Loading...
PC 1993 07 21CHANH~SSEN PLANNING COmmISSION REGULAR ~E£TING JULY 21, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEHBERSPRE~ENT= Diane Harberts, Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina and Brian Batzli MEMBERS ~:NT = Nancy Manc! no ST~-F PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Sharmin- Al-Jeff, Planner !; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Tom Scott, City Attorney PLttLIC HE~)N(~ = NON-CONFOR~X~ USE PER~IT FOR iCOLONI~L ~ HO~E~ ASSO(;IATION RECRE~TXOt~M. BEACHLOT. THE PER~IT SHALL DESCRT_mE_ THE N~TURE ~ EXTENT OF THE USE RLLOWED~ Public Present: Larry Crawford Jeff & Judtlyn Kvichaug Hod Dahl Lois 3. Donnay Jeffrey H. Zappa Edward & Peggy Bennett Don Leivermann Lan Adler Nicholas & Christs Vassailo Irene Erhard Ken & Nancy Sherman Dave & Lorraine Wessell Betsy LePlatt Jim Andrews Sue Robbins Tom Jamison Susan Conrad JoEllen Price Virginia Hudson Paula Mosley Carolyn Erny Carol Edgerley Jim Lee Tom & Pat Peterson Debbie Engel Herb Bioomberg R.C. & Nancy Hear cliff Whttehill Rob Moschet 107 Sandy Hook 6681 Horseshoe Curve 6631 Horseshoe Curve 7002 Cheyenne Trail 7002 Cheyenne Trail 7017 Sandy Hook Circle 7003 Cheyenne Trail 210 Sandy Hook Road 7018 Cheyenne Trail 7004 Cheyenne Trail 7025 Cheyenne Trail 7017 Cheyenne Trail 7012 Cheyenne Trail 7014 Sandy Hook Circle- 7022 Sandy Hook Circle 30 Sandy Hook Road 6625 Horseshoe Curve 7006 Sandy Hook Circle 7007 Sandy Hook Circle 7012 Sandy Hook 7008 Sandy Hook 7013 Sandy Hook circle- 7015 Sandy Hook Circle 7020 Sandy Hook Circle 7016 Sandy Hook Circle 7008 Dakota Avenue 50 Sandy Hook Road 7001 Dakota Avenue 7006 Cheyenne Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item... Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 2 Cliff Whitehlll: Good evening. My name is Cliff Whitehtll~ I live at 7001 Dakota ~venue, which is in the Colonial Grove ~ddition. ~nd I was one of the tncorporaters and founders of the Lotus Lake Betterment ~ssoctation which is the ~ssoclation that has ownership of the beach outlot, as well aa to make sure that the maintenance and care of that facility is well maintained. This goes back to a little, even before 1981. Before 1981 that outlot was being utilized as a docking area for some boats. I, as a matter of fact, built the first dock myself which was 45 foot In length. ~nd then when the city started requesting that these uses be under a use permit, we applied in 1981 for the various useage of the outlot which was as a docking area as well as the. tennis courts. There were some Minutes preceedlng that in 1980. ~nd the letter that you have addressed to you from Kate ~anenson is incorrect in another manner and that. is on the last, or the second page there before summary. It says the Planning Commission's Minutes state that the conditional use permit, would be required to dock boats overnight. If you'll look'at those Minutes, it does not say that. The issue then was brought up as to whether the outlot would be used-to store boats and we all the difference between the useage of the word store versus the use of the word dock boats at a dock. ~nd that's certainly correct when the use permit-was issued, it did not allow for any boats to be stored on that. ~fter the permit,, shortly after the permit was issued, we were a little concerned that while the 100 foot dock that we had requested had been allowed, and the other matters that are specified in the permit, it didn't say anything about the number of boats. ~nd I called and was assured that that was no problem. The practice wasn't to govern the number of boats. It was to govern the length of the dock and whatever boats fit at the dock would be automatically, allowed. $o that's where we went forward from for years and years. ~s a matter of fact the survey that was done slightly after or around the time'of the use permit showing. 3. boats being docked at the dock that was, nobody ever said anything about that. Nobody questioned whether 1 boat, 3 boats, or any limited number of boats should be docked. ~nd then it was only until late last fall that the association was contacted by the staff saying that there appeared to be a gap in the understanding of the use permit and would we please apply for an appropriate adjustment or amendment or clarification of our conditional use permit and I again then expressed some reservation about well, you know this has all been decided before. Why do we have to come back and was told that this is Just a matter of clarification and all we had to do was demonstrate the number of boats that were there in lee1 after the dock was built and the matter would simply adjust to that number. Unfortunately, due to some mailing mix-up and what have you though, I had written the request as we stated for 8 boats to be specifically allowed at the dock for overnight docking. This went on for several months. I'm sure your agenda was busy and at the last minute I didn't get the notice ac neither I nor anybody else from the-~ssoclatlon had sufficient notice to be here. ~nd therefore the reason that we asked for a re-hearing on the matter since that you had only granted 3 boats at a dock, which is certainly capable of handling more boats. The last is that, you know a limitation of 3 boats, or no boats, doesn't really keep any boats off the lake. ~s a matter of fact, it causes a worse problem for the city than allowing the number of boats that we've customarily had down there and if you know, there are some 70 odd houses in the neighborhood so even allocating 8 or 9 spaces, ia a rea! task of draw your lottery and we try to solve everybody. I remember one year we had to go to double allocation so that some people got to use Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 3 the docking facility the first half of the summer. If that'd been this summer, that'd been a disaster. And some people got to use it the second half but we've always managed to workout our own problems. If you take the number of docking spaces away, the people have the boats in the neighborhood and all they're going to do is have the irritation of driving down and further congesting the public dock. Either by their trailer; by useage of it, etc. The same boats are going to be on the lake. Maybe you discourage them once or twice from not using it because they don't want to drag the boat down to the public ramp, but I doubt that. If.somebody wants to use the boat, and we're that close, you know within less than a mile of the ramp, the people are going to do it. So the boats are going to be on the lake one way or the other and certainly causing less problems. Less congestion at the ramp, highway, etc. for storage of the trailers down there and allowing other people to have useage of that [ think is a much better way of resolving the problem. Lastly the Association, as ! mentioned in my letter, we have never received one verbal or written complaint about the useage of the dock or any other matte~ associated with the outlot. [ think any of you who may have visited that would find that area kept in immaculate shape and ! mean immaculate. Zt's mo~ed. It's manicured. The tennis courts are kept in excellent shape. The driveway's in good shape and the dock's in good shape. ! mean it is a real asset to the neighborhood and [ think an asset to the city of Chanhassen. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Batzli: We may have some at a later time. Thank you. Zs there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Ken Sherman: My name is Ken Sherman. ! llve at 7025 Cheyenne Trail and ['va been living there for 3 years. There are several people here, along with Z, who [ think have been moved into the neighborhood during that period of time and when we bought our homes we were told by previous owners and real estate agents that boats were docked at the dock. Ne were never given a limitation to the number: of boats and it was understood that ! would say anywhere from 5 to 8 boats could be there. During the 3 years I've lived in Chanhassen, ['ye enjoyed it. There's always been an understanding that that was part of what [ bought when [ purchased my home.. And ! fail to understand why anybody would' feel that they could, and ! am in the real estate business. The commercial real estate business. [ own property in downtown Minneapolis. ['ye come across this in my own business and if there is something that in inherent in an agreement, whether it be in property, we are bound to live with it. ! don't understand why anybody would want to change that understanding that we bought our homes thinking that this is something that was valid. 8atzli: Thank you. Betsy LePlatt: My name is Betsy LePlatt. My address is 7012 Cheyenne Trail. We Just bought our house several months ago and moved into the neighborhood because we had moved from a lake and believed that we could put a boat at the dock when we purchased a boat. If we lose that, I don't know what we're going to do. I guess move to lakefront somewhere else. Thanks. Herbaria: Can ! ask a question of Betsy? Planning Commission Heeting July 21, 1993 - Page 4 Batzli= Sure. Harberts: Betsy, you said you moved from a different lake to this lake. Betsy LePlatt: Mitchell Lake in Eden Prairie. Harberts: Okay. When you purchased your home, did you count on the word of the real estate, the owner that yes, you had do~king right? Did you go to the city? Betsy LePlatt= The house Nas advertised as having deeded access. When they did the title work, it didn't show up on our deed so we got very upset and said, hey Edina Realty this is advertising, false advertising. So we called the President of the Association and did our research and found out that there was a 99 year lease on this lot beginning in 19811 believe so we thought that everything was great. We were told that sometimes it was crowded at the dock and we might not get a slot during a certain year, but most of the time it looked like we would be able to. Harberts: Okay, thanks. Betsy LePlatt: Thank you. Rob Moschet: My name is Rob Moschet. ! live at 7006 Cheyenne Trail, which is a part of the Colonial Grove subdivision. I have a question for the Planning Commission and for the staff. I have not seen a copy of the permit that we've been talking about. Is there a time restrictions on the permit? Batzli: I'm sorry, time restriction in what manner? Rob Hoechst: The number of years that the so called non-conforming use is permitted? Batzli: No. Rob Hoechst: Has the permit come up for review? Batzli: No. It's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong Kate, is that the non-conforming use permit was basically recorded with that piece of property or with, so that it would run with that lease and last as long as the lease. Aanenson: Correct. Rob Moschet: Okay. Then it.'s not a question of us, as the Association having violated the terms of the permit or that the permit has expired and we are now required to state reasons why it should be re-issued. Batzli: One of the issues is perhaps whether you have violated the terms of that permit by having more boats there than you're permitted under the permit. But I don't think anyone has suggested that it would be a revocation of the permit kind of situation. What we're talking about here is we're trying to establish in 1981 baseline of use and report that useage Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page S up to the Council for their final decision that this is how, this is the number of boats. This is really the only issue we're focusing on here. The number of boats but we're trying to establish 1981 as a baseline and to the extent that people have expanded that use, we need to go back to the 1981 baseline. Rob Hoschet: Okay, in that circumstance then I would suggest to the Planning Commission and to the Council that if anybody here bears the burden to show that this Is a non-conforming use in connection with the permit, it is not the homeowners association at this point but it is the persons who wish to make a change. And that' would be the city or the staff in this situation. Batzli: Well we, let me Just address that because that is One of the things we've been doing for the last year and a half here. Is that we have a certain modicum of evidence which described the level of use which we understand to have occurred at the various beachlots throughout the city in 1981. Pursuant to the ordinance that we're doing this under,.basically it's up to the applicant to show that our information is flawed. $o in fact you have the burden of proof here to show us what the level of use was in 1981. Rob Moschet: I would suggest respectfully sir that we are not an applicant. We are a permittee. You have granted us the permit. We have no further burden after that. I'd also suggest, as stated by some of my neighbors here that in a situation where we have abided by the requirements of the use permit, this gives rise to reasonable expectations that the level of use would be continually permitted. I, as a number of other people here, purchased my home in reliance on that reasonable expectation which I would suggest is not to be taken away without very good reasons. Without justifiable reasons and I haven't hpard any reasons. Mr. Whitehitl eluded to probably some of the reasons talking about the level of use on the lake. But I haven't heard any good reasons that would outweigh the resident's Justifiable expectations. I would say that the Planning Commission and the city must carefully balance our reasonable expectations versus the need for any further restrictions and if you do that, I think our reasonable expectations should outweigh those restrictions. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jeff Kvtchaug: My name is Jeff Kvichaug and I live at 6681 Horseshoe Curve on Lotus Lake in Chanhassen. While I respect the wishes of the homeowners, I think the key issue and question is the level of useage that was established in 1981 and what we did is contacted the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. The Board members that were active and members that were active during the timeframe that's in question to determine the number of boats that they recall as far as being utilized or located at that dock at that point in time. I have a letter here that I'll pas= out. I have a letter that's signed by 14 members of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association and I can read the letter if you like. In essence the spirit of the letter says that, the Association was incorporated in 1981 because it was involved in city issues effecting area lakes. Among the many issues being dealt with that years was establishment of both the shoreline management ordinance and the beachlot ordinance. In'early June of 1981 Lotus Lake Planning Commission Meeting Suly 21, 1993 - Page 6 Estates Homeowners requested boat mooring and docking pr ivi ledges not previously granted to beachlot groups. Their request was denied in October. During the summer leading up to that decision. Ne-are very concerned with any precedence in relation to bsachlots. Consequently, we were keenly alert to any infractions of the mooring regulations. During that summer we observed 2 and sometimes 3 motorized boats moored in front of Colonial Grove's outlot. When we reported this violation to the subdivision's Association Board, we 'were informed that 2 boats be[one~ to one of their association's lakeehore ~ner'e; This paFttcu[ar family had ~et[and area tn front of their home so the sons docked their boats at the common beach to make water skiing easier. Soon after ~r notification of this problem, the boats wets re~ved but per[~[ca[[y reappeared. It ts possible that the same 2 ~a[s did not reappear but' 2 or 3 ~ats continued to be present at various times that summer. To the best o~ our knowledge and memories, the undersigned active mem~rs of the Lotus Lake Rssociation support the ~indings in the survey presented by the Lake Study Committee in 2981. That ts the testimony or the letter from the Lotus Lake Hog,neTs Association Board members and active members at that point in time. Thank you. Batzll: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? cliff Whitehill: I'd like to... Batzli: Would you like to offer some rebuttal to this? Cliff Whitehlll: Yes. Batzli: Go ahead sir. Cliff Whitehill: As to the survey that was supposedly done in 1981, that has little, if any weight. It doesn't state the time of day. It's not signed by anybody. We don't even kno~ who did it. We can't even question the individual who did it. It's a totally unsworn, unsubstantiated survey at some particular point in time. There could have been 6 boats roaming around the lake and 3 at the dock. As to this particular letter, I was not furnished in advance so we don't have a chance but to check the names here. We are dealing with the issue as to what was the use in 1981. Ws have 5 sworn affidavits that have been presented to you as to what'that use was. People who were active in the Association at that time In 1981. Am I to understand by the gentleman who presented this letter that every person who signed this was a resident and active In the Association in 19817 Jeff Kvichaug: Yes. That Is correct. Cliff Whltehill: Well we can check the Minutes and it's simply not In keeping with what was sworn to at the time. What was the use. I built the first dock. Had the second dock built. Have always had .a boat down there. Am more than familiar with what the useage was and as I said, in subsequent years we even had to allocate at time, Minutes from our meetings. They weren't always kept but showed well over 9 people using the dock. And again no issue has ever been raised by anyone other than recently asking for, that we clarify the use permit. And as we were informed in 1981 after the permit was issued, that If the particular act, l.®. the mooring of the Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 7 boats was not a prohibited act under the permit and there are enumerated prohibited acts that cannot be done on 'the lot, then certainly the dock could be used for mooring of the boats in the ordinary sense. Not Just during the day, and by the way that's even another issue and clarification. I mean ho~ can you kno~, no boats can ever come to the dock? Is that what we're saying? Three overnight. At what time overnight? Does it end automatically at sundown? I mean there's a whole series of issues that were never intended to arise. I mean the dock was built for 100 foot length and if only 2 or 3 boats, we could have saved ourselves a lot of money by not extending the dock out that far. So everything fits together as far as the evidence and the affidavits. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Carol Edgerley: Hi. My name is Carol Edgerley. I live at 7013 Sandy Hook Circle in Colonial Grove. I have a couple of questions here. I'm a little confused. First of ali, in 1981 ! don't think quite a few of these houses were even built. So why are you trying to establish how many boats there were back in 1981 as a precedent when if the association had a permit to dock boats there, that you didn't have any specific number on there, the amount of houses in that group has grown quite a bit since then. $o you're going to try and only keep this back to as many as even might have been there in '81 anyway? Secondly, I'd like to ask this gentleman where Horseshoe Curve is and why the hell are we bugging him. Batzli: Horseshoe Curve is on Lotus Lake. Carol Edgerley: Where? Batzli: Where? Carol Edgerley: Yeah, where. Where on ~otus Lake? Where is he in relation to? Batzli: It's on the northern part of Lotus Lake off of Pleasant View. Carol Edgerley: So what's in this for him? Batzli: I'm sure people around the lake are concerned about access and intensification of use. Carol Edgerley: So why put in public access a couple of years ago if you're going to worry about us putting 8 boats at a dock? Are you going to go down and count the amount of boats down there at the public access? Is he down there all the time counting the amount of boats at the public access? Batzli: No. I'm sure all these questions are rhetorical. I don't know. Carol Edgerley: Well, I'm Just saying. Why pick on us for heaven's sake. We can only, if we stacked them this to this we can only put 8 E,>ats at our dock. It's not as if we're going to suddenly have 50 come down-there and we can't even put boats in there. You have to drive around and bring them Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 8 around so it's really only..,nlght. So I really don't see the ~entleman's problem or his objections frankly. Batzii: Okay. Well thank you for your-comments. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Chuck Hirt: My name is Chuck Htrt, 7007 Cheyenne Trail. I've lived in the neighborhood since '71. I'm one of the ones that signed one of the affidavits. We did have 8-9 boats there at that time in '81-'82-'80 area. One of the comments I guess I have, if you do allow no boats or 3 boats or whatever it's certainly, we pay high enough taxes in that neighborhood. I hope that everyone in the neighborhood will hire an attorney and see if we can get our property values reduced and also reduce our taxes. That would be a benefit I guess from this but we did ha~e that many boats at that time. Richard Hear: My name is Richard Hear. I live at ~0 Sandy Hook Road. I've had a boat since 1981 and lately I've kept it more at the dock but back then I used the dock occasionally. I would occasionally keep It overnight and I can recall 8 to 9 boats being used back in '81. I've lived there since 1979-80. Batzlt: Thank you. anyone else like to address the commission? Harold Oahl: My name is Harold Dahl. 'I live als~o on Horseshoe Curve. That map, it's difficult to see but Horseshoe Curve and my property is on the northwest corner of the bay that we're dealing with here in terms of issue. The dock is directly across the lake from me. I spoke at the last meeting that was held on June 2nd. I believe I reiterated my primary concern is setting a precedent for other outlots on the lake. It's my understanding that there are 6 or possibly 7 other-outlots which could be impacted by modification of your previous decision. I'm particularly concerned because of the size of the lake frontage on this particular outlot. It's my understanding it's only approximately $0 feet. and X'm aisc concerned because of the evidence that's being presented in support of their request. I sympathize with the Colonial Grove residents. I'm sure that many of these members have become accustomed, at least in recent years, to docking many boats on their dock. Now they're being forced to comply with a law change which rolls back their useage to 1981 levels, and if I was a member of that group, I would certainly argue against the change as being unfair, particularly for the members that have Joined the association' in the last few years who may have come in with expectations about a given number, of slips and their continued useage over time. Unfortunately, this is a situation we're dealing with. It is divisive but we need to have this commission conclude on it and then move on. It's my belief that the key issue here is measuring the useage in 1981. I think there's been a lot of evidence given by members of the association but that issue has not really been addressed with substantiation to meet my criteria I guess, and I'd like to hand out something to the members. I have a few extra...again, the key issue here is measuring the useage in 1981. In my mind there is a hierarchy of evidence of data which may be available to support the useage levels in 1981. Obviously these are ranked in order of preference. Obviously if there was a non-conforming use permit that governed this issue, we wouldn't be here tonight. Secondly, some contemperaneous record Planning Commission Heating July 2]., ].993 - Page 9 would be good evidence in support of the useage that might have occurred in 1981. I've listed three possible examples. One is a survey which was conducted. Second is a dated photograph. !'m aware of some photographs that have ben taken periodically by the Ag Extension Service. I ~ould aisc consider a contemporaneous record to be notes and memorandum that were taken at the time. Thirdly, as a next level I would consider witness testimony. Particularly from unrelated third parties. And lastly I would consider witness testimony from interested parties. If I go down this list and I'm talking in terms of the precedent that we're setting here for other outlots, I don't think there is a non-conforming use permit that covers the useage of, that allows the dockage of boats in ].981. I have seen the document and reviewed it. It's my understanding that a non-conforming use permit is silent on dock of boats. And there's other language in that permit that suggests that absent of affirmative language on that' issue, boat dockage should not be allowed. In terms of the next piece, contemperaneous record, I'm aware of a survey that ~as conducted bY an independent party that suggested there were 3 boats docked in 1981. Further, this survey is supported by members of the lake homeowners association, many of which were active about this issue during the timeframe. We have researched Ag photos. We found an Ag photo that covered the area. Unfortunately the clarity of the picture was such that you could not determine with any sort of certainty how many boats were docked at the dock. You can tell there's a dock there. That's about it. That photograph suggested the number of houses that were present in 198]. was very small. And thirdly, I'm aware of no notes or memorandums that were done contemporaneously that would support their position. The next level of testimony, the next level of evidence would be witness testimony and I'm unaware of any unrelated third party testimony to support their useage. Finally, we have witness testimony from interested parties but it is in conflict. Obviously we're dealing about an issue that's 12 years old. We're trying to determine useage in 1981. In 1982, that's a long time ago. Obviously 3 and 4 are subject to differing degrees. 3 and 4 on my list. Witness testimony of unrelated parties and interested parties are subject to different degrees of memory loss interpretation. I think memory loss can be mitigated by the degree to which you are involved in the issue and the extent to which you can use contemporaneous records to refresh your memory. In my recollection, events 12 years ago is 1981 is the .year I should have graduated from college had I gone through straight through. That's about the extent of my memory. If ! go down this list, this hierarchy of evidence that's been presented to support their useage, I have to conclude there is no non-conforming use permit. Secondly, I'd have to conclude that the only contemporaneous record is a survey which is supported by the recollections of members of the lake homeowners association. I'm unaware of any dated photograph. I'm unaware of any notes or memorandums and the witness testimony 's in conflict. Both parties that have offered testimony in terms of witness are, in my mind, interested parties. However, I believe the credibility of the homeowners association is slightly higher because I think in my view they're a little bit less interested than those who live in the association that we're talking about. My hope is that the commission reaffirms their earlier decision, ends this discussion and moves on. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 10 Deb~>te Engel: My name is Dabble Engel. I live at 7016 Sandy Hook Circle. I'd like to address a question to the gentleman that was Just up here. In his hierarchy and he said that the homeo~ner.~, lake homeowners did the survey, or initiated the survey or whatever and he maid they're not as interested in this as Colonial Grove homeowners, which is us. I really question that. I think in this hierarchy they are very much as interested and in the fact that it's the homeowner's on the lake that received first notice of this meeting and we did not also shows that they have a very vested interest in this and it sho~s the bias in a lot of this proceedings. And the way it has been dealt with with the city. · Batzli= Thank you for your comment. I'd like to make one point and that is that we have made it a policy that we communicate with one person of the Association and to the extent those of you did not receive notice,, we apologize for that. Go ahead sir. Dabble Engel= I'm sorry, ! have to address that. My husband is the President of the Homeowners Association and [ will swear, we did not receive any notice. At all. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Ed Bennett= My name is Ed Bennett. I live at 7017 Sandy Hook Circle' in Colonial Grove and I'm not a boat owner and I've been a resident there since 1987 and I Just think as you're evaluating this, ! think you .should, we ask you to take into consideration the fairness of what you're asking us and I think the arguments all to the contrary that the gentleman has presented about surveys that were done, that could have been done, who knows at what time of day. Some aerial photographs that are eluded to that who knows when they could have been taken. In my mind there's a lot of spacious subjective guesses of things that might have been but there's no substantiation there and if that's the' case that we're building this around, is some rather extremely limited data from questionable sc,drces, ! suggest that the founding fathers of our association, Cliff and the other people who have testified and my o~n personal observations from the useage of that since we've been there, which doesn't go back to 1981. And the number of people who are affected by this certainly seems to be that what. we have put forward as a reasonable level of useage'and what we think was and has been testified as in the past a reasonable level of useage is certainly a reasonable point for you and the Council to recommend and [ think to draw it back at 3 slips something like 70 houses is almost like saying there's no useage of that. So that would be my comments. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Someone new. Betsy LePlatt: I Just have another question. I'm wondering if possibly the useage of this dock ~ould be considered grandfathered in since it has been existing since before a lot of the homes that are along Lotus Lake now and the other associations and why make an old association conform to something you might do for a new association? Thank you. Batzli.' Is there anyone else that hasn't addressed the Commission that would like to address the Commission? Okay. Is this something new? Planning Commission Meeting Ju!y 2!, !993 - Page 11 Rob Moschet: Yeah, Just a follo~-up question. Are there other outlots. that are being looked at now? Are there other outlots that are subject to a permit such as we have? Aanenson: We've done 14 of them. You're the last one. There are numerous, there's two other associations on the Lotus Lake that do not have overnight docking rights. Frontier Trail Association and Sunrise Hills. And they have a dock and they cannot dock overnight. Rob Moschet: A~d this is set out in their permit?- Aanenson: Correct. They're not allowed. Rob Moschet: Okay, and it's not set out in our permit. Aanenson: They didn't have a permit at all. AIl non-conforming beachIota were required by the city, the city passed an ordinance last year to require all non-conforming beachlota to get a permit specifying the level of use. Rob Moschet: Okay. And we already had the permit. Aanenson: Except it does not specify the level of use. That's the only thing we're looking at. The level of use for overnight docking of boats. Rob Moschet: Okay. I would echo the comments of the per,on right before me that this does amount, in my opinion, to analogous situation of being grandfathered in and I would support that argument too. Batzll: Thank you. Is there any other publtc comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Conrad ~econded to cloee the public hearing.,. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as cioeed. Farmakes: I think that what we're doing here tonight is kind of indicative as to why there Nas an ordinance created in 1981. You get a group of many homeowners, neighbors who are living next to each other in associations. The disagreements on these issues on these non-conforming iota. This wasn't changed. It has been in effect. This ordinance has been in-effect since '81. The issue, the problem is here tonight. In 1981 there might have been 5 people in here discussing this issue. There's non a roomful of- people and as we get larger and larger, the continual pressure on these iota increases. We have a 25 foot lot here. ! have tried to be very equitable on how we've treated these lots. This is the last one I believe here. Many of the concerns have come up over and over again on these issues. One of the issues that has come up over and over again ia individuals have purchased property unfortunately, listening to people who are selling it to them with the understanding that whatever they say is true. And as it is in many cases, It's up to the buyer to investigate whether or not it is true. Deeded access has a long established use in this community. Mtnnetonka. The lakes around here. Because you have deeded access doesn't mean necessarily that you can get on the lake. It ts up to the home buyer to do their homework and really look at ho~ lakeshore Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 12 is governed. It is multi-jurisdictional and homeowner associations'do not have that governing right. It's state agencies. It's watershed and it is local municipalities who make these decisions. And they do so in the best interest of their citizens. Ali of their citizens. This is a difficult issue, particularly with people who do not have an understanding of what' they purchased. And I don't need to go over again, Brian defined what the issue is here. It's an expansion of use from '81 and the criteria that we're using to define that use has been I believe consistent in how the burden of proof that we put out and evaluation I think has also been consistent. I don't see anything here that would icad me to expand that use. And I'm not going to say that we've got 10 people lined up that said it's so and we've got $ people who lined up and said it's so. I don't see any photographs. I don't see any compelling evidence that would make me change my mind on this issue of how I voted. Brian. Batzli: So you'd stick with Farmakes= I'd stick with 3. Batzli: Joe. Scott: I'm thinking along the same lines that Jeff is. Is that the issue is not access. That's not really the question and I think those of you who think that whatever is recommended here and whatever is decided at the City Council level, you still have access to the lake. And a lot of times, I know if I were in a situation and I had either a riparian lot, not on the lake or one that wasn't and it was my understanding that I would be able to put a boat on the lake, and I felt that was being taken away, that wc~Jld upset me. That is not being taken away. The issue is how many boats at the dock overnight. Whatever overnight happens to be. So it's important that that's clear. Okay. From a standpoint of the use, I'm comfortable with the decision that we made last time around and I don't have any further comments. Batzll: Okay, Matt. Ledvlna: Well I think there is some information. I don't feel that the homeowners association had an opportunity to present their case, which I now see in front of me. I see 4 signed affidavits as to the level of use at that time and I think these affidavits in my mind provide substantial evidence for the level of use at that time. We've, on many of tbs other beachiots we consider the possibility that boats would be out on the lake at a given instance and we've allowed more boats than the boats that were indicated on the survey. So I think given this additional information, I would support a proposal for 8 ~ats. Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I think as the people here tonight think that we're making arbitrary decisions, you should have heard us in the other i3 or 14 lots that we've looked at. ! saw this having-more documentation than any other one. Documentation from the standpoint of Minutes. Documentation from the standpoint of consistency of inventory, where we didn't have that in other outlots. The other thing is, I was on the Planning Commission in '81 and Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 13 I remember this issue. I forget a lot of things.. I do remember this issue. I remember the permit. The non-conforming use permit and the process and I remember very weii that the intent was you don't' get boats until you come back and ask for them. That permit in '81 was granted sanctioning certain things but certain things were left out and I think the Minutes that I read and Mike Thompson who made some comments and actually asked for an inventory of the lake at that time, there really was a clear pattern and there was some consistency of all of this. And I felt pretty comfortable with the decision that we made last time. In talking about reasonableness, it's too bad you haven't been here for all of our Minutes and meetings and what have you. You might understand a little bit more of our rationale. I think we've been trying to be fairly liberal. Trying to be reasonable. If you know what current beachlots, non-conforming beachlots. If you know what beachlot requirements are today, and you see that you have 25 and your neighbors have 1,000 feet of land right next to you,. and they can only have I think 9 boats, then I'm not sure that e boats is reasonable on 25 feet. But that's not the issue tonight. But I know a lot of people talked about reasonableness. How can you do this and so I wanted to address that a little bit. Reasonable is what we're looking at. Reasonable is what we're trying to be but then when you compare to what we've seen and what people with outlots, beachlots can get today, you'll find that actually you're being treated fairly welt. aut going back, what was the use in There was a non-conforming permit there? I was here. I helped draft it. It's probably got loopholes that Cliff could knock the pants off it if he took it to Court but again, I knew the intent and the intent was, there were no boats until they came back in with a change. That's .why the first time through I said that the non-conforming permit was being lnterpretted properly by staff. Batzli: Do you go with 3? O? B? conrad: I voted for the non-conforming which maid that they were not granted at that time unttl they came in. Batzli: Okay. Diane. Harberts: At the June 2nd meeting I voted for no overnight boats. Based on the discussion, the comments from the gentleman from the association that was there since 1981, and I appreciate you coming in. I'm prepared to go with the vote that did pass off 3 boats overnight. 'I think Jeff made the comment earlier. Recently buying a home in Chanhassen' I know what it is to go to City Hall. I was up there a couple of hours. We don't live on the lake. We enjoy Lotus Lake. Numerous times whe. n we go down there, the lot's full and we Just go find some other lake. But I think what we try to do is be consistent with our process and it's been ~eal interesting with it but the burden has been on the owners-because as Ladd commented, we've got 3 years of inventories and as I recall, this is the'first beachlot where we have that and that inventory for those 3 years in 'B1, 'B6 and '91 indicated 3 for 2 of the years and 4 for the third year. E~ at this point I'd support the 3 boats overnight. Batzli: Okay. I guess my comments are that I think we decided by a slim margin last time 3 because of the survey that had been done back in It was probably we decided that because we didn't have any zeal evidence Planning Commission Meeting July 2!, 2993 - Page 14 that there was more than that. I'm kind of going to side with Matt here and say that the evidence that I have in front of us is at least as good as some of the other evidence which we've seen where we've been fairly liberal. I don't think it's an intensification of use to park them overnight, as I've said in the Minutes from last time as opposed to bringing them in or bringing them out, if that's what's going to happen. don't think the survey's a final arbitor of the number here. We all recognize the limitation of going out there at one isolated moment in time so I would go with 8 boats on the dock and say we fulfilled our charter of determining the level of use in 1981. And I guess the'contract, you know don't know what the intent is and Ladd's interpretation is certainly helpful because he was here. But it clearly, it doesn't say that they can't do it and it seems like they've been doing it. I guess I would say they've grown accustomed to the priviledge if you will. Anyway, I would entertain a motion. Cliff Whitehill: Before the motion Mr.. Chairman. I know the hearing is closed but unfortunately it has been opened again because Mr. Conrad has acted not as a Councilmember but has given testimony about what happened in 19el, which was totally different than acting as to the evidence that was presented to him. So I think some clarification is necessary. There is not one iota of evidence that after the use permit was granted in 1981 that anyone asked anyone to return and request further clarification of that permit as to the number of boats that were moored there. As to the survey, there's only really one survey which is unsigned, undated as to time. We can't even question the person who did that survey. I think Kate correctly set the basis of the hearing tonight. It's not a question of what might be fair or reasonable today if we were applying for a ~on-conforming use permit for that outlot. The sole question before the commission is what was the use of that lot in 1981.. We presented $ sworn affidavits of people who were residents. They were very closely part of the association. It's a sworn affidavit. The counter letter is from people who didn't even llve in the area. The neighborhood so the evidence, is Just overwhelming as to the only issue that's before the Commission and that is what was the use in 1981. And I'd like to have you think about it in that respect. Not before you take your final vote. Not to what might be fair and reasonable under today's circumstances because that simply is m>t the issue. Thank you. 8atzli: I don't know that Mr. Conrad acted improperly and so to the extent I let you address the Commission, that's not why I let you address the Commission but thank you for your comment. Is there a motion? Scott: I move that the decision as made by the Planning Commission on June 2nd for 3, approving the dockage of 3 boats overnight stand. Batzl i: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second it. Batzli: Let me just explain the motion for those of you who didn't hear it. The motion has Just been made that we maintain our decision which we reached at our last, the last time that we 'considered. this issue and keep the number of boats docked at 3. Is there any discussion? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 15 Harberts: Comment. I would encourage that based on the information that we received that seem to be conflicting each other. We've got a petition in a sense signed by 10 individuals. We have 5 affidavits from the other. I would Just encourage them, that they insure that they follow this up to the City Council and they may want to get their ducks in a ro~ on either side because the final decision is with the City Council. eut I think the greatest decision here is what is the level of use and again I'll-reiterate that with our other permit that we've previewed, we've 'certainly taken, been consistent with looking at the suTvey int=oTmation that's been on hand. The fact that we've got two additional surveys makes it more conclusive to me in terms of what I believe the level of useage to be. Scott: Yeah also too, Just to let you know the DNR-has got aerial surveys. The Ag Department has got aerial surveys and then there's some other things and once again, we make recommendations to the City Council so follow the issue. But if you can determine other cc~npelling evidence to support your position, it needs to be presented at the Council. Batzli: I would Just say that I think that we've been evidence that the survey is wrong regardless of which side you listen to, probably. And so I don't like to look at the survey in this instance because on-one hand ~e have lakeshore owners saying that there were t or 2 or 0 and on the other hand we have evidence that says there was 8. So I would p~efer not to look at the survey in this instance and chaulk it up as, at that particular moment there might have been 3 but that probably wasn't the number that was there on a more consistent basis. That would be my rationale for wanting to vote 8 on this issue. Is there any other discussion? Scott moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commiuton rem~mend that the City Council approve 3 boats be allo,ed to be docked overnight at the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot. All voted in favor, except Batzli and Ledvtna who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Thanks very much for coming in. When ~ill this go to City Council Kate? Aanenson: August 9th. Batzli: August 9th. Cliff Whitehill: I would ask everybody to be there. Also, get an estimate on what the decrease in your property value is going to be. Thank you. (The Planning Commission took a short recess to let the-room clea~.) Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 16 ~XC I-EARXNG: 3MS DEVEL(N:q'IENT FOR /~ PRELXIqXNN~ IM.~T TO SUBJ)XYX~ 7.1 ~CRES XNTO 12 ~XNGLE F~'IXI. Y I,OTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESXDENTX~d. SXN6LE F/¥'IXI-Y ~ I.OC~TED SOUTH OF PLE~.~M~r VXEH ROf~,' WEST OF TROENIN. E CXRCLE, E~.ST OF PEACEFUL LANE ~ NORTH OF L~KE LUCY RO~D · TONER HEI6HTS · public Julius C. Smith Jonathan Smith Jim & Mary Stasson Holly Broden Mary Meuwissen David Beddor Jeff Schoenwetter Kelby Bailey Ltnda Barck Rodd 3ohnson Bryce & Shelly Fief Teresa Schrempp Karen Green 7600 France Avenue $o, Minneapolis 7600 France Avenue So, Minneapolis 6400 Peaceful Lane 640 Pleasant View Road 65S0 Troendle Circle 1050 Pleasant View 3MS Development 6580 Pleasant View Way 960 Lake Lucy Road 1061 Lake Lucy Road- 1040 Lake Lucy Road 1041 Lake Lucy Road 1021 Lake Lucy Road Sharmln Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item.-Chairman Batzll called the public hearing to order. Jeff Schoenwetter: Good evening. My name's Jeff Schoenwetter. I'm with JMS. I don't have a lot to say. We, my staff and I were in this morning. Met with your staff. Sharmtn's report was conclusive that'Lot 13 is being modified to conform with staff's report. The cul-de-sac is going to grow 10 feet. And we are working through staff with the issues regarding tree preservation and reforestation of the site. Otherwise the plat's very straight forward and conforms and !'m here simply to answer your questions. Thank you. Batzli: So you're in agreement with. all of the conditions as they've been modified tonight? You've seen the staff report? Jeff Schoenwetter: Absolutely. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman. I have a question. Do you feel that the trees can be preserved with little difficulty or how do you' see that physically happening on the site? Jeff Schoenwetter: We don't view that as a major issue. The trees that are mature and most desireable, on Lots 12 and 13, through a variety of methods will be saved. Some ways are grading plan contemplates a small retaining wall along the road at one point. Where the grade, where there are fills in the toe of Lot 12, the mature trees would be boxed at the bottom. And then a few of the trees are unavoidably in the roadway. We contemplated a center island system for the entrance which really is not ideal engineering but would create an interesting entrance. We're looking at that in lieu of cutting those trees down. If we do our reforestation Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 17 program will address the number of caliper inches lost and what type of replacement we would have within the plat-. Ledvina: Thank you. Jeff Schoenwetter: Thank you. Batzli: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this issue? If there is, please come forward to the microphone and give us your name and address. And/or who you're here on behalf of. Daryl Fortier: Howdy. My name is Daryl Fortier Nit'h Fortier and Associates. I'm here representing Frank Beddor and the Pleasant View Homeowners Association. I've asked to bring up several issues and try to keep the Nez Perce alignment as a separate issue, and we'll-try to trend lightly on that if I can and deal Just with the plat. First we would note that this plat does increase the traffic off Peaceful, I'm-sorry. Off Pleasant View Road and we believe that's needless. Pleasant View Road is a substandard street. It has severe problems of traffic. Where this traffic will be discharged is at the intersection of Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road and that's the location of a rise. It is somewhat of a blind situation and there have been head-on collisions at that location. It is not a good access point. The next thing we'd-point out is that we, I have been commissioned to do a tree survey and as staff points out, there is very substantial tree loss on the north side of this site. We have not seen the specific grading plan and Ns're pleased that there'd be a retaining Nell to save some of the trees but our estimate-is that there is at least 300 caliper inches that will be lost. Batzli: I'm sorry, how many? Daryl Fortier: At least 300 caliper inches that would be lost. That number is our best estimate based on field measurements. The existing points to this plat for access are to the south off Lake Lucy Road, Outlot B I believe it's called and also off the existing Peaceful Lane'. .Peaceful Lane is really very much lower than the remainder of the site and any access to Peaceful Lane will result in the sort of tree loss that is presently being proposed. As you see by the plat that's being projected, the topography on the north side and on the Nest side is really reasonably steep and that is also where moat of the trees are. Most of the mature trees are oaks and maples and basswood. Similarly staff is showing, and the developer is proposing connecting Tower Heights Road I believe it's called, to the extension of Nez Perce. Batzlt: Sharmin, can I interrupt you Just a minute? Sharmin, can you use your highlighter and this map is kind of bad. Just show the connection to Nez Perce and then Peaceful so there's a different color up there. Thank you. Go ahead. Daryl Fortler: The light blue color that Sharmtn has put on Nould folloN Peaceful Lane existing and tend not to 'enter the present O~ens' property until it reaches his driveway. That would be more similar Nith. alingnment B in the feasibility study which would mean that the extension of Nez Perce would intersect at a 90 degree right angle and that Peaceful Lane would be Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 21, 1993 - Page 18 the thru street connecting Pleasant View'. We believe that such an alignment, that is alignment B would mitigate the traffic impact on Pleasant View Road and of the two, the homeowners and Mr. Beddor have always favored alignment B and we have been opposed vigorously to alignment A. Alignment A is the sweeping curve that you see shown in pink. And .. you see, Tower Heights Drive intersects with that at a 90 degree angle such to that because it introduces more traffic and encourages people to use Nez Perce to a greater extent. Again ! don't want to dwell too much on that issue but this assumes Nez Perce is going to be constructed. The next thing we'd like to point out is that the access off Lake Lucy Road by contrast results in the loss of only 3 trees. One 8 inch elm, one 10 inch ash and one 8 inch ash tree. The grading along Lake Lucy Road, as you can readily see from the contours, is much more gentle. Much more readily attained. This slope does not requite a great deal of grading and there's very minimal tree loss. Same number of lots can be developed for the owner and the traffic is out onto a road which is presently in full conformance with the city ordinances and standards. It also has rapid access onto County Road 17 and does not come out at a curve or a'rise in the road, which are both known traffic hazards. The previous City Council, Planning Commission, planners, engineers from the city staff-, as wel! as the developer and myself when I was present and involved in the Carver Beach planning, agreed that Outlot B was the logical location for access to. the Owens site. That has no longer been considered seriously by staff because of the controversy and the involvement with Vtneland, Troendle and Owens regarding Nez Perce. But we would certainly request that it be looked at more dispassionately and that you consider the merits of access to the south as opposed to access to the north. Again we would point out that there's a loss of trees to the south of only 3 small trees. All under 10 inch whereas to the north there is a loss of over 20 trees. Some with diameters of up to 30 inches. The grading on the south can be The grading on the north can be brought up to $~ or 6~ only with substant[a! grading and retaining walls. And finally we would bring up to your attention that this was previously planned and approved and supported by city staff, engineers, City Council, Planning Commission and the developers when Carver Beach Estates was originally planned. Thank you. Batzli: Let me ask you a question. I attended the City Council meeting and they said Nez Perce was going to go thru. Daryl Fort[er: Correct. Batzli: In a nutshell. Are you proposing that we take a look at not connecting this to Nez Perce, even though it's going to go through, or maybe or maybe not but that we reconsider it even though the City Council said it's going to go through? Daryl Fortier: That's correct. I'm asking you to look at this plat and say, let's assume Nez Perce is indeed constructed. Is this still a. wise way to develop this property? Our opinion is not. It is not a sound way to develop this site. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. [s there anyone else? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 19 Rodd Johnson: My name is Rodd Johnson. I llve. on Lake Lucy. The issue I would have, as has been all along. I hear trees and I think it's insanity in that if you bring it out the other Nay there's 31 ktd~ non in 18 homes on that strip and so now you're going to put ail that traffic on and that's Nhat City Council Nent over and has tNice said this is the Nay it's going to go. I think that from our standpoint', from people on the road, the 5~ grade is at the beginning but you could have a i2~ grade going up which staff has already shown in their reports on that issue. We're in favor of JHS doing this development Just the Nay that it's shoNn in green noN. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Renelle Albrecht: I'm Renelle Albrecht and I llve at 6581 Nez Perce Drive and you know I understand that the street's going through and I would like to Just point out that there could be tNo stop signs that Nhen you're doing the road you should take this into consideration. That there are 31 kids on Lake Lucy Road and there are also a lot of kids on the Vineland Forest Addition. That two stop signs, one placed Nhere Nez Perce Drive turns into Lake Lucy Road. That could become a 3 Nay sto~ where it's presently Just a one way stop going onto Lake Lucy Road. And making where Nez Perce would go onto Peaceful Lane, making that a 90 degree stop so that there Nould be a stop sign. It would increase the safety in the area tremendously. It Nould make it not a thoroughfare. It Nould make people stop and go slowly through the neighborhood. And I think it would satisfy the residents of both neighborhoods by Just putting in a couple stop signs. Thanks. Batzli: Thanks. One moment before I ask someone else to come up. Dave, Ns'ye had a couple of comments regarding the slope and stop signs and stuff. Do you Nant to address that? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The one access as Mr. Fortter has indicated as a viable one through to the Lake Lucy Road from the proposed subdivision is a 50 foot Nide outlot. 'It's been deeded to the' city. It's not dedicated public right-of-way.- Where currently both lots adjacent to this outlot have been built on, both homes do not meet setbacks if a roadway was to be put in there. In addition, site grading or the road grades Nould probably dramatically impose grades, boulevards and so forth to be extended out onto these properties as a result of it. I've been through this scenario many times and' Ns'ye had a feasibility study done on the previous roadway alignment on Nez Peres and that's been the elected route for servicing the Art ONens parcel. Batzli: What about the traffic issue onto Peaceful Lane and then onto Pleasant View and the probably addition of stop signs. Hempel: The installation of stop signs do require a traffic evaluation to be performed by usually the city's engineering department. We have certain criteria or warrants that have to be met for the implementation of stop signs. Stop signs are not intended to control speed. They are to insure a safe flow of traffic through the intersection. By placing stop signs where they're not Narranted may breed disrespect for actual other stop signs that maybe are very warranted and people have a tendency to roll through them or ignore them when they're not warranted and has caused false impressions of other intersections. The other thing is, studies prove that placement of Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 20 stop signs for speed consideration deesn't do the Job. It actually makes that individual feel like he's behind time. Has to increase speed through the neighborhood to make up that time. You also have an added burden of air pollution. Rdditional stopping and starting noises at intersections so stop signs are placed very carefully. You always hear the concern for children and streets and so forth and we do have a number of residential areas in the city that are all in the same situations. We do have concern for children's safety obviously but you have also traffic warrants to follow. 8atzll: I think Mr. Fortter eluded to a sight line problem though. Turning from Peaceful Lane onto Pleasant View. Have you taken a look at that? Hempel: There currently as it exists right now, there's a large sweeping radius onto Peaceful Lane from Pleasant View and is not a good intersection. Rs a part of the Nez Perce extension, that will be modified to be a right angle intersection to correct the problem that current exists at that intersection. Scott: So you're talking about Peaceful Lane meeting Pleasant View Road at a right angle? Hempel: That's correct. Right now it's a large sweeping pavement area. Batzli: But it's coming up a hill and I think around a slight bend there. That's the sight line I'm talking about. Haspel: That's correct, yeah. Batzli: Rnd that will be alleviated by, or mitigated by this? Hempel: It will be adjusted, yes. In conjunction with the roadway improvements out there. Batzlt: Okay. Let me get back to you. Is there someone else that would like to address the Commission? I know I had several people standing up. Yeah. Sharon Rogers: My name is Sharon Rogers. I. live at 6500 Nez Perce. I agree with what Renelle said. No matter, I mean a stop sign is going to be better than, and a little bit of noise of people accelerating is going to be better than having your child hit. So I agree that we should try to come up with some safety things like that. I live right on the curve, can you put that other map up again. I live on the curve 'where Nez Perce comes down the steep hill, by Renelle's home, and it curves around and I would also request a curve sign and a lowered speed limit. No one can go across that curve at 30 mph. People have tried but I think that that is necessary as well as some stop signs. Rlso I know that, you may ignore this comment but I would like to see another feasibility study done since the last one was done like 4 years ago. Rnd we weren't there .and many other residents weren't there and I would like to see that Just our residents have some consideration. Rs far as we're concerned right now Vineland Forest wasn't on the map at that time and I would like to see that being considered'. It Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 21 hasn't been considered at all. And we haven't been, our voices haven't been heard from that area. So not only the safety issues but we have other issues that we would like to have heard before any of these. Batzli: Are you proposing that we do a feasibility study for the traffic safety or to extend Nez Perce? Sharon Rogers: Ail of them. Batzli: Thank you. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify. The feasibility study was prepared April 13, 1992 for City Council consideration for the first consideration of Nez Perce. Again, this issue has already been debated. The official mapping has been approved. There will be an updated feasibility study that will address assessments to the project. Batzll: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Why don't we get this gentleman here. He's been pre-empted several times. Go ahead. No, please. Julius Smith: My name is Julius Smith and I'm an attorney who represents Frank Beddor and many of the homeowners on Pleasant View Lane and some of the other streets involved, and I'll make this very short. We would request that a determination by the Planning Commission on this plat be tabled because of a couple items. First of all a petition meeting all the Statutory requirements has been filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet involving this area be done by the city. And since the plat is impacted by that request, feel that it would be premature-to act on that. The City Council, as you know under the Environmental Rights Act, has 30 days to react to this request and according to the Environmental Quality Board rules, no final action can be taken by the City pending a final review of this request. So it Just seems reasonable-that the City shouldn't act until the environmental matter is settled because the plat, the change in the shape of the plat may very take place. And further, this matter should be tabled because the plat proposed includes land not owned by the developer in that the access road includes land owned by a third person, Mr. Beddor. No arrangement has been made to acquire that property, or to purchase that land. The developer has land abutting a public road. He has access to a public road over land next to a public road and also land owned by the city which was required by the city when the plat of Carver Beach Estates was adopted for access to Owens property, the so called Owens property, or the platted property. And it seems that you really can't Justify condemning land for private party access where the access already exists. There's a real question of legality of the condemnation if it's for a private person's benefit. Now the city made some comment about well let's just comdemn all of Hr. Beddor's land but if we do not claim any severance damages, you haven't got any right to do that. You can condemn Nez Perce if you wish and what you need for Nez Perce but the lots that are remaining south of Nez Perce and north of Nez Perce, unless you can prove a public necessity, you're going to have a hard time condemning it. No public necessity has been shown in this matter. It hasn't been litigated and nor has any condemnation proceeding by any public authority been initiated. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 22 Now the staff report says. the staff report that you have, says that this plat can't be done anyway until next year so it seems that there would be nothing lost by tabling this matter at this time. We think action at this time would be premature and there are many questions that need to be answered before adequate consideration can be given to this plat as presented. And staff Just indicated that another traffic study, or I should say a feasibility study would be done on Nez Perce and I would hope that instead of Just an engineering study, which is all they've done to date, which says we could feasibly build this road, that this study would include an environmental impact aspects, traffic study and a fiscal impact. Thank you very much. Ledvina: Question. Regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, what are the issues, the environmental issues that are at hand that you see? Julius Smith: The removal of all the trees off Mr. Beddor's land. Or a lot of trees. Many of them. There's some questions about water quality and the pond on his land. The~e are ail kinds of impacts, environmental impacts involved here and those are some of the questions we're raising with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Scott: Excuse me. I see, I 'm trying to reconcile what I have with what we have here but there is something that's designated as Vineland which looks like it's to the east of this particular development. I see that Mr. Beddor owns a section of land abutting Christmas Lake to the north of Pleasant View and could you help me understand which pieces of land Mr. eeddor owns south of Pleasant View. Julius Smith: Mr. Beddor owns this piece right here. The road from these two lots being platted cuts across his land. Scott: Okay so he owns, it looks like outlot, is it Lot 5? Julius Smith: It's Lot 5. Scott: 0 kay. Julius Smith: That's this one right here.. Scott: Alright. Julius Smith: He also owns this and this. Scott: I'm sorry, I missed that. Julius Smith: These two and then he o~ns these. Scott: 0 kay. Julius Smith: That's about it. 8atzli: Thank you. Would anyone else llke to address the Commission? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, i993 - Page 23 Mary Stasson: Good evening. My name is Mary Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane and the diagram that's up there before you right now is not really an accurate diagram because if Sharmtn would point to our property, the corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane Is a big wide, 125 foot sweeping corner that... It's definitely not a 90 degree turn as sho~n there. We built on our property 7 years ago and 6 1/2 years ago I met with Jim Charles who was the Safety Commissioner of the City at that time to talk about this corner. The Pleasant View Road, Peaceful Lane corner. Jim agreed with me that the corner is dangerous and should be squared off to allow us easy access to our driveway. Since that time we've been told by the city that the corner will indeed be squared off and this will be done when the developer's start to build and Peaceful Lane is upgraded. We have also been told by the City that existing homeowners will not have to pay for this road upgrade. This Nez Perce connection adds to our safety problems because of the increased traffic. It also depreciates the value of our property and we hope that as the city look= at the alignment of this road, that it doesn't have any more impact than how the road ts already aligned out. We hope that this isn't coming up into our yard in any way. We built on a quiet, dead-end road which accesses only 3 homes .so this is a clear depreciation of the value of our property. Since the city has made the decision to extend the road through and now has a proposed development for 13 homes, we hope that the city stands by their ~ord, especially since we have nothing to gain by this proposal and everything to lose. And also my husband had previously asked to be involved in the road alignment and we have also been told by the city that the name of our street is to remain Peaceful Lane because of the expense Involved In changing everything over to Nez Perce. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvtna moved, Harberts seconded tO cloae the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~aa closed. Harberts: What I understand the action we're to conetder tonight Is the approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide 6.1 acres. Pardon? Batzli: 7.1. Harberts: [ read it wrong. Batzli: You read it right. It was a typo. Harberts: Okay. I understand there is some legal issues in terms of ownership but I don't understand that to be an issue before us tonight. I'm sure that that's going to be an Issue between the developer to take care of that. I understand there's some safety issues and I would understand that the public safety then would address that. The last issue that was just brought up though about the name cha~e, staff points in the report that it's going to be changed to Nez Perce Drive, is that correct? Al-Jarl: Correct. Harberts: That's what I understand in your report here. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 24 Al-Jarl: Correct. And that's something that would take place at the time 'of the extension. Batzll: Pardon. Just a moment. Yes sir. Jim Stasson: We had an agreement with the Mayor and the City Council that that wouldn't change. That it'd still be Peaceful Lane. Harberts: That might be something they might want to forward, probably when this is forwarded to the Council then if that's an issue. Batzli: Yeah. Al-Jarl: This is really not something'that you would be voting on at this point. It will take place at the time of the extension of Nez Perce but it's a recommendation. Harberts: ! just wanted to make sure.... You know again going back to consistency, what we requested was tree surveys or tree inventories to see what the impact was to a particular property. Is that coming? Al-Jaff: The applicant submitted a survey that showed the existing trees but not what will be removed and really that doesn't satisfy the needs. Harberts: Right, because I think we've created with the discussion kind of the threshhold of having that inventory so we can see exactly what the impact is and I think that was one of the issues so I would certainly want to see that as part of the recommendation that are forwarded, if indeed that's what the action is tonight. And as I understand the developer is okay with the rest of the recommendations. Al-Jarl: Correct. Harberts: With regard to that frontage road on Lot 137 Al-Jarl: Correct. Harberts: I guess one last comment. I would tend to, I'm still kind of unclear with myself in terms of moving an approval with this simply because we don't have that tree inventory. I recall one of the projects it did make a significant impact to us on the Commission so I would really-like to see that. I guess I would Just say that I think with any community there's always an opportunity for development and that developer certainly has the opportunity to do it and we're here at the city and citizen advisory group to try to insure that that development is done in a way that benefits the overall community and ! know that's my reason for sitting here. But ! think it's Just a reality of life that people have the opportunity to develop land in a way that then meets the codes. So with the exception of the tree inventory, I really don't have any problem with the plat itself. ~ know Matt has a little it more expertise in the area of grade so I'm interested to hear his comments on that. But I'm comfortable that we've got competent staff that will insure that the safety issues are taken into account. My own personal view is that I like to insure that there is no question in terms of public safety.and I think that would also extend to Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 25 making sure that all streets are named in such a way that if there is an emergency, that there is no problem in terms of finding the location. And I'm guessing that public safety has reviewed the ~ame change and if they are in approval with it, I would also then be recommending.that the name change follo~ that of public safety department. 8atzli: $o you'd like to see this passed along? You don't think of it as being something that you'd like to table and have it come back with either the lots shifted or. Harberts: I'm a little concerned about' the number of trees. You: kno~ I'm Just recalling the one plat we did. I guess I would certainly bow to staff if they feel comfortable with working with the developer. I think we've set the threshhold. They certainly have a strong indication of what we see or what we feel so I guess in conclusion I wouldn't have any problem pushing this forward with those recommendations then. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I would like to see it come back. I ~ould like to see the tree survey... I think the issues, all the issues it looks like they're on the table. Many of them addressed but the trees, and especially Lot 12 and 13, I don't understand yet. I think in the staff report, the staff report was pretty strong on Lot 12 and 13. Yet in the motion, in the recommendations by the staff, it's not quite as strongly worded there and just a footnote for staff. I think in the staff report they talked about a garage being taken down. Didn't see that in the recommendations at all and whether you want that there or not. It is in the staff report but I didn't find it. Batzli: Isn't that number 187 Harberts: Yeah. Said it was...concurrent. Conrad: Okay. If it's taken care of, my mistake. So the only issue I have with this right now would be the tree loss and I don't have a grasp of that. And the other thing I don't understand is, Julius brought it up. The Environmental Review Board. I don't understand what that is and what impact that has on this particular plat. RI-Jarl: We received a request this afternoon so we haven't had time to really review it. We've skimmed through it and basically it points out that there is a wetland north of the site and this could be impacted.. This is not a wetland, it's a pond and it's also that we're going to move a large number of trees and we're trying to address this issue. But llke I said, we haven't had time to review all of the issues and until we have time to look at it, I apologize. I can't answer all the questions. Conrad: That's my only comment and I think, if there are other members of the Commission that would like to see this back, I'd sure support that. [ think if you feel it should move forward, that staff has a grasp like Diane felt, I'd sure listen to that too. 8ut my...is take a look at what's happening in terms of vegetation. Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 21, 1993 - Page 26 Batzli: Yeah. Well, that would be my direction also. Let's at least get some comments from the other commissioners here and see if they concur at all. Matt. Ledvtna: Okay. I'm just going to kind of take it from the top on my iisi here. With the land swap with the city for the 'water tower, no issue there. A-okay. Al-Jarl: No. Ledvina: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Al-Jarl: What we're proposing is that we sell the land rather than Just swap it and if Dave has any additional comments. Hempel: [ don't. Ledvina: Okay. And then a question for Dave. Mr. 3ohnson mentioned a 12~ grade. I thought our ordinan~e was 7~. Is this a variance that we're looking at here or, on the roads? Hempel= I guess I was unclear where the Z2~ was referred to. The street grade proposed with this development is Ledvina: Okay. So there are no [2~ grades on the streets associated with this plat? Hempel: That's correct. Ledvtna: Okay. I didn't see that either. Let's see. ! guess generally as it relates to the tree survey, I'm also uncomfortable because I think we as a commission have seen that some really substantial positive changes can be made to plats when we know where the trees are and we can identify them and work around them. If you don't know where they are, you don't know what you're losing or saving. And [ think that's critical so I guess would support Ladd and Diane on that point certainly. As far as the request for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, I don't know. Sharmin you indicated that the area to the north of the develop~nt that appears to it's a low spot. Is that a wetland then or no? Al-Jarl: No it's not. It's a pond. Ledvina: Okay. That's a pond and then to the east of the development, or northeast, is that a wetland area? Scott: That's that huge pond that's just adjacent to CR 17. AI-3aff: I believe that's a pond again, isn't it Dave? Hempel: It does have a storm sewer controlled outlet. It does have wetland characteristics over time that have taken over the pond site but it has been a low depression for a number of years. Batzli: Is that mapped by the city as a wetland? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 27 Hempel: That's something we'd have to verify. To be honest, I don't know on that. Al-Jeff: Again, we only received the request this afternoon so we haven't had time to look it over. Ledvina: Okay. And it dc,~s appear that some of the development would, or may increase runoff in that direction so I think that's a legitimate issue. In terms of the water quality. Let's see. And as far as access. Dave, have you any thoughts on the access from Lake Lucy Road and I guess we talked about it real briefly but you indicated that there were a couple of problems with that proposal or that potential alternative. Hempel: That's correct. There currently is t~o, the lots adjacent to the Outlot B which is a 50 foot strip of land that's deeded to the city as a part of the Carver Beach Estates. There are two homes built on each.o~e of the lots that are, you can't see the dimensions on there but ! believe one's 27 and one's 28 feet which. Al-Jarl: 25 feet. Hempel: 25 feet set back from the property lt~e. The garage on the properties I don't believe are situated. The road was put through at that point. The front part of the kitchen, the bedroom side of the house would be right there on the corner as well. Grades through there, I won't say they couldn't be done. They're pr~bly looking at a 10~ grade with significant filling probably at the bottom, or-cutting. One of the two to get your landing into the Lake Lucy Road. Again, all these issues have been looked at over the last 4 years for servicing this whole area. Ledvina: Okay, thank you. I guess then in general I feel that although the overall concept for the development is reasonable, I think there are some outstanding issues here that we should see it again. Batzll: Okay, thank you. Joe. Scott: The other commissioners have covered'the things I wanted to'talk about but one thing, personally I will vote to table any development that does not have a tree inventory. That's all I have to say. 8atzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I'm not going to repeat Matt's comments. I back him up on what . he said, in particular the Lots 12 and 13. I-think also that the City should be sensitive to the neighbors comments, whether they're reasonable or unreasonable in regards to public safety. I don't always agree with the criteria that we use for judging public safety. I think we should be more sensitive to citizens concerns in regard, in explaining how that criteria is arrived at. Speed limits and so on. That's the extent of my comments. Satzli: I agree with that. I think it makes sense to most'lay people that the stop sign will slow down traffic so it's something that we always talk to you about and you insist that it doesn't do that but it just seems to make sense to me a~d others in any event. On condtttoll number 19, Sharmin. Planning Commission Meeting July 2i, i993 - Page 28 The City may sell a portion of the water to, er land to the developer. I'm assuming that this can't go through the way we're looking at it unless the City does in fact sell that land. Is there a reason that we chose to put in the language may? Al-Jarl: We can rephrase that. Batzli: What I'm really getting at is I think-the condition has to reflect that (a), the plat that we're looking at, .it is not in fact a land trade because we normally include the plans. So that we're talking about land which is going to be purchased from the city and I don't kno~, you know the whole deal appears to me to be contingent on that. Among other things. But go ahead. What were you going to say. Al-Jarl: The City shall sell rather than. Batzli: Well I don't know if you shall do it or not. 'I mean I don't kno~ but that's my point is that, have we agreed on a price and this is all going to happen or is this. Al-Jarl: No. Batzli: We're burning it up with attorney fees negotiating? Al-Jarl: What we were thinking is we would have it appraised and then try and agree on a price. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, previous discussions here this morning with the developer, to be honest I was not privy to the idea of selling or trading until I looked at the plans I guess. Discussions further though, the City would be open to negotiations for selling part of the property to the developer. We're not interested in trading property and the developer is well aware of that. As far as setting a fair land values to that small parcel of land. If we were to have an appraiser do an appraisal of the property, the appraisal would probably cost more than the property would be worth so we will negotiate a sales price based on previous purchases of single family property within the city. Batzli: Okay. I had agreed with Ladd's comments. I think there's several issues that we need to look at. One, I'd like to look at, I'd like to make sure you guys look at the sight lines. At the connection between Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View. To make sure that in fact there is a decent sight line there because that is a dangerous intersection and we're going to be putting more traffic on it by making the connection as proposed. The tree survey is I think an issue. Water quality impact on several of the ponds here appears to be an issue. Custom grading and/or moving the lot lines on Lots 12 and 13 appears to be an issue that we want to look at as well as the language of the land sale so I think there's several things that need to be cleared up. I think there's a lot of concern in this area and so I think rather than Just passing it on, I think we should handle it here at the Planning Commission before we pass it on and listen to the residents concerns to make sure we're taking those concerns into account as we make the decision. Those are my comments. Is there a motion? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 29 Conrad: I make a motion that the Planning Commission table planning case 93-12 SUB, Tower Heights Addition until staff can bring back those items that Brian Just mentioned. But primarily a tree inventory and addressing some of the environmental concerns that are related to it. Batzli: Is there a second? Scott: Second. Batzli: Any discussion? Harberts: Was the developer informed that a tree inventory was needed? Required. Al-Jeff: Yes, and he submitted one. However, it doesn't show. When we overlap the grading plan over the tree plan, we basically concluded that the majority of the trees will be removed and that's why we're requesting that the applicant looks at this again and develop a better plan basically. That's why we were looking at Lot 13 and saying, the conditions, if you look at the conditions. It would reflect that. We're basically saying that the trees will, I mean condition number 6. Looks at grading issues and tree preservation easements. That's the reason why we put those conditions there. Harberts: Does staff feel that theY, you know based on our former discussion with other plans Sharmin, do you feel that the staff understands the threshhold in terms of what our expectations are for a tree inventory and preservation and conservation easements? Al-Jeff: Yes we do. Harberts: Thank you. Batzli: Okay, any other discussion? Conrad ~oved, Scott seconded to table Subdivision Request ~93-12 for Tower Heights Addition for further review and lnform~tion'to be brought back to the Planning Con~aIe~lon. All voted in favor, except Herbaria who opposed, and the aotion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Batzli: And your reasons for opposing? Motion carries. Harberts: I guess it has a matter to do with the process from my perspective. I certainly welcome the information. It's of interest. Tree inventory, I feel personally is a staff function. And I have confidence in the staff skills that since they understand and have a feeling for what our expectations are, that they will follow through with it. That's really a personal perspective. And I certainly, like I said earlier, I'm kind of torn but with regard to process and cost and things like that, ! guess I... trust staff's skills. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Any idea when this will be back before us then in view of the issues that you have to look at and come back to us? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 30 Al-Jarl: Aa ne nson: 8atzli: Harberts: We could bring it the second meeting in August. That'd be the 18th. 18th of August? Okay. Thank you very much. I have a question. With that EAW, there could be an impact of when that comes back to us or even just in terms of what the opinions are from the attorney, is that correct... Batzli: Okay, thank you very much for coming in. PUBLIC HE~RING: HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT TO SUBDIVIDE 37 /~I~ES OF ~TY INTO 57 SINGLE F~J~ILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RE$IDENTIN. SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ~ ~ ,IdlEST OF N[NNENASHT~.PARKHAY.~ Public Present: John Dietrich Scott Morrow & Cindy Houle Kevin Cuddihy Keith Bedford Bill Naegele Jr. Terry Labatt Sue Morgan Linda Scott Jerry Kortgard Daryl Kirt Harold Taylor Lowell & Janet Carlson Dave & Margie 8orris Peter Miller RLK Associates 3980 Stratford Ridge 3900 Stratford Ridge 3961 Stratford Ridge 4001 Stratford Ridge 3981 Stratford Ridge 4031 Kings Road 4031 Kings Road 3901 Glendale Drive 50 Hill Street 3861 Stratford Ridge 4141 Kings Road 4071 Kings Road 7161Minnewashta Parkway Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzlt called the public hearing to order. John Dietrich: Good evening Commissioners. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the engineers, landscape architects representing Heritage Development who is the applicant for the proposed preliminary plat. The plat that is before you tonight was submitted on June 7th with the intent of looking at the 37 plus acres for 57 unit single family development. Based upon the information we had at that time in terms of right-of-way and layout of Kings Road and access requirements, we've prepared this plat in order to meet the necessary utility access and drainage requirements according to Code. We realize there are 9 lots, as' Ms. Aanenson indicated that are insufficient in square footage. Ne feel we have the ability to shift those lot lines. Minor tweaks more or less in order to gain the proper square footage for the 15,000 square foot lot'and the 20,000 square foot lot within the Lake St. Joe, 1,000 foot setback. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 31 The plat as presented is premised.on ali access coming off Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway with the developer proposing to construct the roadway up to the first lot into the site. From that point west the Heritage Development would be petitioning the city to construct the Kings Road in this proposed location for a 429 process and completion of the road in 1994. The issue of park and park dedication, we have looked at the site and the significant stand of treem on the mite are at the northwest corner. We feel that is the appropriate place for the park dedication based upon the negotiations which were underway with Ms. Hallgren'on her property at the time this plat was submitted. We were working on the premise of looking at the park eventually in the Hallgren area. That's why the park dedication is at the northwest corner of the site. We intend to provide all ponding and storm sewer calculations as necessary in order for the city staff to have a comfort level with the proposed development and we would be willing to look at not developing that one parcel that is indicated south of Kings Road with a homesite so that that parcel could be utilized as a storm water retention pond. Secondly, the Outlot C which is between Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta would be proposed to be turned over to the City for public purposes. We would appreciate your consideration of this preliminary plat development a~d I'm available to answer questions in regard to it. Batzlt: Thank you. We'll probably have some questions. Do you have one now Matt? Lady ina: No. Batzli: Oh, okay. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Peter Miller: I'm Peter Miller. I live at 7161Minnewashta Parkway. I've read the staff report and I strongly agree with the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Committee to put the park on the intersection of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. It seems to be a much better site for a park to provide athletic facilities and things that are needed in that area. Batzlt: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Margie Borris: My name is Margie BoTtle. I live at 4071 Kings Road. I'm that little piece in the middle on the west over there. We had a meeting with some of the people that live on Kings Road on Monday and some of the things that we were concerned about is, as our deeds read we own the property with a, our's reads 33 foot easement for the people that live on this road. Okay, it is like you say, it is not a public road. You're- looking at 57 plots and if you say there's 2 cars per household, which is average, that's 114 cars of new traffic. There's a lot of concerns about the traffic flow. When they're building this little addition. Everybody is in favor of you getting your tax money. The developer's making a profit but we also would Ilks some consideration in this because we have been there. We pay our taxes Just like everybody else does and we're going to be more inconvenienced than anyone else there. The fiasco that went on with Minnewashta Parkway this last year was incredible. If you lived there or had to use that road, you had to spend an extra half hour somewhere or another with your traffic during the day. If you could get by. There are a certain amount of DNR questions that we have about what is going to be Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 32 draining from these drainfields that already exist in this area and how that is going to drain into Lake St. Joe because there's an under water tile system that goes under Kings Road and there's 3 other tiles that drain into that. We also were wondering, where are you going to put all this equipment when you're building this. Where are you going to park this equipment? How are we, who live on Kings Road, going to get to and from work? What are some of these things that nobody ie telling ue about? Where are you going to stash that equipment? And we have no idea, how long do you think you're going to tie up this road? -What are you going to do? Nobody has asked us anything. I think we, on Kings Road feel that a main road off Mtnnewashta Parkway, on that lower section there, that is right off by the lake. On the northern farthest part of that, that doesn't go into Stratford but where this should come out of the developer's land. Not our's. He's making the profit and you will still get your tax dollars. That's Just some of the things we discussed. I don't want to be the only one up here. Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Is there someone else that would Iike to address the Commission? Linda Scott: My name is Ltnda Scott and I live at 4031Klngm Road and I understand you have the letter that I wrote and as you've seen, my concerns are. First of ali I vaIue Lake St. 3ce very much. It's a Iake where a beaver Ilves. There's a deer trail that goes through our yard. There's incredibIe water fouI that happens and Ilves there and we do have drainage that comes right across our property from the fields across the road and I am somewhat concerned of how that drainage, once there's houses there, wiII impact the wlIdItfe on the Iake. I am very much against having, the city pay for the road for deveiopment, which means we get assessed. We have ali moved out there. Happy with our septic systems, our welIs and our dirt road and if the deveIoper wants to put in houses, I feeI that he should pay for the road. And aisc because of the concerns of the road, I think ali of us want to make sure that whatever property we own, does not get taken away from us for the purpose of improving the road. Thank you. BatzIl: Thank you. Jim Andrews: Hello. I'm Jim Andrews. I Iive at 7014 Sandy Hook Circle. I'm also on the Park Board and I Just wanted to voice my concern and really disapointment in the developer to ignore recommendations to locate the park at Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. I think this particular park is one that as a city we've been looking to locate in this area for many, many years. In fact we've had a fund set up for the 6 years that I've been involved with the Park Board and I think it's existed at least 3 or 4 years before that. To acquire property in this area. And the intent was to serve a very park deficient area with a very much a showcase neighborhood sized park in an area that definitely needs the service of a park. I think to locate it on the northwest portion of this property does not allow good access to the property. Does not provide easy access to the property owners who have been there the longest that have been waiting for this park and [ think sort of include a park in coordination with another property owner at this time who is not yet offered or indicated an interest to sell their property, in my opinion is pie in the sky. This has been a problem we've come up with as a Park Board over and over again. Is development Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 33 property being proposed showing a park located not on the actual plat being considered but somewhere next door, maybe happening at some other time. And it puts us in a perpetual problem of whenever that next parcel comes up, if it's not large enough. Not coordinated properly, we again end up with an area that's inferior. Too small and doesn't offer us the flexibility we need. So-again, I would hope that the commission would follow the Park Board recommendation and stress that the park be located where it was originally proposed. Scott: I guess that's the thing with the Ztegler property location? Jim Andrews: To be honest, I don't have my papers with me. It'd be in the southeast corner. Scott: Southeast corner. Jim Andrews: Correct. Scott: You've had discussions with them and they're willing to sell the property to you guys? Jim Andrews: We have not gotten to that point at all, no. Scott: But they're entertaining it. Jim Andrews: Yes. Lowell Carlson: My name is Lowell Carlson. I live at 4141 Kings Road and they were Just saying about this 6 years that they waited for, or 9 years that they've waited for this park. Where were they at when Leach's Resort was sold? It was one of the perfect spots if you ever wanted-a park put anyplace but I didn't see nobody jumping in the frying pan over that deal. Because the swimming beach and everything was there. It was all set up. It couldn't have been no better and right on the lake would have been destreable. But nobody did anything about it then. I mean they. left it to go down the tubes and now all the townhouses and everything come in there and so on and so forth. And then I don't know about the developer. If you've checked property lines or if you have, the city has on Kings Road that, do I got to, to get their square footage for each and every lot that there are little lots for their development, do I got to furnish part of my land to do so? Because my property runs on the other side, on the north side of Kings Road. So unless that road is changed, moved over to the north because my property is clear on the north side and I think you should check them records and they've been there when we've been-to Court on it years back on it. And that's pretty well stabilized as far as my property line but I don't think that I should furnish any property for a developer to come in there and use up part of my square footage on my property to get enough for his also. I mean I don't know how you guys are looking at this thing but. Batzli: Aren't you on the south side? Lowell Carlson: Huh? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 34 8atzli: You're on the south aide right? Lowell Carlson: Yes, I'm on the south side. I think you should take a real good look at where that property line, because that road is so crooked and so out of kilter there and it was I guess at one time was a cow trail or a horse trail or whatever it was when they Just drove wherever they wanted to. But anyway, like I maid. It isn't wide enough and so on and so forth but I don't think I'm going to furnish them any property to get their square footage out of their lots. I'm going to be saying that for sure. 8ut thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Marvin List: Marvin List. I represent Kelth Bedford who ltves at 3961 Stratford Ridge and Bill Munig who lives very near Keith. I don't have his address. Two real quick points on this. One from a common sense standpoint and one from a legal standpoint. From a common sense standpoint we have 37 plus acres that are proposed to be developed and we are disrupting landowners to the north and the south in terms of having to take portions of their property to provide access to this 37 plus acres. It doesn't even make any sense in the world to me to do that. There's ample, ample opportunity within that 37 acres to provide access over the owner's property. Not to take it from adjoining parcels. Which leads to the second issue from a legal standpoint could very well have problems.in trying to condemn on the north and the south as to purpose and necessity issues. And some of the damages that would be incurred by those people I think would be very, very great. The woman who spoke a little bit earlier proposed I think exactly what Keith Bedford and Bill Munig believe is the only proper way to do this and that is if this development is to go forward, you would have access from Minnewashta about in the middle of the development into it that way. There's no reason to acquire and disrupt adjoining owners and take their property and incur significant damages to them. It doesn't make any sense when you have the kind of acreage that we are developing here. So from a common sense standpoint and from a legal standpoint, the access that we're talking about is something Just ludicrous is probably a good word. Secondly, the develope~ indicated that the access primarily will come in off of Kings Road. I'm not sure that's true. I think you have a good deal of access coming off of Stratford Lane to the north which is going to cause a lot of problems to those people up in that area. So again I think the access should be in the middle of that area. Not to the north. Not to the south and there's no reason to disrupt the adjoining owners. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Margie Borris: Do you want somebody to point it out on the map? They look confused. Scott: Kate, I've got a question. It's up in the Stratford area. That area's developed? Aanenson: This is a public street to this point. These people enjoy the use so Mrs. Hallgren can have access to her's so they have like an alley they're using as a back entrance to their homes. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 35 Scott: Wouldn't we have about 3 parcels, actually we'd have 6 parcels that would have roads on both sides? Aanenson: Well these people have roads on both sides too, and that's not uncommon to have double frontage lots. Scott: It isn't? Okay. Aanenson: These people have double frontage right now... Resident: But that doesn't exist. Aanenson: eut we see this Country Oaks, you know and the intent is to tie neighborhoods together. Resident: But he is right. People are going to be coming off of Highway 7, are going to hit that Stratford Ridge rather than drive that extra distance...it's going to work both ways. 8atzli: Thank you. Marvin List: Again, that's private property to the .north that would have to be acquired to accommodate what they're talking about. Aanenson: This portion. Marvin List: That's correct...common or legal sense. Batzli: Okay. Would someone else like to address the Commission? Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I Just have one question for the City Engineer. We were led to believe that the City of Chanhassen did not want another street coming directly off of Minnewashta Parkway, is that correct? And if so, why? Hempel: That's correct. Accesses off of a collector type street I believe as in the ordinance is limited to, correct me if I'm wrong Kate, quarter mile. Aanenson: Yep. Hempel: Along Minnewashta Parkway so it is desireable to limit access onto a thoroughfare type street. It only makes sense from a traffic engineering standpoint to utilize existing entrance points which are spaced appropriate along the Parkway. Sue Morgan: Are there exceptions to that? Hempel: It is City ordinance I believe of the Subdivision regulations. I'm not aware of any that have been done in the last 5 years since I've been here. Sue Morgan-' Okay, thank you. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 36 Kevln Cuddlhy: Kevtn Cuddihy at 3900 Stratford Ridge. Not to reiterate any points so I won't send them back. I think that the developer would realize, if he went back to the traffic studies that were done last year for Minnewashta Parkway itself, that they would find that quite a bit of the traffic coming down Minnewashta Parkway is coming out of, more traffic is coming actually out of the Highway ? entrance than the Highway $ entrance. Therefore, coming to this neighborhood they wouldn't be using the Kings Road access. They'd be coming in the other way. Second of all, I think notification of the entire Minnewashta Parkway homes I think should be very key here in the park discussion because it was discussed heavily during the Minnewashta Parkway rennovation project t'hat they would develop a bike path/walking path that would be accessible to a park and I think you'd find the Park Commission and the City Council recognizing that this whole area on Minnewashta Parkway is in desperate need of a park. And to try to cram it back into a corner where no one's at Just seems ridiculous. And I think the opportunity on the southeast corner is the opportunity there is to run an additional road into that new. development adjacent to a park area that should be where it's been talked about. And not try to hide it into the back corner with limited access for all the people on the Parkway that expect to use that park. So thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved. Scott ~econded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Farmakes: First of all, I'll make my general comments about this layout. I don't like it. I think that from a monetary standpoint it's pretty-obvious why those big lots are going up by the lake. And the very small lots get smaller as you work your way back. In particular, up in the corner. Where's the north direction on here? It'd be the northwest corner? Lot 7, 13 and 6 I think are pretty poorly put together. [ don't mind the issues of access that are being discussed here. I think that they're consistent with what the City's direction is. To connect neighborhoods, not to isolate them. I would support the staff's recommendations...and again, I hope that we occasionally see development beyond the minimum requirements. In this case, even less than the minimum requirements except where's developer's going to make a few dollars at the expense I think of the surrounding area. ! certainly think that there's no Justification for cashing out on those front lots with what they could do with-that piece of property and it does have potential for being a park area in the front and do with a few less lots here. Scott: I'd like to see this tabled based on the staff recommendations and some other things. Predominantly the park location, lot-size within the l,O00 feet of Lake St. Joe. That's my thoughts. Batzli: Well you've proposed something different from what the staff is proposing which is recommending to deny. Scott= Oh, deny. Excuse me. Planning Commission Meeting July 2i, i993 - Page 37 Batzli: You raise an interesting point and that is, if we table it is there something that can be worked out or has city staff basically, are we even at...at this point with the applicant. Rnd ! guess I'd ask the applicant as well. If it looks like we're going to deny it and move it along to City Council, would you prefer that we table it so that we can maybe iron out some of these issues and not have to deny it? John Dietrich: Based on the issues that ate on the table, we would prefer a denial and I think the park issue is going to play a major role and that is going to probably be the driving force as to'how this plat eventually will become developed. Rs well as the right-of-way locations and access. Batzli: Okay. So those are positions right now that you've basically got your heels dug in that this is how we want to do it and you'd rather see it denied all the way up than try and resolve something? John Dietrich: Correct. Batzli: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: Well I think there's been a 1.ot of good discussion on a lot of issues here and if this does come back in some form, I think the Minutes should be closely reviewed to account for many of the good points that have been made. Something that I would just like to say, as far as the grading plan is concerned. You know I recognize that the topography is pretty difficult but, and there may not be a lot of trees to save, spare the northwest cornet that we've talked about. But on the other hand, we're essentially grading all the developed area of the project and I'don't think that's a desireable base to start f~om. We want to keep our landforms in Chanhassen to some things that resemble the past and I think that's a reasonable thing even when we're developing subdivisions. So other than that I would support the denial of this plat as proposed. Batzli: Okay. If I can butt in before I go to Ladd here. Rs far as drainage of this parcel, where is it all going to go? Hempel: The parcel is divided into basically two different watersheds. The westerly 1/4 of it drains towards the city of Victoria. There's a wetland area along the westerly border of the development. The remaining 3/4 of it does drain southeasterly, eventually to Lake St. Joe and a small portion of it to Minnewashta Parkway. Batzli: Is there some sort of plan to do some sort of, did I miss some sort of NURP ponding or something? Is that in your report? Hempel: Yeah. Upon review of it, we felt there was inadequate on site pondtng proposed. They had proposed I believe two small retention pond areas but for 37 acres of land is nowhere. Ranenson= That was number 8, reason fo~ denial. We felt, as we did with the Boley, we had the pre-treatment, ponds before they go into Lake St. Joe. And this we felt was inadequate proposed on-site drainage. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, i993 - Page 38 Batzli: Yeah. That was in, okay. And that was in Dave's number 10. Is there additional water coming across the parcel from other areas into Lake St. Joe? I mean is this our last best hope to try and treat water going into Lake St. Joe? Hempel: The runoff for this parcel, I'guess we haven't looked at other adjacent parcels south of Kings Road. But based on the topography and the vegetation along there, I'd seriously doubt that there's a large enough area capable of supporting a pondtng basin to deal with water quality issues. Runoff from this 37 acre parcel. We will definitely need a number of water quality ponds on the development to control both quantity and quality of the water which goes to hake St. Joe. Batzli: Well Lake St. Joe's designated as a natural environment lake, or non-recreational use, whatever we categorize it as. It seems to me that if we're going to protect the lake from development around it, we need to do a pretty serious look and maybe have our water quality Bonestroo people take a look at the effect of development upstream from this parcel and this parcel as well as those sandwiched inbetween. Because otherwise we're going to end up developing it piecemeal and each time we're going to say well we don't have enough space and nothing's going to happen other than we're going to get some pretty bad runoff into Lake St. Joe, it seems to me. Ladd. Conrad: I basically ~n't like what I'm looking at...pay attention to the staff's recommendations. There's no .reason I would entertain this. A question for Kate though. Access seems to be a big issue, especially with the residents here. I keep mulling around. I believe the staff report, and I really don't know if this is the staff's opinion or if staff is trying to work with the applicant and make it work or help it work. And Dave maybe you can jump in. If you had your druthers on this whole parcel, and the parcels to the south and the undeveloped parcels to the north and you have two accesses, Stratford and King's are potential, is this where you'd you in a perfect world, is this where you'd put them or would you try to gerryrig them around a little bit? Hempel: I think the stage is set out there with the existing homes, existing roadways. The location where it enters the Parkway are desireable. The sight lines. Not to say that maybe another access inbetween ~ould still not uphold the sight line concerns but we get into the access points along Minnewashta Parkway. Conrad: The proposed park by the developer on the northwest corner has a stand of trees. Are these worth saving? Aanenson: Yes. Yes, they are. We asked'for a tree inventory. One ~asn't provided but based on Just the site visit we feel it is a significant stand. Conrad: I sure would like to see one when the applicant makes another proposal. And again, letting the applicant know that tree preservation in that, if the park is shifted. I'm still interested in preserving trees in that area. Last question Kate, our ability to get a park in particular location within a plat. What is our ability to do that? U~ually Planning Commission Meeting July 21, i993 - Page 39 developer's go and usually staff say we'll negotiate that. It typically has worked. Here's a case where it hasn't and what's the city's ability to say, you have to have it here? Aanenson: Well I think part of the issue on this is preference in the fact that we're obligated to make this park happen. The city's obligated to buy a large portion of the park and obviously there incentive is to make sure that we do that in a timely manner and so they're pushing this through to make that happen. We feel that it makes the most sense to make that happen. That the Council feels like they're not ~illtng to support the dollar cost, then it dies and they do their thing but staff believes that we've got the support of the Administration and the Council to see this park go through. Conrad: And I guess I don't understand. The proposed park in the southeast corner, based on the Park and nec recommendation, is that entirely contained within this parcel? Or is it outside of it? Aanenson: Correct. It's all inside. Conrad: It's all in there. And that has always been, okay. No more questions. Batzli: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I'm going to go along with the staff recommendation and to move denial. I have to agree with your comment, I think it was' Dave made in terms of the limited access onto Minnewashta Parkway. From my perspective, and in the type of Job that I'm in, you limit access because then it's easier to control traffic flow and when you have this type of' development as well as some open other land in terms of development, I think those should be some key issues. And I won't ask a lot of details from staff. I'll chat with them at some other time but I ~uess, you know I have a real strong feeling, and I don't know all the ln's and cut's so again I'll certainly talk with staff at another time in terms of, if it's priority to limit access onto Minnewashta Parkway, why aren't we aligning then the road, comments from the people I thought were well taken about through the center. You know Country Oaks. You know !'ye received comments how that 33 foot trail or road or whatever would certainly make a nice. access point to the proposed park. So since it's being denied, like ! said I'll follow up with staff because there may be some other issues that I'm not aware of. 8ut I think overall my real sense of denial of this is goino along with staff is simply because it doesn't seem to be a very friendly development for the community, for the city, for the residents. And I think that's what we ask the developers, we ask of anyone is that we all work together the way that it is again benefit the community. It's not unheard of, of when the developers and the people that are affected, sit down and chat. See if there can be some kind of compromise that peo~le can live with. You know people understand I think that the land's ~oing to develoP. People own it. They have the opportunity to do it but I think from a developer's perspective, they have to work with us too as well as the people because we're the ones that are ~olng to live here. $o I would Just encourage them. You know it's too bad, from my perspective, and I'm sure there's reasons the developer rather would (;o ahead with the denial rather than a Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 21, 1993 - Page 40 table but I guess when I see a plat come through, I hope in the future again that it's a real friendly development and I question,.and again I'll check with staff, how a development can cause the city to buy land that disrupts people, other people's land when I would also concur that shouldn't the developer bear that cost as part of the development. And- again, I'll just simply defer to staff at another time. I'm sure there's reasons why and I'll follow up with them on that. But I think the overall basis here is just help us develop our community. We want to see the development occur but help us do it so it benefits everyone.and that everybody is happy because there are people that are going to live here for a long time. That's it. Batzli: Okay. I only have I guess two things to add. One of them is extension of Stratford Lane. And also Kings Road. I'd like to get a clarification and then the other is to note to Dave that in fact it was in there and I missed it about the drainage. But it's interesting that it may also impact the City of Victoria based on their- grading and I think as a friendly neighbor to Victoria, we should let them see what we're going to dump across the city lines there. Stratford Lane, we've had several letters from people that would like it extended westward and maybe a bone of contention that we're avoiding here by what we're about to do. But from a planning perspective, it sounds like staff is comfortable with extending that. I mean is that something that we've looked at in great detail? Aanenson: If the park doesn't go in this area? Batzli: Yep. Aanenson: Then your access is Startford Lane. That's the only way to access it. Not only that, you have to look at the other, Mrs. Hallgren has to have access to her property and somehow we need to look at that in the overall planning because she's got a large piece up in this area here. Again, while we envision Country Oaks. Batzli: Headla and Hallgren. Aanenson: Yes. We've met with Mr. Headla and he will probably get access off of the extension of this, coming this way. Again, he can split maybe get 5 lots or something off there. Maybe more. He would need access to his property. Again, it's be not the city's desire to have direct access again. So you have to look at the larger'picture. Not this development but there's a few other developments that can happen in this area. We did lay out some tentative streets, how this whole thing can come together but two streets need to still be connected and that's Country Oaks Drive and Stratford. Again, it was always tha city's intent for that street to go through. That's why there's a 50 foot access there for a public street. Not just to serve just those few homes up in there. 8atzli: Where, Stratford Lane you're talking about? Aanenson: For Stratford Lane, correct. 8atzli: On the Kings Road, on the map that we're looking at. The 33 feet. Is that? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 41 Resident: That's the entire width of the road at the widest point· 8atzli: Is that currently reflected on our map as being owned by the piece being developed or is that the current location of the road on the nearby residents? Aanenson: That's what we're saying. We've surveyed that there's 20 to 23 feet. Where it falls within there, that's one of the reasons why we've asked for it to be tabled. We're not sure by right of use, based on the fact that we've maintained it for a number of years, where we have right to be on that property. Batzli: Okay. Well I understand from our City Attorney that we have the right to improve that road, wherever it may be. Aanenson: Exactly. Batzli: And so the issue is really, we've got to figure out where the heck the road is. Aanenson: They need to show us on the plat. Where it is and where.we need to pick up additional property to get 60 feet which is our desire for that road. Batzli: Okay. Okay. And would we normally require that the applicant survey it to figure out where it is and what, is that normally done by the applicant? Aanenson: Yes · Batzli: And the applicant has not eR>ne that yet? Aanenson: Well we Just learned of this as we went through the process. We were all under the assumption that it was a 30 foot right-of-way. 8atzli: Okay. Hempel: Because one of the property owners had mentioned that their title shows a 33 foot wide easement. Private. Batzli: Right. Well, regardless of what that shows, and that can be an issue of contention. I don't mean to dismiss that from the people who raise that because that's a serious issue but on the one hand we're hearing from our attorney that we have the right to use that and improve that. They can contest it and they should if they think ~e're taking too much but we don't even know how much we need to get from the north because we don't know where the road is at this point. Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: Okay. Those were ail my questions. Unless there.'s any other discussion, I'd entertain a motion. And even after a motion I'd entertain discussion, what the heck. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 42 Scott: I move that we deny Case No. 93-11 of the preliminary plat to subdivide 37 acres into 57 single family lots· Batzli: Is there a second? Harberts: Second. Batzli: Discussion. Would you like to include as part of your motion, the additional information and issues set forth in the staff report, numbers i thru 6 as reasons for denying? Scott: Certainly. Batzli: As a. Scott: Friendly amendment? Batzli: Well, I don't even kno~ if I can friendly amend but if you'd like to amend your own motion. And the second ~ould accept it. Harberts: I will. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Scott aoved, Hazberta a~conded that the Planning Comml~ton recoa~enda the City C~ncll deny the r~est for ~rlta~ D~el~nt, ~Ivision ~93-11 for the follo~ino · The plat does not reflect the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation for a park to be located in the southeast corner of the site. 2. There are 7 lots that are deficient in minimum lot size requirements. 3. A tree survey needs to be completed for the northwest corner of the site. · Road right-of-way on Kings Road needs to be field checked and shown on the plat to determine if any additional right-of-way is required· If additional right-of-way is required, the lot sizes will be affected and will have to be modified. 5. The three lots with access to Minnewashta Parkway must be redesigned to have access via an internal street. 6. Provisions for storm water ponding must be provided on site. All voted in favor of denial and the motion carried. Batzli: Thank you very much everyone for coming in. When does this go to City Council? Aanenson: August 23rd. MJ~,.IC INFORMATIONAL MEETIN6: I)]:.$CU55 THE NORTH ACCE55 BOULEV~ PROJECT. THE PROJECT ENTAILS THE ~ONSTRUCTION OF A ~ LANE BOUtEVARD BETWEEN ~ BOIJL~~ ANO HWY 41 ON .THE NORTH SIDE OF HHY 5. THE BOUI~E.: V~d~D HILL- BE AN EXTENSION OF HEST 78TH STREET AND IS DESIGNED TO SERVE LOCAL TRIPS ~ POTENTI~_ NEW DEVELOPMENT. ZT ZS ANTICZPATEO TO BE A 30ZNT PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY AND HINNESOTA DEP~TMENT OF TR~giSPORTATION. Pub1 !c Pr®merit: Lee Kerber Jay Dolejst Teresa Bentz Marlene Bentz Jeff & Tami Braiedy Deborah Porter Jim Andrews Tim Keens Stuart C. Mills Jr. Chris Dietzen TOmlGreen Mike Gorra Brad Johnson 1620 Arboretum Blvd.-- 6961 Chaparral Lane 7280 Galpin Blvd. 7300 Galptn Blvd. 850 Western Drive BA Associates 7014 'Sandy Hook Circle Representing Mills Fleet Farm 512 Laurel Street, Brainerd, MN Representing Mills Fleet Farm Mills Properties, 512 Laurel, Brainderd, MN 1680 Arboretum Blvd. 7425 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Diane Harberts left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the remaining items. Deb Porter: What I'll do, to try and make this a little more brief is rather than go through the entire document, which some of you-are more familiar with than others who are on the task force. I hope you've had a little bit of time to look it over but I think a better way to go over the impacts is to look at the summary table which is page 14. Table 6-1 in your document. I also have some single sheet copies of that table here. Kate, if you want to Just pass them along either to the Commission members or other people who are interested. What this table is is a summary of the impacts that we felt were more quantifiable in terms of physical impacts and some cost issues with the Alternative 1 and 2 corridors and our crossovers. The task force has been looking at this now for a couple of different meetings and what we've added here to this table then. in the last column that you can see is the preferred alternative. We've also quantified that for what the task force has recommended as Alternative 1 plus the use of the crossovers A and C. It also will involve Just a short segment then of Alternative 2 and ! think Kate will also pass out the graphics that we have where we have the preferred alternative shaded in a dot pattern on those graphics. I think in terms of the degree and type of impact that we're looking at here for either alternative, and the preferred alternative is identified by the task force is really minimal in terms of the length of the project of 2 1/2 miles. In my experience I haven't come across a project where we have this little wetland impact or flood plain encroachment considering that we have two creek corridors and a 'number of wetland basins through the project area and ! think-that's mostly due to the fact that during the preliminary engineering phase, and also Just the Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 44 design concept of th[s roadway being curvalimear, that Ne were able to avo[d a lot of the more significant natura[ features. Even the wooded areas, primarily as you see here on your table. We identified 4 major sites of vegetation. The more mature wood lots. We tried also to avoid as much encroachment on those as we could so ! think this will be something the regulatory agencies, the Department of Natural Resources, PCR, Pollution Control Rgency, and the federal age~cies, Corps of Fish and Wildlife Service, I think they'll be very pleased to see this l[ttle impact considering that you're buildlng a completely new roadway through a community. So I think that's a credit to the project. Also, terms of the overall impacts, Alternatives ! and 2 have nearly a mtle of common alignment anyway from Powers Blvd. to approximately Audubon Road is the same. We also have some other short segments that are a common alignment between the two so that's the reason why you don't see a great deal of difference in the amount of impact between the two alternatives. In terms of flood pla[n encroachment, we have anywhere from as little as just over half an acre of encroachment of our Alternat[ve 2, to a maximum of 1.3 acres for Alternative 1. The same for vegetation and wetlands. We have really just a minimum amount of acreage that we're Impacting. k~e also quantified the notse level Increase. If you read through the document you saw that a decibel increase of 3 decibels or less is really inperceptible to most human hearing capabilities so again, we're looking at very minimal Impact there. In terms of relocation. The.four homestead~ that would be affected are the same for both Alternat[ve 1 and 2 and the preferred alternative. It's primarily the 3 homes that are located withln the Lake Ann Park area and one more residence just east of TH 41 there. So those propertie~ will be impacted no matter whtch alternative was chosen. In terms of right-of-way acquisition, the actual number of acres needed for the roadway. Agaln, is very similar for each alternative corridor. Even look[ng at addit[onal acreage in terms of purchasing buffer area and where that comes Into play is primarily on the south side of Alternative 2. Between Trunk Highway 5 and the alternative. We took a look at that and for Alternative 1, [ncludIng buffer areas it ~ould be about 42.7 acres we est[mate. For Alternative 2, 46.5 approximately for additional acres: For our preferred alternative, it's a little over 40 acres of total right-of- way acquisition including buffer areas. We took a look at what we call a generalized dollar value for the type of land parcels that would be affected for right-of-way acquisition. Again the total dollar cost that we come up with here is actually very similar between the two alternative corr[dors. We also added here for the preferred alternative. The price seems to drop do~n just a bit and that's because we have just a few less remnant parcels that crossovers A and C allow us to have less effect on those two homesteads. So that brings the right-of-way acquisition cost down a bit. The estimated construction cost again stays right within that range that we've identified since the beginning of the project. Between 2 to 2 1/2 million for this roadway. $o I guess I'll open it up to any questions you might have during your. review of the document or the task force discussions during the last couple of meetings. I think Kate Identified primarily the reasons, the supporting reasons why the task force identified the preferred alternative as Alternative 1 with crossovers A and C. Also, within the document under Sect[on 6, let's see it's page 12 ! think we've listed 7 or 8 different reasons as to why the task force made the recommendat[on that they did. And again tt Involves thtngs like avoidance to some of the farmsteads, or homesteads tn the area and [ think Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 45 because the environmental impact= are so similar between the alternative corridor=, that didn't seem to be a deciding factor in this project, and I don't think that it should be. It's primarily I think what the task force had envisioned as the roadway character and the type of development that they want to see on either and both sides of the roadway. It really didn't come down to, as it does on many projects that I work on, we're looking at in other projects a significant difference in the number of ~etland acres or other issues that you've discussed tonight. Vegetation impact= and =o on but that doesn't seem to be the case with this particular project. It really rests on more of the future land use development scenarios that you're looking at in this part of your community. Are there any questions on any of the impact analysis? Batzli: I think what we're going to do is open it up for public comment and then maybe start asking question= from the Commission. If we can do it that way. Deb Porter: Okay. Batzli: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Jay Dolejsi: My name is Jay DoleJsi. I live at 6961 Chaparral Lane. I own the property west of the minature golf course and east of Mills Fleet Farm, that goes around the group home. I would like the Commission to consider the southern route through my property. One of the things that l think that's not being addressed here ate the future residents. They're kind of an unrepresented constituency. By putting this road through the ' northern part of my property and dividing it, you're going to in essence divide the neighborhood. You were talking earlier about trying to unite neighborhoods and the city as a whole has been working to mitigate the dividing factor of Highway 5 with the new pedestrian crossing and such going through the community. This is really going to divide those communities there. The southern route also would allow extra buffering of noise and pollution from the impact of Highway 5 and provide more safety for the local residents. I think what the Commission needs to weigh is the value of perhaps a more attractive boulevard against the safety and welfare of the future residents in that area. Also putting the road closer to TH 5 is going to give you more control in the buffering design and the visual impacts along Highway 5 which is what my understanding ~as the Highway 5 task force was tasked with. To develop the Highway 5 corridor and not this northern boulevard. Also on my property, because the property slopes deeply towards the road, it would give an opportunity to minimize the impact on the landforms as far as the buffering that the task force is recommending along Highway 5. Putting in the southern route also would result in no impact through the mature tree stands that the northern route currently will be going through. The southern route also would cost considerably less. From the understanding of what was said in the task force, the State is willing to participate 80~ if the southern route is chosen and only 50~ to 60~ of the land cost for the r~rthern route. Also the southern route would result in much less severance damages to the property as far as leaving a larger, more developable parcel. Through my property there was not going to be any need for any more collector... because Just north of it is a large wetland so it's really a relatively Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 46 small area that this boulevard would service. And as far as the break of the density in that area, this is kind of difficult for me because that's in the '95 study area and we don't kno~ what it's zoned for. What's going to be happening out there. I know they've made recommendations but that's not very clear either. And one other point in, one final ~otnt is I thought it was rather interesting that when this road was being proposed, no mention of a northern route Nas suggested for the city o~ned property through the park. It seems to me that all-the benefits to having the road bordering the Highway $ to the park would be the same to these other parcels and all the reasons for the northern route through the private tracts of land would equally apply to the city park. Thank yc, J. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else llke toladdress the Commission? Tim Keens: Chairman Batzli, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Keens with Larktn, Hoffman, Daly & Llndgren, 7900 Xerxes, Bloomington and I'm here this evening on behalf of friendly Mills Fleet Farm. I Just want to make a couple points and keep it brief. We have been participants since 1988 throughout an extensive planning process, including initial discussions regarding the Mills Fleet Farm on the northeast corner of Highway S and 41. An approximately year and a half comprehensive plan update and subsequent to that now we're going onto our second year of the TH 5 corridor planning task force. And belng participants and cc,3perative and actually preparing some site plans and engrossments of how that mite would work. We were at least a little troubled ~hen the initial engrossments of the road alternates came out because they run right through the middle of the site. They ignored your consultant, Mr. Morrtsh's study that showed a facility compatibly located on the site and if I could walk over to the exhibit and Just make a point. Batzii: Sure. Tim Keens: The subject property is ab<~Jt thusly and we have identified on the city's resource map a wetland resource in the southwest corner. Through the center here there is a tree stand that the task force and staff has mac~e it very clear that they'd like to see that stand preserved. The alignment as conceived and currently the subject of the environmental assessment really slices right through the middle, either alternative of ~hat is left of the developable portion of the property. Ne asked our civil engineer to generate a road alignment that wouldn't quite so drastically affect the development...property and we submitted on 3une 9th an alignment plan with actually two alternates. Both of them ~orktng off this point. One s~inglng the frontage road up to the northern boundary and the other s~lnging the frontage road, nicking the ~heTn, no~[h edge of [hls [~ee s~and but ~[11~ p~ese~vlng the In[eg~/~y of ~he stand avotd[ng any contact ~[~h the NeW,and ~esou~ce~. T~se ~oad alternates [hal ~e offered ~e~e also submitted [o the pro,ecl englnee~ fo~ the Department of Transportation [o give ~ha[ eng~nee~ an opportunity those fo~ geome[~[cs a~ al~h~gh Ne haven't had a ou~ unde~s[andtng [hal the geome[~[cs conform [o the d~[gn ~equ[~emen[s of the parameters set forth [h~g~ ~ ~es[ of the coT~t~. Ne don't ~an[ [o suggest ~e fee[ picked on but the [oca[[on of the ~oad a~[e~na[es ~ha[ a~e ~he subjec~ of ~hte envt~o~en[al assessment ~eally ~ p~of~ndIy [[m[[ the development potential of ~he properly. Ne ~ be offering fo~ Planning Commission Meetin~ July 21, 1993 - Page 47 the record the exhibits that we did prepare and submit to the June 9th meeting. And with that I'd llke to introduce Stuart Mills, the President of Mills Fleet Farm. Thank you. Stuart C. Mills Jr.: Planning Commission. My name is Stuart C. Mills Jr. I live in Brainerd, Minnesota at 512 Laurel Street. Our family has been in Brainerd since the lSth century. We've been local business people there since the turn of the century. We stand on our integrity and our reputation. We are a family company. The company is owned by my brother and myself. My brother's name is Henry C. Mills II. After Hank and I got out of the Korean War we came back and in i955, the spring of '55 Ne started Fleet Farm stores. There were only two employees and that was Hank and myself and we started. Our first store Nas' 4,000 square feet and today our largest store is 2S0,000 square feet and we have 4,500 employees. This Nas done by hard work, and by having a lot of loyal employees and in the communities we've been in, we stand on our reputa.tion and we are in good standing Nhich we can have recommendations from all our communities to present to you and in Just about all of the communities they have invited us to come in because they felt that Ne Nets. asset to their community. We are different than any other store. There is no competitor we have and we bring people to the community. We feel that Ne are an asset. We acquired this property out here because we felt it was an ideal location for a Fleet Farm store. It's a very good commercial location for us wi'th 41 running south across the Minnesota River and number 5 ~unning west into the farmland. We get both city and farm business and since 1988 Ne have been attending several meetings with the Chanhassen people and we have been cooperating fully and made ourselves at any time to Nork Nith the city. This summer the task force proposed a frontage road adjustment, an alignment, an environmental assessment document. The tNo alignments that are under consideration disect the heart of our 50 acres that Ne have planned of having a Fleet Farm store. Obviously it ruins our property and Ne do not feel that this is in the best interest of the community of Chanhassen or ourselves and in due respect Ne really would like to cooperative with you and see if we can get our development ~ing. I thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Chris Dietzen: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Chris Oietzen. I'm also an attorney Nith Larkin-Hoffman appearing for Mills Fleet Farm. My task is to make our formal record. I will be brief. When Mills Fleet Farm purchased the property, prior to purchasing it they met with representatives of the city, including the City Administrator and the Mayor and talked to the city about the proposal and received encouragement from the city and a statement that the city would cooperate. In reliance on those statements, Mills Nent ahead and purchased the property and has engaged in a lot of time, a lot of energy and a lot of money to work with the city Nith respect to this property. As you've heard from Mr. Keens, and from the oNner of Mills Fleet Farm, the proposal would go through the heart of the property and would destroy it's commercial development which the owner at the time of the purchase had a reasonable investment backed expectation as to how that property ~ould be used and hoN the city Nould cooperate in facilitating that use. In order to accommodate the city's wishes, the oNner of the property proposed an alternate that would alloN Planning Commission Meeting July 21, i993 - Page 48 the alignment to go through the property in two different ways and still allow the development potential of that property. We have submitted that plan that shows those two alternatives, Mills Fleet Farm Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, which I will shortly be making part of the record. It's our belief that those plans meet ail engineering requirements and that they meet the reasonable requirements with respect to the use of the frontage road as it goes through that property. As we see the evidence that we have heard from, we are not aware of any rational basis for the city to oppose either of those two Mills Fleet Farm alternatives. We are concerned, and we have the impression that the only basis for the city's refusal to consider those two alternatives and to formally study them in the EAW is to respond to business owners in the Chanhassen are that are trying to protect their business. We do not believe the comcerns of business owners or neighbors are a valid basis'to destroy the property interest of Mills Fleet Farm. We don't think that there is a reasonable basis for the City Council to refuse to consider those alternatives. In conclusion, it's our belief that the evidence is, supports the conclusion that the environmental assessment is inadequate because it does not consider and does not study Mills Fleet Farm alternatives 1 and 2 and that if the city intends to proceed with those two proposals as set forth in the EA, that it would result in a total taking of the Mills Fleet Farm property for which the city would be required to pay it's fair market value as commercial property. We, Mills Fleet Farm, believes that they are compelled to make a formal record of their position. They would like to cooperate with the city, which they have been trying to do for many years but they feel that they are forced to do that. To make their record at this time and with that we do have a copy of the plans and a letter that we want to make part of the record Mr. Chairperson, if I may. 8atzli: You may. Thank you. Is this the original, Tim? Tim Keene: That is the original... Batzli: Give this to Kate so I don't lose it. Chris Dietzen: We request that that be made a part of the record. Thank you very much. Batzli: Well we may as well hear a few more comments before we. Does anyone else wish to address the Commission? I guess it was Just wishful thinking that that was it huh? Mike Gorra: Gentlemen, my name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum. Southwest corner of Lake Ann. I have approximately 150 acres. I've lived there for about 17 years. I guess I would have to agree with the other landowner that spoke a little earlier that ! don't really agree with the pick of the northern route there and would prefer the southern route. Not just because I'm a landowner but for other reasons which I'd like to explain briefly here. I think the property, you don't have to be a genius to take a look at that map and see what that northerly route would, do to any piece of property. It disects it in two. That road's going to be heavily traveled. What's it going to do to the potential development. It's going to make it tough to plan any intelligent develop~ent with the road like that running right through the center of the property. Especially Planning commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 49 when you've got an alternative route that can be run to the south along Highway 5. What's going to happen with, if you do decide on the northerly route, it's going to relegate that property to just kind of a botle~ plate type development. High density to the south. Medium density and then residential to the north. Now you can find that anyplace. Richfield, Brooklyn Park. Is that what Chanhassen wants or does Chanhassen want an opportunity. That's probably one of the nicest pieces of undeveloped . property le~:t in Chanhassen. You've ~ot Lake Ann. You've ~ot that little Riley Creek. You've got a lot of access on Highway $. Everybody goin~ in and out of Chanhassen is going to see that. I would think they would want the best possible potential development to be addressed in that area and not Just a holler plate type. I also think that the taxpayers would be better served with the southerly route. At the last coalition meeting somebody stated that MnDot would participate'with 80~ if the alignment was run to the south. And would only participate 50~ if the northerly route was chosen. I think that's kind of significant. Any private development would take that pretty serious. Also the city I think would be better served, and I think it was explained before by other people that we thought it was the original intention of this Htgh~ay 5 coalition to consider the Highway $ route. Not go $00 yards to the north. I always thought it was the whole idea to kind of beautify Highway $ and they can do that. If they pick the southern route, they'll have more land to berm. More land to landscape. People coming in and out of the city are going to see that. They're not going to see that road to the north. And if that road is built to north, what's going to be backed up to High~ay 5? The backs of commercial buildings? That's not ~oing to be that attractive. Aisc, with whoever develops that property all along that strip there, the more land they have the bigger lots they can put in. The more attractive development that they can perceive there. If it's a residential type, they can have clubhouses, tennis courts, even small 8oil courses. There's enough room for that too. But if you cut the property in half, you're not going to be able to have any of that. You're going to pre-determine everything. Now a little bit's been said about that road dividing the high density and the low density. Well, who's to say what's ~oing to be wanted 4-5 years from now. I've been a developer for 30 years and the last 15 years, every piece of property I've developed has been taloned. Not by me but by the city. They thought that it was best to rezone it because time8 have changed. You put that road through on the north, and even if the city determines that it made a mistake or if the times have changed and the property and the city would be better served by changing the zoning, it's not going to do much good because that road's already there. Thank you. Jim Andrews: Members of the Commission. Again, I'm Jim Andrews. I'm the Chairman of the Highway 5 Task Force and I will concur that it's been a very lengthy process. One that if had I known how long it was going to be, I'm not so sure I would have volunteered for it but nevertheless it's a project we've all worked very, very hard on and one thing I can certainly say is that we have considered all alternatives in great detail. Sometimes to the frustration of many of the members of the task force spending months and months discussing north and south and possible land implications and difficulties of development so I think we have done a 'thorough Job of looking at what the alternatives might, what they are and what the impacts could be. A couple things I Just wanted to point out is that both north and south alternatives, we did look at providing trail crossings and Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 50 pedestrian accesses and so forth so neither alternative really I think creates a poor access for pedestrians or trail traffic at all. We also looked at land uses. At our last meeting we looked at la~d uses and also looked at some of the results of a subcommittee calIed the zoning overlay subcommittee I guess is what we called it. They were looking at bulldin~ designs, setbacks, sign ordinances, and so forth and Just as a side note, I'm sure those are some things that Fleet Farm would be very interested in knowing about. I don't know if they're being provided with that or not but they should be. One other issue I want to make is that the MnDot funding as to what MnDot would contribute to the northern portion. At least to my recollection, that information has never really been accurately determined. The one thing we are sure of is that MnDot's contribution to the northerly alternative would be less than the south. But as to say that it would be 80 or 50 or 70 or 30, to my knowledge that finite number was not. determined but we are aware that there is an impact. ~ again I would say that ~e have done, I believe a thorough Job and have made a recommendation I think that would be suitable for the city. Thank you. 8atzll: Let me ask you a question Jim before you sit down. Is it your opinion then if after hearing the various landowners here tonight, it looks like we're ticking off about a third of them along Alternative 1 and 2 here by your selection. Is Alternative 2 that bad? Jim Andrews: Personally, I struggled back and forth with my decision for quite a while. To be real honest from, I've got to remember the names of the streets here but. Farmakes: Galptn to TH 417 Jim Andrews: From the Satpin crossing, I always favored the northerly alternative on that side. From the Galpln towards the east, I had actually initially perferred the southern alternative and then was convinced that the northern alternative would offer I think in the long haul a superior alternative. I will, I don't know if it was Passed along to the Commission here but the vote on this, on the recommendation was very, very close. So it certainly was not unanimous that we should have the northern route. In fact if I recall the vote was barely majority. $o we wrestled with it. Within our own group quite a bit too. And I also would say that the overlay committee is proposing ordinances that I think regardless of what alternative we would ultimately end up with, that we're going to end up with something far superior to the development that's occurred along Highway 5 in Eden Prairie so that I think we can be assured of. But as a committee we did favor t'he northern alternative and I guess speaking as a spokesman for the committee I feel that I need to communicate that first of all. Oh one other comment too about the Fleet Farm road alignment. The one reason why we did choose the northern there was that it did match up with the road directly across the street from TH 41. It provided an intersection so that was one of the main reasons we again stayed with that alignment. Batzlt: But it sounds like they proposed something'that swung further north and still came out at about the same point. Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 21, 1993 - Page 51 Jim Andrews: Again at, it was almost 2.months ago and working, from what I recall, I believe their recommendation also impacted a private property owner to the north of their site too. I'd have to look at it again to refresh myself again. Also, as a group discussing land uses last meeting, we as a group were recommending that the Fleet Farm site would not be commercial use as proposed by Fleet Farm and we were looking at, I think it was high quality development being medium or high density again or possibly, I don't want to be wrong on this. I believe we also, and maybe you can help me on this. A different type of commercial. We had a special term for it. [ can't remember the word we used for it. Scott: What are you talking about, like a headquarters? Jim Andrews: Headquarters or something. Scott: High profile. Jim Andrews: Yes. Something like that. Scott: Because it's the gateway. 3im Andrews: Yeah. The overlay ordinances that we've discussed would impose restrictions on Fleet Farm that if .they were tO proceed with building in that area, under the ordinances that we are proposing, they would have to build something substantially different in appearance than what they traditionally build. And I don't know if that'd be workable but that may be something we would have to explore if we were looking at a compromise, so. Batzli: Thank you. Farmakes: Can I ask a question of the Barton-Aschman representative? Batzli: Sure, go ahead. Farmakes: There was a graph that showed land acquisition. Similar to this and it was shaded in with the property that MnOot would be willing to acquire in relationship to the north and southern route. Was that accurate or was that a guesstimate? Deb Porter: Well that was based on our discussions with MnDot in the past year or so and it's not, as we said earlier. We don't have anything in terms of a formal agreement from MnDot as to what exactly their participation would be but we have had discussions with them. $o I think we have a good understanding of what their participation ~ould be and maybe I'll just walk over to the map and show you, if it will be helpful you know what we understand to be their. Farmakes: I think maybe the comments I'm going to make it would .be helpful if you did... Deb Porter: Okay. Let me try and explain this the best I can. MnDot's considerations are being primarily on controlled access of Highway 5 and also minor shifts that they are no~ proposing towards the north of this Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 52 much of Highway 5 and that's to avoid impacting the mini-storage, daycare, and recording studio on this side of TH 5. Their original design was to widen to the south primarily but of course now that would cause significant right-of-way impacts. I think they estimate that being $2 million plus in right-of-way acquisition costs. So they've redesigned this in about a 60 foot northward shift and about this portion of Highway 5. That would take a little bit of the park property. It would encroach a bit on Eckankar property. Moves Kerber and the Gorra property in here. In addition, there are also 4 or 5, 3 or 4 residences here that would not have direct access to TH 5 any longer. MnOot then in their original design would have had to build short access driveways to about 4 different properties. $o in consideration of all those impacts, what they have talked about doing in participating in what would be considered a buffer area between the access boulevard and Highway 5. So you're looking at primarily this extension here. The area that's between the Alternative 2 and then of course the... MnDot would look at purchasing most of this acreage here. Between the highway and the alternative. Once you get to this point of course, and once Alternative i shifts northward, if this isn't built, MnOot would probably not design any...access between the buffer area in here because you're then getting away from what they might consider to be more of a frontage road and they don't want to set a precedent in communities in buying huge amounts of right-of-way between...roads and a highway. Then once again, once the alternative comes back closer to TH 5, they've also said that they would be willing to participate in some portion of buffer area within this area here...Alternative 1 is quite a bit north of Highway 5, they probably would not be buying any buffer area. Again, they see this as a separate city thoroughfare whereas here, as they've done in other communities, they see that as more of a frontage road where they could participate in buffer areas. Farmakes: For the purpose, we can't see the legend here but for the purpose, from a minimum and maximum from the area from say Galpin to Lake Ann. Right-of-way frontage would be how many feet? Like 50 to 400, or how would that? Deb Porter: This scale is 200 feet to an inch so, that's nearly 3/4 of a mile from here to here. Farmakes: proposal 2. depth? But depth then off of the highway up to the road, let's say Between Highway 5 and proposal 2 would be how many feet in Deb Porter: You're looking at about 200 feet by the inch here, and some of these are wider portions. Again, once you get shifting quite a ways from TH 5, I think and it happens to be a property line here, you can see it reasonable that MnOot would look at all of this being buffer area up to the property line and again you're shifting away...so it's clear that for Alternative 2 MnDot would participate in more of the right-of-way acquisition costs than Alternative 1. Exactly what those costs would be is somewhat...some guesstimates on the dollars amounts on that. Batzlt: Thank you. Yes sir. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 53 Lee Kerber: I'm Lee Kerber and I'm right between the city tree faTm and between what Natural Green vacated. According to the map here it almost looks like they, as soon as it got across or past the park driveway, they veer to the north to save the city tree farm and to get my house. And as soon as they get by my house and past the Natural Green vacated'property, they're going back down to the road. I don't understand why they can't stay next to the highway the whole time. Another thing I'm a little disturbed about, the communication gap. I heard it through the grapevine you're going to lose your house. I said, what ate you talking about. I never had any notification until probably 3 or 4 months ago there was going to be a meeting down here. It seems to me a person should get it direct from City Hall that they're thinking about taking your property instead of getting it through the grapevine. Ail night long I've been heating people talk about trees. They're going to save those trees that are 2 or 3 .inches in diameter and the city tree farm and they're going to take down 26-30 trees on my property that are a foot and a half, 2 feet deep, probably 30 feet high. I don't agree with a lot of those things. You're not just taking my house. The place that I live. You're taking my life. I spent 65 yeats on that property and Just like that you come along and tell me. so long sucker. That's about what it amounts to. You don't come and say, we want to give you some money so you can start looking around. You Just bully your way through. There's a lot of things I don't appreciate. My wife says let's just get the beck out of town and it looks like I'm going to whether I want to or not. Thank you. Batzlt: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail and I represent Lars Conway who owns 50 acres on the northeast corner of Galpin and Highway 5. Just for the record, .we prefer Alternate 2 which is the southern route, as I believe most of the landowners thus far have. The primary reasons are cost. We feel that as the representatives of the city have indicated, it wilt cost a lot more money to do it to the north. There's a lot of severance cost that's involved. AS you know I've been a developer in. this community for a long time and we hear a lot about, well we'll do high density, multiple housing. We have very little high density, multiple housing development happening in Chanhassen. Many of the subdivisions have gone undeveloped and have been rezoned over the years. You guys have been around. You've got Lundgren had a subdivision Ilks that. It's not easy to say it and I would say over a i0 year period, that much land zoned high density, multiple will not be developed and will tend to go to commercial, industrial uses because 10 years from now you're all gone and everybody's wondering why that hasn't been developed. So I think it's Just not necessary to do it. You're creating a problem that I don't think you need to have to do. It's a problem I think that people in .good faith suggested because they can see green space there but in talkt.ng to the high density, multiple developers that exist today, they would not want to be between two freeways either. I mean two basic freeways. The second one is that I've been around town for a long time and as you know, Chanhassen Estates has been separated from the city for quite some time. This particular road will carry by Highway. This particular road will carry a lot more traffic than we all imagine and I think that if in fact that is going to be residential all along the south of Alternate 1, that it will be basically, Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 21, 1993 - Page 54 unless you guys want to spend a lot of money on overpasses again and trail systems that go underground and stuff, be separated from the other properties. And developers we've talked to about purchasing the property and actually building something say no. They would not build in that area because of that reason. They want to be nestled up against-the single family area and [ think Mr. Gorra's got a good point. And we probably should have done like a $20,000.00-$25,000.00 proposal that says this is how we would do this neighborhood so you could actually see how that neighborhood would look. But you can, ! would guess what you would see, if you go along the highway and you would see, according to Mr. Gorra's plan, kind of a very planned major entrance into a major subdivision as you go north into the Lake Ann area off of that road. You're Just not going to get that kind of a look to put multiple there because you're going to, we're going to have to try to figure out how to back the multiple because that's the back of the entrance into a multiple. In other words, we'll be entering off the main road and the back of it will come into Highway 5. I think the main thing here is ! think going no~th through there is a premature development of the property. The road system is being put in prematurely and from what I can tell, for no very good reason other than it probably looks better as you look at it now but I don't think in the long run tt would look better at all. And at a higher cost than you would have ultimately the way it's planned on Alternate 2. gut the main deal is, I think all of us could probably come with some terrific visuals of how this could look if it was developed with roads going into the north and we could show it to you and it would look wonderful. ! don't know how to give you a good visual of what this is going to look like with multiple or some type of commercial inbetween the two roads. Then Just think about Highway 5 and how long those two communities, how that's divided our community and I'm not being overly dramatic but that's going to be a busy road. It's not going to be a road that is not used. Right now it doesn't appear that way but it will be very different so I'm, from Dr. Conway's point of view, we'd prefer to get together with Mr. Gorra and put together about a 200 acre really substantial development in that area and you're making it just about impossible. You'll probably create about, not you are but the plan does, you probably create 2 or 3 small multi-family developments sometime. And then basically cut into the dynamics of what could happen to the north. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? What I'm going to do is I'm going to ask for a motion to close the public hearing but once we do that, I would still like there to be interaction but as a formal matter, I'm going to try and close the public hearing at this time. Is there a motion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the mot[on caT,led. The public heaving was closed. Batzli: Matt. Matt, I'm sorry. I do that all the time. Why do I do that 3eff? Farmakes: That's okay Bill. Satzli: Okay, thank you. You have some comments that I think you'd, it'd be good to have you go first here. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 55 Farmakes: First of all I want to thank the task force. I think there's been an awful lot of work done here, both from city subcontractors to city staff. It's really fascinating to see how this effects a community and commercial aspects, homeowners, farmers. People who are interested in building Chanhassen in the future and it's been an interesting experience. With that being said I'd like to criticize our task force. I can do that I guess because I was on it. I do believe, as I said, that perhaps we got a little off track when we got into the discussion of main street. It's easy to fall into. There was a lot of discussion about the philosophy of main street and so on and I had a feeling that perhaps we were losing the intent of our mission, which was to create a buffer in our community against the highway expansion to insure that the highway would not become a wall in our community. I think if you refer to the building corridor that we got here, there's two drawings on there that I'm sure some of you have seen before. The issue of frontage roads that parallel a highway and create sort of a concrete wall in a community. And the lower drawing has the meandering road that occasionally gets close to the highway but also comes up and there's adequate area for natural buffering on the highway. And if you turn 2 pages in and you look at the area that we're discussing here, you can see the Lake Ann district that comes across over to the Arboretum district and this was the original drawing that the University did. And the areas that we're discussing here would be right in the middle if you look over to your left. And essentially the road alternatives that we look are there that you see up here which we actually wound up coming up with and for a moment here I'd like to go over and point to the map. would like to point out also that as a, I don't know if our Chairman is still here of the task force but we did, although the report from the city did not probably explain it as well as I thought they should have. It was not unanimous. The task force, like any task force, has disagreements within it and the vote was not unanimous. I'd like to make a case for my dissent on this issue and...The issue that we discussed to the south and- the issue that are here tonight, there was very little discussion, or dissent here on this issue. But to the east of Galptn I think that there was more dissent in regard to buffer...how the crossovers would affect Bluff Creek. Those of you who have driven back and forth know that this is a low area. There's a lot of trees in here and the question was how, with the least amount of impact can we do that and there were viable cases, plus and minus...different four alternatives. 8ut the issue that I...fell back on was 8ill Morrtsh's origtnal...that it seemed to me that inquiring of this space is Just as important as main street or the philosophy of main street, which to me got very subjective. The issue here is the pragmatic requiring of right-of-way that the city can buffer... The city can buffer Highway 5 and that was our, that was one of our main tasks. If MnDot is willing and the map that you provided showed MnDot acquiring this property here from CR 17 over essentially to a part of...it got a little loose in here but it essentially all this property in here. And those of you that know this particular piece of property know that, where the barn and the old depot is, it's several hundred feet off of the highway. $o this is a substantial amount of property. The setback issues and the future development would seem to me that we would be able to control substantial amounts of property here of right-of-way at little cost to our taxpayers. The problem that we had up here seemed to me is that again we were dictating how this property develops. We were, the city was required to purchase the right-of-way property up in here to a larger degree. As it Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 56 came farther to the creek, it seemed to me that crossover D made far less impact to the bluff area, to this low lying area than did alternative for crossover C, which basically cuts right through it. If in the future we are going to improve the crossover and gateway that goes up this way towards Minnewashta for a trail, it seems to me that the sensible connection would have been here and running a trai[ off of this crossover and following up behind the higher area behind the creek. The issue of I think one of cost is that the city doesn't want or requires less taxpayers funds hate to acquire this property. That means over here it frees up funds to target more and go with the northern route, which I support on this side to again buffer Highway 5. And it seemed to me that again the reasoning for this got very asserteric. And I think the development, when it comes down to development, what we're going to wind up with here, as was stated, is medium-high density along the entire strip like you see on occasion on Highway 7 or up on 494. I think the preference would be, that if there was medium density, that 'it be broken up with single family. Which I believe if that was out of here, would probably be the case...and I think that this really uselessly, I believe, categorizes this area or dictates what it's going to be. Physically I think there are reasons for going north. There are some wetland areas poking up and there are some lying areas. I think that this property makes sense but ! can't see the Justification. Batzli= Dave, what's the nearest east/west collector above there? Is there one? Jay Dolejsi: Just the other side of the wetland Lundgren Bros is putting in a development that has an east/west road. Batzli: But I don't think that's a collector level street ts it? Jay Dolejsi= Nell, there's limited movement out there...limit the amount of development that goes in there. Hempel= Mr. Chairman, you're referring to between Galpin Blvd. and Trunk Highway 41. The Lundgren development is proposing a, what I'll call a minor collector type street between Galpin and Trunk Highway 41 and will have a wider street pavement than a normal street, or the right-of-way width of 80 feet. That is about midpoint. Approximately a mile north of Trunk Highway 5. Farmakes: I'd also like to say that based on the synopsis of the report that it's sort of inferring that there was a specific reason to go with that route and that some of the land use issues were negative. Because the meeting that I was at, when they went over land use issues, it was a wash. It could go either way and in talking to the professionals that we had, two of them off the record came up to me and said that they agreed with me. So I think that there is some professional support for what I'm saying. I think also that there's pragmatic, from the taxpayers standpoint, a good case to be made for that or at least to consider it as it goes up to City Council. The last issue I'm going to touch on is the issue of'the Hills property. I know of no support, and I've been involved since prior to you purchasing your property. I know of no support, that I know of, for a commercial district in that area, and I haven't been contacted by any Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 57 business owners. I haven't been contacted by anyone telling me what that's going to be but it seems to me that the location of that property, because an individual purchases it on the speculation that it will be commercial when in fact it's currently now zoned agricultural, that the fact that they purchased it dictates what it's going to be rezoned at. It seems to me pretty erroneous. There are, I believe, positive arguments that would dictate that that would not be commercial. Even qualified, and there were alternatives discussed I think in the meeting, and those Minutes are available. I'm not going to go into those here but I did not support commercial use in that area, primarily because it's adjacent to a very sensitive area of the community and it wouldn't fit. And as far as I know, there was no support in history for dictating commercial use in that area. Those are my comments. Batzli: Let me pick up with Brad some of the things that you just said that reminds me that Brad I think brought up and that is, I'll address this to you Kate. Maybe you can help me and our representative from Barton. Does it make sense what we're doing right now that we're looking at the road layout without also in the back of our mind know, or at least thinking what the zoning layout will be? I mean how can we really do this, I mean I find it very difficult to separate my decision on what the road is going to look like up against Highway 41 if it's going to be rezoned for something that would be beneficial to Fleet Farm and I know according to my instructions from Paul here, I'm not supposed to be considering that but how can we put a road through there if we don't know what's likely to be developed. North, south, whatever. Aanenson: The task force had the same problem and we did look at the land use recommendations and those were included in here and we howed the two alternatives and what the potential land use. I think agreed. There needs to be some marriage of the two to make it come to a decision. I forgot my second point. What did you ask specifically about the land use? Batzli: I'm sorry, what? Aanenson: You asked about the land use recommendation. to look at that. That Paul said not Scott: Not to have the Mills property. Deb Porter: Oh. If you look on the attachments on the exhibits, I think they're 7-3 there's...under the land use section. Aanenson: Oh the other thing I was going to was the multi-family. That property is zoned, or the comprehensive plan designates the area that Jeff was talking about, as far as we're forcing that to multi-family. The comprehensive plan already guides that area for multi-family. And that's what we looked at leaving that as multi-family. To say that we're forcing the land use recommendation to multi-family, it's there right now and if we want to reconsider that, that we're forcing it, then I think we should look at that. But that's what it's guided for currently. Multi-family. That decision was made when you went through the comprehensive planning process in 1991. That's the other point I was going to make. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 58 Batzli: Let me ask one other question and then I want Ladd to talk. It seems to me that we've had conflicting testimony here tonight from our Barton-Aschman consultant and everybody else that's gotten to speak that is a developer. And that is the report says that it's preferable to have the northern route because you'll have more flexibility in development and all the people that are probably going to end up developing their property have gotten up and said, we don't like it because it restricts how we can develop it. What do you want to tell us about that? Deb PoTter: I think the reasons that were listed there under the preferred alternative are those that were forwarded to us through the city staff and were mentioned at the task force meeting. They are not recommendations from the consultant. That's kind of beyond the scope of an environmental assessment which is to be an objective document on impact analysis. It's not really a persuasive type of document for developing an alternative. guess it would depend on what type of future land use development scenarios you're looking at and the task force and Barry Warner have been working on those issues now fo~ ! think a year and a half. I'm'not sure that there's complete consensus even on these figures that we have on the land use section. They're still conceptual. There's still the 1995 study area from Galpin to TH 4l. Those haven't been officially documented and platted as the rest of the comprehensive plan shows. So I think at this point if there's disagreement as to what type of future land use will happen, that's a decision that hasn't been made absolutely yet. I'm not sure that you can decide does the roadway go first, then land use. OT does land use come before roadway development. It*s community's choose eithe~ method sometimes. I think what you're looking at, those figures in the land use section are still conceptual. Between Galpin and TH 41. As Kate was saying, between Galpin and Powers Blvd, that part of is platted in your 1991 comprehensive plan. Batzli: Based on, I keep on getting back to this issue of if we choose a southern route, which is more like a frontage road than a collector, as this stuff develops, are we going to have to put another collector in there? Are we Just pushing it further north? Aanenson: That's what I wanted to talk about. I think we need to go back and when we looked at what should this street look like. If you flip to your proposed typical cross section, which is at the very beginning of the document. Figure 2-2. One of the first things the task .force did is, what should the street look like and how should it feel and what they looked at, if they wanted a narrower street, limited access onto that street, no parking on the street, it's supposed to have a nice feel to it. Not that you're on a busy wide freeway. I keep hearing the word 2 freeways. It's only 32 feet of pavement. Okay, it's supposed to be a narrow, not a speedway. Scott: Like a parkway. Aanenson: Yeah, a parkway. Have a nice feel to i-t. No parking on it and again limited access. And a trail that's segregated from'it. $o going back to 3eff's point, is what do you want to buffer on Highway 5. Do you want to look at aesthetic buildings. High quality buildings or do you want to buffer Highway 5 with another road and that's where part of the Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 59 separating the two came back into too. Farmakes: That wasn't quite my comment. Aanenson: I didn't hear your whole comment... Farmakes: I'll just. if you iook at the picture here you can see that Morrish's original drawing shows plantings as buffers next to the frontage roads that do meander towards the highway and come off again allowing an adequate amount of right-of-way to landscape a buffer between them. The question is again, how much property is the city going to require if we do go with the northern route? How much in negotiations with the town multiplex, high density development are we going to get off of that highway? I would submit that you're not going to get much. So I think it's a trade off. Batzli: Ladd. Conrad: It's 11:30 Brian. We close down at 11:00. It's real interesting when you see the process. Some people put a lot of time into it and usually get frustrated with City Council when we put a lot of time into stuff and then, when it's complicated stuff, you've got a choice. You can either sink your teeth into it or Just sort of take the recommendations that people put a lot of time into. This, I trust them. They went through the right mechanisms. Let's go with it. That's the backgr, ound of saying I'm not real comfortable right now because I think this road alignment, philosophically I like the one to the north. But I guess I heard enough things tonight that says I'm not sure and I need to Justify it from a stand of land use and in the future and I haven't put that work into personally have to put more time into understanding this to make a recommendation. Environmental worksheet, looks great. ! think this is really nice. What ever alternative we choose, I'm real comfortable that we've got 2 alternatives that impact is minor. We don't have a problem but as to which one, I don't know right now because. I really do have to play back land uses and what I see and until I do that, until somebody helps me work my through that, I can't react tonight. I Just can't. I want to go home. Batzli: I agree and that's I guess why I've been asking where the land use comes in and some of these other questions that would help me feel more comfortable. I think the thing that disturbed me most was the fact that I don't think that there was a real strong consensus on the task force at all. Conrad: I think there's maybe a role for the Planning Commission to get their feet wet a little bit on this one and maybe spend some more time looking at it. And to be honest, I have not done that. Farmakes: Yeah, I would like to qualify that. There was a pretty strong consensus on the majority of the work that the task force did. There were some issues that there was dissention on. Batzli: What would you want to see? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 60 Conrad: I guess I just need to go, I think we need another hour to compare road alignments and land uses. I don't know if that's in a work session here, a part of one of our meetings. I just have to see that. I have to see that get played out. I'm hearing the developer say it doesn't work and I have to validate that in my mind first that it doesn't work. And I heard Jeff saying that he's got some...on certain parts of it. Well, I guess our Job now as Planning Commission is to sink the two algernatives at work into what we see land use is in the coming year. And honestly, what makes me a little bit nervous, and again playing the role of Planning Commissioner, the 1995 study area. I haven't made any decisions myself on what's at that intersection of TH 41 and TH 5. Yet we're kind of precluding some stuff here and I'm not going to do that. I'm not saying Fleet Farm should be here. But on the other hand, I'm not ready to say I'm going to put something in there that makes it impossible for them to be here. I need to know what we are going to do out there. So it's real hard, again. There's another part of the section, I can't tell. So until I firm that up, it's going to be tough for me to make a recommendation and some of their alternatives may Just be. Batzlt: Okay. Kate. What is it that's driving this forward? Is there a. deadline that we need to approve this? Aanenson: That's what I was just asking Deb about. Deb Porter: The original schedule was to try and get the environmental assessment document with the preferred alternative approved by the end of this year. The end of '93 in order for the design of this roadway to coincide with Trunk Highway 5 reconstruction. The 4 lane. That project has been shifted back on the MnDot schedule now at least a year I think so there's not quite as much intensity on trying to have this project actually catch up to Trunk Highway $ design package as there was a few months ago. We were notified of that probably within the last month. We've had discussions with MnDot and several projects in this district have been delayed for a year due to inadequate funding. So there's not quite as much critical time schedule pressures as there used to be. I guess in delaying things for another couple of weeks until your next Planning Commission meeting, I don't even see that as being a major hurdle you know as far as things progressing through the end of the year. You know you have't had, some of you haven't had the document for a long time to look over so I can understand that you'd Deed to spend some more time with it. Aanenson: As far as the rest of the Highway $ task force goes, which we're looking at comprehensive, the '95 study area and the south side. The whole corridor plan. We hope to have that going through the process first part of. September. With all the ordinances and land use recommendations. 8atzli: So what would happen if we delayed that until it coincided with the overlay? Zoning overlays. Deb Porter: If the beginning of September, you're thinking you might have that one finalized? It would shift this schedule back probably 2 months... and probably early '94 before you'd probably get final approval of that document. Planning Commission Meeting July 2i, 1993 - Page $1 Batzli: Right. I guess I don't know that it matters though if MnDot has pushed their construction schedule back to '95. I mean if this impacts that, then we need to know and we need to move it quicker. Deb Porter: That's not the case any longer. You know earlier this year... kept this project moving along with Trunk Highway 5 design... Ranenson: so it sounds like you'd like to wait until we put the two together. Batzli: Well I would but I do want to give Joe and Matt a minute if they have additional comments. Scott: I recall that when we recommended to approve this particular study, one of the things that I asked about specifically was economic impact relative to land holdings and so forth and in the boiler plate here t see a page and a half, 2 pages so my major area of concern is what do we have out there now? Who owns it? How big are the pieces? Rnd it looks like there's some lines drawn on the mapping that perhaps may represent that. That's one of my big concerns and of couTse when we have'people who are developers coming in and saying hey, here's what, this is what we would like to build. This is our concept. It's not going to work with the northern route so I agree with Ladd in that I think this is good input.' l would think, ! would guess that if you're going to make a decision on-it right now, Ladd wouldn't want to vote. [ wouldn't either. Rnd perhaps [ know personally I need mote time to look at this because it'd be very difficult for me to get one of these babies on a Friday afternoon and have it totally digested by Wednesday night so I'd like more time to take a look at it and I'm not in the position to say one way or the other. Batz 1 i: 0 kay. Matt. Ledvina: Well talking about the alignment a little bit. I guess 'I would concur with Jeff in that the southern alternative seems to make more sense east of Galpin. One point I do want to make though and emphasize Jeff's point is that I feel that the crossover D should be utilized. The impact to Bluff Creek at that point I think is really critical and if that road alignment is taken to the north there, the opportunity to cross Bluff Creek inobtrusive manner, if I can use that word, is, that will be a much better place so. Rnd then possibly the northern route you know to TH 41. Rs it relates to Fleet Farm. ! think that the road alignment, we should be able to work with some different alternatives there to accommodate some potential future plans. Not saying that the zoning changes are completely to follow. Or not allowing or committing to that future commercial use at that location but I think if we can compromise and look at their specific interest there, I think that would be a good thing as well. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Richard Wing:' Brian, can I Just clarify? Is this'a public hearing or not? Batzli: Yes it was. Ranenson: No. It's a public information meeting. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, i993 - Page 62 Richard Wing: This is not a public hearing. Ranenson: Correct . Batzli: Oh, okay. Well, we conducted one and we closed it. Richard Wing: I Just wanted that clarified. There were some questions here that in a public hearing status in a much different approach and this is very informational. This is so conceptual. Rs a matter of fact, Can I make a statement? Batzli: Sure. Richard Wing: My name is Richard Wing. Chanhassen City Council. I also served as a member of this commission, or task force, excuse me. And Matt, I just want to pick on you. Rnd this is informationally. It's not criticism. It's not even critique but you made some statements about alignment and some ideas and thoughts and I just want to ask you as a point here, because I want to get onto something else. How many of these task force meetings did you attend? Ledvina: Zero. Richard Wing: Okay. That's my point, t think we're getting concerned about issues tonight and problems and alignments that you have no information on because every question that came up tonight, this task force, which is Just a task force, addressed. The alignments.' Whether they went north or south. You know we were somewhat split on the alignment and ! happen to agree with Jeff. I think he's right and that's what I intend to pursue with the information I have. But whether it went north or south, and the cost. The alignments. What it did to land uses. How we intended to use the land and zoning and all. It was all pretty much discussed, but you don't have privy to that information and. Ledvina: Oh I did speak with some of the members of the task force. Richard Wing: Oh no, no. I know and again, I said this isn't criticism. I'm just pointing out that from this point on now we get serious. We've now taken this task force that's a lay group. They've come in with a very conceptual plan and now it gets thrown into your lap and you're ~oing to have to reinvent the wheel and it's going to be a long lengthy process. Rll the questions that we asked, we discussed, are going to have to be rediscussed and asked again and then get into the public sector because all our guest here really didn't have an opportunity to speak. They were listeners and they weren't allowed to participate. From now on it takes a whole new format and now it gets formal. It gets official so don't feel frustrated or concerned about the process. I think it has to start over now and then ail these questions you brought up, plus everything that task force did has to be kind of start from scratch and then we're going to get a formal recommendation from you people after you've had all the facts so plan on a pretty major issue here. I think you've got your hands full. Batzli: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 63 Scott: So will you. Richard Wing: Well absolutely but you know you kind of have, in some ways going to fall back on this task force. We're obviously going to be falling back on you and that's, I'm very pro commissions. I mean I tend to take these recommendations that you spend hours on and then suddenly we get thrown with this and we have 10 minutes and I'm not willing to make decisions like that. I tend to fall back on what's here so I think we had some real talent on that task force and I think they're going to be active and participate and speak to these issues as they come up but they're not here tonight because this isn't a public hearing. It's just informational. I think it was important to get some of the public input started. Mr. Kerber's concerns. You know I'm kind of wondering why the line's going right through his house. I think we have to start addressing these and we will so. Se patient. I think the task force did an excellent job. I think you have a real challenge ahead of you but it's going to be probably one of the greatest gift the city of Chanhassen that's ever occurred. Rnd if I just may rather than, because it's late. Batzli: Let me Just say one thing here. What Paul asked us to do was recommend approval and the item was listed under public hearing. And I think what Ladd and I want to do is slo~ it down and do exactly what you're saying but our direction from our Director was like, we were supposed to rubber stamp it and pass it along tonight. Richard Wing: That's not true at all and Kate, clarify the public hearing. Ranenson: No, it's not. If you're looking at the title, it says public information meeting. We were under the impression that we needed to keep this on docket. To keep the funding with the MnDot. -The intent tonight was to allow, as Mr. Wing stated, the intent tonight was to allow public to come and comment. During the task force, we did allow some comment at the task force meetings but we felt this would be a better arena. Feel more comfortable and... We had 25 people sitting up here. It made for a large group to take comments so this was an information meeting to allow people to come and voice their concerns. For you to hear it. I think Dick articulated exactly where we're at and obviously you need more information to go further and we'll be bringing that forward. Rs long as we have the time. Batzli: I don't want to belabor this point but, so are you suggesting that we start conducting hearings similar to what we did on the comprehensive plan where we have working sessions and we invite anybody and everybody into the room? Ranenson: What's going to happen is this take on a comprehensive plan. There's two separate components here. One is the ER document, which we need to keep on track. The other component is what we're doing is a master plan. Rs part of that master plan we're looking at land use issues. We're looking at some overlay zones including architectural design and landscaping issues and that sort of thing. We'll be bringing those forward to you. Like I said in September we hope to have the task force wound up. Batzli: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 64 Deb Porter: There is a public hearing as part of the EA process. After the document is signed on the signature page and released for public review. It needs to be reviewed by the City Council. There is an official public hearing at that point. · Richard Wing: And also be aware that there's some considerable information coming your way on development standards. Architectural standards. Building material minimums. Sign ordinance. Landscape ordinance. Parking lot standards. This PUD overlay and there's some tremendous stuff coming and it's going to change the face of the city. I mean to say that Mills Fleet Farm is going to go there or isn't. It may or may not but I think that based on these new ordinances coming in, it's going to be a Mills Fleet Farm like you've never seen before and they may or may not choose to look that way. Brian, just as long as I have the floor, z want to get one comment on the record. That you people, as a commission tonight have dealt with some very sensitive, difficult issues in kind of no win set-ups if you will. i think your attitudes, your demeanor, your comments, your appearances as individuals and as a commission were exemplary. I-think you're to be very much commended tonight. I think you ran a very excellent meeting Brian under some very harsh conditions and I want to thank you. Somebody said outside, he said, he was a professional person from the Arboretum and he said, why would anybody want to serve on that commission after listening. The answer is because you've chosen to lead, to direct and have an impact on your community and as a resident I Just want to say thank you. Batzli: Thank you for your comments from, on behalf of the entire commission. Thank you all for coming tonight. It sounds like we're going to table this from the standpoint that it's tableable and hold some informal meetings. Get some more of your input and dig into it a little bit more. We'll probably delay it a little bit until we know what some of the land use issues are coming down the road and I'm sure, if you haven't left your name with Kate, you should do that now Just to make sure you get notified of the upcoming meetings. Especially some of these people that sounded like they maybe were a little bit surprised by the whole item. Is there a motion, something to that effect? Conrad: To table? 8atzli: To table. Conrad moved,iScott seconded to table action on the Environmental Assessment for the North Access Boulevard project. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzlt: Thank you all for coming in. You will be notified of the next time this is discussed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 7, 1993 as presented. C~TY COUNCIL UPOATE: Aanenson: I'll Just go over these real quick. Planning Commission Meeting 3uly 21, 1993 - Page 65 Batzli: Boy, this had better be quick Kate. Hold on one second Ladd. Aanenson= I need to talk to Ladd. Really seriously. The extension of Nez Perce at the City Council. Obviously you realize what happened on that based on the subdivision that was tonight. Non-conforming permit for Minnewashta Manor. That was approved based on the same conditions that the Planning Commission had. The City Council reconsidered the Boley subdivision. If you recall, the rear of those lots fell into the city of Victoria and in meeting with the Met Council they felt as long as the services were from the city of Chanhassen, they felt they didn't have any Jurisdiction in that matter. The City of Victoria wanted to do a property swap because they felt like that property was valuable. We're not sure that that makes a lot of sense. They want to get 4, 5, 6 lots out of it so we're meeting with them but the City Council did approve, having yard easements. So the lots do meet the square footage. It's Just that the rear of the lots are in Victoria and they can just be used for yards only. So we're hoping that we can still meet and resolve that issue and We've asked that that be platted last giving the staff time to work out those issues. Trotters Ridge was approved by the City Council. 8aslcally the same way as you had presented it, and as you're aware, Paul will.be out of the country for the next couple weeks. That's it. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Conrad moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the ~eett~. ~11 vot~ tn favor and the motion carried. The ~eettng ~as adjourned at 11:53 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim , , ,, m I! I I I I I I I