PC 1994 08 03~tANI-IASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
~EGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 3, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to orctcr at 7:~0 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESEt: Matt Ledvina. loe Scott, Nancy Mancino and ~eff Farmak~
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harbcns, Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director, Sharmln Al-Jaff, ~ I~ ~
Hcmpcl, Asst~ City Engineer;, Elliott Knctsch, City Attorney;, and S~*vc Kirclmm~ ~
Inspector
INTERIM USE PERMrF TO ?,LLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR s'rOIIAC~
BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRI~i~ bNP LQCATED AT 1MM C~J~T PLp. INS
BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT,
Sharmin Al-$aff presented the staff ~x~rt on ~ ilm~.
Scott: If you were to rate the intensity of use ov~ the, let's say the last 12 amaths, what's
your best guesstimate as to the intensity of that usc with ~ to tl~ numlmr of ~
that are stored there on the average? Do you trove a feel for that?
Al-Jaff: The maximum I have been able to count on there has been 58. It h~ a~mr ~
beyond that.
Scot~: Why the exam 1007
Al-Jaff: I think the applicant shopld answer that question at this point.
Scott: Well since we're not having a publ~ ~ this will be a Ilood ~ to do it ~.
Bill Griffith: Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners, my name is Bill Grifflth_ I'm an attorney
representing Admiral Waste. What we've discussed on site was essentially what is required
to screen the containers, whether it be ~8 or 140 or 200. The topogra~y Isovides em~mtially
a buffer to the north. The existing vegetation provides screening year round becml~ of it*s.
density and intensity around thc area. And so whai is being provided now is a 150 foot
at 6 to 8 fcct in height and thc addition of thc spruce trees provides a break in the took of'
that linear scree-_ ing rneth~. What we discus~d is whcth~ the applicant could come ~
a future time and say, based on experience, we've got 140 out there now. 'llm~..~e still 2
3 rows left, in which we could provide dmnpslrrs based upon that. Showing ~ o~
wha~-ver type of docum~tation Would be accep~le. Could we Clxain essmli~ly ~n ' . .
o..
·
.
· .
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
amendment of the deferment, That's what we desire. I ~inl: in fact the city code allows the
applicant to come in, amend a permit and where it complies with the standards for approval,
obtain an amen~t for that permit That's all that we're discussing. It really is a s~t
of what's allowed by code. We want~ to see a clear smlmmmt as there is in the, I think the
last condition. For instance it stat~, the applicant may request an extrusion of the in~im
use permit prior to it's expiration. Similar to that kind of sts_terv,~t which is a s~_~nt of
essentially the obvious that we can't request an extension. No guaran~ iffy. lied. We
want~l to say that the applicant can request additional dumpstm~ if they demonsUate those
dmnpslc~ can be screened and that's what this full exercise is about. Demonstrating that we
can screen the dumpsters which are now local~ on the property and those that are,capped at
140 today and maybe at some number in the future. That's essentially what we discussed.
Scott: Any questions for the applicant?
Ledvina: Did you look at how many dun'tpst~rs can actually, physically fit in that area? In
terms of putting the dumpsmrs there. Maneuvering them. Having access to a large type of
track vehicle and things like that.
Bill Griffith: The plan which has been submitted to the staff would provide the abih'ty to
locate the 140 durnpsters. Today there are 4 rows, or there have been 4 rows. Again, they
reduc, x~ the number of dumps~s down 20 to 58. We certainly know that 58 could be
allowed.
Ledvina: What's the size of the dumpster7 The dimension of thc dumpster.
Bill Gfi~th: I don't have that.
Nancy Lee: They're about...
Ledvina: 1 1/2to 107
Nancy Lee: They go anywhere from 1 1/2 foot deep to 10 to 12 foot deep, deptm~ ding on
the...diagram in that demonslrates when I put in these dumpsters, u 'nl/~ng 12 foot dumpsters.
Ledvina: I'm sorry, could you say that again?
Nancy Lee: Sharmin has th¢...the southwest comer.
Ledvina: Right, I see that but.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Nancy Lee: ...is a 5 x 4 foot...
Ledvinm Right, I see that. But I guess what I'm thinking about is they all you know they
all pack in ther~ nice but that's not, it doem't s~m m me the logistics of getting the things in
and out. Are you literally paclring thean in them fight ~nO how do you get equipment in that
Nancy Lee: ...dumpsters you use the back of the truck. You back up so you can hook it up
to the back of the truck. Obviously we park the dumpstm~ in line so all we have to do is
back up to it and take it away. Obviously we can't get the dnmpstm~ at the very back end.
We ufiliTe those in the front first.
Bill Griffith: Maybe I can get to the point of your question. The experience has been that 58
dumpsters in loosely aligned rows, because these were aligned before ~is issue arose. $8
dumpsters in 4 rows at 100 feet fits comfortably on the ~ and allows for a truck to
come down and move it around. Based upon the discussions with city stuff, we've increased
the width of the area to 150 feet. That's the width of the, or the length of the fence. And
the number of rows, because of the concerns about screening, are more closely spac~ and the
rows are now, 12 are shown on the plan but ff you have 10 let's say at 150 feet, you could
comfortably get in the 140 dumpsters and we would maybe at that point come back a year or
two from now and say, can we increase the n~. But it's been demonstrated that they can
fit within the area shown on the plan.
Mancino: Yeah, it hasn't been demonstrated to me yet. Don't we require a site plan as we
do on any subdivision, any building site where we can see that the trucks can get in off
Highway 10 17 I mean I went there and I was very concerned about big trucks getting into
and onto that site. And I haven't seen a site plan that shows that the mmks can get in and
out. And I haven't seen a site plan that shows us exactly where the 140 dumpstem will go
and if the and ff the land is graded. I haven't seen any grading plan or anyth_ ing. Do we
require that? There hasn't been any physical, visual thing for us to look at, at ~11; For the
last, boy this started, we requested an actual l~sndscaping plan, let's see. We met in June
about this. We met in Suly about it and now we're meeting in August about it and we
haven't seen anything.
Scott: It's also unfair to have us react to something that's not in our packet. So it's very
difficult for us. I mean fortunately you've had a chance to meet with the applicant and stuff
but as a Planning Commission, I mean we don't have the benefit of those conversations. Nor
do we have the benefit or did we have the benefit of what you have and it's very difficult for
us to make a decision in a span of 10, 15, 20 minutes on some_thing like this, so. I don't
know how you want to respond to that.
Planning Commission Mee6ng - August 3, 1994
A1-Jaff: I believe there are conditions in the stuff report, and we have amended some of
those conditions as well. We haven't had a chance to go through them yet but with the
conditions in the staff report, we believe that we will achieve the deaimble results.
Scott: What about the, I noticed that there's some, a number of trees to be plantrd along the
railroad right-of-way. Will that impart any screening benefit to the ~aidents or from what I
know of the area, that's fairly steep. There may be 40, 50 feet above the protna'ty.
AI-Jaff: It won't, we won't get any benefits in the near future, no.
Scott: What, and the reason for planting the trees along the railroad grade is for futttre
eventual screening for the people on the bluff?
Scott: Okay.
Mancino: Dave, how do you feel about big macks entre'lng TH 101 and corning off TH 101
in that area? I mean it's one, hard to find. The entrance. I went there two different times
looking for it and yet there was, when you're coming down that hill, it's right on the top of
the hill going down to 212. And you don't see anything coming out of the east side there...
Do you have any thoughts?
Hempel: Yes, TH 101 is a curvy road in that area. There probably are some sight
considerations to be concerned with. It's my understanding...it has been acces~ in the past.
Mancino: But we're intensifying the use. We're going to have more ~ ~ because
we're going to have more dumpsters.
Hempel: The other consideration I guess is TH 101 is a State highway and MnDot would
have jurisdiction of the access. There probably could be the most concerns from a liability
standpoint...necessary site imtmavements. There's traffic control signs to be placed and truck
hauling signs and similar to that that could be posltxt on TH lO1...the potential is there.
Mancino: Because those trucks, I would think move ~e~ slow as they're getting ready to
turn and somebody coming down that hill. The other thing is, as I rememb~ it's gravel into
there. The roadway off TH 101 is gravel. Don't we require, I know that we do in a
residential areas, where you need driveways to be asphalt, 7 ton and MnDot reqtfirements, etc.
Is there?
Planning Commi~ion M~dn§ - August ~, 1~
Hempel: We do for two reasons. One is for emergency access. All weather, in the winter
time conditions, spring thaw conditions. The other is from an erosion standpoint. H~lly
terrain. There's not adequate site drainage to the site...potential to have erosion problems
there but I think that site's been there for some time. I'm not aware of any kind of erosion
problem. I haven't been made aware of anything yet W date. If I'm not mistaken, we did
have a site plan at one time for this that did show either existing or proposed conditions.
And we did have some remarks with regards to that site plan. At _this time I don't think...
Al-$aff: Another thing we like to have...emergency access. There really isn't anyone living
on this site. $o that's something... The~ is some very minor, minor erosion. It's not even
erosion. It's more of a pothole in the entrance as you go inw the site.
Mancino: So you would not reco~ paving it as we do residential driveways?
Al-$aff: Yes.
Mancino: Okay.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff or the applic~t?
AI-Jaff: Could we, if I may, go through some conditions that need to be atmmded.
Scott: Sure.
A1-Jaff: On condition number 1. It should read, the applicator shall dmTlonstrate. No, w~
~ out the applicant shall dernonsu'am that the submitlxxt landing ~g plans will
provide adequate screening year round. But it will read, all final plans shall be approved by
staff. The fence and landscaping shall be constmcu~ and planted prior to October 22, 1994.
We originally chose the Sepmnber 15th because that's the DOT deadline for landsca~.
However, you can plant trees beyond that date and that's what the spplicant requested and we
can work with that. And condition number 5. This condition has been satisfied. When we
went to the site we noticed that the compost malm'ials had been removed. We also would
like to add a condition to read that, the applicant shall replace any dead trees within one yellr.
Or anything that dies within one year shall be replaced. Any new planted trees.
Mancino: Anything on the property that dies.
Scott: Also there should be a condition here that storage of compost rnntm'in~, th~ or plants,
it says furniture or other refuse, shall not be stored on this site. And I don't know, I'm
looking at the July 1 lth version.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al-Jarl: Okay. We made a change to condition number 6 to read only ernl~ dump~ may
be stored on the site.
Scott: Okay, thank you.
Mancino: Did you want to say anything about MnDot? Oh, you have got that.
A1-Jaff: We do have that condition-
Mancino: Yes, on 4. And how do you feel about the length of the term shall not exceed 10
years? Weren't we also talking about Shlffrnin last time, not only should it be termin_s___t)~]
within one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolilan Urban Service Area, but
according to the study, 1995 plan. How that's guided. Didn't we say something about that
last time?
Ledvina: Are you saying that we should tie that into that?
Mancino: Yes~
Scott: Tie the use.
Mancino: Tie the use into that Oh, but then we were concerned with.
Ledvina: That's open ended.
Mancino: Well, so are all of these.
Al-Jaff: I believe that was the amen~t of the BF district. The zoning ardinance
amendment would apply then rather than this specific application-
Scott: Any other comments or questions? Matt.
Ledvina: Well, I don't know. I don't care to be surprised when it comes to these meetings
as it relates to what we have. You know I specifically, I asked last time that we have the
applicant demonstrate on paper that x amount of dump~ can be fit in the screened area and
that they shall screen from all sides. I don't know, I don't have a very good level of comfort
that I see enough infommtion to tell me that. I hate to say come back again and show us
your plan. Let's see that plan in a little more detail. The contours on all sides because
essentially, I mean you've said that yes. There's plantings there. There's trees but I'm not
necessarily convinced of that because I haven't seen a detailed plan of that. I guess I'm still
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
not comfortable with moving this along at this point. I think the applicant is on the fight
track cerlainly in tem~ of finalizing this thing but I'd like to know what I'm voting on and I
don't have that level of comfort yet.
Al-Jaff: Do you feel that condition number 6 addresses that concern? Or shall be limited to
the number that can be adequately screened.
Ledvina: Well, I'd like to know that going in up front. I think we can turn everything over
to the staff but then at that point you know, what's our role. I think we need to, it's my
understanding of the role that we want to make sure that the conditions of these types of
permits are adequate. That the site plans are adequate and I don't have that level of comfort.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Gosh, I guess I kind of feel the same way as Matt. I think that the applicant is in
the right direction and I'm glad that staff and the applicant met to go over a landscape plan.
Something that we've been requesting but I agree with Matt. We did ask to see a layout of
the dumpsters and egress and ingress points and how that all wozks and I would feel much
more comfortable waiting to see that.
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I won't argue with that. Obviously a time limit in there and... In general I'm not
wildly enthusiastic about expansion of those uses. I go back to the mining issue that we had
here many times. That's a pretty big percentage of expansion. Currently under the rules and
regulations that we have, that's allowed but I go back again to the planning issue. I think it's
enough property probably to live with that amount of dumpsters. But I think it might be a
bad precedent for what we're doing. Or something at least to look ~ And if they're going
to study this for long term, next year or in the next season, I think that that's a good thing. I
_think we should do that. I think we should come to a conclusion as to what they're going to
do with those businesses. We're going to permit that type of expansion...
Mancino: I had a question for Sharmin. When we conditional use with Barbara Dacy. I
think when she was Planning Director. When the conditional use was first given to the
applicant. How many dumpsters? Wasn't it $0 at that time? Was there a limit?
Al-~Iaff: It was going to be enclosed within a bui!~ng. There was supposed to be a bnilding
on this site. It was completely enclosed.
Mancino: So that the dun~sters were going to bc inside the building. Was that it? or was
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
the bnilding for some other maintenance rea~ns? Or wa~ the thinking at the time that the
dumpsl~rs were all fitting inside the out building or the big?
AI-Jaff: There was suppo~ to be vehicles in the boildlng aa well. Nancy, were there
supposed to be vehicles as well as dump~?
Nancy Lee: Dumpsters were not going to be stored in the building.
Bill Gfiffith: Let me see if I can address the question pleaze. I think the letter you're
referring to from, is it Barb Dacy? That's the planner at the time. Allowed for the
temporary sWrage of 50 dumpsters on the ~ pen_ding the development of the site. As
you may recall from earlier discussions, the City Coundl denied the request for an extension
of the conditional use permit. As you may also recall, our concerns is there are very limil~l
uses in the BF district and the applicant has been using this pmpea~ in the inl~rn for the
storage of dumpsmrs. Essentially all they can use the ~ for because of limitations.
That is why we're in here for an intrrim use permit. And that is probably why you have
some disco~o~ level with the amount of mamHals submitmd or the level of detail This is
not..a conditional use permit for a permanent use. This is not a commeacial building.
Something that you're maybe more familiar seeing at this Planning Commission level. Thi~
is an interim use permit essentially to install a fence to screen dump~ on the property.
Maybe if we established that the existing number, 58 would be the cap for this wund and
install the improvements and demonstralr to staff in the next season that we can store more
on the pmpenT, maybe that would get us off of dead ceat~. But as far as the level of detail,
we do not intend to hire a professional landscape planner to provide detail on a fence. It just
isn't going to be done for this level of use. This is an in~ use permit It's to store
dumpst~rs on the property and we believe throu~ sit~ visits and throu~ documentation that
we've satisfied the city code and demonstralrd that to city staff. I apologize and I'm sorry
that hasn't been for 3 meeting brought your comfort level up but that's ~y where we're at.
So maybe to get off dead center, if we proI~se the 58 that have been allowed to this point
and demonstrate in the next season that we can store more. Once the improv~~ are them,
maybe we can get this thing moved onto City Council. We have a season for construction
and we have a season for installation of plantings and any finXher delays may put us beyond
that season by the time we get out of Ci~ Council so that would be my propo~ to .move this
thing along.
Scott: What do you guys think about that?
Mancino: I would be glad with not intensifying a use and keeping it 58 and also the trrm of
the length being $ years. Not 10 years as it says. For a in~im use permit.
Plmaning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Farmakes: I find that acceptable.
Scott: 5 years?
Mancino: And not intensifying the use and keeping the dumpster count at 58.
Faunakes: Sure.
Ledvina: Well, I think if we reduce the numbers and kept the, allow some plantings the same
that would bring about caxainly 3 times the chance of that area being screened so that seems
reasonable to me in terms of that appwach.
Mancino: And it doem't intensify the traffic on TH 101 and it allows.
Scott: How many, in your report, how many conditions do you have? You're working off
the Inly 1 lth? I just want to m~ire, sure what I'm putting in.
AI-Jaff: July 28th.
Scott: May I have a motion by the way.
Mancino: Yeah, I move that the Planning Commission approve thc In~ Use Permit ~ 1
for outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994 with the following
conditions. Sharmin, could you please read the revised number l?
A1-Jaff: Okay. A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. The fence shall be
consmacted and the landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994.
Mancino: And could you just add in that the 46 trees so we have a count as to what the
land~ing is made up of.
Mancino: And how tall7 6 feet7
Al-Jaff: The applicant has purchased the trees at 1 1/2 feet tall They have been planted.
Bill Gfiffith: Thc number is 42. They have been planuxl and they am, thc lxees sre not
providing thc screening.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
AI-Jaff: At the site, Nancy mentioned that they have been planted on her site.
Nancy Lee: No. They're not planted.
Al-$aff: I misunderstood. They are 1 1/2 feet high and they are~
Mancino: And they are, I ~ the reason why we, they're planting 46 trees is to ~eak the
horizontal line, right? I mean isn't that what we were told. And the fence is going to be 8
feet tall, because it can screen more dumpsters being 8 feet tall And now we're going to
have 1 1/2 feet trees. I'm going to stop and can we go back to the discussion on that?
What's our ordinance say as far as landscaping and? Don't we have a minimum conixeerous
size?
A1-Jaff: 6 feet.
Mancino: 6 feet, okay. So if we are asking for landscaping and we do have a minimum city
size, thank you.
Elliott Knetsch: If I may be allowed. You've seen my face at the last couple meetings. I'm
Elliott Knetsch from the City Attorney's office and I guess I just wanted to say to you that in
staff's opinion we've been looking at this for a long _time_. Obviously the level of submittals
is not on a par with what you might see for Goodyear's conditional use permit to put an auto
store on Highway 5. But the level of submit~ is commensurate with the nature of the use
and this is a temporm3, use. It's an interim use. It will only last under this ~t as
proposed for l0 years. It's basically a use that's existed out there since I think 1988 or '89.
And we have to ask ourselves, what can we ask them to do. What kind of inv~ can we
ask them to make in return for a 10 year use of the gretna,. And they've been sornew~
struggling with this property. Their plans, it was proposed back in '89 or so for a conditional
use didn't come off and now we are left with a zoning dislrict that provides zero permitted
uses as it stands fight now for that ~. There's not one thing they could come in and
get a site plan and do out there.
Mancino: We just passed.
Elliott Knetsch: Again that's, you recommended at the last meeting that we increase those
permitt~ uses but that's not on the books yet. That still has to go to the City Council I
would suggest ub'ing to make a decision tonight. If you feel that you just can't approve it,
then I _think you should make that recommendation. But if you can, if you do _think the use
can work out there with the conditions as outlined by staff, I think that's what should happen
tonight. The applicants are here as far as some of your specific questions about trucks getting
10
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
in and out. I think they have provided a great deal mare detail We know where the storage
area is going to be. It's outlined on their site plan so dumpsters won't be stored willy hilly
all across the ~. She's got a boxed in stmage area there behind the fence. That's the
only place a dumpster could go. The tree issue. They are not for screening. They are to
break up the fence. They're I 1/2 to 2 foot high spruce which if any of you have them
know, they grow fast. You know within just a couple years. They will be very noticeable
against that fence. If they aren't originally. Again, the site has a lot of vegetation on it.
There's a bluff coming up from Highway 212 which provides some naunal screening and a
natural barrier in addition to the fence and so forth. So I guess what I ivally wanted to tell
you is, it's apparent from these last three meetings that you're somewhat frustra~ by the
level of submittals and the information and then today you get something that's not in the
report and that's certainly understandable but I guess our request, and the app~t's request
is that you make a decision wnight one way or the other and state your reasons for that.
Thank you for letting me speak.
Scott: Thank you. Motion?
Mancino: 1'11 try this one again. I move that we approve the Intefirn Use Permit ts)4-1 for
outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994 with the following
conditions. And Sharmin if you could state that again, and I would like to add, in specifics
there if you could, that the fence be 8 feet in height and there are 46 trees be in vm34ng
height from 1 1/'2 feet to 6 feet.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Oh, and the other one. Then number 2 stands as is. The hours of oper~o~.
Number 3, there shall be no outdoor speaker system s~mds as is. Number 4 stands as is.
Number 5 we can delete?
Mancino: Number 6. The number of dumps~ shall be ~ to a number that can be
adequately screened, not to exceed 58 dumpsters. And retain only empty dumpsters may be
stored on the site. Number 7 remains as is. Number 8, the length of the term shall not
exceed 5 years. And the rest remains as is. And number 9, Sharmin could you please.
About the applicant shall replace any new trees that die within one year.
Al-$aff: Correct
Ledvina: I'd second that.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
$co~ It's been moved and seconded. Unless there's any discussion.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commlmton recommend to
approve Interim Use Pernfit ~1 for the outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on
plans receiv~ July 7, 1994, with the following conditions:
le
A flnnl lnndscnping plan shnll be approved by stnff. The fence shrill be 8 feet in
height with 46 trees of vnrying height from I 1/2 feet to 6 feet emmtru~ nnd the
landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994.
2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
9:00 a.~ to 9:00 p.nz on Saturday. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted.
3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system.
4. Thc applicant shall comply with all conditions of the ]Vlinncso~ Department of
Transportation.
5. Thc number of dumpst~s shaIl be lirnit~ to a number thnt cnn be ndeqtm~y screened,
not to exceed 58 dumpsters. Only crr~.ty dumpsters may be stored on the site.
6. There shall be a yearly review of _this site to ensure compliance.
e
Thc length of the term shall not exceed 5 years. The use shall be terminated within one
year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or ff conditions
of approval have been violated, whichever comes first The applicant may request an
extension for the intm/m usc permit prior to it's expiration.
8. The applicant shah replace any of the new trees that die within one year.
All voted in favor and the moti~ carried.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
pRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.$ ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINi~LE
FAMH.Y LOTS AND ONE 0UTLOT, HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES~
LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 14 (PIONEER TRAIl.), AND WF..~ AND
EAffF OF HIGHWAY 101 (GREAT PLAINS BLVD), DON HALLA.
Public Present:
Name Ad~
Mike Lynch
LaVi Lynch
Wayne Kinion
Sl~e McMeen
Doug Rynda.
David & Sharon Oatto
Mark D, Halla
Sandy and Don Hall
Roger Anderson
Dale & Peggy Gund~n
D~borah Oraffund~r
lira & lan Sabinski
Rick Schuelke
James Dingel
Karen Hasse
Claire & Anne Vogel
Spencer Boynton
17003 Sherw~ Road, Millac. MN
925 Creekwood
9610 Foxford Road
9451 Foxford Road
9391 Foxford Road
9411 Foxford Road.
9631 Foxford Road
770 Creekwood
6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina
7415 Wayzata Blvd, Mpls.
845 ~ood
10001 Ca'eat Plains Blvd.
775 ~ood
10251 Gre~ Plains Blvd.
9351 Foxford Road
630 West 96th 8tre~
815 Cre~ood
777 ~ood
Sharmin AI.Jaff presented the staff report.
Mancino: Can I ask one more question. Is that even if it's in a mixed use area? Because
this is, it seems to be a residential subdivision around a commercial mail area. $o does, how
does that work?
Al-Jaff: The retail area is an existing use. It's grandfathe:red in. They're not expanding the
uge.
Mandno: And that area, the acreage that that ~ up is part of the aggregate of the
subdivision? Is that included in the aggregate because you've got two different uses? Okay.
13
Planning Commission Meoting - August 3, 1994
Al-Jaff: That's part of the 102.
Scott: Because I know the smallest lot I think is 60, 30,000 square feet. Soumhing like that.
Mancino: Well I just thought the whole aggregate would just have to do with the
subdivision. The residential and wouldn't include a retail/commercial area with inside.
Scott: Well that raises a question. So basically the ~isting use will continue and th~ ~
will be 60,000 to however many thousand square foot lots around it. Is kind of what you're.
Mancino: Yeah. My question is, can you really consider, both because we've never used it
as one whole unit when part of it's residential subdivision. And another part's a retail. A
whole different idnd of use. And isn't the aggregate for the 1 unit per 2.5 acres a residential
subdivision requirement which has nothing to do with the retail area. Commercial ar~.
Don Halla: I'm sorry but I'm Don Halla. I think you're interpreting it backwards. Your
ordinance 2 1/2 lots per I acre rather than 1 lot per 2 1/2 acres which comes to 15,000 square
foot is the minimum lot size. Then there's other restrictions. I believe that's in the
David Gatto: May I say, I'm David Gatto and I represent the.
Scott: Well wait a second. Wait a second. No. Planning Cowmission staff.
Al-$aff: Okay. The ordinance right now allows an overall density of 2 1/2 acres. One unit
per 2 1/2 acres. You may reduce the size of the lot, as long as they would maintain the
Scott: Then in the calculations the lot that will contain the existing retail I'll say retail
business is included as a lot.
Scott: The outlots are also included as a lot from a standpoint of density calculatio~
Mancino: It doesn't matter what their uses are?
AI-Jaff: Correct
14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Mancino: Okay. Thank you.
Shaman Al.Jarl' continued with her staff report.
Mancino: I just have one more, if I can ask. Thank you Sharmim And that is, ~is is guided
for residential large lot. So that means residential large lot is 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Is that
correct?
Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Scott: The question is, is that the density? Are we talking guided for a specific density or
guided for a minimum lot size or both.
Al-laff: That's grandfa~ in.
Aanenson: Right now it's currently, as you recall we have not... Right now we say 1 per 10.
If you recall that in 1987 we changed, based on the Met Council, they didn't want urban
sprawl, to allow 2 1/2 acre lots. So we went back and changed that based on the Met
Council's 1 per 10. Recently the Met Council said, that's creating some sprawl in a different
way so what we said is you can have, you can go as small as 15,000 square feet as long as
you could provide 2 drainfield sites in that septic. So if you have 40 acres and wanted to
cluster 4 units, you could do that. As small as 15,000 square foot lots as long as you provide
services. So when services do become available, we don't have thc sprawl. And that's a
separate issue from this. What Sharmin is saying is we're going by the grandfalhe~ rights
that were given to them by the City Council at the 1 per 2.5 so that's what we're opera~
under. He was given extensions by the City Council. So they're two separate things. The 1
per 2, the old pre-'87 which he is operating under.
Mancino: And now my question is, in the future we have several large lot developments.
We have Tim~ood and we have lots of them around the city and we passed an ordinance
that says that those must stay 2 1/2 acres. They can't subdivide into 15,000 square feet.
Aaneason: The reason for that is preserving the integrity of those ~ areas. If they all
want to come in and petition the city as a group to change. What we don't want is to have
individuals within there splitting off where people have bought into a nual atmosphere and
that sort of thing. So that's the intent of this~
Mancino: And you need 100% participation? Or close to.
Aanenson: Whatever the Council decides is appropriate.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Mancino: Okay. And is that the same here?
Aanenson: No. Again, we want underneath, what he was given as an ~m~on from the city
and that's what he's still pushing to...Agsin, the rule change. He still was given an extension
of the old rules and that's what we're operating under.
Mancino: So you could go in and subdivide at the time the MUSA line moves, you could
subdivide this further?
Aanenson: Yes. If sewer and water is available... Part of why this got dela~ is we were
looking at, there was thc small lots and the 15,000 and we did look at that_.looking at some
other ways that this could be platl~xi under small lots and cluslming could be provided. That
was one reason why...
Mancino: So this is the only large lot subdivision that could be fiinher divided into 15,000
square foot?
Aanenson: Well all of them could if they petitioned the city and it's inside the MUSA.
Outside, I mean if there were other subdivisions in the city that have larger lot and sewer and
water becomes available and they request the city, can we go smaller. Con_Id we split up our
property when sewer and water become~ available, we certainly would look at it.
Mancino: My only concern about this is, is you have a subdivision and it's right now 1 to
2.5 acres and you have some people obviously who want to further subdivide and some who
don't and they bought into it ~in~ng it was very rural and large lot, e~c. And then you have,
I mean we'll hear years and years here, you have some homeowners who want to come in
and subdivide.
Aanenson: You're talking about the people that lie in the Croft Estates?
Mancino: Yeah.
Aanenson: Well again the same issue. We did put the same condition. You know the
Council...looldn§ at a rural...and leave it that way until the entire subdivision to filnher
subdivide.
Mancino: Okay.
Fro'makes: Do some of these developments have private covenants that preclude subdivision.
Is this particular one in front of us considering that or is that?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al-~Iaff: We're not aware of any private covenants.
Fannakes: We talked at one time about looking at this problem and looking at ghost phtting
in the event that these are subdivided. 8o what type of development we'd actually wind up
with rather than having pieceme~ Wondaing if that went anywhere.
Aanenson: Well that was one of the options. We looked at doing clusm'Mg septic sysmm
with this plat and we looked at doing 15,000. Whether or not you could find acceplable
drainfield site~ 8o some lots...as far as maintaining the density that was given to him ired
trying to cluster it. It seems lilre this would be the best way to go.
Scott: Any other questions7 Okay. Dave, do you have any convnents7
David Oatto: Yes, we have quite a few.
Scott: Excuse me, Dave HempeL Sorry.
Hernpel: Mr. Chairman, not really at this point. I'm open for questions, The stuff retx~
should explain our concerns,
Al-laff: Mr. Chairman? Steve Kirchnum is with us today if there are any quest/o~ on the
septic systems and how they ~te. He will be available to answer your question.
Scott: Okay. Steve would you, we've rec~ved some letters from, well why don't I just say,
do you have any co~ts you'd like to make at this time about the project?
Kirchman: No. Staff report pretty much says all I need to say so, if all those conditions
were requested in the staff report are met, then we're going to be okay with it.
Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this particular issue. Or excuse me, we need
hear from the applicant first. I'm sorry about that. Would the applicant like to speak? And
please give your name and your address and have at it.
Don Halla: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the P!_snning Commission.
Neighbors and memba~ of the community. I'm Don Halh. I live at 6601 Mohawk Trail,
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Edina, Minnesota. I have been in business since 1962 on the property in question- We
purchased the property back in 1962 as a family landscape nursery ~tion and grew trees
to sell them retail to the public. And we have been serving the community of Chanha~en
ever ~nce then. It is a family business. We support many of the families in the community
who work for us. Some in landscaping and raising plant matedaL Back in 1986 we came to
the city to discuss I guess the changes in the ordinance which was taking us from 2 1/2 acres
for 1 lot to 10 acres. They put a period of time there for people to bring their plans and plots
in order to meet this criteria and we did. We had the benefit ever since then to follow all the
directions of the city and to maintain that window that we...that they left open and be
accepted and subdivided their property at that point in time. Based on that subdivision that
took place in 1987, I purchased all the property from my brother...nursery business. And I
have been the sole owner of the ~ and the nursery since then. I've been working on
the premise though since 1962. Back in 1972 we also moved our Wtal operation which was
located in NAina out to this site and have been operating 100% of the total business from this
site. Back in 19, we were approved for 37 lots to be put on this site. We do have that on
preliminary approval still standing. I guess that ~ approval, which was shown
earlier, could in fact be enacted today and we could go to that layout. But back in 1992 I
was ready to do something and I came into the city staff and talked to Paul Krauss and we
were working with Jo Ann Olsen ~ Paul requested us to cbnnge what we had approved. He
said that he felt that it was very poor land use for the city. He didn't think that the two
developments that had developed to the north and east of us were worldng well as far as the
city was concerned for use of land. So at that time he said that he would like to see us
change the size of the lots and do it for 1/3 of one acre size. We hired Roger Anderson and
we redeveloped this property and came in with a plot that we prese~ to staff. To meet the
criteria that the then plan person asked us w do. By going through the city staff, they
decided they didn't want that. They decided they wanted the lots to be bigger for many
different reasons. So now we're back to really a 2 1/2 acre plan again. I believe it...that was
pre-approved or we could go with this new one. We have had communications with the city
saying we want to maintain it but we can still do that originally ~qrproved 2 1/2 acre lot plan.
...good use as the one we had basically a year ago now. I don't think it's...being in the
landscape business and being involved in ~ architecture and in fact I have a daughter
in law who was involved with city planning S~n_d_ park commissions out in Baltimore who is a
landscape architect..I do not feel that we're necessarily using the best use of this land but we
have been farming it as a nursery business for many, many yems. But we are now meeting
that criteria of larger lots. The 2 1/2 acres. I personally...There's become a question about
septic sites and that's why we're back to 2 1/2 acres. I don't believe there's been any
failures of septic sites on this land or any other land right adjacent to us. We have hrigated
this land in growing nursery stock and so on and yes, we have...certain areas. They also
found in the unirrigated areas that the...model was somewhere between 4 and 7 feet. So
where we haven't caused the modeling by our growing of nursery stock which changed the
18
Phnning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
chemical make up of the soil, it appeared there is very good septic sites throughout the site~
Anyway, this is where we're ac We're back to the 2 1/2 acres. We're back to where we
were in basically 1987 with a little bit different layout. And we want to do what's fair for
the community. That's what I've always said. That's why I went to talk to Paul What
would the community like7 What would the city like? And he asked us to make those
changes. We were asked to make a change again so now we're back at this point. And if
this is what the city wants, then that's what we'll do. If it's the first 2 1/2 acres that's
approved, then that's what we'll do. We're not trying to plague anybody. We're not trying
to create any problems. This is my retirement. I still plan to be in the nursery business there
for a period of time. I don't plan on moving out. That's why we're keeping that 11 1/2
acres in the center. We will continue to grow plants and continue in the nursery business
there. That is our intention. There are many things though that are requested in this go
around which make the development...cost prohibitive... From my standpoint, in farming the
land for this length of time, there's a few things that would be impossible to do. Pushing
water uphill. Changing and redoing Highway 101. Some of the things like that which I
believe are requested by the State before .... personally seen the reports that say... In any case,
if this is the use that the community would like to see, and it is over 2 1/2 acres per lot at
this point, then we're happy to §o along with that...but in all sincerity, I don't think it's what
any of ua..~ you.
Scott: Any questions for the applicant? Is there anyone else on your development team or
anyone else you would like to have speak?
Don Halh: Yes, Mr. Roger Anderson. I just would like to show the layout that was done if I
may, sorry. That was done for the interim one we were requested to do... This was the
design that we were requested to do by Paul and basically was a clustering type design. At
this point in time we had aho explored with him the fact that the lots would he close enough
so that you could put in the small sewer system to approve and meet EPA. Hook these
people up to sewer and have the system work as kind of a community sewer sysmm Paul
was in, he said he had seen it work and was in favor of that idea but I believe other members
of the sutff were not in favor of that so therefore this design was scrapped and we went on
to...subdivision. This was clustering only using the west haft of the property and still meeting
all the criteria of lot size and so forth required by thc city with the exception that what was
asked for was considerably larger septic systems between ~is development and what we have
now.
Mancino: I have a question Mr. Hallm On the west side you were clustering. What was
happening on the east side then?
Don Halla: Thc east side was going to remain open. The east aide was going to be open
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
land that would be used for nursery business for ~ yearn... Somewhere in the
scuttlebutt too they wanted to develop it for a park. So it seemed ~ we were making,
working with the city and handling their situations and desire for putting a park in there and
at the same time obtaining the numb~ of lots that could give me my retirement that I was
hoping for.
Mancino: Thank you.
Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission, staff and residents. My name is
Roger Anderson and I've done the design work for Don on this revised plat and the ear~
one that was submitted. The staff report that we received is very compre2~nsive and fairly
lengthy. There are quite a few issues regarding this property that needed to be addressed and
as indicated by the planning staff, we have been in discussions over quite a period of time
regarding all of these issues. Many of the things we talked about and the things we had W
look at regarding this plat were the results of those comments and suggestions/rom staff and
the input from Paul Krauss, who is not here fight now but the plat has moved forwsrd and I
think we've made good progress in coming to a result that we feel is good for the city. As
Don indicated, we think it gives us a little more land than would necessarily be required but
we're here tonight to present the pht and discuss it and deal with the issues that are before
us. To keep, since there are so many issues in the repo~ I wrote down our comments and
some broad categories that I will discuss. Hopefully briefly. If anyone has any questions
during the discussion of those categories, I'll be glad to answer question. I think the history
and what I'll call the planning issues have been addressed fairly thoroughly. The hi_~x~y goes
back to when Don bought it in '62 and through the various changes in the plats that have
come since that time. I believe the ~ does say we're at 2.83 gross acres per lot and if
my math is correct, if we subu~t out that outlot, we still are at atmost 2.6 acres. If we take
out the nursery property which is about 11 1/2 acres, we're still in excess of that 2 1/2 acre
minimum. Also in the report I believe we meet the lot area, the setback requirements. There
are no various. No other requirements that we saw in the report that we did not meet The
next issue that I'd like to address is the street hyout. With the number of go arounds we've
had on this plat, we've had an opportun~ to do quite a few things with the sueet layout and
look at several options. The plat Don showed you earlier showed the 35 lots on the westerly
side of the property _and it showed that area connected to the road. With this presentation we
have not shown the connection on the north, from the south half. On the west side of TH
101 connected because staff has sugges~l that that probably would be a good idea. I believe
that is something we can incorporate into the plat. There are some other street issues though
that I think we are concerned about. The primary one being a suggestion that a l~rtion of
Highway 101 be reconslructed as a part of our platting process here and the devel~t of
the land. Highway 101 through that area has some substantial curves and visibility problems.
There are a number of things there. And from the developer's standpoint, one particular issue
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
is brought up the hill just north of Creekwood Drive. Our concern is that we're being asked
to correct a single problem. A stretch of road that has a substantial number of problems. It
is not our, it's unclcar if we can have access to that to cvca repair th~ road if it's still
desi~ as a Sta~e trunk highway. There's a res/dent, there's a house immediately to the
east of that hill and you can see the reason the hill is there because they did not want to
cause problems for that residence. If we go in or if anybody does, I believe there will be
some implications there. The whole issue of whether or not we can go in and work on TH
101 I think is one that needs to be resolved. In addition on the east side of the property, the
suggestion was made that the private wad along the south side of that parcel be the prefen~
route for the wad W serve Mr. Halla's property and I believe the suggestion was made based
on the fact that there are a number of individual lots all served by this private mad. We feel
our pwperW best lays out the way that we've shown it with some possible minor revisions
and that forcing us to put the road in that location, where the private road is now, is certainly
not in our best interest.
Scott: Excuse me, where is that? You're talking about the private road. You're not talking
about Creekwood?
Mancino: Right here. I think it's on his property.
Don Halla: It goes right through here. On the south side.
Roger Anderson: And if I understand correctly, there are parcels south of that private road
now that are served by that. It seems the best use of the property that we have to work with
is to put thc roads in the locations that we've shown. We feel that obviously needs more
discussion and would involve a major revision to the plat obviously since the road...about 300
feet. A further issue that I'd like to discuss briefly is the trees on the property. As Mr. Halla
indica~i, it's been an active nursery for 32 years. There is son~ natural forested area on the
northerly property line agninst the county road and the staff has suggested that that area
should be generally preserv~ as a tree preservation area. With the exception of the fact that
we feel there are some houses that should be placed in there, we can still maintain very
adequate buffer between the county wad of those houses. That seems to be an aPl~ropria~
use there. We do have and we do show grading in there to allow the construction of I
believe it's 4 houses along that bluff. They would be walkout houses encroaching no more
than they had to obtain that walkout and with minimal impact on the natural vegetation in
that area. The remainder of the site is predonfinantly remnant trees from Mr. Halla's
operations and they're a wide variety of trees and sizes and some are pretty rough. Many of
them are beaufifl~ trees and it's our intention to save and protect ~s many of those as we can.
One commit the staff made was that we didn't show any site grading on _this particular sile,
and there are a couple of reasons. One is the soil ~ sysmns that need to go in. And
21
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
the other was that we don't want to disturb any more of those trees than we have to. We
wanted to keep the grading hopefully confined to the sll'eetlt lind the ~e ~ ~
restrict it pretty much to just those locafion~
Mancino: I have a question Mr. Anderson. The staff has requested about the u'ee
conservation along the northwe~ side here. Along County Road 14. Is there any other area
in the subdivision that the staff has request~ you preserve trees? Or is that the only tree
preservation area that staff has directed?
Roger Anderson: The only other area I'm aware of is to preserve I believe it's 3 trees in the
area of Pond B which is on the easterly end of the site. The storm sewer discharge. The
pond as I've shown it would impact those trees and they've asked that we make an
adjustment on that pond to save the trees and we'll be glad to look at that.
Mancino: Okay. So out of the whole 102 acres, staff has been pretty flexible about the
nursery stock but have asked that that one strip be part of the conservation?
Roger Anderson: That's my understanding.
Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to w. ak~ sure. I have one other question about the private
road. Who owns that privnte road7 Is that pmpe~ that the parties on the north own and the
parties on the south? Who owns the private road that goes through there fight now thnt is
accessing the other homes to the south?
Roger Anderson: I believe Mr. HaHs has the best information on that.
Don Halla: That is owned by several properties on thc south. We acuutlly have a private
easement to use that strip of pmpe~ which is 30 feet wide. It was gran~ to us in the
purchase of our property that we have a 30 foot easement on the south side, not on our
~ but on another properly which then has been subdivided since then and it's redly
been they've had to get our permission to use that since it was a project given at that time.
There has been granted subject to resuictions within that easement that they have to do
maintenance. It also says in that easement that if it ever goes to a public mad, that they have
to give up the additional 30 feet for it to be a public road. That's what the easement says.
On the south side. So it's all south of our property. That was a umn in our buying the
property. They gave us 30 feet. If it ever went ~o a public road, they would get another 30
feet for it to be a public mad. That's public recxm~
Maucino: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Roger Anderson: The next area I'd like to ~ briefly ia on the individual 8oil ~t
8i~es. A substantial amount of the informa~on provided is regarding how this site wonlrl be
served. How we'd get mound system8 in there. What the m~rementa may be and ~ of
this get8 back to the hislory of where we've been and where we a~e now. The plat that was
submitted back in March with the 1 acre sites was tc-~iewed by the staff and it was
detc~ed at that time that the lots were a little bit mo confined. They didn't allow the
flexibility orientation of ~ and a few other things that staff req~ And at that time
Mr. Halla suggested and requesl~ that the city's consultant, Resource t~n~g give u8
some advice on where do we go with thia plat. How can we get these mound systems in
here. They prepared a report in May of '94 and baaed on that report, we ~ the ~
plat that you see here. Their suggestions were basically to be very ~ with orientation of
the mound systems. To allow for proper access. To allow adequate space for water supply
and wells that can't be too ciose to these systems. And they also pointed out parti~ly that
soils and site evaluation needed to be done for these site~ And that would inciude soil
borings and a look at the site by a soil evaluator. Site evaluator. A8 of this date, for ~
specific plat we have not included those particular borings and that si~ evaluation. And our
reasons is that we have redone this plat several times. There was a substantial ex~nse in
having an evaluator go out and determine that these sil~ are adequate. And we've also got
some history out here. We had ?0 borings appro~y throughout the site in '86 and ba~xt
on that information ali of the borings, with minor exception, show that the site was adequate
for the mound systems. And again in the fall of last year we had appro~y ?0 borings
done ~ on the previous plat you saw and with minor exceptions again, those borings
indicated that the site was acceptable. So based on that overall representation we felt fairly
comfortable with proviHing this plat for the city's review subject to a final review of these
sites and some potential adjustments, we expect the~ will be some, aa a site evaluation is
done. But we didn't feel it appropriate, since it's changed a number of times, to spend that
money and then find, like we are finding right now, that...potentlal for a major redesign of the
east side in particular. So we're prepared to go ahe~ with that and Mr. Kirchman may have
some input on that.
Kirchman: ...getting done fight.
Roger Anderson: The hst i~ue is the drainage issue on this site. 102 acres is a big piece of
ground. We've got many types of drainage going on here and many different outlets. The
city's requirement refers to approximately 6 outle~ In my evaluation of the runoff, I believe
I came up with about 15. Many of them flows around the l~rimeter..-flow off by surface
water flow and they will continue to do that af~ the plat is construct~. But also the~ are
si~mificant improv~ts on the int~or of the plat incl~g 4 additional, 3 additional ponds
and an upgrade to the one pond on the east end. Many culvert and surface drainage
improvements and also we've included the ponds to treat the water to NURP standards as
23
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
suggested by the staff, which is a requimn~nt to remove some of the nutrients and control the
runoff. So I'think we've done a reasonably good job of addres~ng the runoff considerations
with the eye towards Ireat the water for phosphorous and no more of the water will run off
now than, ar in the future than has right now and that's generally the guidelines we follow.
There are a couple of particular issues with the drainage that we're concerned about. The
existing nursery site, or the retained nursery sil~ would be about 11 1/2 acres and I believe
indical~ in the report, approximately 40 acres of the goff course to the west drains easterly
across Mr. Halla's property and into a pond that is behind the nulltely and the/l under TH 101
and into a fairly deep ravine east of the highway. That's a substantial amount of water and
the city's storm water managanent plan reviews that infannafion and layout and provides
swrm water poncling there. But it seems to us the suggestion in the report that we reroute
that water and retain it and lreat it as a part of this plat may be slreWhing things a bit. I
think that needs a look also where such a good portion of the goff course is coming through,
is it a reasonable expectation for Mr. Halla to have to provide for that with this platting. We
don't think so but we think there's some questions can be answered there. In addition, at the
northerly portion of this site, we're pwviding a pond for nulrient reduction that we feel can
stay in place and the staff had suggested. Now I'll point it out over here.
Mancino: What do you mean the existing one?
Roger Anderson: The water from that pond flows northerly into the wetland on the north
side of the county road. We provided a NURP pond there to lreat the available runoff and
we feel that will do a reasonably good job up to NURP slandards. The staff is suggest/ng
that Mr. Halla contribuu~ to the long range pond construction fund of the city and we think
that needs a look to see what his actual obligation should be. And the other area is the red
circle which is Pond B on the right hand side which is the pond that was actually created,
how long ago Don?
Don Halla: Probably back at about 1970 through design and so forth the. .. stabilization work.
Roger Anderson: Both the Pond B and the pond in the nursery were created as part of the
soil conservation service or the aEriculm~ smbil/zation people and they have outlets in
design and paxan~tem based on the information that they use and those ponds are in and
working fine. The city has asked for some upgrades. I think we need, that was another
question we had. Just what has to happen there. So there are a lot of issues here. I haven't
hit all of them but hopefully as briefly as I could, hit the predominant things that we're
concerned with and some of the things we're trying to do to get a good quality plat for the
city. With that I'll answer any questions that the Planning Conunission members may have.
Scott: Good, thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledviua: Mr. Chairman.
haven't been submitted.
atsc~mcy?
The staff report indicates that the borings for the proposed sites
You've indicated that the borings have done. Can you clarify this
Roger Anderson: The borings have been done for two previous layouts snd those are the,
there are 140 some borings that we have out on the site. For the exact configuration that we
have fight now, we did not have a site evaluator go out and ~ lmmd new borings and do
the site evaluation for the reasons I explslned eatli~. We felt that we've been through
enough changes where if we spent the $5,000.00, whatever it was, already knowing that the
soil borings in general indicated there isn't a problem, and also knowing that thc lots of this
size, if we do some minor adjustments in the location, emremely likely that we'll find a spot
that will function satisfactorily. We felt it was best to wait until we get thc feedback from
the Planning Commission that we're on the right track as far as layout goes. Then we'd be
happy to provide thc information.
Sco~ ...what your answer was. The information exists but it has not been presented?
Roger Anderson: The requirement of the code is that the borings be talam at a certain
location with two borings in each one of the sites. And we have taken, as I indi~ 140
borings out there. Not precisely at that location but enough to get a good general feel for the
whole site.
Scott: So are the borings that have been taken that you have the infoxmation on, because the
lot lines have shift~ or something like that inbetween plats, they no longer apply to the plat
that we have in front of us tonight.
Roger Anderson: That's correct.
Scott: Okay. I just wanwxi to make sure I unders~ that. Do you have any other
questions? Good. Is anyone else from the ~licant wish to speak? Okay. Thank you.
Well we'll, can I have a motion to op~ the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing, Ali voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was open~
Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this issue, please s~p forward. Identify
yourself. Name and address and let us know what's on your mind.
David Gatw: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members. My name is David Gallo and I'm here
representing the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association. I've got some question and
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
some comments. I've got, there's a, I guess we want to make it clear to Mr. Halh that we
don't oppose the development of the area but we've got a fairly unanimous petition here that
says that we absolutely want the lots to be 2 1/2 acres absent of all the funny math and all
the outlots and the various things going on. On~ can easily see, without even pulling out a
calculator, that some of those lots are not 2 1/2 acres. And as a m_,,__-:e4'_ of fact, I did some
arithmetic and the average lot size,, if you add up the lot square feet and divide by the number
of lots, you get 2.04 acres per lot. So not only can you just simply see that some of them
aren't 2 1/2 acres but the average is substantially less than 2 1/2 acres.
Scott: Sust the ordinance allows for outlots and.
Aanenson: Well there's a gross and nec We may need to get some additionaL.but again
we're falling inw...was given so many units under that pre~ plat. Since that time
we've allowed some flexibility as far as lot sizes go. He's got the same number of lots.
What he's done is he's clustered them differently.
Scott: The ordinance allows for a minimum of 15,000 square foot lot. But the average
density is.
Aanenson: He's still maintaining that. And that's what we're saying. He's still maintaining
the average density. It's just the.
Scott: And the calculations allowed by the ordimmce allow for the inclusion of ouflots and
then the existing, the retail area as well as the growing range that will exist until some further
time. I just wanted to make sure that we all understand what the ordinance is.
David C-atto: When you speak ordinances, are you talking about the present ardinance?
Let's clarify that now.
Aanenson: Okay, what we're saying is that he was given under this 1987 plat or '86 plat, he
was given so many units on so much acreage. Okay, that hasn't changed.
David Gatto: Alright, that's good because that first plat we were showed, that we showed up
there from 1987 shows the outlot developed and my guess is that has a minimum lot size of 2
1/'2 acres. That's all we're, in fact we've got petitions. We have petitions from 29 people in
Lake Riley Woods that we can submit and it says we respectfully petition that Halla Nursery
should not be allowed to redevelop their propei~ any smaller than 2.$ acres and that the
minimum square footage requirements of 14,000 square feet, that's housing, be established in
order to preserve the value of the properties surrounding Halla and maintaining aesthetic
appearance of the neighborhood at the level adhered to when our homes were built. Okay, so
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
we've got that signed. And that's just thc peop~ ia our association. Since then we've heard
of other folks and I believe some of them are here tonight...talk to you, that live outside of
Lake Riley Woods. Lake Riley Woods is east of Highway 101, north of Pioneer Trail and
there's a horseshoe shap~ road called Foxford Road: That's, and then there's a couple cul-
de-sacs. Also I'd like to know, and maybe the City Attorney's assislant can help me. How
long was the extension valid that Halla was given when the city grandfathered him in in
19867 How long was the exmudon valid for?
A1-Jaff: 5 years.
David Oatto: Okay, thanks. And I'd also like to comment that during, well just recently he~
in 1994 this ouflot that his retail establishment's on they did, I don't know if you want to call
it an expansion or an in'tpmvement but an additional retail outlet was built on that in 1994 so
I don't know all the particulars behind this grandfathering business but those folks have
~ved that during that time and added a substantial development on there, what they're
calling their ouflot and these folks are using that to dett~'mine some sort of an average density
and like I'm saying, there's some funny numbers going on there and we don't like that.
Okay. So and then I just want to move on~ The staff report actually speaks to that problem
on page 2. The folks say that the two ouflots shown on the plan contain the existing
businesses and residence. These outlots must be shown as lots. Allowing the onflots to
remain will cw, ate a non-conforming simation~ I apprecia~ staff pointing that out. Septic
systems on a nursery, in Reso~ En~neering's report they've, I want to just, I know we all
got this report probably on Monday. Maybe some_ other people had it on Friday. I want to
point out some things. In Lake Riley Woods we are held to very slrict standards on these
septic systems. As a matter of fact, some of us made the mistake of planting some trees not
right on the septic systems but near enough to septic systems where we raised some eyela~ws
with the inspectors. And we had to move our trees, some trees as small, we had to move
some trees one foot in order to comply with the city ordinances. And so we appreciate the
strict controls that Steve and his people have on those septic systems. I heard Mr. Anderson
talk a littl~ while ago and bind of pooh pooh some of ~UlCe Engineering's report saying
well this is all in there and we've got information that says these septic systems will work
and what not. But Resource Recoveries got a couple good comments in here. On page 2 of
13 they say, there is adequate area for individual on site sewage treatment systems as
presented on the proposed plat. Ther~ are other factors which are equally i .mlX)rtant leading
to the conclusion that none of the lots as ~ted in the propose~ plat are suitable. This is
in their initial summary. Summary and inlroducfion part. On page 9 of 13, they talk about
the operations that the nursery had and they say the operation of the nursery may have much
more concentrated and machinery travel than a farm field would cross it such as corn,
soybean, hay, etc. are grown and harvested. If the soil profiles at a depth of 1 or 2 feet has
been...or removed, that location is likely not suitable for installation of a sewage treatment
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
mound. Ar~as where original soil have been removed and replaced by tree transplanting
activities likely will not be suitable for the installation of a sewage treatment mound. And
they had nnother comment that, and I don't know whether Halla does this or not but where a
nursery operation can...soil to a 3 foot depth to prune the roots of the uees, and they talked
about that as creating a channel for the movement of soil water which isn't acceptable and
again I want to point out that when we had to establish the locations for our mounds and our
lots, the city was absolutely adamant that that land was virgin land. It's never been touched
and W this day we can't plant, by ordinance, any trees or anything else on a secondary
sewage systems that have been planted and that's a tough deal to live by when you have a lot
out there and you're trying to shield yourseff from Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 and some_
of the other areas that are really clogging themselves up with ua/ftc. It seem_ .s as though that
Halla has a hiswry of ignoring some simple environmental conservation rules. Here on page
6 staff talks about Halla putting, and if the staff was familiar with this drainage basin.
Apparently on the east side there's a drainage basin. In past ~gs with the applicant in
sectuing a grading permit to fill in a portion of the downstream ravine, it appears the
applicant has been filling this ravine without the appropriate permit and with unacceptable
materials such as landscaping debris and other mn__tedats that will settle over time and create
erosion and shear failures on the bluff. That's kind of damaging to Mother Earth and I guess
we're kind of surprised that a business such as Halla would engage in such a practi~
There's another disturbing thing on page 11 where it miles about these folks haven't been,
they haven't been cooperating with some of the city stuff. Attempts w evaluate the proposed
plat clearly have been made but the applicant's failure w wad~ with the City ISTS evaluawr
makes thorough evaluation impossible at this time. You know, and I've heard what Mr.
Anderson said. Who is Paul Krauss? What's his position7
Scott: Well he was the Planning Director.
David Gatto: Oh, so he's gone now?
Sco~ Correct.
David Gatto: That's good. Because I was going to write a letter to the Mayor Wmorrow. I
think it's absolutely outrageous what he asked these people to do and if he made that dense
development on the west side of Highway 101, I'm going to, well he's gone but I think that's
absolutely oulrageous that he wld these folks to do that dense development. That had wtal
disregard for what all the other homeowners wanted in the area. That would have been, I
don't know how many other people you would have here but I mean you can see how
interested we are when there's just the 2.04 acres. I suspect that in lismfing to what Mr.
Anderson was saying about all the reports and the hoops that he's had to jmnp through, that
maybe this comment is because that happened. Also I haven't seen any comments in here
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
with regards to any kind of traffic studies or ~ i ,mpacts that may ~ place on Highway
101 and Pioneer Trail. I know that in the morning especially when everybody in our
development has to turn cast on Pioneer Trail, it's quite a chore becausc all the cars will stop
at the stop light on Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail and I don't know what they're doing but
it's really quite a chore to mm east there. If they were to ~ that one road that's across
from our association not aligned the way they have it, I think that will complicate the
situation. So we appreciate the comment, if they do a developnvmt at all, to align their road
with Foxford Road. I think that's a re. al necessary thing but in addition, I'm surprised there's
no comments about a traffic study or impact in here. We think that we see in here that the
applicant has provided $1,000.00 in escrow to pay for Resource Engineering and this process
has gone on since '8'/. Not only with the city but Resource Engineering and I guess we'd
like to know how much Resource En~neering has cost the city now and how much additional
it may cost the city and maybe the applicant should_ be asked tO pay additional funds if more
studies are required. We would like the City Attorney to look into this outlot business. It
doesn't seem to be a valid use, as Nancy said, that an outlot can be used as a c~
business in a residential area. That's kind of odd. It's clear additional exploration is needed
to ~e the suitability of the land for septic systems and again, just in summary, the
Planning Commission should really table this issue while we clear up what this minirllum 2
1/2 acre per lot business and get these f~_ nny numbers all out of the way. Again, we're not
opposed to development but we really would like to see that the 2 1/2 acre minirllum p~ lot
upheld here. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else ~ to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am.
Deborah ~er: Hi. My name is Deborah Graffunder and I am the ~ owner that
is directly east of Halla Nursery.
Scott: Could you give us your street address too please?
Deborah Graffimder: Sure. 10001 Cay, at Plains Blvd. I've lived across from the nursery for
15 years. It's my property where TH 101 has a sharp turn. I'm feeling, I wish my husband
was here tonight. He's in Canada fishing and I can't even contact him but bear with me.
Mancino: Excuse me, could you show us where you live?
Scott: Just point it out.
Deborah Cu'affunder: That's my property. We purchased the home 15 years ago...privacy
and the space...extensively landscaped our home and our gardms. It's quite lovely. It's quite
park like. I have a big concern here. I've heard Don make reference as to this is his
29
Plavning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
retirement Well this is our home. We plan on staying ~cre another 5 years. All of our
three boys have been born and raised there and F m concerned that TH 101 is going to go
through part of my property or this private road is my road. It is on our property. There are
3 property owners. My husband and myself for the first stretch of the road. The next stretch,
David Teich which farms his ~ acres next to us. And...property owner. The Halla nursery
has an easement to use the road. I ~ don't mind having development either. I would
actually rather have some nice 2 1/2 acre home situs be there rather than living with the
nursery and all that. I'm tired of the big ~c~ going down the road and the loud speaks.
You know I mean I just am. I just am. And so I'm not here to say I don't want this
development. Acu~s{ly I wouldn't want mind it at all as long as it's done very ~y.
Lake Riley Woods is gorgeous. We wanted to move over there but we'd lose some of our
privacy and such. I just want to wainmin my property and not have a public street bulldozed
by I think 70 some huge, gigantic Norway pines in front of my home that I've babied for 15
years. Clipped around aud...I just had to get up here and say you know, who I am and my
situation. I guess that's it.
Scott: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am.
Jan Sabinsky: My name is Jan Sabinsky s~l my husband Jim and I live on 775 Creekwood.
And I just wanted to take this oppm'tunity also-to list some of the issues we have regarding
the proposed Halla addition. We too are not against thc development if it's done in the
proper way and if the lot size is at least 2.5 acres. But we have some other concerns and we
would just like those to be stat~ here tonight so that the Planning Commission can take them
into consideration. We would like to leave the street nmrmd Creekwood that we live on.
Since we've moved there about 21 years ago we've changed our address, or they've changed
the address on us about 4 times and we don't, we're tired of...all the people that send us mail,
that our address is being changed again. We would not like you to issue the building pemnits
until the roads and streets are done. No consm~:tion ~ on Creekwood. I don't know if
you know the size of the Creekwood street but it's only about 20 feet wide. And there have
been big truc~ that have made the wrong mm on thai mad. There have been other
construction trucks on that road and that road isn't meant to take that kind Of ~. We
would not like to have any more out traffic on Creekwood. The Creekwood going out onto
TH 101 is very dangerous. Every morning any given person that comes off Mandan or
Creekwood could get hit. It's very difficult to see towards your left when you're coming out
because of that hill. The paving of Creekwood was paid primarily by the homeo~ Halla
paid only for 3 lots. And if he's going to be putting some more property on there, I would
like to see the other property owners get some retired on that. As I said berate, Creekwood
is only 20 feet wide. It's too narrow for any hook and ladder fire trucks, if there should be
any fires. The water runoff from Creek-wood goes into the ravine. Halla's have a pond
across the road from us and I believe it goes under Creekwood into the ravine. The traffic is
Planing Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
backed up on County Road 14. You mentioned the ~ in the morning and you can't get
out onto CR 14. When we come home between 5:00 ~nd_ 6:00 p.m., that tmffm is backed up
for at least a mile. Or more sometim~ I too have a con~ about the inmmom systmm
The intercom system is on at 7.'00 mm. ~ve~ morning and is on until 10.'00 p.m. or later.
They play music on the in~ syst~n, which I don't appreeiam They have on oec. asion
run Bobcats fight outside of our pmtm~ from 7:00 a~ until 10:00 or later. They have
some noisy pe. ac. oeks that screech like a eat who's got their tail caught in a vice. It's very
annoying. Lack of fir~ station or equipment on tl~ south side of Chanhassca for the size
houses that arc being proposed. I understand that if there wcr~ any fires the~, that tl~y
would bring a fLrc truck with water tanks on thom. And wc don't believe that for those size
houses that arc being proposed, that that's going to bc adequate. The~ arc no pa~ or pla~
for neighborhood children to walk or ride bikes on that narrow Crcckwood street. A lot of us
walk on that mad and it's very, very dangerous from thc ~ from thc goff course. I know
that's not Don's issuc there but that road is, you can't have two way traffic on that strcct.
believe that that's allowable. I ~ to have that size of a ~ pmpcrt7 and built up
ali around with houses. They're going to back right up onto that ~. I wouldn't want
to buy a house there. Concern about thc chcmicais that have been used by Halla running off
into the neighborhood we. Ils. There arc noxious weeds growing along the wildflowers on both
sides of Cr¢ckwood and the ravine area. I ~ there's thistles and who knows what other
kinds of weeds growing thcrc. We would like to sec Crock-wood closcd from TH 101 and
mak~ a new access on the south ~ of Halla's n~w sh~. Why wcren't thc hom~wncrs
notified of the change in plans for only 3 houses previously planned for coming onto
Crcckwood? There have been several references to the park issue. I saw a sign on thc staff
report that a little ama that was indicated to say that it was a parL Is there anything mom
that you can t~ll us about th~ park issue? Is there going to be some pmpe~ de. si~a_Lc~ for
parks, or a park?
Al-Jaff: The Park and ~on Commission will be ~g on Tuesday to discuss this
specific issue.
Jan Sabinsky: Okay, Tuesday when?
Al-Jaff: August 9th. I'm sorry, tomorrow. No, this August 9th. Tuesday, yes.
·
;Isa Sabinsky: Here at 7:30?
Al-laff: Yes.
Jan Sabinaky: Okay. And then is there any update on the plans for the goff course to
31
P/arming Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
develop? We haven't heard anything about that. I know that might impact the development
and the current people that live in that area x/iht now. Oh, okay. So you don't know what
they're planning on? No word whether they're going to do anything with that property? Sell
it or keep it or, okay. Thank you.
Scorn Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to sl~.a&? Okay.
David Gatto: Yeah Joe. You know I represent a lot of the people that are here.
Scott: Can you step up to the microphone so we can get it on the public record.
David Gatto: loe, once again, I'm represen~g an association of Lake Riley Woods
homeowners and a lot of those people are the people that are out here in the audience and we
just wanted one speaker.
Sc, om We appreciate that.
David Gatto: So if you look around and people aren't saying anything.
Scott: Yeah, we appreciate that.
David (3atto: And if I didn't say enough for anybody, but go ahead.
Scott: Well we appreciate thaL It's hnponant that we get citizen comment and we
obviously hear from applicants. We ~ to hear from citizens and it's ~y appreciated
when it makes sense to have people speak on be2mif of an associati~. Obviously people may
or may not be within an assodafion that are always welcome to come in. I'd like to thank
you all for doing that. If there's no one else who would like to speak.
Roger Anderson: Could I briefly summarize for the applicant?
Scott: No. No. No. Please sit. Could I have a motion to dose the public hearing please?
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public hearing~ AH voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed.
Scott: Comments, Jeff.
Fannakes: I had some concerns about the dminfields and...~ a little open ended to me.
I'd like to see those closed up.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Audience: Could you use the loudspeaker, we can't hear yotc
Farmakes: Can you hear me?
Audience: No.
Scott: You're as loud as it can go? Okay.
Farm_~l~e.s: I'll just try to speak louder. I'm not quit~ certain, as I understand it, the 2 1/2
acres is the average, correct? That's the way it's works. Maybe that could be explained or
that, you're refen'ing to them as funny numbers. Somefime~ they do a~ to be funny
numbers but the way that the ordinances are set up and the way that the situation with the
development of the city between the applicant and the city, they use a formula.
David Gatto: {eft, I read the ordinance...
Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed.
David Gatto: Well then the C/ty Attorn~ ought to speak to it because the city ordinance
says minimum 2 1/'2 acres per lot. I lind it the day before yesterday.
Farmakes: That's correct but as I understand, there's also a commimtent to the ciW and the
applicant. Is that correct? Perhaps what I'm saying is, perhaps you should discuss that with
city staff so that you're understanding of that also.
David Gatto: Well city staff also explained their extension expired 5 years after 1987...
Scott: Excuse me, the public hearing is closed.
David Gatto: I understand but your commissioner is addressing me Chairman.
F~: I'm not expecting a response. I'm just making a suggestion that you and the city
are comfortable with the information that you have.
David Gatw: I'm not comfortable.
Farmakes: Okay. Getting back to the dminfields, I'm still uncomforlable with that report. It
didn't seem inclusive W me. There's a lot of things that this development seems to be still
left out to in~fion or subject to taking out. I'm not sure if there's that much concern
about the issues of 2 1/2 acres or 2.2 or 2.4 or so I'm not sure how that formulation works
33
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
out and when they come up with it. They have a very lsrge lot and then of course it adds to
these smaller lots that...and we've been through that before on a lot of these ~t
developments. I'm not sure on the TH 101, I believe that the State will detemfine how that
lays out. Do we not make a suggestion on how we would like to see it? MnDot makes that
decision. Is that how that works?
Scott: I think you can talk about the special status of Highway 101, again.
Mancino: And who pays for it and.
Sco~ Yeah, and how that works.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, manba~ of the convni~ion. Trunk Highway 101 is classified
as...the applicant and/or city to petition MnDot to provide the fnnding for safety
impwvements...we've done similar improvements along TH 101 north of Highway 5 where
we have added on turn lanes. Right turn lanes on Cheyenne and Pleasant View. Those types
of intersections. MnDot does fund those 100%. The problem that, and so you're looking at a
minimum of 2 years out fight now for Mul~t to con~ider that. They get all these requests
from different communities for safety hnprovements on the trunk highways. Throw them in a
kitty. Prioritize them based on safety and let each commnnity know each year which qualify
and which don't. Right now...winimum of 2 years out-
Scott: Okay, and those we have already petitioned MnDot for those ~ements?
Hempel: No, we have not.
Scott: Okay. So that's something that perhaps we would want to do? Soon.
Hempel: ...appropriate with the plat approval. -
Scott: Okay. $o that's, okay.
Farmakes: I'll pass it on...
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: I have a few questions and I may need to come back too. I guess I have some
questions about, this is for Shan~in_. When we are doing a subdivision around a retail
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Audience: Excuse me..talk louder.
Mancino: Can you hear me7
Audience: No.
Mancino: Can you hear me? I feel like I'm screaming. Okay. Whea you, Halla has grown.
It has a new building this year. Now I'm not saying it hasn't grown in acreage but it has
upgraded it's building. It is doing a good retail business, And then we put a subdivision
around it. Lots of people who want to live in their homes and they want it to be quiet, as
we've all heard tonight. How do those two go together in the futura? I mean we're talking
about, we've heard about outdoor speakers going on at 10:00 at night. We hear about 7:00 in
the morning and I've heard the music there because I was over visiting and actually took a
ride through the pwpeny. And it's not classicaL.or anything. I _mean it's pretty hip music.
Don't we, I mean we're going to get citizens im We're going to get homeowners. We're
going to get people just like you and me in here all the time asking or requesting some sort
of a limitation on hours. And does that need to be pan of this or.
Aanenson: ...thc nursery was them first. They're a grandfathered in here. If people want to
buy...they have been grandfathered in.
Mancino: But are these hours grandfathered in? I mean we have aslmd other c~
areas. I'm thinking about the one that was here earlier, Admiral Waste. We have them hours
from Monday thru Friday.
Aanenson: They asked for an inlm'im use permit so we have control over...
Mancino: So does a grandfathered use mean that you can have any hours anytime?
Aanenson: They're limit~t to what they had when they were established.
Mancino: So what is that?
Aanenson: We're trying to delta'mine some of that right now.
Scott: But then there's also noise ordinances and that sort of thing.
Mancino: Well I think it would be wise for Halla to work with the homeowners around and
establish some sort of, and have it written down and have it in the covenants so that people
know what it will be and get that straighten out before because I can see this becoming a
35
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
bigger problem. Dave, I have a question for you about the Block 6. This is between Block 4
and Block 6 there is a future road in that southeast corner that abuts the bluff. And I know
that this isn't final roadway. You know exactly where it will go but I just wanted to share
my concern with where that roadway goes to th~ southarn ~ which says future
development. It seems to cut into the bluff area. And I would like that to be ~ and
made sure of the grading so that we keep, I think we have a new ordinance that says what, 40
feet away imm top of the bluff.
Hempel: He's going to take a look at that. It does appear to encroach on the...
Mancino: So I'd like that added to our recommen~o~ Secondly Dave, how ~ we going
to be accessing in the future, and I see s~g's concerns, the ~ to the south of Block 4.
I understand that future wad going to the future development which leads to this but coming
a little more west but still east of TH 101 we have those 3 ~ owners and pan of that
question is, theft easement goes out to TH 101, is thcze room between the new Halla Nursery
Vista Road on TH 101 and the easement that these people live off of? And is there enough
distance between the two? Is there 300 feet? Doesn't it have to be 300 feet?
Hempel: It a~ based on this drawing that there is the 300 foot separation on the access
point. MnDot does have control on accesses onto trunk highways...jurisdi~on to grant this
access...and that's why, if I could back up to your first concern with access to the ~
south of Block 4 and south of that private driveway, that's where in the staff report we
thought it was prudent to make use of the current road alignment. That it's ~ to expand
on it to serve properties to the south as well as the subdivision far Halla. The pht
configuration on the east side can very easily be rearranged to accomrmxhte this and to just
circle...We'd be happy to look at the applicant to demonstra~...that access that private road...
We have received numerous complaints as far as mahtenance goes on that road. It's kind of
a...not even a city road.
Mancino: Well I agree with that recommendation. I think that has to be looked at. And I do
support keeping that slope for the conservation easement and allowing no penetration into
there without a lot of grading. I flfink that is the one area and it is the only area that we're
asking to keep in it's naUnal state with the trees there. Shan~in; are we spplyin§ the wee
preservation ordinance on this7 I mean what percenta~ needs to be7
Al-$aff: ...landscaping plan has not been submitled with the application and that is one of the
conditions of approval.
Mancino: Thank you. Again I'd like to thank staff for avcry, very c~ensivc report
and good rcco~n~ons. Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Matt,
Ledvina: Okay, following up on the ouflot situation. You mentioned that there are two
outlots I believe in the report. But I don't see, I only see Outlot A as identified. Is this area
identified future development in the southeast comer of the pazcel, is that considered Ouflot
B?
Al-Jaff: Correct
Ledvina: Is that fight? Am I misreading that or is that labeled on the plan? Or I didn't find
it.
Al-$aff: ...as an ouflot and we're recommending that it be...
Ledvina: Okay, so.
Don Halla: I don't own that propamy.
Scott: Excuse rtz. The public hearing is closed.
Ledvina: So that's not pan of the plat?
Don Halla: No.
Ledvina: It's not pan of the plat. Future development.
Scott: Could you direct that question to staff please?
Al-Jaff: It was_part of the plat...
~ I thought it was pan of the plat too. It's indicated here on our drawings as part of
the plat. So it's not part of the plat?
Al-laff: Well the 102 acres includes that piece of property.
Ledvina: Okay. And they don't own it and it's not part of the plat.
Scott: Well then has it been used in the density calculations? ...okay, wait a second.
Ledvina: But there's an error in the density calaflafions then if that's not part of the plan.
37
Planning Comm~ion Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: They don't own it and it's not pan of the plat yet it was used to calculate den_ ~ty?
Scott: Correct, okay.
Led~a: Going onW the southeast comer of the developn~nt. There's a small area. It's
about, a little more than 2 acres. What is that area? It's not iden~t%d as a lot but it's
identified within the plat.
Al-$aff: I'm sony. Could you repeat the question.
Ledvina: Thc area in the very southwest corner of thc parcel It's not identified as a lot yet,
what is that?
A1-Jaff: There's an existing single family home.
Ledvina: Okay. Is the...to identify that as part of that in terms of the Block and Lot numbers
and such7
A1-Jaff: It is part of the overall plm. It was aggroved on July 9th, 1989. Thia parcel right
i~re.
Ledvina: Alright. It wasn't clear to me what was on there. The, I'm going to jnrr~, around a
little bit but the situation with Creekwood. I know for one of the residents that spoke, one of
the staff recommen~tions is that the name of Creekwood remain the same so we're tracking
with the residents on that. The situation with the widening of Creekwood, is that going to be
required as part of this development7 Where we are brining more traffic out inW that area.
How are we dealing with that?
Herr~l: As with this staff report now we did not reco~ upgl'~__ding of Creekwood.
...last week it appears to be about 22 feet wide and a nornml rural street is 24 feet wide
which would be the streets built within the Halla plat... There are grading and those type of
issues that would be...with the plat.
Scott: But isn't the majority of the traffic, at least during the s~ months, has to do with
Bluff Creek and not with any reaidents? The golf course. That's the access to Bluff Creek.
So adding 3 more homes is probably not going to change, I mean in the winter it will have a
slight impact but during the summer, it probably won't.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Hernpel: ...probably add 8 more homes.
Ledvina: Yeah, 8 homes. All of Block 2. Actually Block 1 and Block 2. So essentially
your view of the situation though is that the existing situation is adequate in terms of the
width of the paverr~nt. You did mention that there will be some grading and drainage
improvements on the north side of that road?
Hempel: That's con~ct...but we have not proposed to do widening or impwving...what's
there .... an improvement at the inm~ection of Tnmk Highway 101.
Ledvinm Okay. I had a question in the staff report and maybe I didn't read thig properly but
it seems to say that if Outlot A is platted as a lot, they would not have access to TH 101.
Now I've got to maybe go back to the staff report and maybe if I could point this out.
Maybe I'm just not in~g this corre~y. Page ? on the bottom of the last full
paragraph. It says since no further access will be allowed off of Trunk Highway 101,
provisions for looping two street systems through Ouflot A from Golfview Circle or Oolfview
Court should be explored by the applicant. Does that mean that you're dosing the access to
TH 101 from Outlot A?
Hempel: The intent there was to provide a looped street in the future when you subdivide the
nursery by itseff. Maybe 10 years down the road if they ever decided to replat.
Scott: Well that's not going to affect their ability to do business or anything like that.
Hempel: Not at this time, no.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I noted that that was one of your ideas in terms of the future
development but it wasn't identified as a condition. Do you think it's appropriate as a
condition? As it relates to future development- Maybe MnDot would take care of that by
their review of any future devel~t in saying that you've got on here. You've got one
here. There's no way you can, you know everything's going to have to be internal after that.
But is there something that we should do here?
Hempel: I believe condition number 27 on page 18.
Ledvina: Okay, there it is. I guess through Outlot A. Maybe you should make it a little
more emphatic in roms of the no fin'ther access will be allowed off of TH 101. I think th~
really gets to the point of what we're trying to say right there, right? I mean you're saying
that it can loop through there but you're not saying that you can't have the outlot.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Hempel: That's what we're predicting...
Ledvina: I know that's what you mean in the condition but maybe it can be a lot clenxer. A
little more clear. Now I'm a little bit unclear as to being on the road issue. TH 101 itself,
where that hairpin curve is. What's shown on the plat is essentially a straight§ of that
curve. Now, and you seem to indicate that the city has right-of-way now for that
improvement of that curve. What's the situation there?
Hempel: That's cmrecC The previous plat submitted back in '89, the city did require that
the applicant dedicate future road right-of-way for the upgrade of TH 101. 120 foot wide
su-ip of land. That has been dedicami.
Ledvina: That's from the property owner fixnn the east7
Hempel: That's from thc Halla's. From the pmperty...plat has not been dedicated yet.
I.,~dv~ So half of that. Half of that area is dedica~d.
Hempel: Right, thc north half through the proposed plat.
Ledvina: Alright, okay. And when would that upgrade occur? I ~ if you could look into
your crystal ball, is that 10 years? 5 years? What are you saying?
Hernt~l: It depends on the...development pressure. As uaffic increases with development.
Ledvina: Is this going to be another one of those safety kind of things? ~ this looks
like a more serious alignment issue.
Hempel: That's correct This was not going to be...
Ledvimc Okay. The system for, the situation with the individual soil treaunent systems, the
information that's provided in the staff report certainly leads one to believe that there's a lot
of work to be done here. And it's kind of a caWh-22 scenario with the developer and I
undersland that because he's got to spend the money to go out and do the soil Ixa/ngs and all
the evaluations but then he's got to go back and then set the property lines and it's kind of a
back and forth process and if those don't quite wor~ you know he ends up going back out in
the field again. But I think, and I know that's a bad situation but I think this isn't your
normal site in terms of that scenario. Or a normal scenario for siting septic systems. You
have all the pre-existing uses here that have distur~ the soils. Poor soils generally to start
out with, as I understand. And I guess I know we have in the conditions, condition number 8
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
essentially covers the requirements here. I think, I don't know. Do we have essentially
conditions but I guess the last situation is if you've got a platt~ lot and you can't find the
septic site on it, do you just go ahead and say, all of a sudden the lot is, or not all of a
sudden but you say that the lot is unbufldable.
Aanenson: We don't give preliminary plat approval. We never give final plat approval until
all these conditions are demonstrated to our satisfaction. So what we're, the position that
we're saying is that yes, there's a lot of conditions. There's a lot of work to do. What we're
saying, based on the fact that he has done a lot of septic site exploration based on the two
previous...give preliminary plat approval until he demonstra~ that he can meet all these
conditions... We wouldn't create a lot unless he can meet...
Ledvina: Okay, I didn't know that. I thought this was going to be can'ied all the way
through until the time when the lot would be.
Aanenson: No, no. And then until these conditions are met, we wouldn't go forward.
That's why there's a lot of conditions.
Ledvins: Okay. lust a point of clarification for condition number 22. It says Outlot D. I
think you mean Pond D, is that c~7 As it relates, you're talking about the drainage and.
Condition number 22, page 17. Fourth condition here.
Hempel: Acttmlly the point of clarifi~on...I guess, this is the previous plat that was
approved back in '89. The development will retain ownership of the piece that's fight
adjacent to the ravine where the storm water drains underneath Creekwood. It drains off a
ravine. They would like to acquire or have the applicant dedicate to the city a drainage
utility casement sometime in the future when we need to develop a storm sewer system to
resolve that erosion that's occulxing down in the ravine...
Ledvina: Okay. So this is near Creekwood. It's not by Pond A necessarily?
Hcmpel: I'll show you on the map.
Ledvim: I might have mim'~ my rrm~
Hempel: Actually...down here...
Ledvina: Do I have that map? Is it an 8 1/2 x 11 map?
Hempel: Yes.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledv~: But if it's not identified on our plans here, how do we deal with that7
Hempel: It's still a lot of record...
Heng~l: Basically what I'm trying to say is..axmoff or the volume of runoff will inae. ase.
Therefore causing downslream drainage improvements...eventually constructed.
Ledvina: Yeah, I'm tracking with you. I guess just in terms of the nuts and bolts of this
thing I'm just wondering, because I didn't really take a look at that. I didn't, well I'll let that
go. The situation with Reso~ Engineering and the reimbursement. Is that reimbursement
to the city, is that a typical thing and should that be done in this case maybe for future
thoughts associated with evaluation of those sites? What's your reaction to than
Kirchman: We've had Mr. Halla establish an escrow fund and if biz escrow fund is depleted
we add additional funds to it to pay for Resources Engineering.
Ledvina: So in thc past he has been reimbursing the expenses of Resource Engineering?
Kirchman: That's correcL
Ledvina: Okay. And that's standard operating procedures?
Kirchman: That's correct.
Ledvina: Well I think overall thi.~ is a very complicated plat and there's a lot of specific
things that are going on here. It's a very beaufififl piece of property and it's going to be a
very nice area to live in ceminiy for the new residents here. I think that I would like to see
this thing moved forward but in my opinion, at thi~ point, I think we need a tilfle more work
with getting closer on some of these conditions. I'm a little bit uncom¢ortable in terms of our
calculations and I think many of these things can be resolved.
Scott: Dave, can I put you on the spot for a second? That piece of property that's slated or
identified as future development looks like it's about 450 by I don't know, 600 or something.
If that piece of pwpeny is 14 acres, maybe 13 acres, ff it's 15 acres, that makes the density
2.3 so I guess in my mind too, I ~ that can obviously be changed. They can take out a
couple of lots and make some of them larger to meet it but as this stands ri~ht now, just from
my rough mathematics, it doesn't meet the den_ ~ty requirement But I mean that's, once
again, that's something that can be changed. But can I have a motion please?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: I would move that we table the preliminary plat, Case # 86-31 SUB to subdivide
102.73 acres into 36 rural single family lots and two outlots, Carat Plains Golf Esmms.
Scott: Is there a second? Would you like to second that? Okay, I'll second that motion. Is
there any discussion?
Mancino: Yeah, I think my discussion would be that we send it on with our various
reconm~endations and if for any reason it does not meet the individual sewer, septic, that it
will come back because it will have to be redrawn. The plat will have to be redrawn so that
those mounds can be installed and will be here. If there's any signit%ant changes, it will
come back in front of the Planning Commission~
Farmakes: I agree. I think the conditions cover the ~ ended parts with l~'eliminary. I
think it gives staff the idea what infommtion we're loolring for I guess when it comes back as
a final plat.
Ledvina: Well I initially thought that when I was looking at this and I know that staff has
worked hard in developing these conditions. I don't think that's nnreau~nable. I guess I
would withdraw my motion at this time.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a new motion please?
Mancino: I move, with a little support from others, I move that the Planning Commi._,~ion
approve the preliminary plat for Sulxtivim'on #86-31 for Cae. at Plains Golf Esmms as shown
on the plans dated June 6, 1994 subject in the following conditions. As is 1, 2, 3, 4, $, 6, 7,
a, b, c, 8, a, b, c, ck e, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, a, b, c, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. And I'd like to add condition 34. That staff and applicant
work together to make sure that the future road in the southeast comer of the plat not infringe
on the bluff. That it adheres the new bluff ordinance. Number 35. Recommendation that the
1 unit per 2.5 acr~ is based on the actual land to be platted. Specificaflly does not include the
future development area which is not owned by Don Halla. And have I missed anything?
Ledvina: A friendly arne~t?
Mancino: Yes.
Ledvirm: I would like to amend condition number 27 to indicate that, to add that for future
development of currently identified Outlot A, there shall be no additional access granted far
Trunk Highway 101.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Do you accept that?
Mancino: I do. And I would like to add another recommendation. 37, that the retail
commerdal area have covenants with thc proposed new landowners and it tells the opening
and closing times so that people up from know when the opening and closing times is of the
retail commercial arem What days of the week. The hours. What kind of activity will go on
and if those are changed, it has to meet the approv~ of the landowners in the subdivi~om
Scott: Especially with the loudspeaker and equipment operafiom Okay. It's been moved and
seconded that we act on the motion. Is there any discussion? Any additional discussion. All
those in favor of the motion.
Ledvinm Excuse me Mr. Chairman. I don't know that, did we second the motion?
Mancino: I don't know.
Farmakes: I'll second the motion.
Scott: Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission reconnnend
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86-31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as
shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
All areas dis~ during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of comp~g site gr._ding unless the
city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
.
Thc applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
thc site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size.
The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a
conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead
or diseased vegetation and tmder~ All headthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall
not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows thc location of
the conservation eatsement and the al~plicant shall provide thc legal description.
3. Lot 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit Staff shnll have the fight to
require a chnnge in house pnd and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
e
e
.
A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to
grading.
The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan;
and, approved by thc Ctlanhassen Engineering and Fire Department.
Dead end access roads in exce~ of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus.
Fire apparatus access road shall bc designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This
applies to homes which arc in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
Street names:
a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with '~Maple" in the
nalTlg.
b~
The street between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and
Halla Nurser~ Vista. The street must have only one name. ~te Halla Vista
Drive.
c. Rename "Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name.
8. Building Depamncnt conditions:
b. Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site with a unique
identification for each to Inspections Division.
c. Stake and identify proposed ~ lines, proposed ISTS sites and perc and boring
locations.
d. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on thc ISTS sites fi~m Resource Engineering.
c. Revise the pre~ gr~__ding plan to show standard dwelling type designations for
proposed house pads.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Thc applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100-year
storm events and provide pond;rig calculations for storm wa/er quality and quantity ponds
in ~ce to the City's Surface Water Managemmt Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approvc. Thc applicant shall retain on site the prcdcvclopcd runoff rate as
detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calaflafions for existing and
based on Walker's pondnet model
The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted far review and formal appwv~ by the City
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be
designed in ~ce to the City's latest edition of sm__nri~rd specifications and detail
plates.
Thc applicant shall emer into a development conuact with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee installation of the public ingnovements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stat~ in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be impl~~ prior
to or concurrent with wetland fill activi~ o~ excavation in furore phases of the project.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain pennits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Departmen~ PC_A, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Deparm~t and MnDOT and comply
with their conditions of approval.
The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final pla~ for
all storm water drainageways and pon_ding Ilteal8 lying outside the slreet right-of-ways.
The minimum easerrm~t width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be
given for access for mainmmnce of the storm water ponding areas. OBtlot A shall be
platted as a lot and block.
The applicant's cn~nccr shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with thc City's Best ~t Practice Handbook. The plan shall bc
submitted to the City for review and formal approval
The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk
highway right-of-ways~ Thc berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slop~ along
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
17.
18.
19.
21.
22.
23.
Tnmk Highway 101 fight-of-ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all
proposed grading as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction.
The applicant's engine~ shall work with st~ff in developing a revised stm~ drsinage
plan to accommodate plat revisions.
Thc lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm wat~ ponds or wethmd8
shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water lc-veL All storm
water ponds shatl have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the nm-mai water
level and no more than 3:1 slopes thcreaI~ or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety
purposes.
Thc outlet from thc existing pond behind the nursery shall be re-routed and direct~
through Pond "B."
Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utili~t shah be
properly abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
The applicant shah be responsible for the appwprime storm water quality and quantity
fees based in accordance to the City's Sm'face Water Management Plan. The
requirement for cash fees in lieu of laud or permanent pond consu~ction shall be
based upon the schedule in ~ce with the prescribed land use zoning.
The applicant shah report to the City Engineer thc location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon thc drain tile ns directed by thc City
Engineer.
The developer shall convey to the City appwpriate drainage and utility easements for
future conduction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Gre~ Plains Oolf
Estates.
Ponding facih'ties on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the
plat has been revised to accommodate stuff' changes in the plat's street and lot
configuration. The developer's en~neer should also provide the City Engineer with
revised detailed storm sewer drainage calodations and dischar~ rat~ for the storm
drainage system on the cast side of Trunk Highway 101 ns a result of revising the plat.
The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
5.
26.
28.
29.
0.
31.
32.
b.
Ce
enhance create visibility problems for northbound uaf~. The app~t is also
proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff
recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to
improve sisht lines and Ix~rning be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in he/ght.
The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive
shall be lowered to hnprove sight dismn(~. The current situation does not meet
MnDOT sumdards for sight distance at the posted
Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose
sight distance problems as well This should be investigated and documented by the
applicant's en~neer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posmt
speeds.
The applicant shall be required to re-excavate all unacceptable nmtedals in thc ravine
on Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing
storm drainage pipe (24-inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond '~D") to
accommodate the existing significant flees that are alive yet.
The applicant shall provide for the fuUn~ looping of the two street systems through
Outlot A from Golf~ew Circle or Golfview Court. Outl~ A shall have no
additional access granted for TH 101.
Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and elimins_te, the need of the private road.
The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right-of-way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one-half of
the minimum 100-foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from
County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 fight-of-way.
Pla~niu§ Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
33.
Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be plated into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show
Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Cnwt Plains
Golfview
That ~ and appli~mt work together to make ~e that the future road in the
· outhea~t eorner of the plat not infringe on the Muff. That it adher~ the new
bluff ordinance.
The 1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically
does not include the future development area which ts not owned by Don Hnlla.
Covenants be provided for the new property owners informing of the days and
hours of operation of the retail eomn~ site and if any changes are made to
those hours and days, that the property owners be informed of such changes.
All voted in favor and the motion carried,
Scott: Any people who are here tonight, please follow your issue. You'll have the
opportunity to express your concerns, ideas, comments to the City Council. And once again,
this is not final approval of the project at all This is the first phase. Basically what it does
is it gives the developers a little bit more cerUdnty that the project is moving ahead so they
can then invest additional dollars to answer some of the additional questions that we have.
Thank you all very much for coming.
PUBLIC HEARING;
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CITY CODE SECTION 20-
1181(B)(4) REGARDING INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEtH ,CULAR USE
Scott: Oh yes, it is a public hearing. There's really no applicant. What I will do is I'll ask
for a motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Ledvinn seconded to open the public henFing, AH voted in flavor and
the motion carried. The pubfic hearing was opened.
Scott: Is there anyone hcrc who wishes to speak on the public hearing? I don't think so.
Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to cio~e the public hearing, AH voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed.
Scott: Is there any discussion? Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no comments on thh. I'll go with the staff recommendation.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: I just have a couple questions. Does it, when you divide it up like this, is it
enough square footage for a big overstory m~e which has a fairly big span, drip line span, is
that a big enough area? Has somebody really figm~ it out~
Aan~n: Yeah. Well that's the minimum. We've also got a provision in here where we
think, I ~ if we've got an existing tree, a canopy area that you want to preserve, that you
can allow...
Mancino: Because I know one of the things when we first created this or worked on it was
allowing some massing.
Aanenson: Yeah. What it says is that...unless there's a tree preservation arca...t~ to preserve
trees...that's a good question though. We certainly wouldn't want to destroy that.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Scott: Good, Matt.
Lcdvina: No comments. I support staff's reconuncn~tion.
Scott: Could I have a motion?
Mancino: I move that we approve the ordinance revision for Section 20-1181Co)(4)
specifying the dispersion of interior parking lot landscaping islands, peninsulas and
Scott: Is there a second?
Ledvina: I'll second that.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass this item. Is there any discussion?
Pla~niug Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commimi_ on reconunend to
approve the ordinance revision for ~ecfion 20-1181Co)(4) specifying the dispers~ of
interior parking lot landscaping islands, peninsulas and boulevards. AH voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF M~IUTES: Ledvina moved, Maneino seconded to note the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated July 20, 1994 as presented. AH voted in favor
and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Aanenson: I'm sorry I didn't put anything in your packet... Lotus Lake Woods which is the
plat on the Forcicr property was given a one year cxtension..Jt was a pretty straight plat so
we feel comfortable giving them a one year extmsiom The Minger subdivision approval
We only had 3 council people so that needed a rezoning and a rezoning ~ 4/5 majority
so just thc plans and specs and the grading permit was approved for that. At the next Council
meeting they'll approve the rezoning so they can move forward with that plat. Again, Good
Value Homes which is the O'Shaughnessy piece which is immediately west of the school
That was, the applicant wasn't at the City Council meeting two wecks ago. The last City
Council meeting they asked to be removed and we are meeting with them on Friday. I think
they're going to 8o forward with a little bit, what's south of the frontage road extei~on as it
goes towards the Opus ~ and come in with the twin homes,..He is going to go forward
with that portion...so we'll be meeting with him on Friday.
Ledvina: Now that went through us, right? That's a PUD?
Aanenson: Yep. And thcy never went to Council
Ledvina: Okay, so but they've made changes now and now they're going to go to Council?
Is that how it's.
Aanenson: No. He's asking not to go to Council. He just wants to go forward with just one
portion instead of thc whole development which had the rental on thc north side...
Ledvina: Okay, so it's a p~g more or less then.
Aancnson: Yeah, fight
Mancino: Didn't we ask to see new grading there or something?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Aanenson: And landscaping. There were some issues, yeah. The Coffm~ development,
Shadow Ridge, they did give concopmal approval on that but again the~ were a lot of issues
on that. You talked about the slope and the wetland and that was one that we had...The
Council did ask that when it goes to final plat, normally we put those on consent, that they
have an opp~ty to revi~'t that again because there were a lot of conditions. A lot of
issues so they want to ma~_- sure that that was addressed. The interim use permit for the
grading on Mission Hills was approved. And then the Council discussed quite a bit time the
CounciL.you wanted an opportunity to see that but there were some issues that were brought
up about the types that they were looking at..low key Chanhassen entry sign..Jandscap~g.
Then we got into a big discussion about the cost. Maintenance costs and that sort of thing so
a little bit more, Council wants to see a little bit more...about costs before they decide to go...
with that anymore so that will come back before the Council before you have an oppa~ty
to seeiL
Ledvina: Are they going to make any decisions on that?
Aanenson: I think...just an idea and then it will come back through you to hold the public
~g...and then go back.up. Right now they're just trying to develop some concepts and
look at costs...
Ledvina: That's going back between the lIRA and the Council and we haven't seen anything.
Aanenson: I think what they're trying to do is deciding what they want to do. They've got a
lot of issues...
Mancino: I think I read, was it the ~. The newspaper or the ~ Vill~er that
Councilman Senn had suggested that maybe the bo~nesses partidp~ and especially the
enu'ance around the downtown because that is something.
Aanenson: Well the one we're really trying to work on now is most specifically the one on
Powers because we've got the, with the Outlot B and Target. The Taco Bell which you'll be
seeing next week. We want to make sure that...
Mancino: Next week?
Ledvina: No, 2 weeks.
Aanenson: That we have a nice entryway. And again...
52
Plarming Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Good. Ongoing it~'ns, sccin§ none. Open discussion.
DISCUSS CONCEPT OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX.
Brad Johnson and Tnunan Howell presented slides and a ~tation, on an infomml basis,
to the Planning Commission regard/n§ archi~ and ideas for the entea'minment complex
be located in the downwwn area.
Tho ~g was then adjourned.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
53