The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1993 04 21CI-L,M~SSEN ~ZNG COMMTSSZON RE~ MEETTNG RTL 21, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MI~M~RS PR~~T: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, 3ce Scott, Brian Batzli, and 3eff Farmakes ~E~;RS ~F~ENT: Nancy Mancino 5T/~FF ;~ESF. NT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner I; and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A F~ UNIT D~OI~ FOR ~3 SIN~E F~J~ILY LOTS ON 76.47 ~'RES ON P~ERTY ZONED PUD. ~ LOCRTF~O F~ST OF POW~ 80ULEV~ AND SOUTHWEST OF L~KE SUSa. L~KE SU~ HILLS 9TH ~ITI~, ~ D~VELOPM~NT, Public Present: Name Jerry Lindhoim Chris Miller Kirby & Sandy Paulson Robert F. Kopp Wayne Tauer Phil Jungbluth John & Karen Engelhardt Don Wisdorf Jon & Mary Jo Hansen Jane Judd Peder oison Robert Long Robert Smithburg Thomas Burns Tom Nilsson Andrew K. Oison 8421 West Lake Drive 8401 West Lake Drive 8410 West Lake Drive Argus Development, Inc. ~loneer EngIneertnQ Argus Development, Inc. 86~5 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N. 8639'Chanhassen Hills Dr. N. 8631Chanhassen Hills Dr. N. 8635 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N. 8635 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N. 8629 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N. 8657 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N. 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8290 West Lake Co~rt Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: 3o Ann would you address one, and maybe you said something on this and I apologize if you did. On condition 15(b), the woodland management plan. Have we ever done that before? What is a woodland mangement plan? Olsen: No. Woodland management plan, and that was something, an idea we came up with when we were out on the site with Alan Olson, the DNA Forester. Because one of the things that we've seen is that we do take a lot of steps to preserve trees during the development process but once the homeowner comes in, a lot of times they don't understand what is there or whether or not it was really protected. Also we're finding that there's like a second forest growing on the site. 'It's either large, the large trees and then it's the undergrowth that's growing and that's like the Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 2 second forest that's coming that will replace this one. And we want to be able to educate the people that that's an important aspect and not Just to clear all that out also. So what it is is really just a plan to describe what's on the site. Why it's been preserved. What type of.tree it is. Is it sensitive to, is it a red oak and that you shouldn't be doing any kind of alteration around it and it's just really a plan that they can hold in their hand and it's to educate them with what's there and to hopefully help preserve the trees better. It's done, if you called up Alan Olson and you wanted him to come out to your lot, he would do that and work on your site if you were wanting to plant'trees or find out what's on your site. So it's something that's commonly done and that can be done by a licensed forester pretty easily. So it's just more for education and hopefully preserve beyond the development. Batzli: Why for example don't we look at placing a conservation easement around parts of these that we've done on other sites? Olsen= I am still proposing that. Where it's simple to do. But if you see on a lot of these we've got individual trees and you have to have a legal description to do a conservation easement and that's almost impossible to do for all the little individual trees that we're saving. Batzli: Okay so what you've done is Just on lots, on those particular lots is where you're doing this woodland management plan then? Olsen: Right. Those lots that were listed as the custom graded lots would have that. The other lots that still do have forested areas that are being preserved, like along Lake Susan would have a conservation easement but there you can have a simple lot. You can have a simple description. We would take an elevation along here. Batzli: Right. But that's the only one you've listed as having a conservation easement is that Lots 1-6, Block 2. Is that right? the only place that you've done that? Is that Olsen= Right. The other ones will have, the other ones are under pretty much the custom grading. Farmakes= How serious was the discrepancy between what was listed and what you found on this? Olsen: Well one of the problems we had was that there was round tags and square tags. So at first we were thinking they were totally off because, and then we found that we were looking at the round tags when it was actually square tags. There was, it wasn't all completely wrong. I mean a lot of them were correct but there was enough where it was a large tree and a good tree and it was shown as a smaller ash or something like that. Farmakes: For the future, just for my own education, do we have a criteria of when we bring the DNR to look at that and review that? Do we have, to insure that there isn't a discrepancy? Because I assume when this stuff comes in that it's accurate. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 3 Olean: Yeah, so did we. Well I think what we're going to do is from now on require them to be performed by a licensed forester. Require them like we do with a registered surveyor or something so that we know that they are done by somebody who really knows what they're doing. Also the DNR has a list of foresters that have been licensed and so we can use that list. $o I think that's one way to do it. Batzli: Dave, I was wondering if you could address something. The ejector pumps, the condition that's going to be placed in the development contract. Who, is this going to be placed on the developer or on the ultimate homeowners or what are we talking about there? Hempel: That specific condition Mr. Chairman will be contained in the development contract which is recorded against the property of the overall subdivision on each property. It will go with each property owner. It stays with the land. Batzli: Have we ever done that before? Hempel: The development contracts are always recorded with these certain conditions of approval of a plat. There hasn't been...one containing ejector pumps however at this time. Batzli: What kind of condition is placed on that? That they have to have it inspected annually? Hempel: Mainly our reason for putting it in there, a lot of times the homeowners will call the city if they have a problem with the sewer lines or water lines or whatever and our maintenance and ownership responsibilities end at the property line. 9 out of lO times the problems are on the private property. So we just want to make it clear up front of the ownership's responsibility. Batzli: Okay, so this isn't going to be an annual type, it's just going to clarify to the homeowner, it's going to be part of their lot description or something that it's their responsibility out to the curb and then the city takes over from there, or something like that. Okay. Would the applicant like to address the Commission now and respond to any of the conditions that are in the staff report? Wayne Tauer: My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer Engineering representing Joe Miller Homes. I guess all that we have to say tonight is the fact that we have worked with the city staff, Jo Ann and Dave and the forester and have tried to work the best we could to work out the problems. I think we did a pretty good job doing so. As far as the conditions of approval, as outlined in the staff report, we have no major problems with any of those conditions. We're willing to accept them all and go from here. We have put together an exhibit Just simply showing trees lost, trees saved and the two that you see here is obviously the brown are dead trees and the green are hopefully live trees. I don't know if everybody can see that or not but as you can see, especially...up here that there's a massive amount of trees which are being saved and a lot of the trees that probably didn't show up on Jo Ann's drawing that shows up on mine are the trees that are actually in the right-of-way. There's not much we can Planning Commission Meeting April 21. 1993 - Page 4 do between the 60 feet of right-of-way that we have to obviously put pavement on and maintain. /)ut beyond that, in the lots themselves, I think we've done a very good job in avoiding trees. Moving lot lines around. Limiting the building pads. Moving them back. Lowering them below the street and requiring the ejector pumps. And they asked for a graphic and we're presenting this tonight. Like I say, other than that I think we've done a good job in working with the staff and except for questions I guess that's all we have to say. Batzli: Does anyone have a question right now? Go ahead. Harberts: Jo Ann, how do we insure that there won't be additional trees taken or maybe impacted due to stress? Olsen: The major thing that we're doing as far as the conditions that will be part of the development contract is listing the trees that.can be removed. So when the building permit comes in, that's what we'll be cross referencing to make sure that they're doing that. Essentially what we've done is we've decided exactly where the house is going. What the size of the house and style is right at this time. Again.-that's also what that management plan is going to do to also try to save what's there. We should have a pretty good feel. Harberts: So when the actual contractor or contractors come in to build a house, there's going to be some oversight by the city to in~ure? Olsen: Right. As far as when the building permit comes through, we confirm on the building site what's done. Then also during the inspections we make sure that the snow fencing is up and all that. Scott: Jo Ann, what happens if a tree is accidentally damaged? Olsen: That was not supposed to be? Scott: What's the financial implications to the builder? Olsen: There's no financial. We've been asked that too. If we can hit them in the wallet and you can't. We have the replacement of i inch per caliper whatever's lost. We can require that and then we can also, there's the 90 days in jail and if you want to pursue that, which we never have. Harberts: Per tree. Batzli: Per tree? Olsen: Yeah, per tree. Yeah, I've already told Wayne that he'll be the first one in Jail. Wayne Tauer: I need a vacation. Olsen: So that's really all we have. I mean if it happens, we'll try our best not to have it happen but if it does, we don't get that tree back. I mean we'll get the smaller trees replaced or the fine and that but we Planning Commission Heating April 2~, 1993 - Page can't say it's $1,OOO.OO per caliper inch or anything like that. Scott: Sure. But is that, that's an ordinance? Is it something that it's at the discretion of the city staff to? Olsen: To require the. Scott: Replacement. Olean: Yeah. Scott: Is that something that is normally put into a development agreement? Olean: I don't know if that's typically in there. It's in the ordinance. I don't know that we ever really had to have it in the development contract. ' Scott: So it's in the ordinance and whether it's enforced or not is really the issue. Olean: Right. Batzli: I thought from time to time we made it one of our conditions. Olean: That? 8atzli: That damaged or lost trees would be required to be replaced on a caliper basis. Olsen: We can do that. There's no reason not to. Krauss: It doesn't hurt anything. Olean: And you want to do per caliper inch? Batzli: Well I don't want to put them in Jail. I'd rather have a tree. Olean: We could do both. Wayne Tauer: Thanks Jo Ann. Our friend over here. Harberts: I have another question' just to staff. Batzli: Go ahead. Harberts: Jo Ann, could you just address the street naming issues. dealt with just Lake Susan Hills Drive. And maybe, I don't know the comments from, highlighting again the comments from Public Safety. As it Olean: They wanted, it's getting confusing because it's on both sides so originally they wanted to change Lake Susan Hills on this side because there's only like 6 or 7 homes already on it. 8ut they notified the affected parties and there was so, no way. You know we don't want to do Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 6 this so they dropped that. I don't know what the, I think they're still working on it. I think they're going to do, weli what I heard last was that they're going to have large signs on Powers saying East Lake Drive Hills 1 thru 30 or something so that's how they were going to resolve it so emergency vehicles could see it that way. Harberts: So the City was comfortable with, Public Safety was comfortable with that? Oisen: Yeah. You know they didn't want to take on the battle of changing the streets since people were objecting to that. They felt that this would work also. It's one of those that we should have caught earlier. 8atzli: Does anyone have a question for the applicant? Otherwise I'd like to open it up for public comment. Phil Jungbluth: I'd like to say just prior to that. You know we've talked before about custom grading lots and so forth and I just want to make sure that people understand what we really mean by that. And that means exactly what it says. We will work with the site to build the house to fit that site and around those trees. I mean that's exactly the intention. There isn't any grading on the site, so. 8atzli: Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to address the Commission at this time? Robert Smithburg: Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Smithburg. I live at 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North and I'd like to pass this out before I start. I took an interest in this project in January. I'm concerned about the loss of old growth trees, a valuable resource to Chanhassen. Chanhassen has adopted a tree preservation code. It states, it is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and with respect to specific site development, to retain as far as practical substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. This is the current policy and can be applied to this site development. It is good reason that this code was adopted and if you'd look at this overall aerial view of Chanhassen I've given you. This is a 1968 map and what I've done, I've deleted. In orange are the areas that were forested. Woodland areas that are gone or proposed to be eliminated. Number 1 is Timberwood Stone Creek. Number 2, Chanhassen public works. Number 4, this is proposed Highway 212 roadway, which is coming. And Number 5, Highway 212/101 interchange. Number 3 is Chanhassen Hills development which is adjacent to Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition proposal. In Chanhassen Hills development, in this wooded area they punched a cul-de-sac in. What remains is there's a rim of trees on the back side of the homes down to a wetland. You have 7 homes in. One new pad going in now. And in the process they took out.3 full semi truckfulls of red oak. If you zero in then on the area that is highlighted, this is what's left of the forested wooded areas in Chanhassen. Basically we have Lake Ann Park and the proposed development which we are talking about now. I spent many hours reviewing the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition development design maps and. have made an attempt to estimate how many trees would be lost. I would imagine we're going to Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 7 differ on this but what I have done is I used the latest map and only did roadway and, housepads and roadways. Batzli: Those actually appear to be pretty close I think. Robert Smithburg: As I said, street and housepad loss is only shown. Damage due to construction, digging, grading, etc cannot be shown. These trees are from 12 to 48 inches in diameter, 80 to 150 years old. Allowable loss is approximately 20~ or 195 trees. Loss percentages can significantly increase. We have to ask, what is acceptable tree loss in regards to old growth wooded areas. Chanhassen does not have any more significant old growth tree stands left to be eliminated. As has been shown, city staff, you, the Planning Commission and public input can have an effect making positive changes. The redesign and site changes by the developer are commendable and are headed in the right direction but is this minimal change. Chanhassen has to make sure we go beyond minimum standards. I believe there are still design modifications and changes that can be done to save old growth trees such as increased lot size in heavily wooded areas insuring more flexibility for housepads, more custom grading and better compliance with the City's official amendments or controls or requirements. The City does have discretionary leeway. Refer to Attorney's letter dated April 1st to the City concerning the PUD, last page of your agenda. ! ask the Plannin~ Commission to take the tree preservation section of the city code to heart and not approve this development until a greater number of these precious old growth trees can be saved. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to-address the commission? Don Wisdorf: My name's Don Wisdorf. I live on 8639 Chanhassen Hills. I just have one concern about, or major concern about what has been proposed. I understand as part of the development contract we can specify which trees are allowed to be removed and have that part of the development contract. Ny concern is that we possibly have within the contract what trees can't be removed. My concern there is that we're leaving it up to the developer to be able to mark with snow fences around it the trees that cannot be removed. That's up to his discretion and it's also up to his discretion in regards to which ones he can cut down. I would urge us to kind of put that in a little bit stronger contract so we can control and not only be assured by willful or by unintentional means that the developer doesn't cut down trees that have been deemed to be important to save. Also the other point is, it doesn't take long to cut down trees and then we find out, it's too late.. It takes many more years to grow these back. If there's some way for an audit to be done, the city staff to be able to check and inspect upon the property periodically rather than before all the damage to be done, I think that'd be a good consideration to make. So that the plans as have been put together here can be carried out to the fullest. Thank you. 8atzli: Jo Ann, do you want to respond to that? Olsen= Well the whole list itself will be, the whole list of trees will be part of the development contract and I guess we can make it clear that the numbers that weren't specified out that could be removed will be Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 8 saved. I think we're still doing the same thing. I'm not exactly sure if I'll follow what the difference was. And then. Batzli: Okay but, the survey has been done. Olsen: The survey has been done. BatzIi: In our current conditions we list those trees which are permitted to be removed. And the inspection process out on the site, as far as putting snow fence around the trees that are to be saved, that is not at the developer's discretion, correct? Olsen: Correct. Batzli: Okay. That is part of the development contract where he has to go out and put up those trees and so the inspectors, basically will be out there and they will see those things already as a part of the process. Olsen: Right. They'll see the snow fencing up and then they'll also have this list that they can confirm that the numbers, the trees that aren't fenced are the correct ones and not be fenced. Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Yes sir. Don Wisdorf: Are those snow fences put up before tree removal can begin then? Olsen: Right. Before any activity on the site. Don Wisdorf: Okay, thank you. Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? There appears to be a large number of people in the crowd. Are most people here for this issue? Can I see hands. And is trees your number one priority here? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~a8 clo~ed. Batzli: Diane, do you want to start at your end here? Harberts: Sure. From my perspective with the activity that has gone on by both staff, bringing in the DNR and the extensive survey. I think it's very commendable. One of the dilemmas we certainly have here, we have a developer who wants to develop a plan. We have residents. We have environmental issues and I think when it gets to the Commission level here, as well as to the City, I see that it's our task to bring the balance between all of these issues. I certainly have to agree that we need to try and be careful in terms of losing some of our natural resources such as trees, but at the same time the developer certainly has his right. His or her right to develop the piece of property. I think with what has happened since the last time we've seen this, I find it as a Planning Commission Meeting' April 21, 1993 - Page 9 very good compromise taking into consideration the environmental issue, issues by the residents as well as the interest and rights of the developer. And if I, there isn't any other significant comments, I'm planning on supporting this compromise. The only thing [ would raise issue to is the street name. In my previous residence I went through an address change because the Post Office told us. Not because they asked. And when you look at a public safety issue, if there's any delays simply because of a potential misreading of an address, I think it's in the best interest to suffer a little bit upfront in terms of having to go through an address change. So I would really certainly recommend that. I know in the past the city has requested different names and I would support that the city continues with that practice of difi=erent names because the bottom line here, it really is in the best interest of all residents. That the names are clearly identifiable, especially in the area of public safety. Batzli: Anything else? Harberts: No. Batzli: Ladd. Conrad: I thought the only solution was to create bigger lots and I'm impressed that staff and the developer have done some things to save what I perceive to be a significant amount of trees on the property. It's hard for me to get a handle on the trees that are going down but on the other hand, as I challange what I see here, it's probably as good a plan in terms of if you're going to develop it. I couldn't change it. If I challenged each lot up there and said well, if I made the lots 50~ bigger I don't know that I'd save many more trees. That's what I tried to do. [ think as I look at what ! see, it's very reasonable. That's all I have to say. Batzli: Let me play devil's advocate then. Let's assume you cluster the houses so that you didn't have to run the road through there, which is where you lose most of the trees. Conrad: You could do that~ Batzli: But then you're talking about a completely different style and type of development. Conrad: Yeah, you cluster all your houses out where there aren't any trees and I don't think that's reasonable. Ii= we clustered them in where the trees are, that's not reasonable. From anybody's standpoint. ! think if somebody had some wisdom a while back when this was originally proposed, we might have thought of this as some park proper, ty or something along that line but it's not right now and the developer is way down the road on this one and we really haven't said that this is a park parcel. Yeah Brian, I think you could, if somebody could tell me a better use, l would listen to it but in terms of the map that Ne're looking at on the top that's, if somebody's going to put houses in, that's a fairly .minimal amount of tree loss. ---- Il ~ I I III Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 10 Batzli: Okay. Given that it's fairly minimal, would you then require'. Conrad: Let me say, before you say that, take a look at Lundgren Brothers, who we typically hoId up as a fairly sophisticated developer and putting in some higher priced home. They took down far more trees than what we're looking at here. Batzli: For the Ersbo one? Conrad= Up on. Batzli: Summit? Conrad: Yeah. If you take a look at what they took down and we say they're doing a good job. They took down a whole tot more trees. Batzli: Would you, in view of the fact that we're doing such a nice job of saving them during the development process, are we going to be unhappy several years later when people move in and cut them down out of their yards? Would it be better to apply more conservation easements rather than giving them a management plan and leaving it up to their whim? Conrad: Tim Erhart should be here for that... I don't think we should be, I'm not on that line of thinking, no. 8atzli: I don't think he would be either. Conrad: We know he would not be. There's a fair number of trees on the bottom plat that we're looking at. Fair number that are going down. But I have a real tough time saying change this and do it a different way and Brian, if you want to cluster them, it Just is a whole different concept. Single family, this was always thought of as a single family area and I just don't know how I'd do it differently. Batzli: Fair enough. Anything else Ladd? Matt? Ledvina: Well I think the developer has done a good Job. And getting back to what was originally was proposed and the alignments of the streets that were approved in the conceptual stage and the things they've done to change the alignment and the design have really enhanced the tree preservation. I'm fairly comfortable with what they've got here. I had other questions on some of the staff recommendations here. On the first condition, you talked about the front yard setback being reduced to 25 feet where it will preserve natural features. I know we used this reduced setback for Lundgren and did we not identify the lots that were actually involved? Olsen: I had identified the lots and you recommended that it be just general. That it generally applied. This condition really, we've already set the housepad up if it needed'to be and so it's really not even necessary because those lots that it would have been used to preserved the natural features already, we have established where the housepad is. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page Il Ledvina: $o for the areas for example in the northern part of the development where there's no concerns. Olsen: There shouldn't. Ledvina: Okay. $o we're not wo+ried about those, the builder coming in with the 25 foot setback and us being required to approve that? Olsen: Right. I think it's pretty, we could say that it's not preserving natural features. Or we could take it out. Complete...the condition probably. UnIess we need to specify which lots we've done it. Batzli: Last time I think actually what it read was the frontyard setback can be reduced to 25 feet period. Olsen: And then we added where it will preserve. Batzli: Right. But I think, we would be more comfortable if this wasn't at the discretion of the developer. If the city staff. Olsen: pointed out which ones. 8atzli: Right. I think we were comfortable as long as it's being submitted to you for approval if they're moving them around. Olsen: $o add, if approved by city staff? 8atzli: Yeah. Ledvina: I know the City Council was concerned about that specific provision on the Lundgren subdivision so I'm a little bit sensitive to that. Olsen: Yeah. That's the one I was saying that we had specified the lots and it was asked to change to be general so. eut I'll just add, if approved by city staff. Ledvina: Okay. And I just had a general question regarding the flag lots. Is that a common driveway on those two flags? $o there's two driveways side by side? Olsen: Yeah. We hadn't provided for a common driveway. I don't know if it shows that well on that map but the lot, the trees that you can that are going to be removed would most likely have been removed with 2 driveways versus 1 so we just went ahead and blocked those out with the driveways. The trees that we're losing in those parts. Ledvina: Right. Well, if you've got one driveway for those two flags, they can split and you've got whatever, a 15 foot. I mean it's much less pavement. Olsen: Oh yeah, no question about that. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 12 Ledvina: Can we require that that be, that there be one lot servicing those adjacent flag lots? Or one driveway servicing those adjacent flag lots. Olsen: I don't see why we couldn't. We'd have to, does it have to be a 20 foot? Is it a shared driveway then? And then you get into a 20 foot width. Has to be 7 ton design where you have 2 lots on a driveway. I mean we can make any condition we want. That's a general. The general condition for the city is if you have a shared driveway, two homes on a private drive, it has to be 20 foot wide, 7 ton design. Batzli: Didn't we just do, I thought we did an amendment to our flag lot driveway ordinance and we didn't require that. 01sen= For shared driveways? Krauss: No, that's the way it was written 2 or 3 years ago. That hasn't changed. Batzli: Boy, time flies. Really? Oh, okay. Olsen: But we can look at that. We can look again but I think when Dave and I worked on this, I don't think we saw that shared driveways was going to be saving any trees. We either placed the driveways where there were no trees going to be removed or else where the trees were going to-be removed with 1 or 2. Ledvina: Is that your understanding Dave? That a shared driveway won't really help the situation? Hempel: That and the combination of the sewer and water service extensions to each home. Ledvina: Okay. I just thought there might be an opportunity there but. Batzli: So we'll require rain barrels and an outdoor...' Oisen: Right. Well actually we want a cart Path and when we were walking through the site we were going, can't they just be accessed by a golf cart and a cart path. Ledvina: Let's see. He talked about a variance being required for the street grade and I may have missed it in here but I didn't find it in the conditions. Olsen: I took it out because it's a PUD so technically it doesn't have to get a variance. Ledvina: Okay. We don't have to worry about that? Alright. Dave, is that going to present any problems at all? It's near the outlet, south outlet by Powers Boulevard. Is that lO~ grade a concern fo~ the city? Hempel: We're still going to require that there's a landing at the top so there is a gentle gradient onto Powers Boulevard providing for adequate Planning Commission Heating Rpril 21, 1993 - Page 13 stopping and acceleration onto Powers Boulevard. I would imagine there'd be approximately 100 to 150 foot landing on top required. Ledvina: But other than that, a 3~ increase is not real significant? Hempel: Not in this stretch we didn't feel it would be. Ledvina: Okay. It's a pretty short stretch. What is it, 100 feet or so? Hempel: It's actually a little longer than that...250. Ledvina: Okay. Well I think if you don't go above lO~, you're generally okay for any type of vehicle. And then Jo Ann, on the agenda it identified a wetland alteration permit. That's not part of this? Olsen: No, that shouldn't be on there. I never even looked at that. Ledvina: I didn't think so but I just. Olsen: ...no, that's correct. They're not touching a wetland. Ledvina: Okay, that's all I have for my comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. You know I really thought you were going to ask about the stockpiled material in condition 19. ! don't know why. Ledvina= I thought I'd forego it this time. Batzli= Okay. Joe. Scott: 30 Ann, on the corrected tree survey, how many trees are identified? Olsen: How many, you mean out of the whole list? Scott: No. I mean out of the, on the list. When you went through it. Olsen: How many do we identify? Scott: Yeah, how many did you identify? Olsen: Ne went through the whole, pretty much all the list. Scott: Like 1,500 or? Olsen: Oh no, no. There's, well the number's about 900 or so and we didn't do all 900 but we went in the area. Scott: I was thinking as far as the count, because I'm trying to get in my mind is some sort of a numeric difference between, so out of the 900 the initial proposal as we saw about a month ago had a tree loss of. Olsen: Oh, I don't have those numbers. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 14 Scott: I mean this helps a lot from a visual standpoint. Olsen: I'd say at least they're saving 50~ of what was being lost the first time. Scott: And where the creativity come from to, because obviously there's some ideas that came out of this process to reduce tree loss. Where did those ideas come from? Did they come primarily from city staff? Primarily from the developer? Olsen: Well, the staff is where we're, we saw that it was sanitary sewer that was causing a lot of the tree removal and that's where I said to Dave, are there other options. Then so yes and then the developer also agreed that yes, there are other things that they could do. I mean they, what this is is additional cost to them in changes and they agreed yes, we could do it. It was either a llft station or this ejector pump so that's where that one came from. But their Crane Circle, Crane, I forget what that was. That was just saying we want to preserve that stand and so do whatever you can to preserve that. And actually we had proposed flag lots in there and they're the ones who came back with the whole, taking it out completely. Scott: Is there a bituminous trail that'S still proposed to go from Lake Susan Hills Drive out to Lake Susan? Is that what that? Olean: Yeah. Up on the northern one, on that area from Mallard? Scott: It's looking on, at least what I have here. I don't know if it's, yeah. It would be from Mallard. Olean: Yeah, there's still going to be a trail. Scott: Okay. What's the tree loss associated with putting that? Olean: Well we, I think we're also putting sewer down there or something. Isn't it going where the line is going? The trail going down to Lake. Susan Dave? Hempel: Below the lake? Scott: No. It connects Lake Susan Hills Drive to the bituminous trail that goes around Lake Susan. Is that going to be laid over storm sewer or something like that? Hempel: That's where the sanitary sewer is being extended up from along the lake. Olean: Yeah, originally it was going to be removing trees and that's where we said let's move that. Scott: Okay. And then I'd like to see too, condition 21. That damage for lost trees would follow the ordinance and that's Section 20-1178 and especially C(3) and C(7). It talks specifically about caliper inch per caliper inch replacement and then also the trees that are designated for Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 15 preservation that are lost will be replaced by compatible trees approved by the city and the city will require the developer to replace these trees with the largest comparable trees that are commercial available for transportation so, but I'd like to see that tree preservation ordinance as part of the development agreement. No further comments. 8atzli= Joe, are you suggesting that the, and maybe ! missed something. That the applicant is going to replace all the trees that are being taken out? Scott: Oh no. No. Trees that are designated for preservation that are lost due to construction. Not everything. Batzli: But C(3) of that section discusses replacing trees approved for removal. Scott: I'm mostly concerned with the trees that are designated for preservation. If some of those are damaged. Olsen: So C(7). Scott: So that would be C(7) instead of (3). Thanks. 8atzli: Okay, thank you. Farmakes: I had several things I already talked about so I'm not going to · cover those. I too agree that this is a good compromise to this problem. Fortunately we're working with the long term solution here and I know that...but certainly for the aesthetic value that they provide us, we do have such little tree cover left in Chanhassen, I think it's worth it to try and save these resources to let. them live out their natural lives and pass on. They also provide us with wildlife, food for wildlife, particularly the nut trees and so on. So I'd like to see us continue to be aggressive in trying to save these trees. On the other hand, we have people with millions of dollars of property who have invested, who are selling these parcels of property who are moving out here. These people, and of course in time move in, they plant trees and over the years an urban forest begins to develop. I think the DNR said approximately 95~ of Chanhassen denuded of forest cover. That this has been a farm area for over 100 years. Trees and farming don't mix particularly well. So consequently the areas that are left are for wood, for game purposes or simply weren't farmable land. Minimal farmable land. And I think that this is a reasonable compromise to this. Maybe Dick Wing will disagree and ask for 3 more but I don't know how else this problem can be solved short of, as Ladd said, that 20 years ago they made a forest out of this thing and turned it into a park. That wasn't done and time has marched on now and as I said before, I think there's a Pragmatic solution. I would like to back up just a little bit and touch before I forget on the PUD part that is not covered by the trees. I still feel that l, 2 and 8 are pretty cramped. Particularly 8 and 1 in comparison to the surrounding properties and although. I'm not going to not vote on this because of that, I would like to pass on that comment to the City Council and have them review that. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 1~ Batzli: Far ma kes: Those are all in Block 17 Correct. 8atzli: The ones up in the northern most part of the development? Farmakes: Correct. I think 8 in particular because of the angle of the house is at a different angle than the property. It's sort of a pie. They seem to be areas within the PUD that are sort of left over land trying to work in a housepad. I'm concerned about the properties next to them. The discrepancy difference between their size of lots and so on and the available area there. I also agree with you and the idea of having a conservation easement following the property. It will be a mistake, all this work could be undone with a happy chatnsaw so I'd like to see that put in. Olean: Okay. With the individual trees and all of them saved? Farmakes: Yeah. That's possible per lot. Olean: Yeah, we have to have a legal description around each one of those trees, is that correct Elliott? Knetsch: Yes. Olean: Do you see another way of preserving these after they're, the ownership of the lot owner other than by having a legal description?' Knetsch: Well, whether you have the conservation easement or the management plan, it's just a piece of paper filed at the courthouse. If someone gets their chainsaw out, the trees are going to go whether it's a conservation easement or a management plan. Farmakes: Well we have the setback from the lake edge and the same type of reasoning applies. If you have an area of property that's overviewing the lake people often, when they build their house want to see the lake so they go down and start cutting trees out. If that's allowed to happen, it seems to me it's a moot issue what we're doing here. 8ut if there's a way to solve that problem, I'd like to see that follow. Whether or not somebody's going to break the law, I suppose we don't have any ~uarantee of that but we can always enforce it at a later date. I don't know else to deal with that. That's the end of my comments other than, with this type of tree cover, I'd like to see us come up with or establish a criteria of what we need, when we need to see this type of thing. And with this type of overview. What bothered me the last time is that we didn't see this up front and it really was the basis of what we're making a decision here. And certainly if there's that stand of trees or whatever criteria you were going to use, that there's a significant stand that we should know specifically what we're losing or we're gaining. Olean: Agreed, yeah. 8atzli: Okay, thank you. In the past from time to time Jo Ann we've narrowed the roadway in a PUD in order to, at least in one instance I Planning Commission Meeting ~pril 21, 1993 - Page 17 think we have, narrowed the roadway. Did we take a look at doing that at all in here? Olean: We've done that. @atzli: olean= Well, by how much did we do that though? Well down to 50. I mean we've never gone below 50 rtghtzof-way. Batzli: But that's the right-of-way. I mean have we ever gone lower in the actual curb to curb? Olsen: We've talked about doing that but that should be, Dave can address that but there's other implications. Hempel: Right. Mr. Chairman. The major disruption out there again is not the street pavement. It's the initial utility installation. Sanitary sewer. The watermain. The storm sewer. £ach one of those are placed approximately 10 feet apart. The State health codes for the watermatn and sanitary sewer to be 10 feet apart in separation so that has the most impact on the site. Not the final street pavement out there. It's the initial utility installation. Batzli: Okay. I guess like Matt I'd like to see condition 1 changed so that if there is going to be a pulling back, it will be approved by city staff. I would like to see us look into a few more of these lots having a conservation easement on them. I don't want to do it for the onesies, twoies trees I guess but it seems to me Block, I think it's 3 where a lot of the homes have trees in the back. Significant numbers and I don't know that from your condition I don't .know that, it looks like those, on that block, those lots will. not have a conservation easement on them. Olsen: That's where we were just going with the management plan and listing what was there. Yeah, we will definitely go back and where there's a stand of trees we'll come up with a legal description-and work out some way where we have the little one and two, how to. I mean ideally we would love to have them all in conservation easements with just is not feasible when you have individual ones. So yeah, we will do that. We'll add to that. 8atzli: I'd like to see a new condition 21 and as 3ce stated, for replacement of, for those trees which are damaged in construction. I really appreciate the presentation by Mr. Smithburg. That was nice. Thank you. I won't reiterate too many of the comments by my fellow commissioners but I think we're doin~ a pretty decent job here given this type of development and trying to accommodate a lot of different needs here. From the looks of it I think we're doing one of the best jobs we've done on preserving trees and looking at it, it appears to me that Dave is, he's right. We're losing them on the roadway and probably installation of the utilities and I don't see a way around that other than completely sawing, so. If someone has a motion, I'd be happy to listen to it. Conrad: I don't have a motion but I'd make a comment and then, I appreciate the residents being here and following the issue. It's an Planning Commission Heeting April 21, 1993 - Page issue that we care about. It doesn't look like it sometimes but we really do care about it. We probably had something to do with the tree mreservation ordinance that's in here. But if you see, we're kind of globally looking at things and maybe not always challenging a lot line here or there so I think later on, in fact as it goes to City Council, if you see some specifics that we've missed on here, it's probably not a bad idea to challenge the specifics. If there's a stand of trees that a lot line could have saved or a bigger parcel could have preserved, but again I thank everybody for showing up. It's best that you're following this issue. 8atzli: Nicely said. I think we all appreciate it. Would someone like to take a crack at a motion? Harberts: Well I guess I'll take a crack at it. I'll make a motion to approve Case No. 87-3, Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and approve the recommendations presented by staff with the following changes, and I would welcome assistance from the group. Number 1, that the staff will outline which lots can be reduced to 2S feet. Number 12 I would like to see added that Lake Susan Hills Drive be renamed as supported by the Public Safety Deparment. That we add 21. Basically what you'd lose in the developer's agreement in the ordinance as specified by Commissioner Scott. I guess that does it. Batzli: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. 8atzli: Is there discussion? Farmakes: Did that include your amendment? Scott: Yeah. It included my amendment and also you wanted to make greater use of conservation easements? Batzli: Did you want to include language for staff to look at incorporating additional conservation easements in your motion? Harberts: Yes. Batzli: Do you accept that as a friendly amendment? Conrad: Certainly. Batzli: Regarding your condition 12, was that eleminating the current language or was that adding? Harberts: Adding. Batzli: Okay. And your motion was for the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as shown on the plans dated April 12, 19937 Harberts: Yes, thank you. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 19 Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as shown on the plans dated April 12, 1993, with the following condition~= 1. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25' where it will preserve natural features if approved by city staff. · The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. · The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations for the rentention ponds (NURP standards) for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MNCC, Health Department, Natershed District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 7. All retention ponds shall include an outlet control structure to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. The applicant shall provide maintenance access routes to the retention pond areas and dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat· In addition, all utility lines outside the street right-of-way shall be dedicated with a minimum of a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement. Erosion control and turf restoration shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. lc. If feasible, the applicant shall work with the City and County in oversizing the storm drainage improvements to include the future runoff from the upgrade of Powers Boulevard. The applicant would be compensated for the associated oversizing costs. 11. The location of all fire hydrants shall be approved.by the City's Fire Marshal. 12. Mallard Court should be renamed to either Drake Court or some other acceptable street name. Lake Susan Hills DriVe shall also be renamed as supported by the Public Safety Department. Five foot concrete sidewaIks should also be extended from Lake Susan Hills Drive west to Dove Court. 14. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the deveiopment wiIi be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement Plannin.~ Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 20 shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. ~11 healthy trees over 6' caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Generally the conservation easement shall be on the following lots: Lots 1-6, Block 2. 15. Lots 6-16. Block 3, Lots 1-10, Block 4, and Lots 20-28, Block 5 shall be custom graded lots and the following conditions shall apply: a. Each of these lots shall conform to the approved custom graded plans. Deviation from these plans which will result in more removal of vegetation, will not be permitted. b. Each of these lots Shall have a woodland management plan developed · by the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed forester approved by the city. ~ copy of the woodland management plan shall be kept in the building permit file and a copy will also be given to the homeowner. c. Each of these lots shall only be permitted to have the following trees remove (these numbers correspond to the tree survey numbers as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of Plans dated ~pril 12, 1993): Block 3: Lot 6 - 64 Lot 7 - 84, 85, 86, $7, $$, 90, 91 Lot 8- 100, 502, 503, 504, 507, 510, 511, 512 Lot 9 - 567, 575 Lot 10 - 582, 602 Lot 11 - 592, 593, 594, 559 Lot 12 - 598, 626, 633, 634, 635, 647, 648, 649 Lot 13 - 605, 624, 625, 652, 715 Lot 14 - 615 Lot 15 -- 606 *Lot line must be ad3usted to save stand of trees. Lot 16 - 573 Block 4: Lot i - 870, 871, 872, 875 ,House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50, must save 863 Lot 2 - 817, 857, 861 Lot 3 - 828, 829, 840, 841, 519 Lot 4 - 985 Lot 5 - 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 550, 990, 991, 994 Lot 6 - 587 Lot 7 - 563 Lot 8 - 528, 568, 569 Lot 9 - 616, 626, 627, 630, 637 Lot 10 - 619, 620, 621 Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 21 i6. i7. 18. Block 5: Lot 20- none Lot 21 - none Lot 22 - none Lot 23 - 911, 914, 917 Lot 24 - 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 875, 879 Lot 25 - 996, 997 Lot 26 - 570, 571, 573, 578, 579, 580, 581 Lot 27 - 604 ,House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50 Lot 28 - 612 The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide the following: a. Increased landscaping along Powers 8oulevard (CR 17) and internal boulevard and entrance landscaping. b. Improved landscaping materials, with at Ieast 50~ of the hardwoods from the primary species list. c. A plan providing $750.00 worth of landscaping/single family unit. Park and Recreation Commission conditions: a. Dedication of Outlot E to the city; b. Construction of the following trails: 1. an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as indicated on Attachment 8, Segments D and E; 2. an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B; 3. Trail segments A, C and F; · Park fees are assessed at one-half the rate in force upon building permit application. All trail fees have been waived as a part of the development of Lake Susan Hills West. · The two trail easements identified allowing access to the shoreland trail be consolidated into one 40 foot easemen~ at the location of the northerly easement. Building Official conditions: a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan. b. submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. Planning Commission Heating April 21, 1993 - Page 22 C · Oversized street signs shall be placed at each of the four outlets of Lake Susan Hills Drive on Powers 8oulevard-. The signs shall indicate the range of addresses on the street. 19. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final grading plan with detailed house types, elevation and grading limits on all lots. final grading plan shall also take into consideration existing stockpiled material along County Road 17. The 20. A condition shall be placed in the development contract regarding maintenance responsibilities for homes with ejector pumps. 21. Any trees damaged during construction shall be replaced on a caliper inch basis per the ordinance, Section 2~1178(cX 7). voted in favor and the eotion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY P~T TO S~D~VID~ 68,53 ~t[S INTO 2 SIN6LE F~J~[LY LOTS OF 2.25 ACRES AND 64.~8 ACRES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TP~IL. JUST ~EST OF PIONEER HILLS SUBDIVISION · LAURENT ADDITION. PAUL L~_NT. Public Present: Name Paul Laurent Gil Laurent 16085 Delarma Drive 1370 Pioneer Trail, Chaska 30 Ann Olean presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Batzli: Would the applicant like to address the Commission at this time? No? You're happy with all of the conditions that are in the staff report? There's no problems? Paul Laurent: Yeah, I guess other than the driveway... Olean: It's usually a condition that Carver County will have to give you an access permit and it's usually not a major issue. Batzli: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would li'ke to address the Commission on this matter? Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 8atzli: Jeff, do you want to lead off? Farmakes: I have no comments on this issue. Batzli: Okay, Joe? Planning Commission Meeting ~pril 2l, 1993 - Page 23 Scott: No comment. Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: No comment. Conrad: Ditto. Harberts: Just clarification. As I understand, this is being subdivided or whatever for a family? Olsen: Right. His father owns the property and this is the son. Harberts: That's it. No problems. 8atzli: I only have one question. That is, we're taking an easement, drainage and utility easements'. Whoops, wrong one. Where is it, 8luff Creek. Yeah, drainage and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas including Bluff Creek. Now I don't think that's shown on the 'map where we're doing this, is it? Olean: Yeah, I believe it is. Batzli: Is that just that little drainage and utility easement on the back of Lot 17 Olean: I don't think they were showing. I thought I brought it down. The easements that we were talking about aren't shown on here yet. Batzli: Right. Olean: Okay, what were you saying? Batzli: I was saying, where are we doing it? I mean are we going to show it someday? Olean: Yeah. Batzli: Who is going to determine this and when is it going to happen? Krauss: The plat will be modified to reflect this. Batzli: Okay. Do we need that as part of our conditions that the map has to be modified to show those? Olean: We're saying on the final plat-it will show up, but yeah. And then Paul has pointed out that if the creek is.going through there, that we should also double check to see if a trail easement should be taken along that too. Batzli: Well that was my biggest concern was that if we eventually are going to do something along 8luff Creek, it needs to be more than just a drainage and utility easement. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 24 Olsen: Right. Although it's, yeah I don't know how you're going to get. Batzli: I don't know either but we'll kick ourselves later. olsen: We have been working on trail crossings. Krauss: And Highway 212 is being designed with a bridge'over Bluff Creek. It was one of the things we insisted on with the EIS 2 years ago. Scott: Is that going to be like what we'll be doing on Highway 5? Krauss: I think the Highway 212 is really a brid~e. It doesn't just look like a bridge. Batzli: Okay. So how can we, we can modify that condition 5 to, the easement will be reflected on the final plat and that trail, I don't know. Olsen: Or maybe, could Just to number 4 we could add Bluff Creek to the trail easement along Pioneer Trail and 8luff Creek. I'll confirm. I'm assuming it will be like a 20 foot trail easement. 8atzli: Okay. I don't have anything else. If no one else does, I'd entertain a motion. Scott: I move that the Planning Commission approve the Laurent Addition Preliminary Plat ~93-7 to create two single family lots as shown'on the plans dated March 22, 1993 and subject to the conditions as stated by staff with item number 4 modified to include an easement of some size to be determined later along Bluff Creek as well as Pioneer Trail. 8atzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. 8atzli: Did you want to include submission of a final plat showing these easements on condition 5 for example? Scott: Certainly. 8atzli: And typically 30 Ann, do we not typically talk about the plans that we've received rather than whatever the heck the .applicant dates them? So that really we're talking about shown on the plans dated Received March 25th? Olsen: Right. It should be 25th, that's correct. And then I don't know, on condition 5 it already says that it shall dedicate on final plat. Are you saying the preliminary plat. You want it to be shown on the? 8atzli: I don't know. It just seemed silly that we were, I thought that what we would require is a final plat showing all these things from the applicant. Is what I thought. Olsen: Yeah. Okay. Planning Commission Heating April 21, 1993 - Page 25 Batzli: Farmakes: Batzli: Are those changes acceptable to you? That's fine. Any other discussion? Scott moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Laurent Addition Preliminary Plat ~93-7 to create two single family lots as sho~n on the plans stamped, Received March 25, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a 50 foot wide corridor for County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail). . Proposed locations for the on-site sewage treatment sites should be submitted to the Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall receive access approval from Carver County for a driveway to Lot 1, Block 1. · Park and trail fees will be required at the time the building permit , is issued. An 8 foot wide trail easement along Pioneer Trail shall be dedicated and a trail ea~nt, the size to be determined at a later point, along Bluff Creek. 5. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat drainage and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas, including Bluff Creek. The proposed MnDot highway taking should be dedicated or, at a minimum, platted into an outlot. The appropriate, side, front and rear drainage and utility easements should also be dedicated with the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: And when does this go? Olsen: May lOth. 8atzli: May loth it goes to City Council. Thank you for coming in. Planning Commission Meeting April 21. 1993 - Page 25 PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDER REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD FOR MR. HARRY LINDBERY LOCATED AT 1700 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. Public Present= Name ~:ld~'e~ Harry Lindbery Jeff Carson 1700 Flying Cloud'Drive Attorney for Mr. Lindbery 5harmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. ~eff Carson: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jeff Carson. I represent Harry Lindbery, the landowner. At the previous hearing just referenced, where there was an attempt to void or reach a determination that the conditional use permit was voided, apparently enough issue was raised about the use of the property by us over the years to redirect the thinking and bring it back to this body. It's pretty clear, if you ail have a COpY of the staff report-which includes the Minutes from that meeting and the discussion that took place, I think I used at that meeting the phrase pretext hearing. Meaning this hearing. It's pretty clear that it wasn't designed to be a hearing to determine whether or not there was something that could be worked out based on the staff's position but merely a hearing to make a determination that the permit should be revoked. That's their position. We explained at the last hearing that the applicant had run into a roadblock in the process-of constructing his building. Questions were asked and answered about the timing of it all. There appears to have been a long period of time transpired between the issuance of the original permit and today and I guess I can agree that a long period of time has elapsed. I think that a lot of it is accounted for however and I would ask this body to remember br consider that the city was dealing with this property for a period of time long after, for over a year after the original year that the conditional use permit ~reports to require complete action. And I also explained that Mr. Lindbery was physically unable to do anything for a year's period. So there's big blocks of time that have elapsed and we don't.deny that. Then you also have to consider that there's only a relatively short period of time after 3/4 of each year that you can actually construct. Ail that by way of explanation, Mr. Lindbery wants very much to proceed ~ith this ~ro.iect. We raise issues about the resorting and the grandfathering nature of it and the fact that he has actually operated a contractor's yard in one form or another since the inception of this permit. He has not however built his building and if you look at the long list of items required of that permit, ~e claim that some of them were waived de facto Dy the city staff during this process. And the reality is that most of the requirements will come due after the building is placed on the oroperty. He's willing to conform to whatever requirements you make but he can't do those things prior to putting the building on. Mr. Lindbery, total up the purchase of the property and the items that he's purchased in anticipation of operating his yard there, including a $34,000.00 building that is presently stored elsewhere. $8,000.00 worth of heating coils, which was a tremendously big issue unfortunately with the Building Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 27 Department here. He has in excess of $250,000.00 into this property. This pro.ject. If you accept the rezon£ng and the fact that the conditional use ~ermit is revoked or if you do that process, it's his estimate that the value of the property is approximately 25~ that figure. He simply can't afford to have that happen. Not many people could. And so be asks you to consider all these things recognizing that his story isn't perfect and I can't fill in every gap to satisfy every concern that's been raised by staff. 8ut he is willing to work with the city in any way that he can. If you want to put a timeframe on the process, he's willing to do that. He's willing to put conditions on. He understands now that when somebody says time is of the essence, that's what they mean. We can't change the history of this but we would ask you to consider going forward with a working relationship. Contrary to the indication I guess of the recommendation of staff. That's really about all I intend to say or all I have planned to say. It's a pretty serious problem economically to him if this permit gets revoked and he's left with an agricultural piece of property in that location. It essentially becomes useless. I'd attempt to answer any questions if I can, or if I can't I'm sure Mr. Lindber¥ himself can. That you might have. 8atzli: What I think we will probably do is close the public hearing, assuming there's no other public comment and we will probably have questions for you once we start trying to look through this, if that's acceptable. Jeff Carson: Do you want me to sit down? 8atzii: Yeah. This is a public hearing. Is there any other public comment? I'd like the record to show there's no one else in the crowd except the applicant, his attorney, city staff, City Attorney, and the Plannin~ Commission. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 8atzli: Diane. l~arberts: I'll pass right now. Batzli: You'll pass? Harberts: I will. 8atzli: Okay. Ladd. Any thoughts? Any comments? Conrad: You didn't ask staff for their position. Are you doing this differently? Batzli: Well, we got the staff report up front. Conrad: I guess we did. I guess I'd ask the applicant one question. You know contractors yards are not one of our favorite things in Chanhassen. It's our attempt to control a function on some property that probably has some history in terms of doing a business on that yard, but a while back Planning Commission Heating ~pril 21, 1993 - Page 28 there was something being done on your parcel that was not permitted which ~ives an indication to me of character and intent. How you would operate it had you operated a real contractors yard. ~nd I guess I'm real curious. $o that tells me I'm not sure you could operate a contractors yard per our permit. So maybe you can tell me-why that was not, why you did something that wasn't permitted and why you decided to continue doing that. 3elf Carson: One of us will try to answer either one of your questions. Harry Lindbery: We have ship containers. They're 8 foot wide, 8 foot high and 20 feet long that we rent out to plumbers and electricians and ~ifferent contractors for storing their supplies and their tools on jobs. Well we did store some right by some trees. It was in the fall of the year and there was leaves on the trees and they weren't visible. Then the leaves come off and we got a letter from the city and I asked the city, should I move them down behind the creek? There was no possible way. The only thing they told me is get them off the property. There's no if's or end's or anything. ~nd well, I disagreed with that and then I contacted Mr. Carson and he talked with them and then later I sold I think 7 of them or something for about half their value just to try to satisfy whichever man was complaining and there's just one there now that we have. It's similar to like a yard shed you have in your backyard'and they've got a ~arden tractor and a lawnmower and it isn't really unsightly. Conrad: But again, the contractors yard we kind of try to understand what's ~oing to take place there and we put it on a piece of paper so we know, so you know and we know what's going to occur and we don't want it escalated. Period. Period. The end of sentence. End of it. We don't want it escalated. Now did you not anticipate that use? Were those to be stored behind an opaque fence? I don't understand why you're doing something that you said you weren't going to do. Whether it was screened or whether it was, why did you do that? ! guess that's still an open ~uestion with me. 3elf Carson: I may be able to respond in part. I can't tell you what he was thinking but I think the use of those units is, in his mind, part of she contractors yard. I'd point to the first requirement in the permit itself. That something must be completely screened by berming or landscaping and that's why he, we looked on his property and if you look at the lay of the land, when he put these., and he did do this. Put these units down behind the trees, they were effectively screened. Conrad: Until the leaves fell off. Jeff Carson: No, no. No. This was after that and after it was called to his attention. He took them down and around by the creek and literally they were out of sight. ! suggested that that part of the requirement in the permit or of the permit was indeed satisfied.. By that'time unfortunately criminal charges had already been issued and they're still pending as a matter of fact. But I believe that he actually met the term. He was in a place up higher, closer to the road when they were drawn to the city's attention. When he says to you that he asked them about moving them down and around and they said get them off, I think that was in error Plannin~ Commission Meeting ~rzi 21, 1993 - Page 29 actually on the city's part. That isn't required.' It is part of a contractors operation. He was willing to move them and so that's what happened. Conrad: I don't know that we've ever let another contractors yard do that. Typically we have them screened with a fence. Typically we don't tail somebody to take it down the gully so it's a little bit different. Jeff Carson: Have you seen the lay of this land? You'd have to drive it to really, because it sounds kind of crazy but if you go down and around, it literally is, there's a woods there and kind of indentation and it is out of sight. Be glad to have you see it there. Conrad: So it was always his intent to bring these containers onto the site? Jeff Carson: I don't know. I don't know that that ultimately. I don't know in 1988 if that was even contemplated. Harry Lindbery: There will be a need as long as we have needs because every contractor will tell you that he has a problem with supplies and ~oois on a job that he needs to lock up. 8atzli: Paul do we have, we were not provided with the original Minutes of the Planning Commission during the application process for the conditional use. Is it of record as to what the applicant said was going to take Place on the site? Krauss: That was the approved plan. 8atzli: That's the plan but was there a discussion over what actual type of activities would take place on the contractors yard? Al-Jarl: The applicant was supposed to submit a survey showing how many trucks will be on the site. As well as a screening plan,'landscaping mlan. Actually the contractors yard, conditional use permit is really not valid unless all of those conditions have been met. I mean they never actually started operating the place. The City never issued a permit for a contractors yard. We have issued a footings permit for the building but that's about it. And ! don't know if that answers your question. 8atzli: Okay. Well I may be asking it fairly innocually here. Let me try one more time. When Mr. Lindbery came in for the conditional use Permit originally to the Planning Commission and probably the Council, there was a discussion over what type of activity would take place on, in the contractors yard. It's been stated in the staff report in several ~iaces that putting these containers and the cement pipes was illegal. I'm wondering, I don't remember what this contractors yard was supposed to be for. Ai-Jaff: There wasn't supposed to be any outdoor storage. They were supposed to have a building. 8atzli: So you don't remember or you didn't look at. Planning Commission Meeting ~pril 21. 1993 - Page 30 Ai-Jaff: I didn't see anything that allows storage outdoors. 9atzli: The first condition says that all outdoor storage will be screened which seems to me to say there's going to be some outdoor storage isn't it? Eliiott Knetsch: Mr. Chair? 8atzli: Yeah. 51iiott Knetsch: Maybe I can take a shot at that. I haven't seen those Minutes of the original approval either. What I'd like to say is that this permit does permit any contractor yard activities as they were defined in the Code at that time. And the Code allowed several things. It specifically set those forth. $o I believe the permit, I don't know if Mr. Lindbery stated what exact activities he was going to use but the City .~id approve all uses under the definition of contractors yard. The reason that a land/sea containers and the pipe is deemed' to be a violation is not that those don't constitute contractor yard activities. The reason they're deemed to be a violation is that he was not supposed to start any contractor activity until he went through this 20 item checklist and completed all those things. It was only with these conditions in place that the City felt that it would be okay for him to initiate operation of the contractor yard. 8atzli: So the illeQal nature of the storage of the containers and the mi~e was the fact that he had not completed the 20 conditions and so he had not yet really received his validated conditional use permit from the city? Elliott Knetsch: That's correct, and also that they weren't screened ~roperly. You know assuming somehow it did have permission to'start, they would have violated condition number 1 for not being properly screened. I uhink the applicant's point on that issue is, it does permit landscaping as screening so that area back on the property down by the creek where all the trees are and not visible from public roads, that 'may, we may have approved that along with all these other conditions as a landscape screening plan but he never came in and submitted that as his plan. Harberts: and as I understand that the Zoning Code has now been changed? Eliiott Knetsch: Yes it has. Harberts: And it doesn't allow for this? AI-Jaff: No. Harberts: What was the consideration given to when the zoning code was changed as to that particular parcel? I mean did we change it without. Farmakes: Was the zoning changed or is it just a conditional use permit for that application? Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 31 ~i-Jaff: Our ordinance does not allow contractors yards in the city anymore. In any of the zones. Farmakes: No, I mean even currently. It's still agricultural with a conditional use permit, is it not? · ~l-Jaff: Correct. Well, if this permit is valud, it's a non-conforming ~e. ~atzli: Is that your question? Whether this would be a no~-conf~rming use? 3elf Carson: I think I can answer that. 8atzli: I need to clarify this. Farmakes: How is the property currently zoned? ~l-Jaff: It's an agricultural estate district. Farmakes: ~lright. ~nd what we're arguing about here is a conditional use for that zone right? ~l-Jaff: Correct. '~armakes: Okay. That's just how I want to qualify. I thought that was %ne question you were asking. HarDerts: Yeah. garmakes: Okay. ~atzli: I'm sorry, did you want to? 3e~ Carson: Well I think there might be a misunderstanding. ~t the time of the rezoning, now you cannot seek a contractors yard in this zone. $o i sensed that was what you were asking. We can no longer ask for a contractors yard in that zone following rezoning. Farmakes: ~s I understand it, the zoning remains the same but the conditional use no longer allows. 3elf Carson: That's it. That's the change. ~nd at the time that thew did that, and we included in our papers some of the comments from the Planning and Zoning, the concern was what about people.who are already in and the assurances were, they're grandfathered.. ~arberts: 0o you have some documentation? 3elf Carson: Of that? ~arberts: Yeah. .Olannin.q Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 32 Jetf Carson: Well, the Planning Commission Minutes which are excerpts from that which are part Of our original submission, should be part of your. If all of that was included in your packet, they should be there. 8atzli: It's Exhibit Zl or something. About halfway through. Jeff Carson: It was clear that the Planning Commissioners at the time were concerned about that because nobody showed up at the rezonin8 hearing or the hearing to, yeah the rezoning hearing. ~nd the idea of notice, the concept that if we publish it, it's enough but no contractors were specifically notified. I beleive the understanding was that because they're non-conforming and therefore legal non-conforming uses, we're not affecting them. 8atzli: I don't know whether revocation or us coming to the'conclusion that we should work with your client is going to hinge on whether they're currently allowed or not so much as whether the applicant has gone forward in a timely manner and worked towards complying with the conditional use permit that was granted 4 years ago, or 5 years ago. You know I don't know. I guess personally, and I don't mean to speak for the other commissioners. I guess my decision on whether to move to revoke or to work with them will matter a hill of beans on whether it's changed in the meantime. Jeff Carson: I see. 8atzli: I don't see that as my particular issue in this matter, and you know the other commissioners can disagree with me but in any event. Did you have other comments Ladd? conrad: No. ~atzli: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: Well this thing has really taken on a life of it's own. There's. been a lot of different discussion as to why the permit isn't valid. If the permit is valid, we should revoke the permit. There's a lot of- different twists to know. If I understand our City ~ttorney, he says the ~ermit didn't exist because the conditions weren't met. Is that right? Elliott Knetsch: Well, I guess no. There is a permit. Ledvina: Okay, we know that. 5iiiott Knetsch: I mean staff's original position was there is no permit. You don't have to revoke it because it doesn't exist. The Board of Ad.~ustments and Rppeals agreed with that but the Council didn't. The Council said, well let's not talk about this lapse in I year, no construction and all that. He's got the permit. Let's look at whether it should be revoked for non-compliance with it's terms. So there is a valid mermit. Ledvina: Okay, so that's where we're at? Piannin~ Commission Meeting april 21, 1993 - Page 33 ~iliott Knetsch: Right. I think my statement that you were referring to is simply that he didn't have permission to'start operating until you completed these things and he did in fact start operating by storing the containers out there. Ledvina: Okay. Just to get staff's response to a couple' of things that were said. The applicants or the CP's holders representative indicated that certain requirements were waived by staff. Is that true? Was there any aspects? .~l-Jaff: We're not aware of any. Ledvina: Okay. Nothing was documented? Do you have anything that was documented as far as waiving conditions of the conditional use permit? Jeff Carson: You mean in writing? Ledvina: Right. Jeff Carson: No. Verbal conversations between Mr. Ltndbery and staff. Ledvina: And as to the vaIue of the property being reduced to 25~ of it's current use. Is there any comment, on that or are you able to make any response? I don't know that it's necessarily germane but. Krauss: We haven't tried to come up with a value. Ledvina: Okay. I read through the City'Council Minutes and one of the ~_irections that they were I think trying to take this thing was to allow mr. Lindbery to gain compliance with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. And it doesn't appear that we've done that. First of all I'd like to ask the applicant, has any progress been made in gaining compliance with the conditions of the permit? !~arry Lindbery: Your Building Inspector told me that he wouldn't give me a ~ermit to put the heating in the floor and pour the concrete to erect the building. Ledvina: Well, okay aside from the building. The other conditions that are in here. 3elf Carson: Everything has, well there's-been, we did in some ways respond to those conditions in the original submission but since the criminal charges were brought last summer, essentially everything has awaited that outcome. Nothing has gone forward. Shortly after that we ~ot into the issue of void permit versus active permit and So we've bee~ literally, almost for a year now, been under that inquiry. So no. ~_edvina: Okay, so nothing has happened at the site. Jeff Carson: No. Ledvina: Since the City Council date. or_ anything like that? Plannin,q Commission Meeting April 21. 1993 - Page 34 3etf Carson: No. No. Ledvina: Okay. Has the staff inspected the site recently? ! ~.l-3aff: As of a week ago a Building Official was out there and there was one container on the site. ueovina: Okay. $o essentially from that inspection you would conclude that the conditions of the permit are not being met? Okay. This is really a sticky wicket. It's taken a number of different directions here. No further questions. :3atzli: Okay. thank you. 3ce. Scott: After going through this, it started getting involved in, it looks like dialogues between two attorneys so if you wouldn't mind simplifying because it seems like we have a chicken and egg. It seems like a permit. and stop me at any time. 5iliott Knetsch: Sure. ~cott: I mean have two words out of my mouth and may get stopped here. ~asically, it initially was determined that there was no permit because. substantial activities were not begun within a certain window of time. lne yard was operated as such without "a permit" but the City Council determined that there was a permit? ~iliott Knetsch: Yes. That's the short answer. I mean there's, he says he was operating the yard by having those containers on there. That was really the only, you know and I'm sure Mr. Carson will correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's the only activity out there that would even remotely constitute use as a contractors yard. Scott: Well is the, and this might be a basic civics question but does the City Council have the legal ability to make that determination? To say that in fact is a permit? Ciiiott Knetsch: Yes. Scott: Okay. So it doesn't matter what has happened up tO that point in %ime, there is a permit legally? ~iliott Knetsch: Yes. Scott: Okay. And now the question is, is based upon the operation. Okay. And that seems to be pretty clear. I don't think that there's a dispute as to what's been going on on the property. Elliott Knetsch: I agree with that. Scott: AlriQht. No further comments. Harberts: Sounded like questions to me. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 35 ?armakes: On the history of the property, a couple questions for staff. Prior to this in 1988, this was ag property and the zone was ag? ~l-Jaff: Yes. ?armakes: That hadn't changed. Was the access road existing or was that an improvement? Al-Jeff: Existing. Farmakes: Do you agree with the assessment of the applicant ~o the valuation of the improvements on the property? ~TaUSS: We really don't have a position on that Commissioner Farmakes. The building's not up. We hear that it's stored elsewhere. We don't know if the building was purchased and what the value of that was? Rnd we haven't tried to do any kind of an appraisal as to what the value Nas or is or will be. Farmakes: Okay. I'm looking at the layout of, this is from 1988. Layout of the schematic here with the building pad and so on. What, if any of these improvements have taken place? ~ny? AI-Jaff: No, none. Farmakes: None. So this was purchased as ag land at that time? There wasn't an existing contractors yard here? Krauss: Well, there is a footing was put in. If you go out there you can see the concrete and it's been covered up. Our Building Official...has told me that that thing is now valueless because it's basically sat in the mround and heaved over the last 4 or 5 years. Farmakes: Okay. If we're talking about the loss of this permit, conditional use permit and how that would effect the applicant's znvestment in that property, I guess I would like to know on the issue of hardshi~ whether or not those numbers are correct. From what I'm hearing on one side, there really hasn't been much of an investment versus what the orooerty was originally purchased for. Rs ag property. If the amolicant had to sell it again, it would seem to me he'd be selling it at the same use that he bought prior to any'improvements. This building apparently is stored elsewhere. It's somewhere else? Jeff Carson: Correct. Farmakes: Is there anything about that building that makes it only useable for this property? Jeff Carson: No. No, not at all but you Would not be selling the Qroperty for the same price because the only reason it was purchased was so that, for a contractors yard. ~'armakes: Okay, but that's his conditional use permit. But the zoning of Plannin~ Commission Meeting ~Prii 21, 1993 - Page 36 t~e property if he sold it to someone else would still remain as ag, correct? Al-Jarl: Correct. Farmakes: That would not be transferred. That use would not be ~¥ansferred with that sale. Jeff Carson: Well yes. A conditional use permit, if it's still on the .oroperty would transfer. Farmakes: If it was found to be valid. 3'e?'f Carson: Sure. Farmakes: $o what he's hanging on here is that this particular piece of :~ropert¥ is more valuable because he has a conditional use permit? 3elf carson: Absolutely. And it's significantly more valuable because. · Farmakes: Well is this the only improvement that he has that, or would · iou, the other things that you listed as his investment in the property, do you a.~ree that there's been minimal improvement in the property? Or do You disa.~ree with that? 3eSl Carson: I would say, you mean in improvements to the property? Farmakes: Correct. 3elf Carson: I guess I would agree they're minimal. The footings are in. He has improved an access road down to the place of construction and has crossed the creek and put culverts under the creek to get to the property. So there's been some road improvement. -The footings. He's purchased .other things that are not on site for the project. Including ~8,000.00-. Farmakes: Are these properties that cannot be used elsewhere? 3eSl Carson: No. ~"armakes: Or are these just for that site?' Okay,. so then it was site specific to this particular piece of property? JeSS Carson: Correct. ?armakes: You know it seems to be the month for old commitments going Deck several years and I guess my position on that is, it seems to me that :.~hat we're arguing here is the value of that conditional use permit if he had to resale the property. Correct me if I'm wrong. · ~atzli: Well, I don't even see that as an issue in my mind. Farmakes: I was talking about a hardship issue. If something is. ?iannin.q Commission Meeting .qprii 21. 1993 - Page 37 ~atzii: if we would decide that he had not fulfilled any of the conditions and so it was appropriate to revoke, I don't even know if it's appropriate for us to consider his financial hardship as some sort of variance to our decision. Farmakes: He didn't purchase the property with that conditional use in ~ind. In other words, he didn't pay a premium for that property because. !~arry Lindbery: Yes I did. Farmakes: You did? 3elf Carson: He would not have purchased it had he not thought he could have, had he not had the right to apply for an receive a contractors yard by conditional use permit. FarmaKes: Okay, but the person that he purchased the property from, did that Person charge you additional dollars than they would otherwise for ~hat property use? For that conditional use? Jeff carson: WeLl, it was worth more because you could obtain a contractors yard by conditional use permit on it. Farmakes: At that time, couldn't you obtain a conditional use on any :~iece of a~ property? Jeff carson: Sure. Well I don't know. I can't say sure. I think so. Gut it had a significantly higher value because of that. In other words, we don~t have an appraisal. The person with the best opinion about, I thinK, about the value, if you are willing to consider the 10ss of the economic situation, is the owner. And he believes that it's worth about 25~ o~ the original purchase price without the ability to use it as a contractors yard. Pure farmland in other words. Krauss: There's a lot of focus on the value...of this thing and frankly ~t didn t occur to us to provide you any information on it because we saw it didn't matter. Farmakes: I can understand that argument. !~rauss: The only place any kind of a hardship is spoken to in the ordinance has to do with variances and not whether or not a CUP is still valid. In that case it says financial hardship is not to be considered. So it really wasn't something that we threw into the mix. It's just whether or not it complied. What's there today. How's the property been managed. And we made our recommendation based on that. Farmakes: Okay. No more questi6ns. ~atzli: Okay. There's an inspection report, which is attached. Is one of the items by Mr. Lindbery's attorney I believe. And the corrections zndicated that a floorplan, plumbing plan, HV~C plans, sprinkler plan, had to be complied with and to set up a meeting with Planning and Building Departments back in ~990. Was it at this time that it's your recollection Planning Commission Heating .~pril 21, 1993 - Page 38 that the Building Inspector told you that you couldn't put up the building because of this infloor heating system? Harry Lindbery: Well I told him that I wanted to put radiant heat in the floor and then put drainlines for floor drains and he and that way where the pilasters where the beams carry, we would rerod it into the concrete floor. That's the reason the engineer on the building recommended that way and your staff, they Just said put unit heaters in it. You don't need ~loor heating, radiant heating. And then they said definitely they wouldn't ~ive me a permit for radiant heat. And then on the floor drains, the state requires to have a flammable waste in the building in case - there's an accident and you spill something. It goes into this large tank before ~t goes out into a drainfield. Nell, we put it in. Then I had ~rairie Plumbing going to connect the pipes. We asked them for-that and he says. oh no. You can't have that in the building. You have to put it outside. So I took and sent a backhoe out there. We removed it from znside the building. We put it on the outside. We got a concrete saw to saw through the solid concrete wall and then after we installed it on the outside we says well, can we connect the pipes now? He says, no. Now You've got to go to the State and get the okay .from them. We went down to %he State. The State man he looked at it and he said, whoever that ~uzldinm Inspector, he isn't familiar with our winters. He says you have to put that inside the building. So I put it inside the building, back a~ain where I had it to start with'..' ~nd then they wouldn't let me hook the pipes up, put my rerod in to pour the concrete. 3elf Carson: What period of time was this Harry? Harry Lindbery: I think this was, I think it was in 3ef~ Carson: I think that was the original... 8atzli: Yeah. $o did you ever submit a written plan for your HVAC or ~lumbin~ or sprinkler or? Harry Lindbery: Oh yes. Sure. You people have it. You have the sprinkling system. The whole thing. ~atzli: And we had, as far as this stuff that goes in the floor, the radiant heat from the floor that was, as part of your plan and was that ever officially denied or is there some? F{arry Lindbery: Well, your man was out there to look at our flammable waste. Are you familiar with the flammable waste? 8atzli: Harry Lindbery: Well any garage or anything where you'd have either ~asoline or deisel fuel. We don't have any gasoline vehicles. It's .~ust deisels. But say if one had bumped the other and he had ruptured a tank and it s~ill on the floor, it would go into this flammable waste and %here's a vent out in the air. That way in this tank will hold 500 ~aiions and any vehicle wouldn't hold much over about 100-150 so it's ~lannin~ Commission Meeting ~mril 21, 1993 - Page 39 su~fzciently large enough. And the State requires you to have it inside the building. ~atzli: Okay. But other than that, I mean this is all, maybe I didn't read that part. I didn't even see that in your attorney's stuff, or maybe I glossed over it. The radiant heat issue, when you put it on the plan, normally you get something back from the city that's stamped. It says, you know it's approved or approved except you've got to do this, this, this and this. And the City never gave something like that back to you? Harry Lindbery: No. The man was just on the job and he says, radiant neat is no good. Put unit heaters in the end of the buildings. And if you were working a on cold concrete floor, if you had nice warm water runninm throumh there, it's much more comfortable than if you've got a unit heater. 9atzl~: But again I guess,.you don't have any of this in writing. It's ail your recollection that this is kind of how. Harry Lindbery: We gave him a copy of the diagram. How it would go back and forth and everything and the spacing. And'Roberts-Hamilton is the distributor for a Neirsbo Company. That's the one that made the tubing and their engineer laid it all out. Batzii: Between when you were working with the, going back and forth between the city and our staff allegedly, I'll throw it in there for whatever it's worth. Did anything happen to the building during that timeframe? Harry Lindbery: I have it in Hopkins waiting so I can put the heat in the tioor, pour the concrete and erect it. ~atzli: But what did you do for the next 2 years after apparently our, or ~upposedly our Building Inspector said either you want radiant heat or you can't put it in. ~qarry Lindbery: I rented a building in Hopkins. Qatzli: Okay, but you didn't do anything to this site? Harry Lindbery: Nell we put the access road in. We put the culvert so we can, that's how we can cross the creek to get the cement trucks into put the foundation in and we done a little bit of grading down there. 8~tzli: But didn't you do that before the Inspector was out telling YOM... Harry Lindbery: Oh yeah, yeah. That was done before but that was it. 9atzii: So between October of 1990 when this inspection report is dated anu the criminal complaint was ~iled last summer, did anything go on o~ %tis site? I mean that was nearly 2 years time. Did you do anything on the site during that time period? Piannin~ Commission Meeting ~mril 21, 1993 - Page 40 ~4arry Lindbery: Well, we cleaned up behind. When we had a little spare time we cleaned up behind because that farmer left' it in a terrible mess and we hauled out several truckloads of trash. 8atzii: Did you work with the City at all during that time period? i~arry Lindbery: The man just said we couldn't put it up and well, I wasn't too much of a fighter. I just kind of let time ride some. ~nd he tells me I should have come down and pounded on the desk and say, why and ~o to somebody else that didn't mind radiant heat. I know when we were here before your Mayor said that he had it in his house and he liked it. 3~T~ Carson: There was a year's period when he was actually physically unaDie to do anything. One of those years is accounted for in that way... crushed his leg. !!arty Lindbery: Yeah, I did have an accident and I was laid up for about 12-13 months. :Jatzli: $o you personally couldn't do anything. i-~.arry LindberY: No. But if they would have gave us the okay I would have nad a crew out there putting it up. ~atzli: But you had a crew that could have been working while you were laid um potentially I guess. ~arry Lindbery: Oh yeah. No, we've got boom trucks and so forth. ~a%zli: Okay. Paul. ~rauss: This is ail quite interesting but it doesn't jive with any of the ~nln~s that we've been hearing from the Inspection Department. They did nave a meeting with them in 1990. The Inspections Department as a matter of routine issues an inspection report anytime they go out on a site and ~eils people what they have to change. I mean it's just routine for these nuys. They're all licensed inspectors. We only have one of those reports around here and it's dated October 22, 1990 and it says you've got to submit mlans. ~atzli: 14ell he's just told us that he submitted plans and we have them. ?Durra telling me we have nothing in his file? Al-Jeff: No. I went through the file. harry Lindbery: Prairie Plumbing is the one that. ~rauss: We're not going to argue the point, t,4e haven't seen them and we've asked the Building Inspectors about them and they don't have them. .a. nd t~ere is nothing currently, there is nothing current that's happened. Thzs was in 1990. Batzli: Okay. As far as revocation'. If we were to ~o with revocation, what is our standard that we're looking a't and what should we base it on? Plannin~ Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 41 aliiott Knetsch: It would be based on whether or not he's in violation of terms of the permit. And you have those 20 items in the permit. ~_edvina: I look at the ordinance and it says, any condition of the .~er mit. ~auzii: Shall be, shall constitute sufficient cause for revocation of the conditional use permit by the City Council following a public hearing. ~nd I assume we're acting as the public hearing? ~iiiott Knetsch: The City Council will also hold a public hearing. Datzii: Okay. Well, I guess it's very difficult to envision how this has · n~-aA~ed on and I appreciate the fact that he didn't want to fight it. Obviously he's fighting it now. Without some evidence, you know and what ~his ¢.euld be is obviously if he can go to the heating and plumbing people %nat prepared the plans for him and demonstrate that they sent them to the city, to show that the city's file is in error, then I guess I'd be, I'd look at some of this stuff. 8ut what I hear is a lot of remembrances and we have absolutely no documentation to substantiate a lot of this and so i feel uncomfortable doing anything personally other than saying he has not complied with the conditions and I don't believe that the financial hardship is appropriate to look at to determine compliance with the conditional use permit because for heavens sake, everytime we looked at revokin~ one. it would always be a financial hardship and in many instances it would be a much bigger hardship because they may have invested ~.uildings, pavements. They would have done all, complied with 19 of these things. And I don't see compliance with, if you squint, more tman a couple. So I would like to, if the applicant, if be has some evidence, if he can go to the plumbing and heating people. If he can get %he person at the State to say yeah, he called me. I said, Kirchman Qidn't know what he was talking about. You know, but we don't have any of %nose things and I guess what I would do is I'd put the burden back on the ammiicant and his attorney to come up with some evidence that shows that the City's files are in error. 3eft Carson: Mr. Chairman? ~a%zli: Yes. Jeff Carson: I do appreciate what you're saying and I would appreciate an omoortunity to do just that. As I stand here right now I don't have what you're seeking and if you would hold this open perhaps, I don't mean today or tomorrow, but to another hearing or continue it to another, continue the public hearin~ to another date, I think it's only fair that if we can . produce that information, that you would receive it and frankly it's quite reasonable of you to demand it. Mr. Lindbery tells me that he ought to be aDie to recreate this and I think that's a reasonable request. ~atzii: That would at least be helpful to me to see that some of these ~nings occurred and that perhaps it was more than just his diligence, non- eiii~ence. That the city somehow was giving him some either misinformation or ~hat some of these things occurred. That would be helpful to my ~cision. I don't know if it would be.helpful to the other. Plannin.q Commission Meeting April 21. 1993- Page 42 ?.arty Lindbery: We did have two copies of that. The plumber had one and · '.,~e ~ave your staff one of how the lines would run and how the drains and the neat went. ~atzii: Having gone through the permit process here at the city .personally, I know what you get back. Marry Lindbery: We gave them to the plumber. ~atzli: I understand that but then you should be able to go to the plumber and you should be able to have some of this documentation. Right now I, you tell me this and I hear someone else telling me something different and they go and they look in the file and there's nothing there eno so ! weigh this. I'd like to entertain a motion now and' if other commissioners feel that this would be helpful in making a decision, I =hinK we should table it. Allow him to gather up some additional evidence. If it wouldn't be helpful, then maybe you should move with the staff recommendation. Allow him to gather the information before the City Council meeting where apparently there will be a further public hearing. Fsrmakes: I have just a question in regards to that. Would that negate, ie~'s say he came forward with heating plans for the floor. Would that ~nen negate the other non-compliances with the conditional use permit? ~atzli: I don't know. I don't know. I hope he comes with more than .lust a letter from the plumbing people saying, you know a letter addressed to she city saying here's a plan. But I'm saying that if there is additional evidence that he wants to submit, he should do it. You know because rioht now we don't have a lot. It's just kind of yes he did, no he didn't and =here's nothino in our file which would show that he did and I'm sub,eating, if he really did it and you had these other people involved in the process, for crying out loud you should have some letters or correspondence or plans or copies or something and I don't see any of ~nat. 50 I guess I'm just saying, I'm trying to give them one more shot because my feeling right now is that, if this isn't going to make a ~ifference. or if you just want to let him gather it up and present it to %ne Council. then we should probably move it along. But if presenting some of that evidence may have an impact on the way you vote tonight, tmen I think we should table it, so. · Scott: I'm looking at a letter dated October 2, i992 from Campbell- ~%nutson with a carbon copy to Jeffrey A. Carson and it basically spells out that there is a problem with the permit and I mean that's a beck of a lot of time and in order to answer the claims made by the City of Cnanhassen. I mean that's, in my mind I think that was ample time to come up with the plumbing plans and any other documentation that the City of Chanhassen either had never received or got it and lost. I personally nave enough information on this particular item to go along with the staff's report, recommendation of revocation and then have this item mresented to the City Council. Now tnbetween those two dates if any oocumentation can be brought forward on behalf of your client, I would zun~est that it be brought forward. ~'lannin~ Commission Heating' April 21, 1993 - Page 43 JeYf Carson: I appreciate that Mr. Scott. My druthers would be, if we can produce the documentation that is being referenced, to bring it back here simply because of the function of the public hearing process followed Oy a recommendation followed by action at the City Council level. Ail too oYten I'm afraid if the recommendation is, from this body up to the City Counczl for revocation, the argument could be made we lose the opportunity =o present new information. Or they' won't be interested in it and sometimes, if they are interested in it, they'll shoot it back to Planninn and Zonin~ if they're not sure. So it would be my suggestion, and I a~olo~ize for my voice. It's not normal whatever it is I've got. eauzli: You mean tonight or always? ]elf Carson: Good point. I opened that door. My druthers would be to Drzn~ whatever information we can bring back to. this body. If you would merm[t zt. And I suggest that there's a slight inconvenience but given the length of time that we've dealt with, or have not dealt with the issue, a 30 day delay or approximately, whenever you'd have your next mu~iic hearing, I think we're procedurally and logistically, on behalf of %ne a~£icant we're better off coming back to this body. If it doesn't Persuade this body, we're in more trouble at the Council to be sure. 8ut i nuess I'd like my first opportunity here. 8atzli: Paul, is there a disadvantage from the standpoint of, is there something being done on the site that needs immediate attention? ~aszcaily they've said nothing has happened out there since last summer so Trom our Perspective, does 30 days hurt us? Krauss: From that perspective, 30 days does not hurt us. There's nothing emminent or pressing that we're aware of that needs'to be stopped. On the ot~er hand, this is the third public hearing this thing has had. There are nuances among nuances among nuances here. It's going to be your choice. I ~uess I fail to see what bearing something that may or may not nave happened 3 years ago has on what's been happenin~ out there in the iast few years. I don't know if there's an implication that these aocuments were delivered to the Building Inspectors and they ditched them intentionally? Or by accident. In any case, you can always pick up the ~none and see where they are. If there ~as a true need to more forward, I assume the issue would have been pressed. There's no knowledge of it Dein~ pressed. It would be a month delay in all likelihood. If you want 5o nolo it over, Sharmin will be out of town at the next Planning commission meeting. Possibly Elliott and we could have Steve Kirchman here and if that's satisfactory, maybe they can handle it. I leave it up to you but it's not uncommon for the Planning Commission to recommend ~omethin~ to the City Council. along with some assumptions that additional ~aterials be Presented if they in fact exist. Ga%zli: Okay. Ladd, did you have? Conrad: Yeah, and I'm going to ask the applicant. I think if there's one item, I~d be real tempted to play this one out but I play this scenario ~nrou~h things that weren't done yet the site being used. That bothers me. It's not that sprinklers weren't put in to a building that wasn't constructed. That doesn't bother me at all. Put what bothers me is Where Piannzn.~ Commission Meeting .~.Drzl 2!. 1993 - Page 44 ~.Je asked for screening and the site was used and there was no screening. it bothers me that we asked for a bituminous driveway. We didn't get one but %ne site was used. It bothers me that we asked for erosion control m£an and we didn't get one. It bothers me 'that we asked for a vehicle list and we didn't get one. They're all thin~s that we should have before tme site is used. $o I'm not sure that what we're saying, if you brought it back and said here are the plans, I'm not sure that in itself is going t.3 outweigh all these other things that go lhand in hand with-use of the ~roperty. It's pretty, in my mind it's pretty solid evidence that it wasn't used according to how it was designed to be used. And therefore. a~a~n we. the contractors yard, we put specific parameters on that because i~s an exemption. And in this case I don't think many things were roilowed properly and my druthers would be to revoke it immediately and if ~t was still permitted. You know I would really want to take a look at ~4hat~s used. What the plans were for this property. I would never, based on tme information that I have right now, I don't know what's going on' n~re. And that kind of bothers me. I would never allow a use to occur ~.~ktnout understanding more than we do right now. $o I could never allow %his Qermit to go through, period. Because I don't know enough. Whether it be documentation that we've been given. For.whatever reason, I'd be real uncomfortable. $o again Mr. Chairman, right now I think we could follo~; a process and let the applicant go back and present some more · nformation to us. Yet the list that I just read, those things were not oone so what you'd be bringing back would only be a small part of what ~ ch~nk is a bi~er picture and it's a bigger picture of not following what w~s stated was going to happen. ~nd that's what's really important in contractors yards. It really is. You've got to do what we say in those tmin~s because that's what we're trying to put those things under control. ~no it's out of control. 3eTf Carson: I understand your concerns. I don't have a great .nisagreement with much of what you said. I think that the applicant did no% understand it correctly. I think he was using the ward. Nobody told n~m that he couldn't. Possibly nobody knew what he was doing and nobody corrected him. There's a lot of misinformation on the part of the a~piicant. Misunderstanding on the part of the applicant. I submit that ~ost of the items that are not checked off yet on the permit can and will De done. He has said, we have said that the installation of the building comes first or before most of these things. And ~e discussed with the Council at the last meeting timing and performance and all of those ;h~n~s. It's very clear that Mr. Lindbery understands the concerns of the ~'kty at this moment. I submit that he didn't fully understand it and %here's no sense in trying to prove or disprove that. I think it's just ~hat happened. I also think that the City laxed a little bit until they star,ed iookin~ directly at these storage containers. Otherwise we might not Knob;. there might not be any activity yet one way or the other and so %here's a little bit of blame on both sides I suspect. If you're willing to permit him to conduct the yard, strict and specific...there's no ~uestion how that is to work now. But I don't disagree with much of what you're saying. : eQvzna: I 'd like to make a motion. okay. ~'iannin~ Commission Meeting April 21. 1993 - Page 45 te~vina~ I move that the Planning Commission recommend revocation of Conditional Use Permit #88-11 based on non-compliance of the conditions. and I don't know if I should go through these but I'll just briefly mention a condition 1, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 18. 3eft Carson: Would you list those again please. u~ovina: 1, 6, 7, 15, 16 and 18. JeT, t'arson: Thank you. ~atzii: Is there a second? · Jcott: Second. Qaczli: Is there any discussion? 3elf Carson: Can I have a question? · t. cotc~ can I ask a question? ~auzli: Yes you may. 5cot%~ When will Sharmin or when this will come up at the City Council? ~I-.Jaff: It would be 2 weeks, it ~ould be the end of this month. End of next month, I'm sorry. Jeff Carson: March lOth. · Jcott: May? i<rauss: "March 10th. Ah May. Sc. ntt: Hay 10th. Okay. ~atzli: Mr. Carson. did you have a question? Jeff Carson: Well I understand the motion. I'm wondering if there is s~iil an opportunity to present information? ~atzli: There will be, I understand a public hearing for this at City :2ounci£ at which time you would be allowed to present additional information. 3et~ Carson: Alright, thank you. conrad: They're very open about any information that they haven't ~cots: And I think that's the reason why I support the revocation in that i~'s some~hino finite and then the C£[y Council wi11 be making the fin~l ~ecision but that gives you a couple of weeks to come up with any necessary documentation that perhaps yc~ should have been working on in Plannin.~ Commission Neeting .~mril 21. 1993 - Page 46 Qctomer of '92. 8ut be that as it may, a couple more weeks. 3~rT carson: Understood. All I would ask is that whatever gets forwarded to the city Council, that there be some acknowledgement of that fact. · ~.cott~' ~!1 they're going to get from us is that we voted perhaps on r~_vocation and it's up to them to make a decision. It can be a completely ne~4 tmi n.~ but. :Jatzli: I would like to. I don't know whether we would need to formalize zt but I think what our understanding is that at least we're forwarding ~_mzs recommendation of revocation to the City Council with the understanding that the applicant will be allowed to present any additional evidence. Leavzna: Ri.~ht. Scott: And that's true with any recommendation we make. Oefr Carson: That's what I'm asking. I just want, I don't want the City Council to look at me like I'm talking Steak when I say, we have some adoitional information that was discussed at the Planning and Zoning. Scott: The current Council has already, all tbs current Council members :~ave already seen this action once before so they're familiar with it. . Jeff Carson: Yeah, but it was in a difference context then though. :2-'atzli: Well I think the record clearly shows that all of our unoerstandin~ is that you would be allowed to present and they would get a verbatim transcript. Jerr Carson: I appreciate that. .~i-Jaf,: Would we be able to review this before the meeting? !<rauss: Well we need to have these materials submitted to us by April 28th if we're going to review them and get them into that packet. Batzli: ~pril 2$th? :Scott: That's a week. 3el, carson: That's why I suggested that we come back to this body. I mean that's maybe ~ossible, maybe it isn't. I don't know. :Jaszli: Can this be put on the Council meeting after the 10th? !<rauss: Sure. Second meeting in May. That would be possible. ~a%zli: 'fhat would at least give the applicant a little bi% more time. .~i-Jaf~: 24th of May. ?lannin~ Commission Meeting 214 1993 - Page 47 3elf Carson: Is that a Wednesday? ~z-Jaff: Monday. 3ett Carson: Fourth Monday? ai-Jaff= The fourth Monday of the month. ~%rauss: For that we need the material submitted to us by no later, than nay 14th. 3elf Carson: Alright. ~atzli: I ~uess I personally would like to see it come back here but it zounds like other people want to see it moved along. So is there any other discussion? ~4arDerts: I~il just throw a comment in while you're thinking about it Ladd. Conrad: Please. Fill in the gap. .~arberts: My earlier reasons for passing basically it's, I find it of znterest that there's no middle ~;round. In reading the Minutes from the council it seems that's what their desire is. I don't know all of the information. I don't feel I know all the information, t don't know if I want 5o know all the information. I guess I Just find it surprising that there's not a middle ground here and there's probably reasons why'you can't find a middle ground. I don't know. So I guess if there's any opportunity for working things out. Gatzii: A middle ground might be something on the order of comply with conditions 1, 5, 6, ~4, 15, ~$ by May 28th. And you know get a set of miens in here that shows exactly where the heating, whatever so our people can look at it because they say they've never seen one. ~nd do these %hin~s by a ~iven date and if you don't'do that, then we'll revoke it. And z$ you do it and you move forward on it and you do what you. said you were ~oin~ to do 5 years ago within a very quick timeframe, I mean that's 5ne miodle ~round it seems to me. ~4arOerts: But are we creating some expectations on the part of the appllcant though that may not be right? conrad: Boy, Mr. Chairman I would be real uncomfortable if the City Council passed, approved of this permit without us finding out more what's taking place and what's expected to take place. I still don't know what %he a~plicant has in mind on this parcel. So before when I was humming, %nat's kind of the idea I would feel, what~ver they do.' If they revoke ~t, then I ~uess it puts an end temporarily unless it goes to Court but if %ney have a notion to find a middle ground, we're not there. We don~t nave a contractors yard permit in front of me that I would feel real comfortable with know other, we've got a design but I tell you, in recent wears, in recent years we find out what's taking place, why it's taking mlace. P~anning Commission Heeting April 21, lgg3 - Page 48 ~eff Carson: And when. Conrad: We don't have any idea what's, I don't have any idea. Jeff carson: That's why I would prefer it to come back to you. If you were to saY' to this applicant, you bring all your bells and all your :.<-nis~igs and all your plans and everything back to this body in 30 days, ano I mean everything, then you'd have something to look at. %onrad: And I'm ~oing to say, I'd rather have City Council tell me to do t~a%. If they say, let's take a look at it, we will. And I'll just be real frank, and I think I was in the very beginning. When somebody ooesn't live up to something, I have a real tough time going along with a mermittin~ process and in my mind right now, the applicant has maybe some reason for not performing but in general when you use something and you do ~omething outside of what was really originally intended, I take that as a personal affront to the city of the Chanhassen residents and I have a tou~h time being liberal and forgiving because the permit was the permit. ~z~ht now the applicant would really have to persuade me that he would be a ~ood neighbor and he hasn't at this point in time. And that's what we were looKin~ for from contractors yards. We're looking for, they're an ~xception and we want that exception to fit in so that it doesn't bother 5ne neighbors. Where it's an industrial use in a different area and we wan~ that to fit in and so far nothinQ has persuaded me that the applicant nas tried to make it fit in. End of speech.--But my point was, I would, z, the City Council has any thoughts of maintaining this permit, we really need a metter understanding of what's going on in this'parcel. · '_edvina: Well they can send it back to us with what they want. .t'on~ad: That's why I made the point 3 times... ?armakes: Nobody's disagreed with you so far. ~atzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Co~aission recommend revocation of Conditional Use Permit J1~88-11 based on non-compliance of the conoitions, and specifically conditions 1, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 18. ~11 vote~ [n ~avor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried ~ith a vote of 5 to 1. gatzli: My negative vote is not necessarily that ! disagree with the recommendation to revoke but rather that I would rather give the apmlicant an opmortunity to bring it back.here and present additional evidence uerore taking it to City Council. The motion carries 5 to ~ there and it %~zll De on the City Council meeting for the 24th. Thank you very much for comin~ in. Jef~ Carson: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 49 ~JpROV~L <)~ H~NUTE$: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 7, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UpE~TF~/REPORT FRt~ DIRECTOR: Krauss: The big news, and I think you've all heard and some of you experienced it, is that the Council approved the purchase of the elementary school site which we've always viewed as a real key parcel from a land use standpoint for the Highway 5 corridor and how the Test of the city ultimately develops. We're going to be working with the School now on developing that. I think it bodes well for the future in the corridor. That was the really big news. There are a couple of things I put in your packet for you to review that I wanted to touch on. First thing. I have a letter to Randy Anthorn. It says here, Rental Anthorn but his name is Randy. Boy, even his letter says Rental. He's not going to like me. Scott: He can't be bought. Krauss: That's what happens when you make planners use word processers I guess. It is a word so spellcheck didn't find it. I should make you aware that I've got some very significant reservations with work coming out of the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District. We don't have any direct representation on the District. It's not a Joint powers district. We haven't been getting much cooperation from them on projects. I feel very strongly that we've got a much better wetland protection, water quality program than they have. They have ongoing problems with the Metro Council and with the Board of Soil and Water Resources in terms of rejecting their plans. Matt's probably real familiar with a lot of these kinds of things. Philosophically we've got some real different approaches. I mean their attorney is arguing vactpherously that the State has no right to protect wetlands under the new State wetlands law. That it is a taking of land. We disagree and we've always done it. There's Just an on and on list of things. They have permanent authority for development in this city, but they don't do anything. I mean nobody ever goes out to check permits. We do all that and we've got a much more .sophisticated program. Recently there was an article in the Villager that basically said everything is just hunky dorey with all the lakes in Chanhasssn. I was flabbergasted by it. First of all I was offended they never did us the courtesy of telling us that they were doing this assessment on our lakes. Secondly, they Just publicized it. And thirdly, it's blatantly wrong. I mean everybody who lives on lakes in Chanhassen knows that they are not what they once were. I've been contacted by Metro Council staff that said look at this stuff because it really looks funny and I've had our engineering firm look at the materials. They've raised very significant concerns. I mean some of the data that's presented in there said Lotus Lake should look like a lake in the Boundary Waters if you believe in the phospherous loadings that they're saying that are in there. Which are obviously ridiculous. It says that, in fact Ismael Martinez was telling me that if you believe the phospherous loading that they're telling you, you should be able to see 12 feet down in Lotus Lake. I don't know how long it's-been since somsbody's seen 12 feet down. Conrad: Never. Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 50 Krauss: Anyway, I've got some very significant reservations with it. I'm going to be bringing those back to the Watershed District. I think it reaIIy gets to some of the-issues we're trying to bring across in our pIanning efforts. HopefuIIy we'II work those out with the district but I'II keep you posted. Conrad: Watershed District is who? Who's the person? Krauss: WelI Conrad Fiskness from Chanhassen is the Chairman. And Conrad has attended some of our meetings. We've always invited them to our SWMP meetings. We were hoping that they would regularly have their district engineer come, Bob Obermeyer. Their Board voted not to. Conrad comes on occasion. We've been told that they have access to funds and we can jointly do projects, we spent about $3,000.00 putting together a contract proposal. We sent it in in accordance with Conrad's wishes. Never heard back. I called him up about 3-4 months ago and they said, well we talked about it but it didn't fit with our 5 year plan so in a couple years when we rewrite the 5 year plan we'll think about it. It just goes on and on. I mean they had a citizens advisory group that they established and Charles Folch, the City Engineer wrote to them saying we'd like some representation on this. It would be nice if we were involved. Never heard back. We heard later that they appointed Mike Klingelhutz, and Mike's a fairly good choice. I mean he serves on our $WMP committee but he just resigned from their citizens committee over some disagreements with where they're going and I don't know the details. Conrad: Resigned what? Krauss: From the Watershed DistriCt's. And when I raise that point to Bob Obermeyer, they're saying that we don't have any representation. He said, well that's not true. Charles is on the professional advice committee we have. And I said, well that's nice but Charlie's never heard that and Bob said well that's because they've never met. 5o I mean things just aren't, things don't feel real good right now. You know watershed districts are established by state law. Personally I think in a lot of respects they're redundant these days in some areas but again, for those of you who have been involved in the water resources things we've been doing, we do have some concerns. We think their information that was published in the paper is dead wrong and we're going to try and work that out. Conrad: Are you going to bring that to the SWMP committee meeting Paul? Krauss: Yeah. Well we're not going to have another one until probably the end of May or June which is the wrap up type thing, but yes. In fact I should put together stuff, I was going to send a letter to them. I'll mail it to all the members of the $WMP committee. Farmakes: I think Watershed votes, they're always on the ballot or always the mystery vote. You never know who these people are or what they're doing. Krauss: There's no direct representation at all. .I think Carver County gets to appoint 1 person. I'm not sure how large their Board is. Ne Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 51 never get to do anything. I mean they were an entity of government that was set up by the State. They have taxing power. And they've done some large projects but I know, frankly I've had disagreements with their attorney in public meetings when he says that, you know under the new state wetlands law Bloomington never could have happened and my retort was, maybe it never should have you know. Farmakes: Didn't it become a player when the Pollution Control thing was coming around for the Riley lakes? Krauss: Well that's kind of interesting. They proposed a chain of lakes project which never, that was before my time but I mean there was a lot of reasons why it never went forward. It was very expensive. Farmakes: I followed that. Krauss: Sure. That was the public access over by you. That issue was involving, the State wanted that for funding. Well but that report which was issued by Bart Engineering not more than 4 years ago said the lakes were in terrible shape and need to be treated with chemicals. How come they got real good all of a sudden? Farmakes: Plus that report had major holes in it which they admitted to. Upon questioning. Krauss: Well, there's things that Just aren't jiving and we don't understand them. Again, we're going to try and find out. The more positive stuff I wanted to tell you about is that a project that we've been working to put together. I think you're aware that Southwest Metro Transit was originally looking at a park and ride facility out of DataServe and may still be looking there at some point in the future, but the original arrangements fell through. I guess this all started when I had breakfast with Jim Lasher, who on a consulting basis works-for Southwest Metro. Batzli: I feel kind of bad. I've never had breakfast with Paul. Has anyone here had breakfast with Paul? Krauss: I've invited you many times. Batzli: I'm sorry. Just trying to bring a little bit of levity to the meeting there. Go ahead. Krauss: Jim was looking for alternative sites and one of the potential sites was this parcel that's owned by Mort?neon over here ~hich is between the Legion and the gas station on Highway 5. And I had known at that point that some hotels/motels had expressed interest in the corner. I knew that the Legion was looking to relocate or rebuild. I knew that we had a very difficult site there to build anyone on because it's neighborhood business and it's a neighborhood that would be very difficult to deal with and had some legitimate concerns. Well, ~e kind of took out the napkins and started sketching and we're throwing all these things into the pot. Jim sketched up a couple of ideas and out of that kernel of an idea I've met several times with the Legion and they did express that they Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 52 do want to have an improved facility. They probably want to get rid of the restaurant and have a rental hall with a service bar type thing. We're trying to button up the interest in the hotel. But also at the same time we have the Highway 5 Task Force moving forward. And what we had done is we segmented out the area between Dakota and Great Plains and asked Bill Morrish and his staff. You know we're generating all these land use scenarios and most of them are coming out of Barton-Aschmann and my staff. We wanted to use Bill and his staff to take a chunk of the city that was kind of quirky, because nobody's ever been real sure about what to do with Apple Valley Red-E-Mix and the new TH 101 area and what do we do with that. So we asked them to take a look at that. Throwing another thing into the mix was the fact that for the last 10 years on and off people have thought about putting a pedestrian overpass from AVR over to the Mortenson site, and next time you drive through, you'll see it's quite high. And you're actually able to put in a pedestrian overpass without ramps or stairs or anything. Plus it provides really wonderful linkage. We've got two neighborhoods down there, quite large neighborhoods that are separated from the rest of the city and all the great stuff, that's being built on this side of the road, you know t'he libraries, the public spaces, the gazeboes for the music and one of the scary things for me is driving into work. I come in at 7:30 in the morning and I see young kids in St. Hubert's uniforms running across the intersection to go to school because it's the only way to get there. Alright, so you put all this in a pot and you stir and what comes out? Well, what starts to come out is a project that the University did a model of that really went over quite big. It was received very well at the Highway 5 Task Force...Highway 5 here. St. Hubert's over here. This little wiggly thing is the old St. Hubert's Church. Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus block. Amoco. The Legion sits right over here. McDonald's. Batzli: That's the new Legion there? That big honking thing. Krauss: No...This is real schematic at this point. I don't know if you, were any of you on the bus tour with Morrish way back? Okay, one of the things that he said when we sat over here, it-was a site that lends itself to a large significant building. It was a wide open corner and you wanted to bring something out and give it some presence that architecturally has to be done very well. But this is a project that the City may participate in as a TIF program but the days of the City being able to just go in and spend lots of money to make something happen and forget about a return are kind of past. Scott: That's part of a TIF district? Krauss= Yeah, it is. So we needed, not only have we had some interest in it and made it fit the design bill, but we need an entity that's going to pay real...but was willing to make it fly from a financial standpoint. Another nice part of the mix here is that if-the Legion were to relocate on this site, if Southwest Metro were to find that this was an appropriate place for them to go, and if the hotel went, you've basically got one parking lot serving three uses at different times .... talked about doing things, and this again is idea generation where Southwest Metro does very nice bus waiting areas and this is going to be, if it happens ideas would circulate...picking up the art deco theme and doing some metal shed Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 53 roofing for example over some of the...stalls so we can hold those farmers markets on the weekend. Batzli: Cool. I like that. Is there a sidewalk along Lake Drive East? Krauss: Ah yeah. Batzli: Which side is it on? Krauss: Well I know we're showing it on this side but I think that"s where it is. Scott: Yeah, I think it's concrete and I think it goes all the way along here to the daycare. Krauss: Which is down here. Now let me say this. I mean this is not a project that anybody has bought into. Nobody's signed on here. Everybody's going to have a list of things that they"re going to need to make this real and we've got to see if it fits their organization. Batzli: So when's Wal-Mart moving in? Krauss: Well you know, that's the thing that kind of galvanized this. I mean it galvanized the need when Target wanted to go there and we would have had a 40 foot blank wall right through here and the truck loading docks would have been right here. Well, clearly you want to avoid something like that happening. We've done two things to move this thing forward. We've put together a grant application, the ISTEA funding grant for the pedestrian overpass only. We only did that. Satzli: ISTEA funding? Krauss: Intermotal Service Transportation Efficiency... Batzli: It's not like Ice Tea the tapper kind of guy. Scott: Same deal. The applicant has to rhyme. Krauss: The grant program is real narrow and not terribly well done. Since we didn't have the full proJect...the city hasn't bought into a Southwest Metro, the residents here are key. I felt very uncomfortable coming with the whole proposal. And I don't want to spend a whole lot of time and money putting the thing together due to the fact that ISTEA is new. So we came up with the proposal for that bridge. There's a sketch in your packet that Barry Warner did that I think shows the kind of neat stuff we can do it's roof. You know I think we can introduce another element on top of that to get, if we wanted to go for like a dormer type of effect. I think we can introduce something that tells you that you're in Chanhassen, whether it be a leaf or something graphic. I mean all those things can be worked out. I thought it was important to also figure that we're going to glass in the west side to cut the wind through here because that's a real windy spot and the roof will make' .. So we've submitted our ISTEA grant application. The next thing we're doing is, I've got a proposal going to the HRA tomorrow night that we hire Fred Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1993 - Page 54 Hoisington to sort of serve as a, you know project manager almost puts too much weight on the project but project co-lessor. You know somebody who can go around with ali the actors, including MnDot and throw that in the mix. Get a list of what it needs. What they need to make it fit. Try to juggle this thing to make it work. Start holding meetings with everybody. Start meeting with the neighborhood. And then we can see i'n 6 months, 8 months, however long it takes, if you really have a project. I'm hopeful that the HRA will agree with that. We'll know tomorrow. Anyway, that's about the size of that. Batzli: HRA is meeting tomorrow? Krauss= Yeah. Batzli= And there's going to be an update on the community center/hotel/ conference center/whatever? Krauss: Yeah there is. I don't think, I mean ! haven't been involved in it much lately. I don't think.there's too much to update you on. Batzli: Well, didn't the Council have another work session where it was discussed? Scott: Yeah. Krauss: The Council had a work session where it discussed. Batzli: What happened there? Krauss: Thankfully I was on a beach in Florida. As I heard it, I mean there's still not clear direction. It's becoming real problematic... Scott: Nhen is that kind of thing come through this place? ! mean the first time I think most of us heard of it was when ~e were Supposed to be talking about parks with the Park and Rec and then all of a sudden M.A. Hortenson...they probably showed up in the wrong room or something. Krauss: No, that was correct~ I mean ~e had every intention of bringing it before you. Scott: Nell I think we'd like to know about these things. 8atzli: My response to that issue, I kind of like doing something like this and I'd support moving ahead to see if we can do something like that. And I like the pedestrian bridge. I think we need more of them. I don't care if it just costs a little bit of money in order to get over these roads, we need them. Ne need more than one. I really don't like the fact they're not going to build a bridge over Bluff Creek on the north access road. They're going'to just level the land down to the creek.and raise it back up and put the creek through a culvert. Krauss: No, we haven't. Planning Commission Heating April 21, 1993 - Page 55 Batzli: They're going to do it. You can see it coming. You can see it coming now. Krauss: The alternatives that are being looked at are what's called a... culvert. It's a massive culvert that's kind of oval shaped with a flat bottom and it's about 20 feet high in the middle. Batzli: And you're talking about underneath Highway 5? Krauss= It's under Highway 5 and we figured we'd be using the same thing on the boulevard. Batzli: Anyway. . Krauss: But I am trying to avoid crossing the creek. There's alternatives that swing around the north end of Bluff Creek and I find them preferable. Farmakes: Me too. It makes a lot more sense than putting a hook up to that trail... Batzli: ...going to have a meeting with the park people. Kind of more on a, you know our whole meeting was dominated by this community center dealy bob and we really weren't able to discuss open space versus planned activity areas versus park kind of, and it seems to me that we get these recommendations from these guys and I'd like to kind of have a dialogue with them on what the hack are you looking at and why do you do these things because we're looking at these 150 year old stands of trees and you're taking some level cornfield land. I mean I'd like to know, maybe we're that deficient that we've got to do that but occasionally I think they've got to, pardon the pun, see the forest and not the trees here. Krauss: Yeah, we can get the Park Board in here. Of course they're right in the middle of their Comp Plan update... Some'interesting things are happening. The Park Board... 8atzli: And you know, there's always been intention since I've been on the Commission that what the Park Board says goes but yet from a land use and all these other things that we're looking at, sometimes what they do to me, I just cringe and I say, what did you do that for. Scott: Well when we get staff reports, it's always in the past tense. This has been deeded and $0~ of this fee has been taken and it's like it's. Krauss: Well that's true but...we frankly, we as staff differed, I mean you don't want to make a big deal out of it publtcally but we differed at staff level about this park...and the Park Board said no. We want an acre and half of flat ground...Jim Andrews had an interesting comment to me that he kind of values being on the Highway 5 Task Force because it broadens his horizons necessarily but it's opened his eyes ~o a lot of other issues that... Planning Commission Meeting ~prli 21, 1993 - Page 56 Farmakes: I think typically recreation...park acquisition is first. Those are the people who get involved... Batzli: It seems to me that something that could be drivin~ that development in town though, that community center, is not .necessarily not a community center but a recreational facility which does not have to be owned and operated by the city. For example, Northwest Racquet and Swim Club kind of thing. If you can give them the land in essence and give them money for their building, I can't imagine that there's not at least one health club somewhere that would locate in this area given our expanding population. And to be focused so much on it, it's got to be a community thing right there, I don't see it. Especially in view of the fact that we're going ahead with the purchase and we'll probably end up putting a community center out at the elementary school. So ! think the focus has been on, you know too narrow minded on that piece in downtown as well. Farmakes: I like your idea though of... Batzli: Yeah, that's good. Farmers market. Farmakes: Being where our location is. Being that we're sort of on the tier of urban life coming to the east here. Batzli: It will be a passing of an era though when the Legion gives up it's restaurant...hey you go in there though and it's where the slice of Chanhassen is at. Anyway. Anything else? No? Sood to have you back. We haven't seen you for about 8 weeks there. Krauss: Well, you're probably not going to see me a lot over the summer. Batzli: Is that a promise or a threat? Krauss: Well both. My wife and I are adopting a little girl from Peru and we're going to fly down there... Batzli: Is there a motion to adjourn here? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the ~eetl~. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim