Loading...
PC 1994 02 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting m order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESEt: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Jeff Fannaims, and Nancy Mancino MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Ka~ Aanenson, Senior Planner, Bob Gene~us, Planner H; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: HARSTAD COMPANIES TO SUBDIVIDE 37 ACRE~ OF PROPERTY INTO ~7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDE~ SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Public Present: Name Address JoAnn Hallgren 6860 Willism J. W'mle 6860 Larry Wenzel 690O Dave Headla 6870 Keith Bedford 3961 Charlcs Cruickshank 3921 leffrey Adams 3960 Bonnie & Terry Labatt 3981 Harold Taylor 3861 Sauet Carlson 4141 Sue Morgan 4031 Linda Scott 4031 lerry L. Kongard 3901 Alien Karls Paul Harstad Minnewashta Parkway Minnewashta Parkway Minnewashta Parkway Minnewashta Parkway Stratford Ridge Stratford Ridge Stratford Ridge Stratford Ridge Suafford Ridge Kings Road Kings Road Kings Road Glendale Drive 3920 Stratford Ridge Harstad Companies Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay. This looks almost identical to the same subdivision or prelimina~ plat that was proposed, I think we looked at this in July7 Aanenson: Sune. Scott: June of last year. Did you make the applicant aware of your objections to the preliminary plat? Scott: But did the applicant come back to you offering to adjust lot sizes, re-situate the proposed park, provide any alternatives for access to the three lots that abut Lake Minnewashta Parkway7 Have they responded in any way to those7 Aanenson: The one issue that they did respond to, as you recall the issue on Kings Road...the only fight-of-way we have through there...$o they d_id_ establish where that line was...and from that line have gone, gotten 35 feet of right-of-way. So that's one issue that we...resolve. As far as the other issues... Sco~ Okay. So we haven't gotten a response from the applicant, or are they basically of the opinion that this is the way it is? Aanenson: Yeah, except the location of the fight-of-way... Scott: Okay. Any other questions? Mancino: ...10095 identical to the way it was presented last 1une. Have there been any changes whatsoever7 I'm kind of reiterating I guess. Aanenson: Except for the Kings Road. Mancino: Except for that, okay. Ledvina: The lot sizes, street layout, everything is the same, right? Scott: Yeah, because Matt pointed out that thc plans that we received in our packets are dalai 6/7/93 so that probably would ~ Any other questions or comments from thc Planning Commissioners. Would the applicant or the representation choose to address the Planning Commission? Please state your name and your address. Paul Harstad: I'm Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies, Our office address is 2191 Silver Lake Road in New Brighton. We are aware that we resubmitted thc plat with very little, if any changes and frankly as a representative of the company I'm here to ~ you that that was done intentionally. It was intentionally done because, as we undersland it there are, of what Plsmning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1~ we consider the two larger issues, namely the park and I suppose the right-of-way, but mostly the park. We were in¢ormed that the park, there were a nnm_her of different options and the purchaser-developer suggested this as one of the three options and got the ball rolling in terms of the design aspect of the project and then brought it to the city and was rejected on that ground, among the others. In fact in the lilm~ture of the staff reports, I believe by the Park Commission, it says that final plat approval will be denied unless this change regarding the park takes place. If that's to be done, then we consider it a condemnation case and it is no longer in my hands, or franldy my company's hands. It will be in the lawyer's hands. So that's our intent and that's the reason behind it. I'm sorry that the people that were notified for the public hearing have to waste their time going through this again. It's not our intention to inconvenience people. Farmakes: Are you stating that your sole intent on bringing this back again, it's your belief that the only stated objection to this plan was the padc issue? Paul Harstad: I'm aware that there aze a number of different issues with the lot layout and that sort of thing that fi'ankly are somewhat commnn in developing these things. I'm sure the Planning Commission is aware that these things happen frequently. But we made a decision not to even go ahead with making any changes until we resolve the larger one, namely the park. There was no sense in our wasting the engineer's time, or really even the slaff's time in re-reviewing the plat. Scott: Any other questions or comments7 Thank you very much. This is a public hearing and could I have a motion to open ~ public hea~g7 Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing~ Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If there's anyone here, ff they'd like to speak in favor of or against this parti~,lsr preliminary plat. .. state your name and your address and if you happen to have any exhibits that you'd like to bring, we have a couple of cameras. We'll try to help you position your exhibits so they can be shown for the ~ $o, if anybody would like to speak, please come forward. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Sco~ Comments? Matt. Ledvina: Well, this is the same plan so I share the opinions that the staff has regarding many Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 of the deficiencies. I don't know that it's appropriate for me to comment on the park issue. I don't havc a good feeling for all the information and the philosophy of the requirement for that and we defer generally to the Pack Commission on those items so I guess beyond that I don't have anything else to say. Scott: So you would support thc staff recommendation for denial? Scott: Okay. Seff. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendation of denial Sco~ Nancy. Mancino: Ditto. I also support the staff recommendation for denial Scott: Okay. I also support the staff recommendation for deniaL Can I have a motion pica.sc? Mancino: I move that the Planning Commi.~aion deny the request for the Harstad Compan~ Subdivision ~3-11 based on the following findings, which is 1 with a, b, c, d, e, f, which are all the staff's recommendations. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commi~don recommend to deny the request for IIarstad Companies Subdivision #93-11 based on the foflowing findings: 1. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the following Zoning Ordinances: a. Chapter 20, Articlc VII Shorehnd Overlay Disuict, Sections 20-476 and 18-60. Thcre are 20 lots that are deficient in lot area or frontage requ/rements. b. Section 18-57(1). Three (3) lots have direct access onto a collector street. c. Section 18-57. Kings Road and Street "E" are not consisteat with the city's Street Design Standards. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 do Section 18-63. The drainage plan is inadequate to accommodate runoff genemmt from the subdivision. Sections 18-40 and 18-61. The app~t has provided ~t data to review the adequacy of the subdivision; specifically, for determination of tree preservation and potential environmental damages. f. Section 18-79. Pazkland Dedication. The applicant has ignored the city's Park and Recreation Commission recommen__d~6on for parkland dedication. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Could you please tell us when this will be at the next? Aanenson: February 28th~ Scorn February 28th? Good. PUBLIC HEARING: ANDREW HI,qCOX TO REPLAT PART OF LOTS 14:15 AND Al.1. 0F LOT 1(~ AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION/~2 INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 7500 EI~W. AVENUE, ItlNCOX ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Andrew & Catherine Hiscox Earl & Betty McAIiiater Anthony Doppler Larry J. Anderson Tom Manarin 7500 Erie Avenue 7510 Erie Avenue 7508 Erie Avenue 400 Ciman~n Circle 7552 Gre~ Plains Blvd. Bob Generous presenmt the staff report on _this item. Sc, om And could you please explain what a toreros proceeding is for those of us who may Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 not know what that is. Generous: It's a legal way for a property owner to clear up the legal des~ption of their property basically, h says that on anything up to this point has been cerfifieA and we're regist~ing this and this is our property boundaries. Scott: Okay. Just a show of hands. How many people are here regarding this issue who have concerns about where the actual property line might be? Okay. Should we approve this particular issue, one of the conditions is going to be that no cons~on or anything is going to happen until thc actual legal description. So what's going to happen is that, as a condition, if for some reason the issue of property boundaries is not resolve~ the development will not be able to go forward. Okay. I still see some kind of quizzical looks. Why don't you take a swag at that. Generous: They will not receive any final approval until the legal question about the property lines has been resolved. And so they couldn't build another home there. They couldn't move forward with the subdivision until that issue has been resolved. And it's supposedly, I believe the applicant said, has stated that they believe that their case is later this month but I'll have them... Scott: Okay. Any commissioners have questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission? Andrew Hiscox: My name is Andrew Hiscox. I live at 7500 Erie Avenue. The last time I was here on this issue was I think in 1987 when we started this process. And at that time the city asked us to §o start a registration on the property to clean up a bunch of title issues. We've successfully done that over the last few years and feel that we're in pretty good shape here. The only issue that really is outstanding at this point that we don't have agreement in prindple on, or in fact by talking is the association. Frontier Trail Association which adjoins our property. There is a dispute. It showed the drawing in the original...If you look at that upper, the north corner of the property where the straights line across. We are registering pmpa'ty to the straight line which, if you look at that, there's a gravel path or boat launch that goes across the property. If you look at the requirements of subdivision for lakeshore property, we meet all those requirements without that piece of property so we feel like we're moving forward with something that, that that really should be a non-issue because we're not asking you to consider that. We're asking you to consider, what we show there, which gives the minimum requirements and exceeds them and I guess our opinion anyway is that we should be allowed this. That's all I've got to say. Scott: Is there a possibility, depending upon how the lot lines get officially mapped. Is there Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 a possibility that thc people from thc Frontier Association are going to be denied access to the lake? What's the, you know from your point of view, what is the issue as you see it with regard to the homeown~ association? Andrew Hiscox: The issue was in '86. The then Carver County Surveyor, Ted Cavanaugh from Schoell and Madsen, told us we could go ahead with this. He was okay with it and approved it subject to easements for the actual boat launch. We proceeded with notification of...and the Frontier Trail Association answered and we hadn't negotial~ the easement on it. That was really the issue. But the easement really, and the issue seems to be anyway, from what we can tell, the boat launch and where their dock is and that sort of thing. Last year the Frontier Trail Association approval hearing, when the city went through and reviewed all the associations around Chanhassen, this one came up. It does not have enough lakeshore to meet the rl~inirrlum requirements but it was approved because it's a nice association. It works well In fact we are members of the associma'on. So we're kind of in an interesting position where we're kind of fighting ourselves. We have 1/20th, I don't know whatever it is now. Maybe 1/22 interest in the association, yet we're kind of at odds with them over this issue. So we're just trying to get it resolved. We've talked to the association. We've made some offers. We're kind of in negotiation right now on how that gets closed but at this point we're not asking to consider that. If you look at what we're going to register and what's shown here, again it should be a non-issue. The boat launch and the dock are on their property. We're not questioning thaL.. Scott: Okay. Bob, could you sketch that in a little bit bem~ to maybe help orient us as to what's going on. Generous: Well the dock area is somewhat over here and _this is that gravel road, the boat launch that they're talking about. He's showing the line for his subdivision actually south of where that boat launch area is. I believe the contention is in this area in here. How much thc association believes should be provided them. Mancino: Go over and above the 12 foot drive area. They think it should come south even more? Generous: They think they should have more land to the south. Scorn And the easement sir that you're talking about is the ability for you to leave, or residents to leave the subdivision and have an easement to the launch that is part of the homeowners association? Andrew Hiscox: No. The reason the easement was proposed was for the boat launch to go Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 through our property. We are fee title owners of the property per many surveys showing that we do own the corner. The City has agreed with us, at least at some time. Yes, it looks ~ you're the owner. Yes, the association does have a boat dock on your property. When we went to register the property, they answerexL Therefore, I mean we're trying to avoid going to court on this. We tried to work it out with the association and qui~e frankly ~in~ last summer, haven't gotten a lot of feedback from them. So we've decided to move forward. We were able to acqu~ enough property to meet the minimum requirements and thought that this would be idnd of a moot point. The associmion, as I understand it, is trying to be in the process of going out and getting their own survey done. There have been at least 4 different surveys of this property done over the years and consistently they show that this is where the lot line's running. Rather than fight and go to court and then spend a lot of money, both my own and part of my own for the association, we thought this would be a good cornpro~ It should resolve the issue. We're not asking that you consider that piece of the property. That is where, I ~ the controversy would be. Scott: So then, following the good neighbor doctrine. If the torrens procee~ngs show that you in fact own the property across which the association has access to the lake, then you would be in a situation of negotiating an easement for them. Andrew Hiscox: We've slready offered that. Aanenson: ...when we were talking about the beachiot. He was willing to agree to that... Scott: Okay, good. Okay. Any other question~? Farmakes: I have one question. On the narrowe~t part of the Nroperty, when you're talking about access paths down to the lake. The narrowest part is 7~00. I believe it's the property then on the left as I look at it. What is the width on that nazrowest part? What are you talking about, 30 feet? Generous: I think it's 63 feet, wasn't it? Andrew Hiscox: I have a number on this. h's to scale. I think we could guesstims~ it pretty easily. Fammkes: Is there currently access there? How do you access that property? Andrew Hiscox: How do I get from the house down to the lslm.? Farmakes: Yeah. Phnning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Andrew Hiscox: There's a path. Farmakes: Is it an unimproved path? Or is it just kind of a deer trail down through the woods? Andrew Hiscox: Yeah. It's a rather steep hill. Mancino: It's a very sl~-p hill: Andrew Hiscox: We also have access via the road. Because we are members of the Association, there is an entrance to the association off of Frontier Trail and for the most part, we typically go down there. Farmakes: Do you envision expanding that trail or no? Not necessarily. Andrew Hiscox: One thing I should mention. We show on here, kind of by mistake, that there is an easement up on the top of...and down that path and that, at one point we had offered a couple of thc neighbors the use of that easement to get down to the association in exchange for vacation of another easement they owm ...made a financial settlement instead so that really probably should be erased from there. In fact that will be taken off the final plat. Mancino: And where are you talking about the walkway easement? Andrew Hiscox: Yes. Mancino: The 10 foot that goes through Block 17 Andrew Hiscox: Correct Mancino: So that's not going to be built? Andrew Hiscox: No. Mancino: And you're not going to give them the easement, okay. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Do you have anything else you'd like to add? Andrew Hiscox: No. I just want to encourage the, you folks to approve this and sort of get going with it. We've been woridng on this for about 7 years now. And the last time we did Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 this, I think one of the statements in the findings was that the city welcomed this...we're adding lots to the value here. We're giving you another property that you can collect taxes from and... Sco~ Okay. Thank you for your co~ts. If anybody would like to talk to the Planning Commission, please step f~ Give us your name, your address and let us know what's on your mind...welcome to speak. Larry Anderson: I'm Laffy Andersom..ex-President of Frontier Trail Association and just wanted to clarify on the map, if you could throw it back up for one second. Basically what the dispute is, as far as with the association. I've got a couple of copies to share. Basically the original plot that we had showed the line at 156 feet. When Mr. Hiscox laid it out the first time, in I believe 1987, was the first plot you had done. He adjusted that line to 158 feet and if you look at the cturent plot that he's got now in front of you, he's adjusted that line to 169 feet. Continually moving over. Whatever he's needed to get required frontage. That's the dispute. I only wish to call it to your attention and I believe with the attameys and others, that's what's going to have to be l~8olved in the tarrens proceedings. Thank you. Scott: Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission7 I'll let the record show that no one else would like to address the Planning Commission. May I have a motion please7 To dose the public hearing. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing, AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Mancino: Bob, I have a question for you. I wanted to get your opinion on something. In the staff report on page 3, you made a suggestion that our preservation easement would be a benefit on this parcel. And I think it's on that back half that's so steep for erosion purposes, etc. And in your final recommendations you didn't include that so I wondered why. Generous: There were two reasons. We did have a discussion on that. If we made it a conservation easement, they would not be able to do any clearing for view or anything to gain access from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill. So ins~ we wok the shoreland regulations put strict requirements on what vegetation can be...We're also, as one of the recommendations say that before they come in for any permitting to gain access to the lake, they actually develop a tree removal plan and we think that will preserve the majority of those trees...~s to the lake from their property. Mancino: So they could put a walkway system down to thc lake. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Aancnson: There's also view corridors. Mancino: The views, okay. But you'll keep a watchfiil eye with the erosion. Other than that, I'm just fine with the subdivision. I went to the property and it looks like a gorgeous place to havc a home. Scott: Good. Jeff. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations on this issue. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Sust following up on Nancy's comment. The shoreland ordinance. Now that's not passed yet, is that correct? That's in the works? Okay. Aanenson: We adopted the DNR standards lhough. Ledvina: Okay, you have7 Ahight. Mancino: Which were stricter. Aanenson: Yes. We're in thc processing of modifying the new city ordinance... Ledvina: Okay. So thcre is an ordinance in cffcc~ at this point. And what is the setback requirement as it relates to vegetation? In terms of pruning and things like that and limi~ Generous: Well it's half of the setback of the building which is 75 feet is the setback. Shorehmd setback... After that they can't do any. Ledvina: Okay, so whatever. It looks to be about, roughly 300 feet so there'd be 150 feet th~n right? Aanenson: No, it's thc building setback which is 7:5 feet from the high water mark. Generous: The conditions that we're putting on the subdivision require them to have a larger setback than the building. They have to actually stay above the 958 contour. And then ff they did anything below that, they'd have to come in for... Ledvina: Okay. $o in that instance we're really concerned about, well first of all from the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ordinary high water mark, we don't even make the hill. SO we're really relying on our tree removal plan in terms of getting to make sure we're pre, serving the vegetation there that we think is import~t or significant. Okay. Well that's fine. I just was wonderi_ 'ng about that. Other than that I would support the ~ recommeazdafions. Scorn Okay. And I support the staff recommcn~fions as welL Can I have a motion please? Ledvinm I would move that the Planning Commis,sion reconmaend approval of the preliminary plat Case//4/7-31 SUB for 2.88 acres of land and the vacation of 33 feet of road easement to create three single tinnily lots subject to the recommendations in the stuff report. Recommendations 1 thru 10 with the addition of au 1 l th condition which sta~ as follows: The wrrens proceedings must be compl~ prior to final plat approval Scorn Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's beg~ moved and seconded that we accept the staff's recommendation. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi~_'on recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat #8%31 SUB for 2,88 acres of land and the vacation of 33 feet of road ensement to erente three single fnmfly lots subject to the foflowing conditions: . The driveway access to Lot 2 should be constructed to direct runoff away from the building. Drainage swales should be consu~cmt to convey runoff around both sides of the proposed building to maintsin the neighborhood drainage pattern through the parceL e . Type I erosion control should be installed on Lot 2 prior to constngfion and maintained until the site is fully revegemmd. Upon issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 and payment of the applicable connection hookup fees, the city will extm~ the sewer and water service to the southerly pmpa'ty line for the applicant or property owner to connect on to. An existing overhead power linc should be relocated underground along the common property line between Lots 1 and 2 within the dedica~ drainage and utility easement. 5. Final plat shall dedi~ a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over thc 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 existing 1:5 foot wide sanitary easement through Lots 1, 2 and 3. The fin_al plat shall dedicate 5 foot wide side yard and 10 foot fzont and rear drainage and utility easements on each lot. , The applicant shall provide the city with a $400.00 cash escrow account for review and recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's offi~. Additionally, a development contract containing these conditions shall be entered into between the developer and the city and be recorded with the final plat. 7. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for city approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for access to the lake. Se Limited vegetative clearing, cutting, pruning, and trimming to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling and to accomm~ the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and w~ access areas and permitted water oriental accessory s~ is permitted below the 958 contour. 9. The house pad shall be limited to an area above the 9//8 contour. 10. Park and trail fees are required of this development. One-third (1/3) of such fees shall be payable at the time of building permit app~on at the ra~ in force at the time, less any fees paid at the time of plataug. 11. Torrens proceedings must be completed prior to final plat approval AH voted in favor and the motion carrie~L PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF CHANHASSEN IS PROPOSING TO MITIGATE A WETL~ FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS LOCATEO AT THP; INTERSEL-I'ION OF YUMA DRIVE AND PREAKNESS LAN~_ Public Present: Name Addre~__ Steve Syvcrson 760 Prcakncss ~ Dave Hempel presented the staff report on thi,~ item. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1~$ Scott: From reading the staff report here I know there's a number of people who have got property there and the~'s a nice view. At least in my mind it doe~'t feel, it doesn't trigger me that aft~ one growing season that anybody's going to be able to ~ really that you've done that work, except one of tho area's going to be open. R's going to be a lot deep~. So the visual impact of that particular wetland is not going to be gi..tmi~:icanL ~1: That's con~q~ It's our inUmt to go out and actually stake it in the fiekl to minimize any Idnd of tree loss. Vegetation in that area, the~ is a vari~ of und~brush. There are some willow, there are some old~ trees. There are no sl?ificant trees which you're removing from the projec~ It is our inumt to, these pon_ding areas that we're going to be creating are to NURP standards where you can have a...create a habitat of vegetation or the wetland changteristics. That will be a 3 or 4 to 1 slope so approximate depth of 5 to 6 feet in the middle. You're correct One growing season of vegetation it should re-establish itself and create more open wamr into two areas. Provide more... Mancino: I have a question Dave. This is going to filter and clean the storm water runoff so that in so many years, in 10 years do you have to go back in and do the same thing? Excavate and is this an ongoing process that is going to take place as it fills back up? Hernpel: That's partislly correct. That's our purpose here is to create three warm' bodies. The major collecting area will be a sediment pond proposed just east, or excuse me, just west of Carver Beach. Collect the bulk of the storm water off of it right now just drains directly into the wetland area instead of...It's our intent to create that holding area just on the edge of the wetland to collect these sediments so that is the area that we constantly have cleaned so we don't have to go back into these other larger open areas to main~ and clean out them. Tqring to collect the...before it gets further down in the downsueau~ Mancino: Do I want any of this excavation on my garden? I can see that it's going to v/PAir_. Scott: Al l~linge.~hutz' property. Yeah, 86th Street. Hempel: Actually I have a couple of sites proposed. That would be one that would be proposed. Also...home being built and there's a back yard that's going to need a lot of t5~! type of materials... Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing. If any members of the public, if you two would like to address the Planning Commigsion, please do and just let us know who you are and where you live and you can say whatever's on your mind: 14 Pl~-~g Commission Me. in§ - Fe~ :2, 1~ Steve Syverson: I'm Steve $yverson. I live 760 Preakness Lane. I've just got a question as far as if there's going to be any standing water that you anticipat~ in these ponds or if they're going to be kind of what's there now. Kind of a wetting, kind of weeping... Hempol: There will be movement through the pooding area as the rain and precipitation occurs. These will be essentially the holding ponds and water will be fflim'ing or migrating through the soils as well as the vegetation downstream. Steve Syverson: So there will always be water in them or will they be basically weeping on down? Hempel: We envision that they'll be containing water 99% of the time. Strve Syverson: My concern was likr during the winter when we've got a drop in walrr and the ice is up. Kids fall down there and we've got about 45-50 in the neigh~hood and they all like to come down there and play. I just didn't want to make any hazards out of them so that was my concern. Hempel: That's a good point. Our thoughts were...continual migration of ground water through there that thc pending area should maintain that level through there. Scott: Also that, it's usually a 10:1 slope so it's from the edge of the pond. It's got a fairly gradual slope and then it goes to 3:1 or 4:1, depending upon what you need to accomplish. Stc-ve Syverson: Right, but at ~ we're going to be up to like 5 feet. Hempel: In the middle. There's also lt..control slruc'tm~ on...areas that provide us some latitude to adjust the water level. If necessary if we needed to clean the pond... Steve Syverson: Would that be a fixed place or would that be something that you'd either adjust... Hempel: I've got a diagram of it here actually. It's the storm sewer manhole, it's a board that controls thc height... Mancino: Do we put signs up you know in the winter to say be carefld for wat~tq Hempel: Essentially there's like a wire type structure in thc middle of thc manholc that controls thc warn'. The water comes in one end and has to come up over the boards to go over so thi~ controls the elevation of the watcr in the pond. So if you take the boards out, the 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 water level also goes down. Sco~ Good, thank you. Would anybody else l/kc to address the Planning Commission? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farnmkes seconded to dose the public hearin~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations. I have no comments. Ledvina: Do we have an estimate of the cost of this project Dave? Hempch My under--g, the entire projected cost for this is around $80,000.00 .... as we go out to stake and field these sites, these ponds and excavation may be less. Ledvina: Will this be a big project? Hempel: This project is, in an effort to preserve our funds in the SWAMP budget, the public works department will proceed to rent equipment to dredge out the material with the labor and manpower to do the work. Led~ Okay, and are there other funding sources? This is an environmental i~ement project essentially and as I'm aware, if we have the lottery and there are, or I should say the purpose of the funds generated from the lottery is to be for these types of environmental improver projects. Have we looked at that at all? Heo-q~l: To be honest, no. I haven't...potential of. That's a very good question. I will pass it onto Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Coordinator to research... Ledvina: Are those funds distributed through DNR then or how, I don't know. I guess I'm ignorant about that. Hexnpel: To be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable. Ledvina; Okay. Well, just whatever. This is ~ innovative in terms of city's going ahead and doing these types of projects and it is a public works project and I believe those funds arc for this type of activity so maybe there's a potential there. That's it. Scott: Okay. Nancy. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Mancino: Just one quick question Dave. Do we ever put signs out that say, designs for ponds in the winter to make sure that the ice is? Hempel: I can't think of any in the city that w~ have any...$urely that's sorne~ing that we could do. We're in the process of requiring some of the developments of these wetlands. Buffer strip edges. We're going to be putting up monumen~on to every other property lines essentially to denote the edge of the buffer. Mancino: That might be something for us to think about. Hempel: It could be. Mancino: Because it could be such a natural wildlife area in there too. Ledvina: What, you're talking about the ice in terms of safety? I guess we have ice everywhere. I mean we have lakes and all this and we don't put signs every 50 feet all along the edge of the lakeshore. I think that ceminly there's hazards there but there's also. Mancino: I think somefime~ when there hasn't been any ice there before and the~'s just been ground water. There hasn't been a pond. I'm just wondering if that would necessitate putting it there maybe for the first year or something so the people know. It's different than it was. Ledvina: Yeah, I understand and if there was a specific hazard associated with the ice with thc change in water level or something like that, that would. You know not your normal ice haT~_rds. Thin ice hazards or whatever, then I would say yeah. We should take some special consideration but if, you know I think it's, as Dave has laid out the design for us, I think it's a preu7 safe design as it relates to the shallow slope along the edges and that type of layout so I understand the concern but personally I don't see the need for it. Hempel: I also believe that af~ the first year this are~ is going to be pretty well grown in again and if you've been in the area, it's not very conducive to walking, h's very heavily unclerbrushed and so forth. It's di~qcult to get. Scott: Okay, can I have a motion please. Mancino: Let's see. I move that the Planning Commission approve ~he Wetland Alteration Permit ~ 1 as shown on the plans da~ed December 28, 1993 with the following conditions. 1, 2 and 3 attached. 17 Plann/ng Commission M~ting - February 2, 19o~4 Scott: Is there a second? Ledvina: I second it. Scot~ It's bccn moved and seconded that we accept the staff rccommenda~on. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commim~i~*on recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit ~1 as shown mi the plans dated necem~ 28, 1993, with the roflowin~ conditions: 1. A gradin8 and land siltation permit be obtained from the W~ District 2. A permit be olmtine~ from the Corps aC, cording to the fcdel'al ~ ~ above. 3. The wetland alteration permit will expire af~ one year f~mn the da~ of City Cotmcil approval Ali voted in favor, except Joe Scott abstained. After the following discussion, Joe Scott changed his vote to in favor and the motion carried unani~y. Scott: This is going to the City Council? Ledvina: Who abstained? Scott: I did. It's adjacent to my neighborhood so I'm not voting. Hempcl: February 28th. Scott: Old Business? New Business7 Aanenson: Would you like me to just walk through the ~'s Report? Scott: Sure. We have 8, few minul~. Ledvina: I just had a question~ If you abstain from voting, do we have a quorum? Aanenson: I was going to raise that same issue. Scott Well, we have a neighbor f~om the residence. A neighbor. Are you from? 18 Plann~g Co~on Me~fing - Febma~ 2, 19~ Audience: No. Scotc Okay. Well, probably the authority would be Mr. Syverson and if you have a, we won't be able to get this through our ~ing nnle.~ I vot~ alld I abstained because I live in the nei~rho~ Would you have a problem if I voted on this issue? Steve Syverson: No. Scott Okay. Let the record show that the resident of that neighborhood does not object to my voting so I will change my vote from abstain to aye, which would mean that it passes unanimously. Thank you sir. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: Okay. Just go through the Council issues...administrative packet. The Council recommended denial of the Papke variance. Sc, otc We didn't see it. Aanenson: That was a Board of Adjusuncnts. Thc issue there was whether or not...sewcr extended. That's the island across from the Arboretum. Council felt that it would be best to have sanitary sewer and thus denied the request. Council authafized stuff to submit the RP, I.~ loan application...Frank Fox propeny...Powers Blvd. Council reviewed the elementary school site. That same night they were also, HGA was also giving a preseatation to the School District so unfommately the graphs or ~s for the meeting were at the school site so the Council tabled it and they will be on their work study session, which Paul has on here is the 31st but it's acumlly February 7th. Next Monday they will be there. Council actually went through the analysis of the project but they didn't have the site plans so... Matt, this goes to the question you were talking about. The conservation money that's available through the lot~exy. A grant application has boca submitted. Paul has put a copy of that in your packet here. It's $777,000.00 and that's for the Bluff Cre.~ corridor study, and that's where Paul is tonight He's meeting with the Watershed. There's a copy of that Whe~ that...over that Riley-Purgatory W~ District with the acq~fion property...they've already ptn~~ They would also want...at that time a trailhead access as really an important piece and we want to do a joint venture and make sure that we cau... Ledvina: Now who are the applications made to? Aanenson: h's in conjunction with the DNR. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Ledvina: So the DNI~.. Aanenson: We asked for specific acquisition and we identified the Bluff Creek Cozddor... and Diane and Paul put this wgether so you can see the... Maucino: Education7 Aanenson: Yeah. The natmal flora fauna out ther~ Education. The fact that it's a reaL.and it's got some unique vcgetation~ Ledvina: When is the next meeting on the Bluff Creek cozddor task force? Do you know? Aanenson: This Eroup? Ledvina: Yeah. Aanenson: I'm not sure, it's kind of ad hoc. People that are putting it together. I think if we get some funding, there will cemJnly be some, are you talking about the city? Ledvimc Yeah. The city task force. Mancino: Because we went to one. Aanenson: That was kind of ad hoc to put something together. I'm not sure. This goes back and if we establish an ellvironm_ental commis~ioll, I think it may come_ out of that. Or if in conjunction with recreafion...~n~g, so I'm not sure that that's going tu be constantly ongoing or how Paul sees that as coming together. Mancino: I got the impression it was going to be. Mancino: It's a long tm'm project obviously but it's going to be a Bluff Creek task force to work just on that. Mancino: At one time. I mean that was about a month ago. Maybe it's changed. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Ledvina: I was just wondering what's the status there. Aanenson: It's kind of a kick off too to get this going. To get the grant application going ~O. Ledvina: Okay. That's fine. I'm in~ in knowing more and keeping up with that so I can attend meetings. Aanenson: Okay. I mentioned number 5, the purchase of that property. And then number 6. After our grueling last Planning Commission meeting. The Highway 5 plans are going to the City Council also on that work study session. So they'll start that docnment and they have not yet set a date for their reviewing at a formal City Council meeting but it's... Mancino: Kate, would they want people that were in on the task force from the Planning Commission there or is it much easier just? Aanenson: This one was not noticed out as far as, you know they're trying to keep it just a 2 hour and they've got several things on that nighL There were City Council people there night too. You may just want to call the Mayor and see what he says. That's all I have as far as administrative. Ledvina: Is there, as it relateA to the review of the new elementary school, was there any discussion about or regarding our discussion of the Planning Commission? I mean there were a lot of things that they looked at in term~ of the site plan and I'm just wondering why they got so deep into it. Aanenson: Yes. Paul, did lrJl them as far as the presentations needed to be modified to go to the Council because there was obviously, they didn't a good job of communicating what the issues were. And something I can understanding with landscaping but also... Mancino: Landscaping and the patk/ng lot. Scott: Parking for the public recreational fadlities. Aanenson: Right. And Paul has been working with them and that has been resolved so I think it's a clear understanding. It will be...school district's obligations and what's the City's going to...My understanding is that has been resolved. Ledvina: Okay. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - Fehrusry 2, 1994 Scott: Any ongoing it~TlS? Mancino: This is a list of ongoing issues7 Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: When are we going to be seeing the sign ordinsnce? Aanenson: That's on for thc first meeting in March. And so is temporary sales and we've got a couple of the ordinance, make some changes to the wetland ordinance that need to be corrected and also there's_that you wanted to see on large scale projects, We're trying to find that working with the attorneys office, whether we want to use computer...or some videos and also with that...recommendations. So you'll see those four and at least the two. The temporary sales and the sigm..The other two shortly th~. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scott: Alright. Can I have a motion to ~prove the Minutes of our January 19th meeting. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 19, 1MM as pFesented. All voted in favor and the motion caFried. OPEN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES. Sc, om Open discussion on structured care facili~ Aanenson: Given the_to look at this issue almost two years ago. State law requires group homes of less than 6...We looked at possibly expanding that and developing a d_e~nition of what we call a reaidentlal care facility, vis a vis maybe foster homes for charity, women shelters, residential programs, We didn't want to look at juvenile, criminal type things but maybe expanding that where...so we proposed an amendment to the ordinance that would allow these in the single family district. We have...and the Planning Commission was reluctant to adopt it as...We're now required by State law to do that. Well since that t/me, most recently I've given you a letter from the Church...There's a group called Westonka Intervention that's looking at a site over, a women's shelter. Right now they're operating out of an individual's home and this serve~ it's my understanding that the Chaska, Minnetfism, Shorewood, Chanhassen area and they're looking for a location. It just so happens they found a building, a church in Mound, a Catholic Church has a building that they can relocate on this site. The site we're talking about here is Holy Cross Chun;h, which is just south of Highway 7. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Scott: So you'd physically move a stmctm~. Aanenson: It's like the convent. The old convent. They actually take that building off of that property and move it onto this site. It provides a wom~'s shelter. Sco~ What is that site zoned, RSN? Aanen~n: Residential Single Family. So right now there's no mechanism to allow that to happen, h's not a permitted use. It's a residcn~sl care facih'ty which is not a permitted use or a conditional use in our city's ordinances. Sco~ How many residents? Aanenson: Well I didn't ask that question...What we looked at before was allowing up to 6. Scott: But that's thc Ststc mandate. Aanenson: No, no, no. Scott: In RSF. Aanenson: Oroup homes. A residential care facih'ty is a womens shelter which doesn't fall under...group home. Scol~ Yeah, it's extremely important bcca~ when someo~, and I was very happy to see something in here that said that if a Judge says you have to be there, we don't want any of those. And I think it's extremely important that as _this moves forward, that we do not use the tmun group home at all and only use licensed residential care facility and I thought that that's an excellent ~ption. I think it's extremely important. Maybe what you could do is ~lre the last sentence. This definition does not include any person recommended by Court order or otherwise to such facility. That sentence needs to be the first sentence in that thing. And I think, I mean I appreciate the fact that we're being proactive on this but I think resident's reactions to group homes, and even though we do have a group home in the city, most people don't know about it. But I _think that's real im?ortant. Aanenson: Well the reason for brining that to you tonight is one, get your feedback is one. Do you want to consider aw_e~din§ thc zone to allow this type of thing because it's not in place fight now. Two, I know you're concerned about amending an ordinance based on one specific application and we put together that criteria here on as far as phasing...and I'm not even sure it meets those crim'ia. I haven't sat down and put those together. Put the measure 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 to it. But what we're saying is, is this something you want to think about and he wants to know if there's a window of opportunity here or not so what I'm asking is some son of direction. Scott: Co--ts. Mancino: I have some questions at first This is a big thing. Aanenson: It is. Mancino: I believe philosophically we are our's brothers keeper and that there are a lot of people out there that need help. And it shouldn't be all done in the city, so yes. I would like to support some son of a care facih~. What I need though is a better or clearer definition of what a supportive living centrr is. What a residentis~ program is. What a womens shelter is. Does that include children. What are schools for handicapped children? I mean we're talking about such big terms to me and I don't know what all that means. Farmakes: The ordinance and, from even coming up at the State level I was here also, as my memory serves a couple years ago we dealt with this. A lot of the discussions are really frocked with spin doctor words on what these are and often they use different tm'ms to ref~ to the same type of thing to ms_ire it m~re pals_robie. The issue of the intent that we ~ from the mandate from the State was, as you said, the community has an obligation to tak~ care of it's own rather than send it to another community or concentrate it in another community. An allegation, the example that was used was the area of Chicago just south of Hennepin County Medical where there's a hlrge congregation of group homes and halfway houses. We're talking about roughly a 6 block area. Ignoring the fact however that these are adjacent to the clinic8 ~ Hennepin County service~ that serves these areas. They happen to be geographically located there because of the county facih'~ is located there. But using that as an idea, when they produced this law, what concerned me about it at lhe time was lite State, and even from the Federal government on down has essentially turned it's back on some significant portions of our population- The issue of mental health first. In the interest of economy, they have de-institutionalized many of the health facilities that we have. And my concern about this issue that we look at here is, is it in the inlm~st of the State to turn it's back to the community as they have so often when they come up short on the economy front. And they turn the problems back to the community and that was my worry here that that really was what was happening and that was not listed out in the intent ~t. There are obviously issues of handicapped and group shelters and stuff like that that go beyond that. But what I was concerned about is the institutional cost of some members of our community, and I'm referring to the State in general, of sort of throwing these people to the wind and letting them go because it happens to be cost them 3 times less to stick them in a single Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 family community. That a single family community has the ability to deal with that. I'm not sure that in some cases that we do. It concerned me that again, it was dictated down without the time or care to consider do we have the ability, in some cases, to deal with some of this. And I'm talking about policing and enforcement. It's just putting people on board it seems to me in some cases would not be ~nt to guarantee safety. And in respon_diog to the issues, well if they violate or they run from the program, well they're out of the program That doesn't do it for me. There are issues of defining, I'm not sure this was ever answered for me. Mental health. It's a very broad mm. I mean does that ~ sexual offenders? Does that mean people who are depressed? You know I'm not knowledgeable enough about the group home industry to really give an answer to that and I'm not sure in the discussion that we ever were able to get definitions for these issues and that really worries me because I see the State trying to divest itself, some of their responsibilities and when I see that coupled with for profit, that concerns me. Aanenson: I think you're right. I think that's why it just got le/-t the way it was and there were wo many unresolved issues. Mancino: Where do we go to get, I mean social services, where do we go to get d__efinitions on you know, what these different groups are? What they're called so we could be, so that we can make the definitive list of what we feel comfortable with or at least recommend a list. Aanenson: My understanding these are Slate l~TninO10~. Mancino: But then they must have a definition of exactly what. Aanenson: Right and that' s.. .talking of the earlier model ordinance. Where this came from and the City Attorney reviewed this when we looked at this before and what we tried to do is have some criteria you know for spacing. So you make sure that they're not in the middle of a residen~ That they're near a collector...and the inslance that we had on the...at the American Baptist over on Highway 5...talked about the Highway 5 corridor study is Rolling Acres has a couple of homes and...for menially handicapped children. We had one that went in last summer that caused a lot of consternation for some of the neighbors... Mancino: If, I mean my other and my first issue is getting a clear definition of exactly what these area. My other one is that when I asked a few people, just friends what their and neighbors, what was their immediate response. The first one was obviously safety. The second one was property value. What does happen, perception is reality. Is the reality the perception that property values will go down ff the group home comes in? And so, if it does, do we want to expand that to include other group homes than what is already legislated? I mean because we're opening the universe up, is what you're asking us ~? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Aanenson: Yeah. We are e~anding the definition. Mancino: And expand the definition or open up the universe. So what is it with, as I said, with property values and a neighborhood when a group home comes in when you have an established neighborhood? Aanenson: I guess that's... Scott: Could you, for next time. Mancino: Isn't there anything quantifiable7 Scott: I'm just thinking, could you mn; I thought that the ordinance of the proposed guidelines that you had were pretty good. Could you run that against the property? I mean I just kind of skimmed through this letter. It didn't really give me a sense for what's going on. Aanenson: No. I didn't raise this because I did spend a lot of time. I had someone come in and say you know, can you just give me an answer. Can you run it past the powers that be and so it's really here just to get some sonnding from you. If you want SOmething pursued. If you say I'm uncomfortable with this. I don't want, I really don't want you to spend any time...or if it's SOmething you want us to investigate. Sco~ Yeah, I'm just looking here. It says we have until the end of March this year to move the stmcun~. I mean that's a fairly tight time line. And if we do nothing, they won't be able to site the. Aanenson: They'll have to find another location. Scott: Okay. I guess my, knowing how long it takes to do, to get through SOmething like this. At least having a sense for it. We won't be able to resolve it or make any changes by that time frame SO I guess, my recommendation would be, and please. If you don't agree, please speak up. Would be to get back to these people and just say that there really isn't any way that we're going to be able to meet their time frame by the end of March and that it would probably behoove them to look for another location because that's really not enough time for us to react to it. Even with, when you think about having it come back in a public hearing. Then going to the City Council It's going to be past the end of March anyway. Mancino: But I am still interested. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Scott: Well yeah. That's why we could use this as a test case to say, here's a real piece of pr~ in a real situation. But I wouldn't want to have them spend any more time on it. Farmakes: There is a home I believe in Prior Lake, or Shakopce, that went ttmaugh this I think a year ago. In a large residential area and they brought a group home. You may want to follow through with that and see how that was resolved. It was in the paper of an issue on the government level of public,hearing but it was not, did not make the paper on how it was resolved so I didn't follow that through. But one of the things that I was able to garnish, in talking to some people that are in community health, the issue of institutional costs. It cost the State so~ like 80 some thousand dollars to institutionalize somebody. Mancino: One person7 Farmakes: One individual. It costs them approximately $18,000 W do this in a group home facility so. Lcdvina: Per year you're saying? Farmakes: Per year. So that's a generali?~tion and they didn't define what that institutionalized cost was. Were they, what type of offender. Chemically dependent or group home type of situation_ But my point to this is that we continue to get laws back from the State on this as they unload themselves with the cost of institution and typically what the State has done in the past, both in criminal justice and community services. They often have these mandates that follow down and it's usually in their finand~ interest and we pick up that burden. It continues to worry me that we get sort of the cart before the horse on these type of directives. And I'm not sure how we're ready to digest this. I know my questions weren't answered when we dealt with this 2 years ago. It certainly doesn't. Aanenson: No, I agree. There's a lot of issues. Ledvina: I think, I mean this is a real important ordinance and it's even more so for our community, as you mentioned with the type of individuals that live in our community. They're here for thc single family resid~tial life and they, many of them are not receptive to these types of things. But I guess what I would like to see done is say, now you mentioned the Minnetonka example and apparently the ordinance that we have in front of us represents a hybrid of that. I guess what I would like to see is more reseawh done. Maybe even go back to the city of Minnetoolrs. Ask them where they have group homes that have been established under this ordinance. What actually are the case hi.~tories for those. For those sites and then I don't know if that will give you enough information. Maybe it really hasn't been tested there. Even almost to the point of going back to the Minutes and public heofings Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 and things like that. Otherwise I'm sure you could do more research. I realize I'm just loading some stuff onto you in terms of your staff but. Aanenson: Actually we do have a lot of that stuff when we put the original, I didn't put the whole packet together for you. I just wan~xi to know if you wanted us to...as far as getting the location. But as far as a lot of data...we do have that and Roger wrote lengthy details on, Roger Knutson, the City Attorney, wrote a lengthy detailed analysis...so we can certainly provide you with that. Ledvinm So you've done some of that research? Aanenson: Yeah. Ledvina: Okay. But how about the case histories? Aanenson: No, that's something we could use more info on... Ledvina: And I'm only making this as a suggestion. I don't know if this is the apln'opriate way of going about it but it seems to me, to say how to you know just go back and look and see how things worked out. Farmakes: There was another intent issue~ A directive from the State, as I understood it. The community has the obligation to take care of it's own community service type needs rather than burden_ lng another community, defacto Minneapolis. I'm wondering also why the State then did not leave the window open, pani~flsrly in conjunction with for profit group facih'ties, to exclude residents from outside the community. In other words to, ff you're going to allow a group home, to say well it's going to be for the residents of the community and not ship in people from elsewhere. It would seem to me that that wonld be in line with the intent of the State. The other thing that dis~ me, I believe the one in Shakopee was a Missouri based corporation and they were brining in people from outside that community. Basically they were looking for a location. The other thing that worries me, we don't have this here but there are, I would think possibilities for this. Is that as we grow and perhaps maybe our medical facih' 'Ues expand, that this type of thing may follow as a greater demand. Minneapolis and this area is known for it's medic~ care. And in the foreseeable future I'm not sure what those needs are. I know that the congregation of the one south of Hennepin County is there because of it's location to nw2i~ futilities. And in many of these eases, both in the handicapped and chemically dependent, those are an issue. Ledvina: The thought of developing group homes for those within your commnnity, I think 28 Planning Commission Meeting- February 2, 1994 that's a real good idea but I don't know how you can legislate that people not come in from other areas. Farwskea: I'm sure that that's why that was not pan of the intent. However, on one hand it makes it palatable to sound good as a reason for the legislation. On the other hand, it leaves it open for profit. What you have here philosophically is a for profit onto'prise coming into a single family zone. A business. And the owner does not necessarily have to be from the commnnity and the patients don't necessarily have to be f~om the community. And I tSnt~ that unpalatable. That it seems to me to go against the intent of the legislation. Ledvina: It's like taking a business and putting it into a RSF zone. Farmakes: And the cost is greatly reduced so there are factors there thai are in place that could make it a growth industry. You have certainly other institution pans of the State, both the prison system and chemical dependency and mental health that could create certainly concerns to both residents and thc city's ability w police them. Mancino: Limit it to non-profit organizations. Aanenson: I was thinking the same thing. I can check with the City Attorney on that. Ledvina: That would be nice if you could do that. Scott: I think the two big things that I'm kind of getting out of here is, I think the people who move to this community probably are not so much so atnacted to our community as leaving someplace else. And we all know why people like to come here and live here but I think the important points here arc number one, having the not for profit. Number two, somebody who is sent to a facility by a Judge. We don't want that kind of stuff. And thcn number three, if there's some way where we're looking at, I don't know if you want to use regional, local I don't know but the idea of like 1V[inneffis~ Mound. I mean that I think is, fits the intent of people from the community are~ I think if we had those three things. Farmakes: That would be legal I believe. Scott: Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking. And it could be, you know Roger I'm stu~ could work that out but are we at this point in time are we, have we discussed this to the point where we can give you some direction to get back to us? Mancino: I still want to see economic botwrn lines to property owncrs in the area. Aan~son: I think Matt made a good point when he... 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Mancino: What about Chugk, bringing Chuck in and talking a little bit about his. He certainly has the experiential level. Farmakes: The difference with this however is that that is a sort of a farm house situation. Mancino: Yeah, it's perfect bemuse it's isolated. Farmakes: The difference here, and I believe the one in Shakopee is a corporation car~ in. Selected a rather large house I believe because to get several, up to 6 people in you're going to need a fair amount of home. It excited the issues that you just talked about The neighborhood and the issues of property value and so. But what I can't resolve here is if the State law has mandated this, and I am a corporation. I come in here and want to put in a group home. Even if it conflicts with existing ordinances prohibiting this, can't I take you to court? Aanenson: Well, we're saying the _ddini~on right now, if someone came in with 6 or fewer people such as Rolling Acres, they could go in a gingle family home and we have no jurisdiction. Farmakes: So if you've got 6 or fewer, you can come in and put up whatever you want? Aanenson: Well, you're looking at medium density for a group home in the zoning ordinance currently. Farwslre~s: But what I'm saying is, has the City, must the City follow State legislation at this point? So what I'm saying is that, even if our ordinances have not caught up to that. Aanenson: They have. Farmakes: They have caught up to that? Aanenson: Oh yeah, we have. Farmakes: So there's nothing currently to even stop a group home from coming in. Annenson: Oh yeah, that's what I said. We've got them in the city right now. Mancino: But right now it has to be a home for remrdexi, mentally ill, physically handicapped or chemically dependent person. It cannot be a home for battered women. Right now as it stands by State mandate. 3O Pla~niug Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Farmakes: And see, I don't understand what mentally ill is, Aanenson: ...6 page report and definition of family...we can ~y put that together for the next go around if you want to bring it back. But...group home that a Sta~ mandates that every city must adopt and what we're talking about is broadening that det~nition. Mnncino: This is just thinking off the top of my head but I don't, you know I'd like to see about expanding the definition for 1 to 6. I have a little bit more of a problem going from the ? to 16. Expanding that in multi-family areas and it's just that I think 16 people in a multi-family area is just huge. Aanenson: What you see on the map...is multi-family zone and maybe you have a separate building where maybe there's apartments surrounding it anyways...individual aparunents but they're supervised... Ledvina: It is a CUP. Aanenson: Yeah, it's a conditional use. Architecturatly it's corr~,atible with... Ledvina: There's just a higher degree of review and you're right though. You want to make sure that that is just right. There's going to be a very limited spot for that type of situation. I agree. Aanenson: But we see it more as being...different component. Now maybe something like what Mr. Gorra was presenting on his property. That piece sitting fight the~... Scoll: Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I guess we'd lil~. to see some more on tha~ Ledvina: Well I just want to say, I think that it would be a good idea to keep this thing moving. I support _th!t and. Mancino: I do too. Ledvina: And it will help us in the long term. Ledvina: And it will also enable us to look at these other types of facilities that do have a place in our community so. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - F~bruary 2, 1994 Scott: I have one last comment and if anybody else has got any other conm~ents. I appreciate! this last issue of the Plsnning Commissioner's journal with the Rig~n's Rules and I would encourage our other commissioners to read this. Basically for the record what this is, is there's a listing of 39 suggested do's and don'ts for conduct of public meetings and it applies to members of the Boards, eommi,sions and other bodies and I wouldn't suggest that we adopt all of these because some of them are, don't really fit with what we're trying to accomplish but what I would encourage everybody to do is take a read through here and this would, if we can think a littte bit about if we want to sot a particular tone for this commission. I don't know. I personally think we're doing a fairly good job but the~'s some good points in here. I underlined about a half a dozen of them to pay closer attention to. So any other comments on anything before we adjourn7 Mancino: Oh yes. I would still like a schedule of who's supposed to go to what Council meeting when. Because I think fight now there isn't anybody, is anybody assigned to a Council meeting from the Planning Commission? Ledvina: I don't have any assigned. Farmakes: I went to mine~ Mancino: But you don't have a schedule for this year. Farmakes: I haven't gotten n schedule, that's correct. Scott: Also, do we know how our r~rimended applicants? Aanenson: ...thc Council did on their January 31st work session inlm'view all the Park and Rec, Planning Commission, and Senior Commission. Ledvina: All of them? Scott: Yeah. Aanenson: Although at the end of the work session they couldn't formally make a motion to put them on the appropriate boards. That will happen at their next meeting which is the 14th of February. So hopefully by the next meeting we'll have somebody. Scotu Okay. So we'll be meeting on the 17th? Aanenson: 16th. 32 Planning Commisdon Meeting - February 2, 1994 Scott: 16th? Okay. Well then so our new commissioner will be attending that meeting. If you could let us know who that might be and I'd like to at least contact them and just chat with them a little bit so they don't come in completely cold. Any other cominco_ ts? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in Ikvor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p,m, Submitted by Paul Krauss Planing Director Prepared by Nann Ophcim