river directly. Nhereas the water.that's north of this ~ne ~owards the top side of the drawing actually cFrain down through the ravine. It's one or the other of the ravines. The big goal of ~hts clay m~ning operation, as Hr. Krauss indicated, there are several. One is to generate the clay to cap the landfill. The second by product or goal ~hat we have is to stabilize the erosion situation. This map shows the ~ed lines on th~s map are the, wou~d be the drainage boundaries a~ter the grading is done. Here's that ravine system on the east side. The ~ay the contours are. drawn here on this grading plan, there would be a ridge line crashed along.here. The water that falls, the rainfall that falls westerly of that line wou~d now drain into this up~and pond. Again up in ~he north point of the ~and, there's another what we're creating is a seepage pond or' a sump. ~here wou~d direct the water to the ~ell.-This is about 5 acres up here. This is about ~5. The water would all be directed inward. So I don't know if this helps anything or not. Basically what we can do is we can capture much of the water that's now, runs over the edge and down the ray, ne. Capture it and take it inward and allow the water to seep ~n~o the soil and work through the ground instead of work over the edge of the bluff. This is a map that shows that southwest corner of the north 45 acres. The major stand of trees that exist there. The major b~uff line that Hr. Krauss was ta~king about. The intent is to save all these trees on the major slopes. Save this major bluff line but to remove the secondary bluff that's right along the property boundary. So the end result would be to create that pond basically down at the bottom of that big slope and expose that tree area to the full view. I'l~ take a minute and go through some of the staff recommendation items. The.first item on the recommended conditions ~as the staff would like a copy of the easement or ~he rights that Hr. Zwiers has over the property in Eden Prairie that he'd used for access-out to Pioneer Trail. He actually purchased the ~and in Eden Prairie that he needs for that access severs! years ago. Ns'va brought copies of the documents ~onight and we'd introduce them into ~he record for future review. So he not only has easement rights, but he actually owns the land tha~ the road goes out over. ~ think that the conditions relative to protecting the roadways, cleaning up mud and such are logics! .and prudent and practical. I really don't have any problem w~th any. of ~he condit~ons excep~ as toward the end. In number 7, the staff has recommended that $40,000. letter of credit be posted to cover site res~oration. ~hat I've talked to Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 20 Mr. Zwiers about is trying to work out some sort of a dual obliQy bond. He's providing the site and providing the material but he isn't actually picking it up and moving it. It's a contractor. It's the contractor for the landfill that's actually doing the work. Well'what we would propose to try to work out is to have that contractor post a bond that names Mr. Zwiers and protects him. Makes them liable or responsible for restorat[on but also it protects the City of Chanhassen. So if we can work that out, it would be to his benefit and to the City's to have both protected by one instrument. Batzlt: I know that in our ordinance we talked about this situation. Where the applicant would normally be the person removing and We required that the owner be co-listed on the permit. I guess we never envisioned that the owner would be on there, not the person doing the work. Krauss: Well, I guess we'd want to make them co-liable I guess. I don't have that much difficulty with that but I have a question about the bonding arrangement that Rick is suggesting. First of all we've always been counseled by the City Attorney's office to deal with letters of credit. They're much more effective instruments for the city to use if need be. But maybe I could refer this to Tom Scott and answer as to whether or not that bond would be acceptable. Tom Scott: My initial reaction would be that it wouldn't work. That we'd .want a letter of credit from the applicant, Mr. Zwiers as the owner of the property. Whatever arrangements he might make with his contractor to protect himself would really be between him and his contractor. Would be my initial reaction. And that we would have a letter of credit from Mr. Zwiers and Mr. Zwiers is the applicant and the owner of the property would be securing the restoration of the property. Rick Sathre: I don't think we want to reivent the wheel or try to invent something new. So I guess I throw it out as an opportunity to explore a potential more than anything. I feel an obligation to protect-my client from that contractor just like I feel an obligation to provide, try to figure out how to protect the City too. We want this to-be done right and the property is worth a lot of money now and it will be worth a lot of money in the future. The last thing that we want to do is end up with it being damaged somehow. So I guess we want to work.to try.to make that the simplest and most straight forward for everybody thai we can. Down on condition number 13 on page 15. Mr. Zwters and I have talked about the reforestation plan for mine bluff phase. A lot of the !and, faces of the slopes in there have been left alone for a long time. Maybe have never been mined. At this point I don't think that we 'have any problem coming up with some sort of a plan that shows how those newly mined areas. The areas that aren't vegetated now would get replanted. I think that's.appropriate. I think that's a good trade off to...ftnancial guarantee that the City wishes to obtain to guarantee the implementation of the plan is a bit of a hardship because of the time table.. Normally when the City requires a bor~ or letter of credit or some sort of financial guarantee, it runs for a period of i to 2 to 3 years while an activity is started a-nd finished and it goes through the guarantee period perhaps of a building of a street or something. Here where this is a mining operation, a lot of the pace of the mining is a function of building in the area. Road building in the area. Planning Commission Meeting July i, i992 - Page 2i Just general development of public facilities. Mr. Zwiers sells gravel.to contractors or cities or entities that are building something somewhere. If things don't happen fast, then he doesn'-t sell much. If they do happen fast, then he sells more. What I'm really saying is he really can't even predict what the life of that mining operation is. Whether it's 2 or 3 years or 22 or 23 years. So to post a financial guarantee, a letter of credit now for eo much per tree or so much per acre for the revegetating that pit area, can be a real burden after whatever, 4 or 5, 10 yea~s. And so, well it's a hardship and I'm not sure how to deal with that. I don't think that the City has any interest in punishing him in any way. We understand the goal is to protect or to insure compliance. ! would hope that there would be some other way to, like conditions withholding further approvals or building permits or some other way to limit his future use other than posting a $20,000.00 letter of credit that would'be still there after 10 years or something. We'd like to explore that and I would hope that we could find some way to guarantee something that ~ouldn't be too onerous. Lastly the condition 14 relating to the damage, the ravines and how to repair them. I think what I would propose is probably what the engineers and the planners have in mind anyway and that's really to go out onto the site and the ravines and look and see which slopes are still barren and try to figure out what would be best to try to get something to grow on those faces. The grading operation that we're proposing would direct water back away from the ravines so there wouldn't be all this flood of water coming down there. $o there wouldn't be as much erosive force anymore. Trying to get something to grow again on almost a vertical face is hard. Nature does it over the period of many years and man isn't so good at, mankind isn't so good at tampering in_a productive ~ay.- What I wouldn't want to see happen is for us to go into the ravines with a dozer or Caterpiller or something and. make a bigger mess than we solve a problem. And I know the staff doesn't want to create a problem either. So somehow we have to carefully deal with the issue and probably some sort of seeding operation of those barren clays and sands ~ould be the most productive. We would propose to work on that in the next couple weeks. Try to come up with a solution. We'd like to answer questions that you have and would be available for the neighbors too if they have something that they're worried about or wish answered. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. This is a public hearing so if you'd like to address the Commission at this time, please step forward and give your name and address for the record. Dennis Bartholow: I'm Dennis Bartholow, 9841Deerbrook Drive. I've got a couple of concerns regarding this whole operation. First of all the, this operation here, they're going to dig down to an elevation of 800 feet to get to the sand so that they can send the water down to the ground water level. The elevation of my property which is located, .well over here in this direction. The elevation is 920 feet. When we put our well in, we went down 160 feet and found water. Put the well at 230 feet. If they go down to 800 feet here, that ~ould mean they would have 40 feet before they hit the ground water which I don't think is adequate for filtration. And then to get to my level would be another 100 feet about. So, I'm real concerned about polluting the ground Water in that area. The idea of a seepage pond rather than a holding pond is that they're going to flush that water right into the ground water. Ail of the homes in that area, Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 22 Deerbrook as well as Lake Riley Woods and any future, all use well water. We do not have city water out there. All of tha~ water potentially could become contaminated. So ! have a real strong concern about having these seepage ponds that close to the ground water elevation. Also, there was a traffic concern. If you drive down Pioneer Trail from CR 4, you'ii find that it's a 50 mph road. There's a dip that prior to the exit from this area of the 40 acres or so that they want to strip the top off of. Prior to that exit there's a dip that drops down and comes back up over the hill and immediately on your left is the exit. Now I've had the experience of having a car stop there and come up over that hill and have to hit the brakes real hard to avoid hitting it. If we have 20 to 30 trucks in this operation running 6 days a week, from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the afternoon, I think there's a serious potential for an accident there. Because those trucks have. to come to a stop before they can turn to cross the road into that entrance. You might want to take a look at that because when you come up over that hill at 50 mph, you don't have, you have very little time to stop prior to hitting those trucks. So it's a safety issue as well. As far as the views are concerned, if ~e were to strip away this peninsula, all the homes are located up here. Up'high. The reason that we bought the property was because of the view of the valley. If we strip .away this peninsula located here as indicated, then ~e're going to be looking at a mining operation and that's a real scarey idea for us. Our property values are going to drop dramatically if when you look out your back window you see a mining operation, and that's what's going to happen there. Maybe it's going to help the people'over at Shakopee a little bit who are up on 5th Avenue or whatever so they don't have to look at this stripped portion of land but for everybody along this area up here, we're going to be looking at a mining operation and that's not really the reason that we bought into that property in the first place. Also if we go back to this location here. My lot is located right there; Directly across from here. I do see that area most of the year, especially in winter. I'm going to have to listen to all of that activity as well as my neighbors who are Just starting to move in now. I'll have to listen to all that activity and deal with the dust while the whole operation is going on. And again, that's 6 days a week from 7:00 to $:00 at night. That's not a real pleasant idea. Also, around the turn of the century, this was a large hill right here. The railroad came through and dug their way straight through here. There are very sheer bluffs on both sides that are not vegetated and they haven't been since the turn of the century. Erosion has not bean's problem for 90 some odd years. I don't know why there's a problem now. I would strongly suggest that you take a hike down this railroad tracks, which is supposedly going to become a bike trail. Walk down the railroad tracks and take a look at the views for yourself. It's very beautiful and you'll also see the sheer cliff~ here that are not vegetated and the erosion is not a problem. This cliff over here is not nearly as sheer as the cliffs over in this area here. .So it was basically Just dug out. Nothing was done to handle the erosion problem and it hasn't been a problem up until apparently now. Also, if you continue walking do~n this trail, you'll look down in this valley and it's a very. beautiful valley. You'll probably see a lot of deer and that type of thing. There is a creek that comes through here. There's two creeks on the other side over here. If they come in here and start tearing.all this out, now you get to view a . mining operation rather than the natural beauty that is there and I would strongly suggest before you make a decision, that you do actually hike'down Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - PaGe 23 that trail from TH 10! up to CR 4, and take a look at the entire operation that you're discussing. You'll see it's. really a very beautiful area and it would be I think a very poor...and I am again very concerned about the ground water. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jeff Michell: I'm Jeff Michell from 9961Deerbrook Drive. I have a question to the city staff first. Is there a timeframe or limit attached to your recommendation for this project? Krauss: For the activity to be completed? Jeff Michell: Yeah. Krauss: They're request to us outlines this being completed either this summer or early next spring. We have not set a deadline...accepted what they've told us. But it may be appropriate to put a condition in. It certainly could be added. Jeff Michell: Yeah, I'd like to make that request. And I'd also like to reiterate some of the concerns that staff and the city attorney, have raised with regard to making sure that suitable performance guarantees or letters of credit or whatever they are, are in place to make sure that the development comes off as predicted. My neighbor has illustrated I think pretty nicely that there's' trade-offs in this. It's not, it may be a, seem like a win situation in some aspects of this property but there's some things that are being Given up in a really beautiful and natural place. We don't have any lakes down there but we've. Got a really nice woods that's going to be different when this is all over. And if it's going to be different, it'd better be nice and different. If it's half completed and not very nice, I think that would be a tragedy. That's all. Batzli: Thank you. Emily Pischleder: Emily Pischleder, 185 Pioneer Trail. I was just wondering if you're going to be mining out in the area that was mined out in '877 Are you Going to be taking any more dirt out of there that you did then and you will be trucking it out on the road that you used at that time? Would it run through Dornkempers? Is that the way you're Going to truck it out? Rick Sathre: Yes. Emily Pischleder: Then I'm wondering if you're going to be taking move out of the area that was mined out in '87. Which is directly behind my house. Right by the radio tower. Rick Sathre: The proposal is to mine or remove clay from that area and just to the north of it but also tlhe majority of the material, would be removed from the area farther south from where it was. mined before. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 24 Emily Pischleder: Okay, but you will be taking some more out of that area again? Rick Sathre: Yes. Emily Pischleder: Okay. Rick Sathre: The northerly seepage pond that we show is just northwest of that old mined area. As long as I'm up here, could I speak to the ground water issue? Batzli: Sure. Emily Pischleder: Well that area hasn't ~ad anything done to tt..,radio tower that they approved at that time also. ~nd we did the same thing when we bought our house. When ~e built our house it was because of the view so we don't have anything to look at now. Dennis Bartholow: Yeah that area has been stripped and nothing was done to take care of it. Batzli: The northern part? Dennis Bartholow: The norther part. The confidence level that after this project that it will be repaired is really quite minimal based on past history of what we've seen happened there. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Do you want to address the ground water issue? Rick Sathre: Yes, thank you. Ground water movement is, as you might expect, toward the river. The ground water levels are higher as you move away from the valley or move into the bluffs. The river, the Minnesota River is at about 700. Elevation 700 and I think the testimony you heard was that the ground water where their well is, the water, that they're drawing must be at about 750 or 740. Something like that. You well's 160 feet deep? Dennis Bartholow: No. We hit water at 160 and the well is around 200 feet. Rick Sathre: Okay. So they're down, they're probably down at about 700. The same elevation that the river is. ~s was mentioned, the bottom of that seepage pond that's on the board there now is at about elevation 800 which would be oh about 50 feet above the top of the ground ~ater table and about lO0 feet above where their drawing their water from. Now movement of the ground water that, movement of water that seeps into the ground at this location would, the water would follow that general gradient the same as all the rest of the water that's moving through the soil there which is towards the river. Water that seeps into the ground here should not move toward those neighbors on the other side to the north. It actually should be moving towards the river. I don't have anything with. me tonight to prove that but. Dennis Bartholow: Why would the water move towards the river? Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 25 Rick Sathre: Because it's a downhill gradient. It Just naturally flo~ downhill through the soil. Dennis Bartholow: Right, so if it flows downhtil in this direction...wants to flow into the river. The river isn't...ground water. Rick Sathre: Partially it Dennis Bartholow: Partially but not a whole lot. That water can still flow in both directions. Furthermore we have a seepage pond to the northern portion as well as the southerly portion. Actually we've got 3 seepage ponds. One of them is directly across the railroad tracks from my property. It's maybe at the most 400, maybe 500 feet away from my well as the crow flies. Batzli: Do you have any evidence or understanding of what would be required for filtration of water to make it safe down to an existi'ng well? Rick Sathre: I'm not prepared to speak to it now. From my engineering background, I've read studies of how far septic system, waste water had to move through soil to cleanse itself. When we're designing sewage, septic tank systems. Drainfield systems. We're always careful to site the well 75 or 100 feet away from the drainfields-so there's adequate horizontal separation. It would be certainly the ~ater that you're discharging out of your, into your drainfield would be more polluted or have more, well it's waste water. It's your household waste water. That water would be much more polluted, if you want to call it that than the general surface runoff from the farmland. Certainly the agricultural land or any land, grass has pollutants in it. But t~y'~e filtered out through movement thro~h t~ soil. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to-address the Commission? Jerry 'Bertsch: I'm Jerry Bertsch, 8556 Irwin Road in Bloomington. I'm the proud owner of Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook. I have the largest lot in Deerbrook. I Just got in from out of town. I don't know much about the project. I was quite impressed with your presentation and I'm not here to strifle entrepreneurism. If you have clay, .you should be entitled to take it off the property. However, I do have concerns about my property which all of it borders the railroad track on the other side that you're intending to do. I don't have a problem with this as long as this commission understands that this thing can't go on for a period of years'. I agree with their concerns. If it's a .short term project, let it be done but I expect the commission, representing me and the rest of the property owners to make sure that there is a plan for restoration of the property. That the topsoil is replaced as they had discussed. That there's no effect on my side of the railroad tracks, especially the creek and that was something I hadn't thought about earlier because that seeping pond could effect that creek and that's one of the reasons I bought that property, is the creek down there. It's absolutely gorgeous. And if that disappears, it's really going to be a problem. There is, as long as there is guarantees. Bonds or letters or credit, I'm sure you folks can everything out in terms of making sure there is guaranteed restoration. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 26 The mature trees on that southeastern, or yes. Southwestern corner, as long as they will stay there, that's important. And of course no effect on the ground water. So you have quite a job ahead of you to make sure that these things are going to be kept for the rest of us and I wish you the best of luck. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would someone else like to address the Commission at this time? Richard Vogel: I'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer'Trail. One concern that Just came up tonight, when the new mining ordinance was put into effect a year ago or whenever it was, there as a lot of effort I was told made into that ordinance regarding setbacks from adjoining property owners. Now I'm hearing tonight that, in this case, to my knowledge this is one of the first times that ~lii be tested. All of a sudden that doesn't apply. And I don't think a 300 foot setback from an adjoining property owner is unreasonable. At that time that was what was arrived at. The other thing is, I guess for my own selfish reasons I have some property in Hennepin County that borders this project. For 4 years now there's been nothing done to that hole that's up there and from what I've heard at other meetings on the south property, I don't know if we're getting any closer to getting any resolutions on that either. I think it's in court right now. One of the things Mr. Sathre said about the bond, and I hope I'm using these terms right. One of his objections to it was, they didn't know when the mining operation, whether it was going to be a 1 year, 2 year, a 10 year or 20 year operation and that's what really worries me up here. The mining operations I've seen, they all keep going. Maybe there will be termination next spring or whenever this is done and maybe a year later they'll be in for another permit to do something else. Batzli: On that particular issue, I think that the applicant said that the tree reforestation on the north/south boundary is the one that they couldn't, they wouldn't want to implement because of that timing problem. The restoration of the main area which would be mined, the problem wasn't the timing. It was a question of they weren't actually going to perform the work so they wanted the contractor on the hook. Richard Vogel: Okay. But all I'm saying is what I heard was he didn't know when the operation was going to be for 1, 2 or 20 years or whatever. I guess I 'm disappointed in, you.say the planner for promoting this I guess mostly because the setbacks from adjoining property owners on the new ordinance that was put into effect that was supposed to be okay., are going to be dropped. And I think the bond, letter of credit or whatever it is, I 'm not sure. I did not get the report here what they're asking for but I think if $40,000.00 is the figure, you can't do very much for $40,000.00. And if this property is left set, who is going to reforest it or who is going to take care of it then if it's dropped? Also I'm told on the south, the old Moon Valley, that they are saying, that they can mine directly up to the proper.ty line of the north property because they own the property on both sides. I would hate to See that happen. Now I don't know if this is so or not but that's what I have heard. Eventually those steep slopes are going to give way. Maybe not this year, next year but eventually they are. They don't loosen all at once. You get heavy rains and a little bit slips. Some more heavy rains and eventually something does go. But basically I Planning Commission Meeting July 1. 1992-- Page 27 would like, if anything is done here, there should be a' timeframe. I think it could be more detailed what is really going to go on there and'I think the setbacks for the new ordinance should be strictly adhered to. Thank you. Batzlt: Thank you. Would anyone-else like to address the Commission? Cathy Bartholow: I'm Cathy Bartholow. My husband, Dennis already spoke. We're at 9841 Deerbrook and I guess the only thing I would add is that personally I 'm not, I wish you well in business. This has, you know it's kind of hard. We watched the one before this. We're measuring back and forth what, personally we bought our property and built our dream home on that land and you who are in business. I think it comes down to accountability and what I learned from reading your planning report, as to the history and the track record and not knowing you all, I have that report really to base my concerns on, is that somebody will be accountable for this and that everything that everybody has said so far, there are trade offs and somebody will make sure that it is'a safe operation and that it is reforested with, not seedlings this big but reforested when you're talking reforestation. What does all these things mean? When you're saying reseeding it, well ! know from seeding my own lawn, you can't just throw grass on there and have it grow. It takes work and it takes making sure that that does happen and we want to make sure somebody's accountable to making sure that does happen and we're not seeing anything documented for us to protect us from that standpoint. ~nd that's all I guess I would ask. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Okay. Rick Sathre: I'm a small businessman too, just like Mr. Zwiers and maybe many of you. 1. see, well mining operators are kind of lumped with used car salesmen and maybe attorneys and bad engineers. Batzli: Geez, that hurt. Rick Sathre: Wasn't that terrible? 8atzll: I 'm an engineer and an attorney. Rick Sathre: Dog gone it. Well, I put myself in there too. I know' Tom Zwiers to be a hard working, honest man. He wants to do what's right and he doesn't like being bureaucratically nickeled and dimed to death Just like everybody else doesn't want that. He wants to do what needs to be done and he's approaching this new permit in a very straight forward manner and I know he'll live up to the terms of-the permit if it's issued. The old mining operation is a second, you know it's a different thing. It reminds me a little of a farm. The farmers came in e~/er so long ago and stripped the land of all it's vegetation and every year they .do the same thing and they put in a crop and take it in the fall and use it to survive. That's a little li](e what he's doing and ! hope he, when he's done with it puts it back so everybody can enjoy it. I guess that's your goal - Mr. Vogel mentioned the fact that it would be prudent to have a 300 foot setback for the edge of the gradi.ng or the edge of the mined area. On that PLanning Commission Meeting July l, i992 - Page 28 north 45 acres, I guess technically we probably are proposing to mine it but it's more like a grading operation for a subdivision. We're grading slopes that are no steeper than 3:1 and most of them are more like 7~ and 10~ which are fairly flat slopes. $0 imposing the 300 foot standard here where technically it is mining but it doesn't look like mining. I don't know if it passes.the smell test or not. 8ut we think we're, by going within 300 feet of the property boundary, it allo,s us to better cut off. the water that's going over the edge of the ravines. We're getting out near the property boundaries so we can slope the ground back into the center of the property and get the water to run to those seepage ponds. If we don't go out, if we stay more than 300 feet away from the boundaries, that just means we can't do that job the way ~e're proposing to. and again Mr. Vogel was concerned about restoration and the when of it. Staff report says restore the land in phases, and that's what our proposal is. As each area is excavated, topsoil would be respread in the street areas as' it's done. The mining operation on this north 45 acres, the clay. the intent is to try to get it out, ail of it out this year. If that doesn't happen, then it would be next spring. With some luck and if the approvals don't drag On too Long, if they are forthcoming, then ~e try to beat the weather. The contractor at the landfill definitely wants to get the clay over there this year and if it doesn't come from this site, for whatever reason, there's another site that already has a permit issued so he could get it from another place too. But the material on this site is very tight. It's a very tight clay. It's better for the closure of the landfill than most clays that you find and so that's why they've sought to take it from this site. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Conrad moved, Earnings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. 8atzli: Jeff, do you want to lead us off? Farmakes: I'm not an expert in water issues. I'm assuming the city has people there. I think it's an understandable concern for property owners. I'm looking back, we've heard words like accountability and responsibility and so on. I'm disturbed by the packets that I've read in the past and my involvement here on the issue of good faith will we enter into these things. Particularly wi'th this operation. I think that there's some' accountability or the attitude in dealing with the city in the past and ! would certainly recommend that the Council would, the city be very careful in how they bond, this performance bond goes through or- letter of credit or however the city takes it. I question how they're arriving at $40,000.00. If that's a rule of thumb that they use or general thing they pull out of a hat or is that involved in litigation that's lrrvolved afterwards? And then the issue of the trees, there's no dollar figure on that. And the issue of timing, as to when that would take place and when they would have to, is that also a performance type bonding .situation? Or would they have to ask for another permit in stages and so on? The issue that was brought up-on the safety, I think that's a legitimate issue as well. Those roads back in there are not very safe. In fact I couldn't think of probably some more dangerous roads than you can find in the State than back in there along that bluff. I'm really not a water engineer as I said before [ started out Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 29 so I really can't address the issue of the water quality but I'certainly think you're entitled to find out how that ~ould effect your, and what cost if it did, effect it. That you'd be looking at or the city would be looking at. What headaches that would provide. Batzli: I have a question before we move on here Paul. And that is, there isn't much in the conditions as far as conditions to insure that the existing wooded areas are saved, if you will. There's nothing about staying a certain distance away or erecting snow fences or illustrated on the plans that these are, do not disturb areas. How are we intending to look at those issues? Krauss: Chairman Batzli, .I think you're raising a real good point. We do have a canned set of conditions that we apply to subdivisions. It would be wholly appropriate to insert those 'here. Frankly, you kno~ we've put a lot of work into these reports and conditions but we simply are unable to conceive of all the situations that may occur which 'is one of the reasons for bringing it in front of people like you'. I think that's a good condition to add. We certainly have required that on another development. Batzli: But are you comfortable that there's a plan somewhere or something in the conditions that illustrates exactly where they're going to remove this clay and which areas are do not disturb areas on the site? Krauss: Yeah. The plan that we have is quite explicit on that account. It's comparable to plans that we receive for residential subdivisions and I'm comfortable in that regard. However, ~e normally do add conditions that would be appropriate here as to establishing snow fenced areas outside the drop line of trees and if they do damage trees that are not supposed to be taken, that there is compensation for that that makes it pretty onerous. That is again a condition that we placed on other subdivisions. Emmings: Just a couple of things. Basically I'm.going to go along with what the staff has proposed because I think there's obviously been a tremendous amount of thought and care given to this, ali the issues in here. I thought there should be, I thought whenever we had an interim use permit that we always had a termination. Either an event or a date. I assume that the event here is the mining of 250,000 cubic yards of clay but I think maybe what we should do is add a condition that says, the termination ,iZl be when 2so,00o cubi.c yards of clay have been mined or by July 1, 1993, whichever comes first. Tom Zwiers: ...has a time limit on that when he has to beat it and then he has a penalty clause. If he hasn't got it completed, and I can find out when that date is Steve but it isn't very long I know and then he gets pe na I i zed. Earnings: Is it this year?. Tom Zwiers: I believe it's in the spring of next year. Emmings: Okay, so if we made it July though, that ~ouldn't. That's a year. That's a whole year from now. That shouldn't get. Planning Commission Meeting July i, 1992 - Page 30 Tom Zwiers: We'd better have it hauled by then or we'll be... Emmings: I just think there ought to be a date in addition to the event. that we can look to. And I would imagine if they're 'not done, they can come back and say we need more time. But I 'think that date needs .to be in there. The only other condition.' I gue~, I think that the potential effect on ground water for people with ~ells is serious enough so that the city engineer ought to look at that before it gets to the City Council and we ought to be well satisfied that this is not going to have an effect on ground water. I agree with Jeff on the road thing as potentially a very serious traffic or safety problem. I don't know what can be done there but again the city engineer should kno~. What can be done to make that as safe as possible for peopIe who use that road. Otherwise I'd go along with what's in the staff report. Krauss: If I may, am to the road. We've asked, technically where the road exists out onto Pioneer is not in Chanhassen which is why we put a condition in here that the Eden Prairie City Engineer be brought into this. Because we want to make sure that whatever needs to be done to protect safety is done. Pioneer Trail is a road designed for very heavy use. It was rebuilt in the not too distant past. It is fully able to handle that kind of traffic. Now, you may not want it to do it constantly and ~e could certainly understand that but it is designed for that kind of use. Emmings: I don't know the road right at that spot but what I heard somebody here say is that you've got a situation with a dip and you come over a hill and there could be a truck stopped waiting to turn. You're just asking for it. Krauss: And there is a condition regarding posting of trucks hauling signs but that is why we did ask that this be coordinated through the city of Eden Prairie. Emmings: That's it for me. Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I think Paul did an excellent job of putting this together There's a lot of issues that are involved in this type of project. I think the waiver of the 300 foot setback is a very reasonable 'proposal. It allows the applicant to work within the open area and allows also the trees to be saved on the property and to fix the wroDgs that have been created in the past. If we actually did use that 300 foot setback, then the area that was disturbed previously in the northern Corner wouldN't be fixed. $o I think that's very important that we have the opportunity to regrade that and fix that. I have some concerns about the dollar value for the letter of credit. I can see that when you disturb 22 acres, you can burn up $40,000.00 very ~uickly and I can envision that that number for restoration actually doubling so I would like to see some hard nuJFoers discussed' in terms of what it would take there. ! think you can have a rule of thumb but if you would have to go out and hire contractors to do the work, the dollars per acre that the city might be looking at may be something that they can do internally and don't have overheads added to it or something but I think that, given the scope of the project, the $40,000.00 would be Planning Commission Heating July 1, 1992 - Page 3l definitely on the low end of value of the restoration. $o I'd like that number be evaluated. Two of the residents talked about the potential or a stream bed or creek bed. I hadn't heard anything'or hadn't seen anything in the staff report on that. Is that involved in the project at all or is that just? Rick Sathre= Let's use one of the o~/erheade and we'll work it out on that. Haybe the neighbors can help here too because I'm not sure where, exactly where it runs but I see a major ravine over here on the west side and it leads to this point. I know that it goes do~n through here and it drains out into the river valley there. It must cross under the, ! think I see the path right here. The ponding site that ~e're-talking about for the southwesterly seepage pond would actually be right over in here. I'm not sure how that would effect the creek. I don't think it would effect it in any way. Ledvina: So the grading would not effect the appearance or the topography of the .creek? Rick Sathre: No, because the creek is several hundred feet away from these properties. Ledvtna-' Okay, thank you. I also support identifying a duration for the project and think July 1st would be a good time line. I think that's all I have at this point. 8atzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I think the applicant...concerned with point number 7 on the guarantee of $40,000.00 and who should do it and ! guess I would like, our attorney suggested that the applicant... I'd like to make some connections between 6 and 7. I don't know where the $40,000.00 came from and I'd sure like to make sure that we tie things together. ~ plan versus the money and again I don't know if $40,000.00 is right. It may not be and I think the key to what we're doing here is that ~e tie a plan that's approved to cost that's realistic. I think that's essential and maybe the $40,000.00 was right but I would not, I'd really rather not see this go to Council until there's a connection between a plan and the cost. It's sort ot= make believe in my mind at this point in time and that's okay as 'it passes through us but I think somebody's got to react to something that's real and not guesswork. And if it's less than that, the applicant benefits. But- on the other hand, if it's more, I think we've got to guarantee that this site is taken care of. I kno~ we have to guarantee that the site's taken care of and I think staff's aimed in that direction and I know the applicant has full intention of performing. I think the other concern that the applicant had on 13, I believe it was and again, I guess the guarantees that Rick was talking about. Ho~ we would restore something on the bluff and whatever and you're talking about something we don't know anything about. $o here we are. Ns're talking about something the applicant doesn't know anything about and we're using general words and again I guess there's got to be a plan and I think staff is asking for that. There just has to be something' in front of us. I don't know how much money the applicant stands to make on this but I think there's some downstream benefits'obviously in terms of property available for development. There's certainly going to be some Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 32 money sometime to repay and to make this property subdtvtdable for residential development. But I think on point number 13, I think there needs to be some financial guarantees and I too agree, until' somebody shows me how this works, [ don't have a clue but that's for staff and the applicant to work out. The seepage versus the holding and the ground water, absolutely essentially. Somebody's got to guarantee it. It doesn't take place until there's a guarantee. Ar~ I gue~ in the real world there are no guarantees but I Just wouldn't feel comfortable at ail if we had any possible, any possibility of contaminating the ground water that people are using for their well. Not at all. And I don't know the difference between seepage and holding. I think I have a clue about what it is' but I Just need some experts talking to us about this and informing the City Council. They should not do a thing until that expert advice is given. Shouldn't. The time of excavation, absolutely. There has to be an end. Batzlt: Do you like July Conrad: July l's okay. I think that's generous but it's there and it's probably going to be done before that but there has to be a time. 'I'd like to see our engineer review traffic safety. Maybe that's not our road to be doing it but whoever is right, that they be looking at that for safety considerations. That has to happen. Paul, there's an 'inspection fee of $900.00. How are inspection fees handled? That's $900.00 for a one time shot or do we do this over? Krauss: No. It's taken out of the Uniform-Building Code and it applies in this case and it's actually, I honsstly don't kno~ ho~ they come up with it but it's to cover our cost of going out and monitoring the site. Conrad: Throughout the one year of excavation? Krauss: Yeah, so we would have an engineering technician going out there periodically and making sure that the grades that are being set are those which are on the plan and that there's erosion controls being maintained and generally that the site's being operated in an acceptable manner. , Conrad: And how often would you, what makes you think that would be done? Krauss: It really depends on, you know after the first fe~ visits, if things are going well. You can probably go it o'n 5 or 6 visits-over the course of the operation and then responding to complaints, if we receive any, on an as needed basis. Additionally, one of the things that's required in here is that the applicant has to give us an as built survey of finished grades. -So we're not trying to prove that he did what he was supposed to do. He's got to prove it to us through a survey. Conrad: What would you charge a City Engineer out at on an hourly basis? What do you charge the swamp committee for your time? No, 'I don't really mean that but, what's an engineer charged out att Krauss: We do not have a rate schedule that's set up. I mean I can tell you what the City Engineer. Conrad: ...how much might we charge an engineer's time on it? Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: Actually Ladd, my time i-s not charged to any. I mean my salary's drawn off of projects but we don't charge the project. .If you hire a consulting firm, if the consulting engineer makes $30.00 an hour, they may charge you $90.00 an hour to retain him. Batzll: Paul, you've done a great Job of avoiding the question. Where are you going with this? Conrad: I'm Just trying to figure out if we did inspections, I don't know what it takes because this is a big project. Batz I i: high? Conrad: the. Yeah, it's huge. So do you think it's low? Do you think it's What we have are basically 10 hours packed into inspection over Krauss: You're assuming that (a), the city engineer's going to go out there all the time which is probably not the case. It's probably going to be one of the technicians, which is considerably less expensive. And that (b), the City is making a pro'it on inspections by paying the engineer's or technician's salary and then we have a billable that we charge as well. We don't operate that way. We are still a public entity and we cover our expenses. Batzli: Do you think it's low Ladd? Conrad: I guess the issue is not the money. The issue is making sure we have the inspections. I don't have a standard to put ·forth but I'm a little bit nervous about, you know When I-see $900.00 for inspecting, and I hear what Paul's saying. We don't relate hours to money for fees yet'on the other hand I do. It's like, I Just think we should be there and I think that relates a little bit to the history we've had with this project. I'm Just not convinced yet. We've had too many things that have been in court. Too many problems. Just flat out. Until I'm comfort·able, I would, we've just got to be real careful. Not holding thin~s up. The safety, you talk about inspection. The 300 foot setback. We waived it. We waived it and I had a tough time. We waived it on all sides. Where did we waive the 300 foot setback? Krauss: Basically, this is very rough. You can't scale off of this drawing but if you wanted to look at the 300 foot line, it's someplace back like that. The lines overlap as you get up towards the north end. Maybe in fact, it's probably even a little more significant than that. It · probably comes to a poi'nt like in here Conrad: So we waive it on all sides because of the benefit we're going to get through some future, through excavation or through g~.ading? Krauss: For the reasons that I mentioned in that handout. Now the points of where this busts the 300 foot setback are alon~ the railroad tracks here and along this part of the Eden Prairie line and down in this corner. This part of the operation is consistent with that. And you know honestly, I don't like to go back to intent of the draftees of the ordinance but I Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 34 wrote the ordinance. I wrote it with the City Engineer and we were quite explicitedl¥ trying to deal with, that provision dealt with major mining operations and we only have one of those in town. But the ordinance was designed to deal in other respects with all types of grading in the city. If you want to move, as a homeowner, if you want to move 50 yards of dirt, you need a permit under that ordinance and there is no setback requirement or when you grade for a subdivision, there is no setback requirement. We've also approved, I think at least 4 major excavation operations where that setback was frankly waived. One of them was on the McGlynn site. Now they've been approved but they haven't been operated on. They haven't been conducted. One was on the McGlynn site, which would have f~ankly lowered the site and prepared it for development as well as getting material for TH 5. We had one on, the fellow's name escapes me but, Jeurissen. Bruce Jeurissen. Further down Pioneer Trail. And Halls had similar requests. Conrad: The purpose of the setback, primarily because you drafted it, the 300 feet is to primarily protect neighbors right? Krauss: Well exactly. $o when we think that, the important point, is we think that largely that goal has been attained through the existing topography. Through the preservation of the trees. Through the limitations on the hours of operation. Through the ability to shut them down if dust becomes a problem. The ability to shut them' down Saturdays if that's a problem. You also have very Significant terrain that separates this site. I mean the homes located west of this property have some remarkable views of the Minnesota River Valley and they're in a lot of different directions, depending on the way the houses are placed. This line appearing here though is a little bit misleading. The houses are quite a ways back from there. This railway corridor is 100-150 feet wide and the homes, I don't have the exact information but the home is someplace back up in here. There's a very deep valley there before it goes back up again. $o there's significant topographic buffering, I suppose inbetween there. And this, again this is a limited duration request. It ts-a use that's a permitted use in this district under the interim use guidelines. We hope we take great care with the fact. We understand that this is an area that's in transition and we certainly don't want to, I mean there's a balancing act here and we don't want to step on the toes of our residents. At the same time we want to be reasonable if we can with the request as long as it's consistent with our ordinances and goals. Batzli: Let me Just ask for one clarification. You said there's a buffer there. What you really mean, it's a linear distance buffer but it's not a line of sight buffer, correct? Krauss: Well, I think it's actually both but for me to, I can't stand here Commissioner and tell you that from every bedroom window of every home, that you'll never see this because we haven't made that attempt to figure that out. But I know that when you're on this site and looking back towards those homes, the few homes that you can see are fairly obscure angles and the fact is, is those homes that can see this site, or at least the upper portion of the site, are looking at a field with a remnant mining Operation in it now. When this is all said and done, they're goin~ to be looking at a field. So it's not really, you know it's going to be 10 feet lower but when you're 300 feet away, it's not going to be perceptible. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 35 Erhart= Well I think it looks like a good project. We're solving a number of things here. We've got a hole there now. This is going to finish it off. It's going to help cap a landfill in Eden Prairie once and for all with some clay that's not too far away. If we don't allow this one, they're probably going to be hauling it through the city like .we had what, a year ago? Krauss: The~e were hauling out of Chaska along Pioneer Trail. Erhart: And we had an accident up here and somebody got killed or whatever it was. What was it? Krauss= I don't know. Erhart: Anyway, I drive TH 101 and those trucks came down TH 101 which is curved, I'd Just as soon leave them in Eden Prairie and get the Job done.. I agree, that's one of the points I had, we should set a time limit on here. I was going to suggest one year from approval. July is certainly okay. In either case it solves a problem and if it's acceptable to the applicant. [ think we do need to check that ground water issue. Some expert who can give us a qualified, answer on that. Paul, you're going to have to Justify to the Council this 40 grand, otherwise you're going to spend another hour at the Council meeting discussing that and ! know nobody, you or the Council doesn't want to do that. One big thing here and that is, ! think what I'm being sold, Rick sold, is selling us on that we're going in and what we're doing is landscaping this piece of property and that's why we need the variance. ~nd that's fine. I heard everybody say we want, not only set a time table but .we want to make this final. [ understand, the way !'m being sold on this variance, this is the final. This is final, final, final. Therefore it is simple in my mind that we ought to tie with this variance that the owner and future owner gives up the right to further mine this property and make it final. Tie the variance to that. Krauss= Tim, if I can clarify a point. You came in part way through the conversation. We reviewed this matter further, after the'report went out with the City Rttorney and realized that the approach' with the variance was the wrong methodology here. That the ordinance does provide for a waiver of conditions. But your concern as to a prohibition against further mining requests, I guess I don't see any reason why that couldn't be part of a condition. Erhart: That's what I would say. If it's a waiver, then tie the waiver to relinquish any future mining rights to this property.. ~nd if we're going to finish it off, let's finish it off. This really is adjacent to a residential development at this time and it's inappropriate to continue to mine. It's probably not big enough. So we really restricted it-to the 300 foot setback. So I'm sensing that the developer, or the applicant is... impossible so, that's the only thing I've got. Ledvina: I'd like to make a motion. Batzli: I'd like to talk first. 'I need to say something. Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 36 Ledvina: I'm sorry. Erhart: I move we let Brian talk. Batzli: Okay. 8ut I appreciate you Jumping in there. We need to catch up. I like the timeframe. I think we need something in there, before you make the motion. I hope you have something in there about the trees. As far as setting something up. I .think the applicant raised at least 3 concerns. One was the access easement. I assume that we'll look at that and amend that condition after we've had a chance to look at that. The other one was this $40,000.00. I think we've kind of beat that.. I also thought $900.00 was low but if staff is comfortable with that. I don't think it matters what the money is. I would rather see, I Just want to make sure that we're going to be out there checking to make sure that everything's going according to how we think it should go. And what that means is, we need some good plans from the applicant regarding erosion control. The staging. The restoration and things like that and then we follow up on those items because I think that if we don't follow up, then who do we have to blame later on if it doesn't go. And these people who actually oversee it, I'd appreciate it if you'd call our staff if you see something that doesn't look quite right. The timi~ problem of the reforesting the mine bluff face, I'd like to ask our attorney if this somehow provides an improper linkage between this property and the southern piece. That we shouldn't be doing this. Tom Scott: No. Batzli: Okay. Tom Scott: We've reviewed that and we didn't think there was any problem. Batzli: Okay. If the applicant doesn't have a problem with doin~ this, and it's merely a question of timing regarding providing the financial guarantee, I guess I'd like to see something worked out. Interestingly enough, if we get financial guarantees today for a certain dollar amount, by the time they're done in 20 years, that's not going to buy one'tree unless you require it to be increased over time. So actually the applicant, he's putting away money today and he's not going to be able to do it for that amount of money in the future. $o I don't know exactly What you're really looking for here. I don't know what could be enforceable. don't think you really want a situation where--he has to add to the guarantee over a period of years because the cost of trees keeps-going u~. So I don't know what you really have in mind here and I don't know that we can cover it. Krauss: Well, if I could for just a sec. Mr. Zwiers is a businessman and he understands contractual obligations and we try to operate in as professional and businesslike manner as possible. I think you're aware that for many years we've required developers to enter into development contracts and post financial guarantees. Now it would still be'my recommendation that we get some sort of a financial guarantee but how we can structure that is open to some discussion. If possible I suppose that something could be written to the chain of title to obligate all future property owners or something like that. But it may well be that if there's Planning Commission Meeting July l, i992 - Page 37 a dollar amount figure set for this, that there be an annual contribution made to an account. An interest bearing account that would Just be set aside to accrue for this operation so that at some point in the future, whenever Mr. Zwiers is ready to do it, he Just withdraws the funds from that to do it. We need to talk about that but we're willing, I guess to plant something. Batzli: See my point is, if he's going to be done by July 1st of next year on this piece of property, for him to default on this condition down the road, what are you going to do? Krauss: Well and that's why we need to'sit down. I need to sit down with Mr. Scott and Mr. Zwiers and figure out the appropriate way to approach that but I think if we're creative enough. Tom Scott: The simplest way would be to require them to keep the letter of credit in effect. Batzli: But that basically ties up money for. Tom Scott: That ties up a certain amount of assets that have to be behind that letter of credit. There may be some other ways. Maybe there's a bonding mechanism or some other way we can'do that. I guess that's what Paul's saying. I mean we could Just point blank say', letter.of credit has to remain in effect. Maybe that's what we'll have to do but there's hopefully some other mechanism we could use too. Batzli: I think the waiver of the setback is .appropriate here in that, given what they're trying to do here. However, if we get into-another situation where someone's going to go fairly close to their lot line to do something similar, how are we going to distinguish that over this type of an operation? Is it the creation of some sort of a steep slope? Is it the fact that there wouldn't necessarily be a buffer with a railroad track running through there? What is it that we point to and say, this is different? Krauss: First of all there's a waiver. You're not subject to the same findings that you might be with, precedent setting issues that may be attended with a variance. I think that's what your concerned about.. Very clearly under the waiver provisions, it allows you and the City Council to evaluate conditions on a site specific basis and make your determinations as such and not be bound I guess, I would say by the precedent and the hardship and the other things that come with a variance. What makes this property or this request reasonable under the waiver I think is very site specific. There's really no way to work this site in an effective manner and achieve what we want to achieve and achieve what the owner would like to achieve without that. To fix the problems that are out there, you've got to work in that area. [ think Commissioner'Ledvina pointed out quite aptly that you can't put the ponding in where you need to put it unless you work within that area. Undoubtedly you'll be confronted by these sorts of things in the future. We've already processed 3 or 4 of them. We'll probably get some more but I think you've got to take them on a case by case basis. Planning Commission Meeting 'July l, 1992 - Page 38 Batzii: I guess I'd like maybe a more clear statement of your reasons for why we should waive them. I didn't have much time to look at this and I know we actually spoke earlier on that issue but I just think you should at least set it out very clearly to the Council why you think this Justifies a waiver and I don't know in my own mind whether it's, because it's how we want it to turn out is a good reason. That could Justify anything. Krauss: Yeah. The addendum that I handed out tonight tries to get at the rationale behind the waiver. We can certainly write that into a set of findings much the same as we would for a variance and lay that out explicitedly. Batzli: Well I don't know. It Just kind of caught me as far as being set out clearly as to what makes this site at least unique enough to waive it · and I get away from the'discussion of the variance kind Of language' but, because we'll see more of these and the question is, should we be recommending to waive it? Shouldn't we? Is there something in the conditions that talks about the waiver? Adopting a finding of facts to go with it or rationale? Krauss: No there is not and what needs to be looked at is in the conditions where the recommendation takes place. You substitute, the waiver language for where the variance language was. There are findings that are contained in this addendum. Batzli: So you'd like it with a 300 foot setback waived in 'accordance with your discussion in this addendum? Krauss: Yeah, and then we can certainly clarify those points. Batzli: Okay. And I think the water's critical. Safety's critical· Trees, we had talked about. The creek. Make sure that that's not being adversely effected or if it is being effected, we at least know how and why and what the effect is. And last but perhaps least, these ponds that we're creating. Just for the record here. Will these ponds eventually if they start growing kind of Class B wetlands kind of things around them or in them or if they even somehow hold water, when .cattails start growing and purple loosestrife and everything else, do these become wetlands and will they then become untouchable and become part of our mapped wetlands in the city? Krauss: Let me give you a two part answer to that. Under-local ordinances, we're in the process of developing an updated wetlands protection program. Under the d~aft as it now exists, we've got 4 categories of wetlands ranging from pristine to utilized. Utilizied are functionally not defined as wetlands any longer or won't be I supposed if this ordinance gets adopted the way it's drafted. What'utilized means is that it was specifically designed for a water quality protection or storm water protection function and not as a wetland or wetland remediatton. The- second part of that answer comes in because there's not only, for the last 8 years Chanhassen has been operating in a vaccum. You know we've been pr.otecting wetlands but the rest of the State hasn't. There is a new state law that does protect wetlands and most of you are aware that I sit on the committee that's drafting the rules for the new State. law. And I had Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 1, 1992 - Page 39 explicit language written into that, to the rules so that ponding areas that are created for non-wetland function purposes are not going to be defined as wetlands under the State law. ~gain that's contingent on the rules being approved as they' currently are drafted but I think that that's the case. So the answer to your question is no, they won't be wetlands. 8atzli: So these grades that we're talking about that Tim wants to say, this is it. No more mining at least, these ponds when this land is developed, will more than likely be wiped out and the water will be redirected once more. Krauss= That's not clear. Erhart= Excuse me. What was that? Batzli= Well eventually this property will be developed and they'll look at this seepage pond in the middle that's kind of mucky, kind of something and the issue is, they're going to try and do something else to this property in order to develop it. Now they don't have to save it as a wetland, Paul just told us. It doesn't hold water. It's going to be kind of mucky parts of the year. Who's going to want that in their backyard? Krauss: Well a couple of points though. We are recommending that an easement be provided over these water bodies so that the City would be involved in any decisions to alter it. It may well be that when the land · is developed, it may be more appropriate to put the water someplace else or to modify these and in that regard that's no different than most of the development proposals we see that have some kind of an alteration. Batzli: My point is this. We're doing it now you know. Granted we don't have a site plan in front of us or that we know where the house pads are going to go but it wouldn't take a whole lot to sit there and say, this is kind of where'you're going to put it.. Does it make sense to be directing all the water to the center of this? . Is there any access in to the road to access this piece? You have to go right through'the middle of the muck you're creating. I don't know. I'm looking at it kind of looking do~n the road saying why are we doing this if it doesn't make sense because you know that eventually this is going to be a very, you kno~ once the mining on the south stops, this will be a very attractive parcel to build homes on. Krauss: The honest answer is we don't know how the development's going to take place up there. There has been, well under the original Moon Valley request, the end use plan was developed before the ponding area was developed for that site and clearly the road's not in the right place on this one for that pond area to be where it's going to be. There's plenty of room to move it up there. This assumes that these are large lot residential, developed without sewer and water. If sewer and water is available at some point in the future, well it may be through Eden Prairie. Eden Prairie has stuff not too far away. Then of course it will be substantially different. But the fact is, every development in Chanhassen has an obligation to manage storm water and maintain water quality. Whoever develops it, whenever they do it is goi'ng to have to meet those goals. If those ponds serve the purpose, great. If'they don't, they'll have to revise them so that they do. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 40 Batzii: I'll leave it up to your professtonaI judgment. My point is that if this makes sense that we have to do it this way, if there's no development right there, let's do it this way. But if there's a way that fits into the grand scheme of things so that we don't end up regrading everything 2 or 3 times to develop this in 5 years, I don't know why we're doing this to create an area which will develop wildlife and do certain things and then suddenly we're going to grade it up again in 5 years because the south part has either been mined or else the property generally becomes too valuable to mine so they sell it and develop it. Something that I don't think really was looked at, and if in fact they're submitting plans like this for the southern piece for the eventual completion or what have you, for purposes of a lawsuit or for whatever purpose, and it doesn't make any sense at all to what they're' doing on the north side, I don't get it. Krauss-' I gave some thought and it you may think it's reasonable to do it, to asking them to modify this based upon the ponding plan so we. had a plan of record and it may not hurt to do. that. My reason for not asking them was, what happens on that site, how residential development occurs is open to so much conjecture at this point that, am I asking them to spin their wheels by generating another map? It never hurts to have on in the file but you know, a lot of things can happen up there to change it. I am confident though that the grades that will result from this petition are consistent with residential development. They're not touching the homesites in the trees which is where the homes want to be. They're not leaving grades that can't support homes and roads and driveways out in the field area and I was comfortable that this can support that use.. Batzli: You're comfortable, l 'm comfortable. Okay. Matt, z 'd love a motion. Ledvina: Okay. I'm going to try. ! would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that Interim Use Permit #92~5 for Earth Work be approved with the waiver of the 300 foot setback subject to the staff conditions and following modifications and additions. I would like that conditions number 6, 7 and 13 be re-evaluated by staff with input from the applicant. I would like to add several conditions starting with number 15. That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed by 3uly 1993. Condition iS. A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction. Condition 17. Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of water wells in the vicinity of the site. Condition 18. Develop considerations for traffic safety on access points to the roadways involved, And condition 19. That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining activities or potential mining activities at the site. Is there anything else? Batzli: Do we have plans that you want to include into the motion? Krauss: The dated plans? 8atzli: Yes. Krauss: It's 615/92. Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 41 Batzll: So, do you want to make your motion in accordance also with those plans 6/5/92? Ledvtna: And also that the activities and conditions of the permit relate to the plans dated 3une 5, 1992. Conrad: Point 7, 13 and 14 be reviewed. Ledvina: 6, 7 and 13. Conrad: 6, 7 and 13 be reviewed. Ledvina: 8e re-evaluated. Batzli: Is there a second? Erhart: Yeah, I'll second it. Batzli: Okay. Discussion Ladd. Ledvina: We had some concerns about the. Conrad: I don't...staff. That's my biggest concern. To be re-evaluated. I don't know what that means. Erhart: But I think when'you go back in'the Minutes, I think it"s clear what we're asking for. Clarify some things. To look at some numbers. 3ustify the numbers. Be able to Justify the numbers in our recommendation to Council. Additional recommendations. Farmakes: Are we expecting to see this again? 8atzli: No. We're asking that Paul's prepared when the Council asks him those questions I guess. Conrad: $o 6, 7 and 13 Paul, talking about being more accurate where they tie in money to plans. Does that mean that the plans will be submitted? What's the timeframe for these plans? Are they expected to be there for City Council review or are those things that happen after? ; Krauss: Speaking for myself, I think clearly we'd.want to resolve all these issues prior to going to City. Council' Those are of a magnitude that they're not administrative. Conrad: Your point Matt on ground water. In his motion Paul, who's responsibility will that be? Krauss: Frankly we're gotn~ to ask the applicant to clarify that. We'll review the information. Conrad: It is his responsibility? Krauss: Well, we're not in the ;m~sition of preparing submittal materials for applicants. -. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 42 Conrad: And that's your intent? Ledvina: Right. Just so the issue gets resolved and egaluated. Krauss: Of course we'll concurrently, I mean we'v sent a copy of this to the Sotl Conservation Service and Carver County Soil Survey and we will get information as we can get it but I think specifically the applicant's probably going to have to contract with somebody with some expertise to prepare an evaluation of that. Conrad: So let's go back to point number 9 Paul, in terms of the clay liner. Who's job is it to presuade us, it's the applicant I assume, to persuade us that the pond is designed properly. Krauss: Oh, that's something. This came from my city engineering department. The applicant hasn't indicated that they have any problem with that condition. That's a pretty simple design detail that we'll take care of in-house. I mean they'll give us the revised design and the engineering staff will say if it needs to be modified. Conrad: There was a comment from one of the agencies that was concerned with that particular aspect of the pond. Krauss: I think it came from our engineering office. Conrad: The District, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. The clayed area. They were concerned of the clayed area. So who's job? Erhart: Who would review stuff like that Paul? Krauss: We do in-house. That's normal. Conrad: So the applicant designs it. I don't know. It Just seems like a real big issue. The whole issue of what we're doing to ground water and we got one concern from a recommending body or review body and we've got an issue here that's really big in my mind and I don't know. I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with how it's solved. Who's got the responsibility? Batzli: How would you like to see it resolved? Conrad: I don't know. I just want to make sure somebody's got responsibility and we're making changes to the motion here, ! want to make sure that we're guiding staff to make sure somebody's got the onous to prove it. And ground water is such a key deal. We can't take any chances on this one. It's not just a passing deal. It's really quite significant. Erhart: Rick, where'd you come up with idea? Have you done something like this before? We've never seen anything like this before. Rick Sathre: I think you haven't seen it much in Chanhassen because you have so many clay soils. In the sandier communities of Minnesota, I'm thinking about Anoka County, North. Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids. ~ost of the pond sites are seepage ponds. You also see them a lot in Eden Prairie in the sand soils over in southeastern Eden Prairie mostly. There's many, Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 43 many, many depressions that have no outlets and all the drainage has been just seeping into the ground. $o the concern is always, is this going to seal up over time? Is it going to fail to function just like a dratnfteld might? But that's very common. Very common thing. Ns're very .concerned about protecting wetlands so that Ne can promote ground ~ater recharge. Just a question of are we doing it appropriately here. The soil people, they raises that issue too, like you noticed Ladd. Is the water going in too fast? Should we slow it down so that it's better filtered? That's a valid issue. Conrad: So do you prepare Rick, the engineering reports to pacify? How does this happen? Rick Sathre: Well, I think that we would seek ar,mthe~ consultant as well who specializes in ground water issues. Batzli: Does this then require borings out there to get the right filtration? Rick $athre: I would think it would be by checking the rate of seepage through that sand. I think...measuring the rate. It would be an engineering process. Probably involve a testing lab. Conrad: And does this change over time? Does it get better? Or does it get worst? Seepage. As long as we prepare it and this thing is filtered better later on after the original? Rick Sathre: I think that over time seepage tends to slow down. The filtration would be better. Ne don't want to allow the seepage pond to stop seeping because then you don't solve your basic problem which is trying to discharge the water back to the ground water. It's a cycle. Batzli: Assuming then that you need a certain size outlet for this pond and the outlet constricts over time, the original calculations for the pond were done by yourself? Okay. Rick Sathre: In a lO0 year storm event right now, that big central pond would, there'd be about 6 feet of water in the bottom of it and that would seep out. Ns're not sure of the seepage rate because we haven't tried to measure it. I would expect in those sands that water ~ould drain away at at least 1 inch per hour. $o there would be 6 feet of water depth in that pond, bang. Right after the storm. Batzli: Is it an expensive process to go to a hydrologist or whoever it is to take the boring and do that calculation and do it? What are we asking for to present that kind of evidence to our engineering department for -. review? Do you know? Rick Sathre: All I can do is take a wild guess. be more than $1,000.00 and less than $5,000.00. significant. I would think that it'd It is significant. Very Conrad: We need our engineering department to tell us or' tell the applicant what is expected in this regard. I think the fundamental thing Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 44 is we have to protect it. Not even close to taking a chance. Paul and staff can figure that out. Batzli: Well, do you want to propose a f~iendly amendment to that condition? I don't even remember what. Conrad: I don't have a clue how I'd woYd it-to tell you the truth. Paul's heard it, Batzli: But I think when we've done things like this in the past where we basically said that, applicant shall provide information to City engineering for their approval regarding seepage. Whatever we're going to say but we've done this in the past. I mean it's up to them to provide information for us. Satisfactory to us that this isn't going to be a problem. Conrad: Matt, do you want to change something? Ledvina: Not necessarily but. I've suggested in, condition 17 I stated that the ground water contamination issue be evaluated to insure protection of the water wells in the vicinity of the site. If we can also add that this issue shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the staff prior to the City Council hearing this application. I don't know, does that help? Conrad: Sure. Erhart: I seconded the motion. Batzli: Do you accept that amendment? Erhart: Fine. If you're happy, I'm happy Ladd. Batzli: You had another one Ladd. Ground water was one. What was your other one? conrad: I think we've taken care of it...went back a couple time. I couldn't find it. Batzli: The 6, 7 and 13 issue. Re-evaluating. Conrad: Well Matt has, and I think staff'has heard.the issue. I don't think we need to belabor the point but tt is really tying the plan to the cost and the applicant needs that but we need the plan first so we can see the cost and that's in restoration. We've got to be convinced we know what we're going to get and the applicant's got to know before this gets to City Council what's expected of them and not after. It can't wait..-.staff to work with the applicant. Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Erhart ~econded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92-5 for earth ~ork, as sho~n on the plans dated June 5, 1992, with the ~alver of the 300 foot setback, that staff Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 45 be directed to re-evaluate co,ditto-~ 6, 7 afl 13 with t,put froa the applicant prior to City Council, and ~ubJect to the following conditlon~: 1. Provide staff with a copy of the access easement over the off-site haul road. · Prior to the start of operations, a truck entrance designed to minimize tracking of mud and debris into the right-of-way shall be constructed. Plans should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. The operator is respor~ible for cleaning the public right-of-way as often as requested by the City Engineer. "Trucks Hauling" signs shall be posted· · The City of Eden Pratrie's Engineer shall be contacted by the operator pTiOT to start of operations to ensure that concerns they may raise can be adequately dealt with. 4. Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited.. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday, excluding' national holidays. If the city. receives complaints regarding Saturday operations, the City Engineer may require that these be halted. · Dust control shall be the operator's responsibility. If conditions persist which make dust control ineffective, the City Engineer may require temporary halting of operations. · The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. He' should provide staff with a written phasing plan for approval. · The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900.00 and provide the city with an acceptable financial security (letter of credit or cash) in the amount of $40,000. to cover the costs of site restoration. 8. Drainage plans to be reviewed by 8onestroo Engineering prior to City Council review· Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant. 9. Provide permanent drainage easements i'n favor of the city over the retention basins· Drainage calculations are to be provided to demonstrate that the ponds are properly sized. Place notice in chain-of-title that current and future owners are responsible for keeping the basins functional. When development occurs, the city would normally accept responsibility for the ponds. The applicant must demonstrate that all ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer or structured outlets will be required. A clay liner is required on the west edge of the north pond to protect the adjacent side slope. The applicant shall provide the city with an as-built grading plan of the ponds to ensure that they' comply with approved specifications. 10. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer· Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the city Engineer. Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 46 11. Project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is required. 12. Modify plans for the southern pond to minimize tree loss on the north side of the pond. The applicant's engineer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that this pondtn~ area does not disturb local drainage patterns. 13. Provide staff with an acceptable reforestation plan for the mined bluff face on the Moon Valley gravel mine site. Adequate financial guarantees to ensure that the plan is implemented upon the completion of mining shall be provided. 14. The applicant's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage found at the two locations on the north site described in the report. This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval. 15. That all soil removal accordin~ to the gradin~ plan be completed by July 1, 1993. 16. A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction. 17. Ground water contamination t~uee be evaluated to tn~ure protection of water wells in the vicinity of the site and that this issue be resolved to the satisfaction of city staff prior, to going to City Cou nc t 1. 18. Develop con~ideration~ for traffic safety on access potnt~ to the roadways I nyc Ired. 19. That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining activities or potential mining actlvltie~ at the site. All voted in favor except Commi~toner Farmakes who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to Z. Batzli: Your reasons. Farmakes: I just think it's premature. There's too many major unanswered questions here that if I voted for this, I guess I would be saying that it didn't make any difference what the answers to those questions would be and I think that's true. Batzli: Okay. Fair enough. The motion carries. When will this be at the City Council? Do we know? . Krauss: It's scheduled for July 27th. That's subject, to all the ducks being in order before it goes there and-I think what we'll do is we'll assure everybody that got a notice that we'll re-notify them of the meeting date. So if it's on the 27th, we'll notify you. If it's at a later date... Batzli: Okay. Thank you all for coming in. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 47 Erhart: Can we stop for a second here Brian? I want to clarify something. For the purpose of shortening these meetings, I really question. This may be an opportune time to spend 5 minutes discussing what the function of the Planning Commission is regarding these kinds of things. Somehow I feel that maybe some of us think that we are actually writing the actual development contracts here. I don'.t think that's what me're doing-.' think we're a recommending body. I think we're a'body that's supposed to kind of kick these things around before they get to Council. Kind of help them get some of the issues out on the table. Paul, could you. be involved with this? I'm looking for, tell me if I'm wrong or right. But kick these things around. Give staff kind of a trial balloon to get in here and throw these things at and see what sticks. What doesn't. What the concerns are so that when it goes to Council, it's something that's...rough edges and filed off and so forth. I question whether we're trying to get, trying tO be too perfect by the time it leaves here because in fact we're Just simply making recommendations and raising issues. If I'm wrong, then please correct me. I think we're ail asking these questions. My goodness, it's quarter to 11:00 and we've only gone through 2 things. Well you started before I got here but me're spending an enormous, amount of time on this thing and so I don't know. What is the purpose of us? Are we trying to get everything nailed down here when it leaves? Don't our Minutes count for something? I always assumed they did. I throw the question out. Conrad: I would really debate whether the Council thoroughly digests the Minutes that we have. The motion, the stuff that Paul, the motion that we make and the revisions to it in my mind count'far more than any dialogue that we've had. We flush out the issues. Our control is to reject. We don't have much in control but we can reject. We can delay. We can turn down. We can postpone. That's our control. If we don't think that people have done their job prior to getting here, then our Job is to get more information. Erhart: Any bad plan we should reject it and put all kinds of hurdles. Farmakes: I think in that particular case with that particular applicant, all the more reason that those questions should be answered so we can do our Job and make those recommendations. For the most part I agree with' what you're saying. Batzli: But see I didn't think with this particular applicant, even if we had the answers to those questions, our decision, you know what the money costs. What the dollar figure was. What these other issues were; That wouldn't have mattered. The only thing that truly would have mattered to us probably would have been the water quality issue but the City Council can look at those findings as easily as we can. I don't know what more we could have added to that particular one you know. Conrad: The same dog gone things that we do. The same ones. Batzli: Oh yeah, and they'll talk about them as if we didn't cover them. Conrad: Absolutely and so, if we can get staff working on some of these issues, we might as well spare the applicant a little bit. Not that we needed to in this particular case. Yet on the other hand, if the City Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 48 Council's going to cover it, we don't need to do it a second time. If we're real uncomfortable that we're giving the .City Council unclear information, then we should table. We should keep it down here. If we don't think staff can get the information that they need. Batzii: But I don't know. I sensed Tim was kind of asking a more global question than Just this last one. I think in instances of the two things we've had tonight, typically you know we don't have a lot Of people here. When we do end up having people here, [ am very loathe to cut them off. $o I let everybody ramble and talk tonight that wanted to talk. Erhart: Yeah, but up here or out there? Batzli: Up here. Erhart: Oh. Batzli: And that's really what made the meeting long. The beachlots have always been, we've always gotten a lot of people and they all get up and say the same thing but I don't want 'to be the one to shut them off because they all came here. They think what they have. to say is important and I don't necessarily disagree. But if II came to this meeting and the Planning Commissioners sat up here and said, does anybody have anything new. Well no, you're going to say the same thing.. Go away. I don't think we can cut that out. Erhart: I wasn't getting at that. I was trying to understand, and maybe just to review', the balance between how specific' this motion, has. to be versus what our comments are in the Minutes as it relates to what staff does when we leave this meeting and how Council reacts to what we do. That's the point I, that was the question that I had. I want to clarify in my mind and maybe for all of us. Farmakes: Well that's assuming too that the Council members don't inquire and ask us about particular things even when we're not here. If you're going to have an informed answer when you respond to them, t'f you have questions about something, I think you should bring those up if they're not there. On these types of situations, like the restoration plan on this particular one, it's an open ended question. What it will be. There is no plan at the e. nd. Erhart: Yeah, I agree. Farmakes: ...based, at least I was on this particular applicant because it seems litigation follows this person like a fly on whatever. ~nd what I'm saying is, the attitude that I had, at least looking at this is one of mistrust. Erhart: No, I understand. What I guess I'm trying to get at is, I think it's great that we each get out what we consider the issues. It gets in the Minutes.- The question is, how much time should we spend on trying to structure a motion that deals with every one of the issues that each one of us has. I'm not too sure that that's necessary to really struggle with this motion issue because I always believed that, Jeff if you've got an Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 49 issue about one thing and It's probably backed by one or two others, even if it doesn't get in the motion, staff takes a look at it. Particularly if they agree that it's a reasonable concern whether it's in the motion or not I guess. Also that the Council will. Batzli: I would disagree. I would say staff ignores it. No offense. · Staff ignores it and maybe one Council member catches it and-they raise it. They say, well what about this? And staff says, well only. one person thought of it and they didn't even put'it in the motion. Then I've been at the meetings and they say, well Brian. What did they think and z'ii say, well 3 of us raised it but it didn't get in the'motion. They say, well fine then, forget it. If I get something into the motion, I have a'90~ chance it's going to be approved by the City council. If you don't get it into the motion, you have a lO~ chance that it's going to be up to City Council. It's that clear. You change that motion. Whatever you get into that motion is going to be acted on and they act on most of what we'say. So if it's not there, you don't have any chance. Batzli: And even if it's half crazed, at least then staff has to argue against it. Conrad: You've got to fix it because he's not going to 'move something up that doesn't make sense. He Just won't. Erhart: How much would you expect the Council to discuss this particular one? Krauss: Well it*s really going to be contingent upon how many of the neighbors show up at the Council meeting.· Erhart: Say nobody shows up. Krauss: If nobody shows up and we're able to, I think we do a good Job of responding to what's raised, particularly in motions. Provide the answers should they be raised, I think it stands every ohanc, of getting fairly rapidly approved. In speaking for staff I think, you know you really need to ask the Council what they think and you may have the chance. I think we're going to try to schedule them to come in here at your next meeting Just to talk. They want to talk for 30 minutes or something. Batzli: They don't want to admit that they don't read the Minutes. Krauss: I don't read the Minutes. Batzli: Yeah I know. Krauss: Whenever we get sued we read the Minutes. Erhart: You don't think they read the Minutes? Batzli: I can't, I mean you see the stack. It's this deep and'they can't be reading it all for content and digesting it. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 50 Krauss: But the issues that we deal with are pretty complex.. · I don't know, sometimes I get accused of making things more complex than they need to be but I find that if I'm not, it comes back to haunt us later on. When you do that, you risk not seeing the forest through the trees or however that analogy is supposed to go, and it's useful for me to hear, you know you missed this. You've got to beef this up. Citizens raise these concerns. Some are legitimate. Some have to be responded to whether they're legitimate or not. ~nd these are the answers that you've got to bring forward to tie up all the loose ends. Then we know exactly what we need to do. Batzli: and here's a test. City Council members, if you're reading these Minutes, give me a phone call. Er hat t: 8atzl i: You've got $100.00 for every one that calls you. ! Okay, so we'll see. Now don't you tip them off. Conrad: Plus, have you ever tried to read Minutes and get a consensus? 8atzli: It's very difficult to read through these verbatim Minutes. Conrad: You can't get an idea what. You know you say some off the wall things about Communism. They don't... Batzli: ! yearn for those days. Conrad: I know. Those were the good days. It's Just hard for them to get a feel. I've always wanted to condense. · Erhart: Maybe we shouldn't have verbatim Minutes anymore. When I started we didn't have them. If nobody reads them. If nobody reads them, why do we do verbatim Minutes? Batzli: Because we use them for the record later on. Erhart: If nobody reads them, who needs them? Batzli: Well we do read them later on. I mean later on~ when this project blows up. We pull out the Minutes. We say, well what did this guy. Farmakes: 10 years from now they know who to blame for the problem. Satzli: Your 5 minutes are up. But I agree. To the extent that we can shorten and/or otherwise reduce our. time before the mice, we'll do that. PUBLIC HE/~RING: ZONING ORDINANCE ~E~T TO ~_ND THE CITY CODE. CH~TER 20. CONCERNING ~LLOWED USES IN THE BH.. HIGHLY ~ BUSINESS DISTRICT. . Paul Krauss'presented the staff report on. this item. ~hairman Batzli wanted the record to show there was no one present for this public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 51 Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Batzli: Is there any discussion on this issue? Erhart: The only discussion is, where's the motion? Batzlt: The red tie to Communism are lapping at our shore Tim. Is he still in jail? That was his line. Would someone like to make a motion? Erhart: I move that we amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the recommendation of the staff report dated June 25, 1992. Batzli: I second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Erhart: Is the motion clear Paul? Okay. Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Pl&nning~tsston recoe~aend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Ame~nt to the City Code, Chapter 20, Section 20-712 eliminating auto service centare as a permitted use in the BH, Buslnemm Hlgh~ay District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONIN6 O~OIN.,.~NCE ~ME~NT TO ~ ~RTICI=_E VIII OF THE CITY CODE ~ONCE__RNIN~ PLaY, NED UNIT OEV~._._[~ EEC4JL~TIONS FOR RESIOENTI~L DISTEICTS. Batzli: 8atzli: I don't know that we need a staff report. Yeah, we didn't have a category for really old business. Really, really old business. This isn't a public hearing or anything right? Krauss: Well actually, you've always continued the public hearings. Batzli: Okay. Well, is there, there's no one here to address us. The record should reflect that. Is there a motion to close the continued public hearing? Ledvina moved, Erhart ~econded to close the continued publlc-hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~ae closed. · Batzli: Discussion. Does anybody want to say anything other than me? Erhart: About this thing here? Batzli: Yeah. I just want to say one thing. over. Okay, go ahead. That's why'I had it carried Erhart: I don't understand it. Never have. .Batzli: Never will? Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 1, 1992 - Page 52 Erhart: Maybe not. I don't understand why we have sections (f), (g). EssentiaIIy those issues in both the cIuster home and the singIe family homes. I don't understand why we want to deal with boulevard plantings. I mean the whole idea of PUD'm, it opens it up to fIexibiIity and now all of a sudden we're Jumping in here in section (f). (e), I'm fine. That's one of the goals. Broad goal is to pTeserve natural features. Tree stands, wetlands, ponds, scenic views and all that stuff. And then ail of a sudden (f), we jump into specifics and by golly, by the time we get to.(f)(3)-, we're down in the foundation plantings. Why do we want to sit here and define exactly what someone has to provide with the PUD? I don't understand this. Batzli: Okay, so you're talking about (f-) or didn't you like (g)? Erhart: Both (f) and (g). Batzli: Now why didn't you like (g)? Let's talk about (g). Erhart: What do we got to get in here and talk about free standing garages for? We don't on any other ordinance. It has nothing to do with anything. We don't regulate garages in the city. Batzli: Where's that in (g)? I'm sorry. Krauss: Actually you do. Erhart: Why does it have to be addressed in a PUD? The PUD says, I thought the introduction paragraph is excellent. I commend you on that. Batzli: The intent? Er hat t: Par do n? Batzli: The intent section? Erhart: Yeah. I think it's just great and I'll tell you what, you could cut this whole thing off at, you talk about minimum sizes and that's been the issue we've always discussed and every time in the past I say why do we include all this other stuff and...why do we get into that? Batzli: Let me defend (g) and then let's talk about (f). (g), you want certain architectuTal treatment agreement with the City. I mean that's part of the PUD development plan right? You're not telling them what it ts but they have to at least tell you what they're going to do and follow it through. I mean these are tight, typically tighter clustered groups of houses and if you really cluster them, like you should be doing, although nobody ever does in th~s particular ordinance, I think you want an overall theme or what have you that you know what's going in there. Maybe you want a tudor mansion against a you kno~, Mexican kind of villa sitting next to each other. I don't kno~. But I think you want an idea of what's going in there. Garages, it says we may regulate it and guidelines relating to placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, etc... When you're on these smaller lots, and you're right next door to everybody else, I think that's reasonable. Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 53 Erhart: Let me give you an example. Paul came in here with this Stone Ridge. Stone Creek. Stone Creek and said, we'd really like to make this a PUD because what we really want to get in return is one thing and that'is ~e want larger lots in the wooded areas so we can preserve trees.' I never heard anything that they wanted architectural standards. ! never heard anything that he wanted foundation plantings. Or guidelines recommending air conditioners. We wanted to preserve trees. And'so now all of a sudden we're Jumping into regulations concerning air conditioners, 'dog kennels, storage buildings, foundation planttng~ and why do we want to get that specific? Batzlt: This is nothing more than what you'd find in a regulated development that had covenants. Except basically the PUD, the developer's coming in here and doing some of these things in'advance. Erhart: If we look at this parcel of land and we sit do~n with a developer, and our big concern is dog-kennels, then we can make dog kennels the issue in exchange for giving him smaller lots. I don't understand why it has to be in this ordinance. If the issue is tree .preservation, then the issue is tree preservation. Why do we'need to delineate it here? Because we're requiring every guy that comes in here with a PUD now to talk about dog kennels. That's what you've got here. Am I Wrong? If I'm wrong I'll shut up. Krauss: Tim, a couple things. Some Of the conditions that you mentioned are conditions that apply to all other single family development. If it comes in under a PUD and we don't specifically mention it, it may not be applied to the PUD. Yeah, you do'have the ability to tailor conditions in the PUD but will you remember to do it every time and will you be consistent? Secondly, the City's gotten burned before on PUD's because developers have sold the City a bill of goods. Let me have reduced lot sizes. I'll reduce home costs and make a nice environment. Erhart: Why do we even ask for this? Krauss: Well, what you can control is you can make sure that, first of all, you've got to explore that the sole reason for doing a PUD. If you're going to represent that it's eoing to save environmental features, then demonstrate it. If you're going to represent that it's going to lower housing cost, and if that's a valid thing for the city to consider, then demonstrate it and commit to it. The problem we had in .the past was that none of those commitments were ever made. Erhart: Then we didn't design the agreement good enough. Krauss: I think that's real evident. Separate the two issues for a moment too. Clustered housing and single family housing. Clustered housing is a medium density type of housing concept. You would require a site plan review for it if it came in in the R-12 district. I don't see why you shouldn't have the same kind of guidelines, established if it comes in under a PUD. When we look at, the tree issue, I must admit having re-read (f)(4). (f)(4), you can tell this is a year old because this is the language that was looked at, remember when we were looking at the tree Planning Commission Meeting July 1, i992 - Page 54 ordinances? That was the current language that was never adopted with everything else. Batzlt: Yeah, but ! kind of wanted to approve it and kind of sneak it through there and see what they did. Krauss: ! don't have a personal problem with it. The PUD's 'a t~o way street. I mean the developer may be getting much more attractive'lots. He may be getting a lot more economic flexibility. He may be saving costs for services. And the question is always, what does the City--get? Erhart: But, don't you see that on that development,-Stone Creek. With this ordinance, this guy would be required to put 2 trees in every back yard and he would look at you and say, no way. What you want is a tree preservation up on that hill but your ordinance requires that you've got to put 2 trees in every yard. Why do we want to encumber ourself with that? Krauss= No. [n Stone Creek, all those lots' up in the trees, the executive home lots that Hagen was referring to, wouldn't require 'anything. Erhart= I'm talking about, this ordinance would require all the other lots out in the alfalfa field for the developer to put 2 overstory trees 'in the back yard. He has to put foundation plantings in. He'd have to put exterior landscaping, well that's general anyway. But ! don't understand it. Why we want to get ourselves fixed into this rigidity. Batzli: Why don't you want to make Chanhassen a nice place to live for the people who move in? Why are you trying to make it a good deal for the developer? Erhart= It's not a good deal. We don't have to give him the PUD; Up until the last minute we Just say no. If we have done something ~rong in the past, it's because we didn't negotiate correctly. Batzli: Well, we're still not going to negotiate. You and I are going to see it after it's been negotiated and do you want to give staff a tool to use? I mean if one of these is, well let's ask. Let me ask this question. If you go and start negotiating with the developer under this ordinance, can you say well, okay we'll give up the two trees but you've got to give me another couple acres for the park? Currently the way this is written. Erhart: You're talking a variance now. Batzli: Well but let's change the language so that you can do it. I want to give you something to negotiate with because right now you don't have anything under this thing. Krauss: The negotiation process, I mean we're pretty good at doing it. We. can get a 1ct out of it and I would prefer, I like having-a certain amount of guidance frankly. I mean if I go into a room saying I can cut a deal on any part of this project because it's a PUD and try to second guess how the Planning Commission or City Council might react to that deal once it's cut, I'm not terribly comfortable with that. I mean I like to think I can read your goals into a project and anticipate the Council's but that's a pretty Planning Commission Meeting July i, 1992 - Page 55 hit and miss thing to, and then I have to represent the fact to a developer that if you cut this deal with me, I will work with you on this project and we'll try and get it approved. Erhart: ...PUD's have a preliminary meeting with the Planning Commission to sit down and outline what our goals are. We each contribute and then you start working on a plan. Krauss: Well it takes a fair amount, even though at concept stage sounds innocuous and inexpensive, it turns out it's not. I mean there's a fair amount of work required to get it to that point. Erhart: Particularly if you haven't talked to the Planning Commission and you don't know what they want, it gets real expensive. You can spend a'lot of time in hoping to get what we want. Krauss= Yeah, and I'm not sure how you'd, I mean I sort of scenario in' what you're saying. To come to the Planning Commission without a plan. Just say I 'ye got this parcel and I want to do it as a PUD. Erhart: Yeah, you've gone out there and here's some neat things and concerned. We've got these trees and wetlands and park area. It's.park deficient or something. And we go out and look at it and we say yeah. These are our concerns. Then go to the developer and say look it. We'd like you to do this PUD and here's what, in exchange for some smaller lots, here's the things we'd like to get out of this. Then he goes away and comes up with this plan. Krauss: But then again, you would be substituting yourselves for my staff and you would be trying to cut a deal in anticipating that the Council would go along with it and that you were negotiating in good faith. Also if you're concerned about the length of your meetings, wait until you try to design a project... Erhart: Oh, we're not going go design a project. Give broad, essentially. You're going to come to us and say, these are my concerns and we're going to either agree or disagree. And then you're going' to go and submit a plan. We're not going to do that. We're going to support you or qualify it. I don't want to be the guy dominating this discussion. Satzli: Does anyone else have Tim's concerns that (f) and (g) are overly restrictive in a PUD? Ladd, do you? Conrad: No. Yet I was the one that would have gone for PUD that was written in about 5 sentences. But the Commissioners elected not-to go that route. Batzli: Well I think part of why we, keeping this in historical perspective, I think the reason we didn't was because we were told by the Council that we shouldn't do that. Erhart: I can't remember anymore the whole sequence. Planning Commission Meeting July l, 1992 - Page 56 BatzIi: They didn't want something that said, you can do anythlng you .want. Here's the density. Don't go beIow that and we'll take a look .at it, which would have been your ordinance. Which would have'been, I think it would have been an interesting way to do 'it but you know, Council didn't want to see that. Erhart: Is that right Paul? ...they.didn't appreciate that point of view. Krauss: You know, I honestly don't remember either except the direction that I, I mean the Council's kind of gone different directions on this too but I heard them saying that they want guarantees that they're not going to be left holding the bag. That if they are to consider lot area adjustments, which some of them are reluctant to do, that it has to be in a format that guarantees that these are ~oing to be liveable, developable lots. Batzli: So I thought we did an okay job with that as our guiding beacon. I mean I still don't like it. I've beat my concerns to. a'pulp and I got one or two people on the Council on a band ~agon'and then I think they dropped off somehow so I've given up the ship. Do you have concerns? Ledvina: I 'can see Tim's side of the issue. I can see Paul's side of the issue and this pre-dates me by quite a bit so I really, I'm not really going to provide any more comment on it. Farmakes: I'm going to go forward as it is. I don't think there's anything wrong with even if a developer having some knowledge of what the expectations are, particularly when you're talking medium density. I can understand what Tim's saying but actually if I was to go and design' something, I'd like at least some understanding of what the expectations were. I think I'm hearing you right, that you believe that this will give ' them what your expectations are. So I support it. Batzli: I only have one question and that is, in your intent section, which I also think you did a very nice Job on. I do have one question and that's, this is whether this is intended to be something that we throw out to the Met Council. That yes, we do this and we're wonderful and that is the statement that lot sizes should be mixed to offer a range of housing pricing options. Within most development that I've seen, PUD's go through, there's not a real wide range. Just by way'of-example, something like Lundgren Bros. where they're going to put you know, $250,000.00 to $350,000.00 houses. Is that what you're intending that, they're not all one price or are you really Seriously saying you should have small lots here that are $90,000.00 and a $450,000.00 house over there? Krauss: And you're right. That used to be 'a Metro Council approach. Your concern's a valid one. It wasn't my intention to be dogmatic and require that. It applied in the situation again like Hans Hagen wanted to put the more modest priced homes in the field on smaller lots and maximize it but that was almost a secondary. If you'd care to eliminate that or put in an and/or type of modifier. Something along those lines, that would be fine. Batzli: Well before Steve left he told me that he liked that language and that he's a proponent of that. I.mean is anybody else gung ho for this Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 57 type of language in our ordinances? Conrad: I want it out. 8atzli: Tim? Erhart: I'm opposed to the whole thing. Batzli: Matt? Ledvina: No comment. 8atzll: Jeff, any comment? Farmakes: I'm taking a different meaning from you, since you're a lawyer. Batzli: Well ~hat's your meaning? Just that there's a narrow range? That there's a narrow range and that's good enough as long as they're not al! one price that there has been a range? 8ut see it says lot sizes Should be mixed to reflect that and to offer a range. And what ! don't want to see. is, I don't want to see preservation of the tree stands with $0,000 foot lots that these guys are going to build T'aj Mahals on and then the 8,000 square foot lots or 10,000 minimum, down in the cornfield and I don't, I personally find that repulsive that they're, you kno~ that somehow these people are getting the tree stands and it's not preserved. My. idea of a PUD is to have a cluster of homes, small lots, and commonly 'owned wooded areas and that's not what the people are going to do. They're going to include it into private lots and the people 'down at the bottom get the shaft and the question is, are we looking at our ordinances frown a, is it the common good of the people moving into this particular development? I've beat it and I think that this almost encourages ~eopie to say, yes. You've told me you want the range so ! 'm going to put the $45.0,000.00 house up on the hill. Take all the trees. Take all the nice views. Then I'm going to put these shlocky little things down in the cornfield. These people have no, they don't get the benefit of the trees, other than I supposed they can look at them but yet they're moving into the smaller sized iota and my issue has always been, I'll get off my soapbox in a minute. That if we have a minimum sized lot, someho~t or another, why are we allowing these people to have a smaller sized lot? Then we should have the smaller sized lots throughc, Jt the city if there's not a good reason to have the bigger sized lot. And these people haven't gotten anything for, you know we're supposed to be looking out for general welfare, safety, whatever but yet we're saying, go-ahead. -Put these guys on a sma}-ler lot. Let them look at the trees because we told them to offer a range of prices. So I found, that kind of disturbing. But I guess it depends on how you interpret it. Farmakes: And that also reflects I think what the market is. Obviously you're going to have a bigger house,' more land, less density, higher price tag. Most people aren't going to be purchasing that. I guess it will depend on each individual developer who comes in here and sho. ws what he's. Batzli: But my only point was that it said, lot sizes should be mixed to reflect and to offer, and the issue was ~hether we wanted to state that it, Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 58 I think it should be mixed to reflect the size and environmental limitations but [ think it may be.mixed to offer a range of housing pricing options. I don't know that I want to say the guy has to do that or to positively encourage that. Farmakes: Take the Lundgren development. They had the-t~o corner, they had about 3 or 4 left over lots once they got done laying out everything else. They had a couple of ilttle leftover pieces and they stuck those houses on it and those...swamp. There were reduced sized lots that happened to be next to houses that fit in better to the overall plan and I think I know what you're saying but I don't know if it's marketed that'way though. The PUD would be marketed that way. If they're put down in a gully and we're up in nirvana up on the hill with the trees, I don't think it'd be marketed that way. Batzli: Well I know it won't be marketed that way. Krauss: There's another aspect though that that gets to. On the less attractive land, I many times have developers come in and say, you mean you don't have a 10,000 square 'foot lot. I can't make, I'll just go PUD and make every lot lO,O00 square feet because then they're all cheap and I can sell every house for $116,000.00 because that's what I do in Chaska. Excuse me Chaska. And you know, you'd like to have some basis for saying, not here you won't. I mean you've got to rationalize your PUD. You may be entitled to some smaller lot sizes but you're going to have to earn it. You're going to have to demonstrate why this dens. ity's supportable based on environmental constraints and no, t. he City does not support a goal of your allowing uniformity of cheap housing. The goal is to get a mix in' there. Batzli: $o you're looking at it from, well. You're telling me you're looking at it from the alternate end of, they conle in, they ask for all cheap things and you can use this as a leverage to say, we need more expensive things too. Krauss: Right. That is a fact of what they do. Batzli: Okay. Well I would' be happy then to at least say and/or. So you may have a plug but yet it's softened. Anybody else go along with that? know what Tim's not going to say. Conrad: And/or what? Where are you? Batzli: And/or to offer a range of .housing pricing options. It's in the intent section. Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and/or to offer a. range of housing pricing options. Conrad: I'd like to take, I would rather,' boy I Just can't agree. Farmakes: Typically Paul, I'm not that familiar only seeing a fe~ PUO's around here but they seem like they're marketed, there isn't that large of a disparity of upper end pricing and the lo,er end pricing. I mean it's- not huge. We're not talking 4 or 5 times difference. -We're talking a maybe or somewhere in there? Planning Commission Meeting July i, 1992 - Page 59 Krauss: Yeah. I mean this is ballpark numbers pulled out 'of a hat but the Lundgren'development probably goes from $165;000.00-$70,000.00 to $280,000.00-3. Farmakes: Yeah, I've just never seen'where .the pricing shifts as far as some of what we're discussing here or we're worried about. Krauss: But in terms of a monthly mortgage, that's a real substantial difference in income levels and ability to pay. I don't know. If you want to get rid of it, ! can always argue the point. It's not hard to do. mean this is, there is a class of developers that always throws it out' on the table. This is what I can do someplace else and you-always tell them, that's not what you can do here. I mean if everybody's more comfortable eliminating it, ! can live with it. Conrad: And you're talking about the range of housing pric~? Krauss: Yeah. See Brian's concern is a valid one because the Metro Council used to mandate that you put in language that we will provide housing for the full range of humanity. Conrad: We had that in the comprehensive plan. Krauss: Right. Conrad: We were going to do that. Why bundle it into a PUD? Krauss: Well again, ! took the more pragmatic approach. I was trying to ensure that we didn't get the bottom end of it but I think you've got every, you know in the context of what else is in here, you've got the rational basis for not allowing that kind of stuff to happen. If somebody comes in here and says my sole purpose to do this is to get lowered priced lots and they look crummy and, tell them to go away. conrad: I don't mind the statement, lot sizes should reflect the sit'e environmental limitations and opportunities. I don't need the word mixed in there but I'd like the lot sizes should reflect in there. If we took mixed out, then I'm fine with that. I don't 'know why, I came in bets tonight thinking I was going to not oppose this. Erhart: You know,, just a point. I don't want to take a lot of time but Just listening to the discussion. It's convincing that we should be outlining some broad goals and potential desires for a specific site. But- there is no way that you can forecast in a rigid document what we would like to get out of any specific site at any time'in the economic situation. It's ridiculous that we're laying out specifics here. Batzli: Well, we haven't had an ordinance now for,. how long? A year? ' Krauss: A year. Year and a half. Batzli: Has any PUD guys come in and said, well since you don't have an ordinance I can do whatever I want and let's talk about it? Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 60 Krauss: No. Batzli: Have we had any PUD guys-come in and ask except for that one that you laid out? Krauss= Yeah, lots. Batzli: And they were discouraged because we didn't have an ordinance? Krauss: Nell you know, the lack of certainty is the developer's worst nightmare. Batzli: So if we have an ordinance that says ~e ~ant you to come in with a PUD proposal and we'll take a look at it, are people going to go that way or not? Krauss: ! doubt it, and this is my gut reaction. We could always ask developers but the thing that they detest most is coming, they hate coming before public bodies where people come up with things saying, it's a' good project but it'd be a whole lot better if you knocked off tO lots. Why? Nell that 10 lots was the profit and tho~e kinds of things scare-them to death. And to Just throw it open to a public review where the die is cast before there's been an opportunity to refine a plan that they're comfortable with, I think most of rhea will be very relu~ctant to do it. Erhart: But they do have something in concrete. They have a subdivision ordinance. They can come in with a standard subdivision. That's lock solid. If they don't want to come before us and do a little batertng, they don't have to. On the other hand, if there's a site and they're sensitive to some of the things and want to 'come in and talk about it we have... ordinnace allowing them to do that and encouraging them to do that and it maybe lay some broad things that we ~ould think would be appropriate to discuss such like a mixture of housing and preservation of environment. Increased park sizes. Batzli: I think the fundamental difference probably between us is you're probably comfortable with our subdivision ordinance and I'm not. Erhart: No. I think we need a PUD. I think we need flexibility. Let's not write an ordinance that, it give us flexibility but what it really does is it really actually is more restrictive than our subdivision ordinance. It gets into more detail about what the guy's going to provide than our subdivision ordinance. Conrad: You can look at it Tim' f~om the sta~dpoint there aye guidelines. Erhart: No, they're not. They're absolutes. Conrad: Well yeah. Batzli: But we can change t~o ~ords and make them guidelines. Erhart: Then I'm comfortable. These are things that ~e may want. These are things that we ought to discuss. Planning Commission Heating July 1, 1992 - Page 61 Conrad: But the developer would like to know what those guidelines are. Erhart: Then he should do a subdivision. You can't, by the whole character of what a PUD is. Batzli: Ne haven't gotten any that are that creative. I don't know why, I mean [ want to see these c~eatlve ones but ~e don't ~ee any. tJe see PUD's that are disguised subdivisions and they've gone that way in order to relax cretain setbacks or to c~o~ certain homes. The only reason they've used out PUD since I've been ~Te,-no~ ma~ ~'~e going to get a flo~ of them in here afte~ ~e pass this thing ~t [ ~uldn't mortgage the farm on it. O~ bet the farm. Erhart: ! think maybe our goals weren't clear enough at the time Brian. Maybe our staff wasn't comfortable with negotiating. Maybe a whole bunch of things. I don't know. It seems to me if we want something and they can get something so that they can make a profit at it. Batzli: Well I never thought I'd be arguing for this thing so you know. Conrad: Come on, where is everybody? I was sure you were opposed. Batzli: ! am opposed. Conrad: where are you on this? Farmakes: I've already said where I am on this. I'm listening to what Paul's saying. If negotiations have taken place on their end, at their level and he's asking for these things, tt seems to me these are good negotiation tools to position where the city, where theme expectations are and this whole thing is a variance so I mean if !'m going to be a designer and I'm going to go and try and come up with something that' I have a reasonable expectation that if I spend-a lot of money doing these drawings and coming in here and trying to sell this to you, I have a pretty good expectation by the time ! bring it before here, with Paul's recommendation, that I'm going to have a pretty good idea that it's going to fly. Or otherwise I'm not going to do it. Conrad: so you're generally comfortable and Brian has swung over. Batzli: I' haven't swung over. I've just been beaten down. ! just want to move it so that we have an ordinance so that people actually might use it. ! mean unless we can agree to put something in effect, as Paul said, they've had a lot of inquiries. Nobody's going to do it. Ns're only going to learn. ! mean this is either going to be right or it's going to be wrong. But in the past it's been wrong so we're no worse off. The only issue is, can we actually get some PUD's. going that we get some architecturally neat things. Some clustering. [ don't think we'll get it but at least we'll get some ideas flowing through here amd we'll see what we're going to get. And if we haven't gotten it yet, we have another opportunity to come back and fix it. But until we get it in place, we don't even know what we've done wrong. Conrad= And this may be your last shot. You kno~ if you kill the sucker. Planning Commission HeeLing July 1, 1992 - Page 62 Erhart: I can't kill it by myself. Don't look at me like some 'kind of... Conrad: It is interesting though because the City Council didn't want what we wanted. You never jumped on the band wagon when ! brought that up. You were off in the meeds somewhere. Erhart: Well we were off on this lO,O00 thing and this always was, at the end I'd always throw in, [ don't understand this stuff. If you look back in the Minutes, that's what you'll see. eatzli: You were confused? Erhart: No. We spend 90~ of our discussion talking about 10,000 foot lots and densities and that stuff and then, I was at~ays confused and I never understood why we have it this way. 8atzli: feet but. was talking about the Communist hordes, not the 10,000 square Erhart: Let's vote. Batzli: Yeah, let's have a motion. Conrad: Well Hatt you know the least, so why don't you make the motion. .. Batzli: He knows the mos't but he said the least. Farmakes: Time marches on. Conrad: Seriously, one quick thought. In minimum lot size, ~e're excluding wetland. Do we also exclude steep slope? Krauss: No. Conrad: We don't? $o steep slope, even though it's unbuildable, Just like a wetland is, counts? Krauss: Right. Batzli: But it would be subject to ali sorts of setbacks from our steep slope ordinance. Krauss: If it's on the bluff li~e, the bluff line applies. Batzli: In the designated bluff line areas. Krauss: Yeah. -. 8atzli: Otherwise just level the sucker. Krauss: We went through this kind of discussion, in fact you were involved with that. We originally thought of. Batzli: Do you have a lot of steep slopes on his farm? Planning Commission Meeting 3uly i, 1992 - Page 63 Krauss: I don't know. But you know, in fact we had Rick Sathre in here telling us that if we just used percentage of slopes you eliminate, you can do it but the way, the way Ne were thinking about doing it would have eliminated walkout lots. I mean it got a little bizarre. Batzli: Do we have a motion? Conrad: No. Batzli: Then is there a motion to table? Erhart: Table for what purpose? Someone's got to make a motion. Conrad: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised PUD ordinance according to the staff report or staff, according to the draft printed on May 2$th with striking, under the intent section, in the sixth line down, striking the words, "be mixed to'. That's my motion. Batzii: Okay so you 're, just before someone seconds it, just to clarify it. so you're leaving in the ~ords in the seventh line, and to offer a range of housing pricing options? Conrad: Yeah. Batzli: Okay. Is t.here a second? Farmakes: I'll second it. Batzli: Discussion. You seemingly changed your mind. You didn't like that language at first. Is there an7 reasoning or rationale that you want to share with us? You Just don't want me to vote for it either? Erhart: Now that's brilliant strategy. Batzli: It was excellent Ladd. Quick thinking. Conrad: Yeah, quick thinking. No, I thought it through and I'm okay with those words. Batzli: I mean it .doesn't even make sense now. And to offer doesn't go with, should reflect. Lot sizes to offer a range of housing. I don't care. If you want to do it that ~ay. Is there any more discussions? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commi~ion recomaend approval of Zoning Ordinance A~endment to Chapter 20 for ReSidential Planned Unit Developments with the folio#lng changes in the Intent Section. Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options. Conrad and Farmakes voted In favor. Batzli and Erhart voted in opposition. Ledvlna abstained. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 2, I abstention. Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 1_, 1992 - Page 64 Erhart: So it's defeated. The reason for voting r~y i~ that ! think, the way it's written, we have an intention to create an ordinance that gives us g~ea~e~ f[extb[Z[[y than out subd[vteton ord[~n~ but in fact, t~ it's ~r[[[en, the fact is thai [[ actually provide [~s f[ex[b[[[[y and ts specifies certatn thtn~ even beyo~ the subdivision o~di~e. what ~ recommend ~e do ts ~o ~e-~[te t~ o~dtnance. ~a[ ~tth the lot sizes or deal ~ith density. I think t~t's fine. I think the intent statement is great but I think ~e sh~id ~ outlining ~e ~neral things that Ne want and per~ to fl~ a proce~ for c~pleting a ~ a~ concentrate more on the process than trying to make ~tfic things. Batzli: I'd vote for it then. The only reason I didn't vote for it was because this thing doesn't, that sentence doesn't make sense anymore and I don't. Farmakes: Run it through. I don't think it's a big issue really. Conrad: That's not a big issue Brian. To vote against it because. Batzli: I'm voting against it for that reaso~ right no~. Erhart: Well why doesn't someone Just make another motion? Batzli: I'd like to see a motion that, if anyone else has another motion. We can pass it up to the Council. We recommend that they don't approve it as written as far as I 'm concerned at this point. Conrad: The motion failed but another motion can, make another motion right now. We're not going to paes it up. Sc~nething's got t'o happen. Batzli: Yeah I know, so is there another motion? Farmakes: I'll make the motion to alter the lt~e as you have it there. 8atzli: So that it reads, lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities. Is there a second'? ! second . it. Is there discussion? If it's stil{ 2 to 2 I'm really going to crack up. Conrad: What did you .want? Lot sizes. Batzli: Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities period. So the ~ords, and to offer a range of housing pricing options is struck. Is there any discu~lon? Farmakes moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zonino Ordinance ~mendment to Chapter 20 for Residential Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section. Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitatio.s and opportunities. ~11 voted in favor except Erhart who or~d and Ledvtna a~tained. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to I with I abstention. Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 1, 1992 - Page 65 Ledvina: If ! understood the criteria by which this proposal was being evaluated, [ would try to make some determination but I'm so confu~ed as to what we're looking at. Farmakes: We were too. Conrad= But ~e voted. ~f~V~L O~ MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3, 1992 as presented. OPEN DIS~I)SSION: DISCUSSION O~ CONSERVATION E~EHENT FORH. Krauss: That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there's some questions. Erhart: Rlso I think, ! haven't talked'to Steve about this but I .know in the history...he has strong feelings about people's rights to do things in their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over, ! think it'd be just fine. FaTmakes: I'd be curious as to how this 'fit in with this thing on Monday where they talk about the city compensating landowner's for trees on their property. Krauss: Oh, you mean the Lucas Decision? Farmakes: The Supreme Court. Krauss= I don't think anybody'really knows yet what the implications are but [ had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and l used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the sky is falling and generally you find it's because somebody screwed up or did something... I'm not sure they're nearly as pervasive as you might think at first blush. Batzli: Where's that thing about this article? One Planner's Reflection of the Edge City. You write that? Krauss-' Yeah. Batzli: Rnd it's going in which issue? KTauss: It should be this coming on. Batzli: Congratulations. You do~nplayed your work. I liked it. Should' we table this easement? Okay. If nobody's opposed, we'll table that over to the next meeting. Erhart: The next meeting is what, the 15th? Krauss: The lSth, yes. Erhart: Why does Council want to meet? Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 66 Krauss: The Council, I've got to double check if that timing works but the Council wants, on an annual basis they sit do~n ~ith all the Commissions and keep the communications open. Ask what your issues are but hopefully they'll tell you what their issues are. I'm not' sure if we'll have frankly enough time to do it on the iSth. Erhart: I8 this an annual meeting? Krauss: ! think we've gotten them once or twice before. Farmakes: Can I ask you a question since we spent so much time on this PUD and we Just sort of skipped over the City Council update. Do they really believe you when you tell them that that's Just sort of a variance guideline, the PUD situation? What's your opinion on that? Krauss= What do you mean a variance? Farmakes= The Councilmen that I've talked to on this PUD thing, it 'seems to be mistrust that what they"re doing is making an ordinance people can build on and that the City's committed to. But the way it's been explained to me over and over again is that it's really a variance. That the City can refuse if they don't feel that it's appropriate to approve it. So why then do [ continue to hear this almost a reluctance that ~e're approving this type of thing? Is there a trust factor there? Krauss: I don't think it's a matter of trust because staff's relationship with the Council is a pretty good one. But I think, I don't want to characterize it unfairly either but you've got-the Council, the people I'm most familiar with on the Council are people who have moved to this community 15-20 years ago and they did it for some very explicit reasons in terms of what kind of liftstyle was offered. I don't know, maybe there's. something of a mind set that that's exactly what everybody ~ants as the standard mode of living. There's also, ! mean they're very comfortable with the lifestyle they have. They have good. lives here and they think that that is something worthy to pass on. I guess I don't dispute that but I think there's other ~ays of getting at it and I:m not all clear if the Council's going to go through with it or not. Farmakes= When they come in he~e, should there be more discussion with us in regards to those issues? Those issues and the second coming of American city. A lot of stuff that ~e're doing is the exact opposite of what they 're. Krauss: See that's the thing. I mean you.talk to people like Councilman Wing and he's got very strong feelings of support for the neo-traditionalist movement and the kind of stuff we hear from Bill Morrish. This PUD is fully consistent ~ith achieving those goals, yet they've got a lot of trouble digesting that-. '! don't know how to rationalize that, except to maybe ask Bill to talk to him about it because they have some type of... Farmakes= Well a lot of traditional suburban planning, which ~e've been into here for, since after World War II, or at least the past 25 years, is not really based on diversity. It's highly suspicious of it and I get a Planning Commission Meeting July i, i992 - Page 67 lot of feedback from that and I'm sure maybe you do too. That that's why the 10,000 square foot and so on. A buzzer goes off whether it's relevant or not. There seems to be a lot of walls that we smack into there when we start to discuss some of this stuff even in the HRA and the downtown- development. We continue to build these large parking lots facing access streets and we place the building farther back when a lot of current design information has been coming out the past lO years saying no, that's not the right thing to do. It used to be the. right thing to do back in the 70's but now we've discovered that we should be doing it differently. We continue on. And basically the developer is framing that down into reality. We say yeah. It's sort of a philosophical thing. I'm not sure if we caught up with that and I'm not sure, they're sort of accountable to their voters. What kind of information they're getting there and whether or not they really believe it. From a professional level. Krauss: There's a real philosophical change I suppose that needs to come but you know, it's one thing to see and read all this stuff and be interested and want to try some of .this stuff but on the other side, there's a reason that all of us, myself included, moved to'the suburbs. And there's a million and a half people in the Twin Cities did it. It clearly offered them something they were seeking so I'm not as willing' as the nec-traditionalist are to throw it all on tha, and say everybody's wrong. All the decisions you made were erroneous and you're foul people and you messed up the world and let's remake it. On the other hand, ! think Chanhassen's in a really unique position to do some very nifty, innovative stuff that will make this a community that's different than most of the suburban communities: And I think we're well on the way to achieving that and it's stuff that I'm pretty convinced, maybe conceitedly that most people, once it's here, most people are going to be real proud of it. And real comfortable with the chan(;es it has. With the ability to have a real downtown. With the ability to walk to places or bike to . places. With the ability not to go on a.highway to go everyplace you have to go. Those are things that we can offer here that most people can't. Most towns can't. Batzli: $o, do we talk to the City Council about these things? Krauss: I think it'd be an interesting discussion. Frankly it's probably a whole lot more interesting than, what do you want' us to do next year. Don't rock the boat. Batzli: One question before I want to adjourn and that is these provisional population estimates by the Met Council. Are these meaningful to us? Krauss: Very. Batzli: Why? That's what I didn't get. Krauss: Did I give those to you? Batzli: Yeah. They're on the back of your article. Administrative section. Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 1, 1992 - Page 68 Krauss: Oh. When you go to the Metro Council Nith a comp plan amendment, or to justify, rationalize building a road or to rationalize getting funding for a county park or a trail system, or build a sewage treatment plant like in Chaska. The first thing they do. They make projections okay and you think projections are innocuous. If it doesn't turn out to be correct, we'll change the projections. They don't. They change reality to fit the projections. You're Nay ahead of the game to have projections that are real and reasonable. For the first time I, I think it was the first time I've ever heard of it. The Metro Council's population projections are actually larger than Ne projected Nhen we did' the comp plan. NoN that doesn't necessarily mean that people are-going to come and knock on the door at Chanhassen tomorroN and say the Metro Council told me to move here so I'm going to come. But it's indicative of the fact that the Metro Council agrees Nith us that this city is in a real, it's in the driver's seat. Batzli: ~nd everything eIse is moving along? Target's moving? Task force's are moving? Krauss: First task force meeting for the corridor study is on the !$th before the Planning Commission meeting. Batzli: When does the City Council talk to us? Krauss: It should be on the same evening. Batzli: Okay, so everybody wiII be here for that. Krauss: We're starting to get a lot on that agenda. IYm'a little bit leery of it. Erhart: The iSth? Conrad: I won't be here. Batzli: I don't know if I'll be here or not. Okay, as far as HRA, have you been getting the HRR packet noN? Krauss: No. We talked about that this morning. 8atzli: Here we've got a guy who actually is going to go to HRA meetings for us. We've got to start getting him the packet. Because they're going a lot of stuff right now. They're doing the bc~ling alley thing. Krauss: That's why I included, in fact Ashworth asked me to make sure that you got all those reports because we thought you'd find t.t interesting. Batzli: On the Target and the bowling alley and all that.stuff? Yeah. Conrad moved, Faraakea seconded to adjourn the-meeting. &Il voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting warn adjourned at 11:45 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim