1992 03 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 4. 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli,
Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner II
and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.99 ACRES ~NTO 1 SINGLE FAMILY LOT ~ TWO
OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GREAT PI, AIMS BOUL~¥ARD. EUGENE QUINN,
Public Present:
Name Add~ess
Gene & Therese Quinn 532 Lyman Blvd.
Russell & Orletta Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd.
Dixon & Diane Blosberg 530 Lyman Blvd.
Diane Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd.
Mary Lou Jansen 500 Lyman Blvd.
Scott Harri Eden Prairie
A1Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains' Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Scott Harri: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is
Scott Harri. I'm representing the Quinn's, the applicant in this matter
before you this evening. And I'd like to introduce Ther-ese and Gene Ouinn,
sitting in the second row and also their neighbors in here. The crux of
the proposal that you have before you, I think 3o Ann covered most of the
pertinent issues but again the main objective of this proposal is to create
and divide the property so the Qutnn's can sell their single family lot and
as a result of that retain a portion of the property which is identified as
Outlot A, the parcel adjoining Lyman Blvd. for future-develoPment. And.
since about 10 years ago the Quinn's have been, I don't know if tormented
is the correct word but have been confronted with the TH 212 and it's
location studies in what's going to be the possible impact on the property.
And as a result of the recent actions, it's sitting right in. their back
yard right now. Afld in addition to that has been the land use changes to
the parcel to the west from a residential land use for future land use to
now mixed development allowing some commercial development which may have
an impact on the property values as far as single family and then most
recently what 3o Ann mentioned was in October the public hearings
concerning improvements, utilities, sewer and water to Lyman Blvd.-'to serve
the Lake Riley Hills subdivision and the impact of those assessments to the
property kind of really changing the whole complexion of this part of town
here. In looking at the staff report and some of the most recent trips
that the staff made to the site to look at the right-of-way'issue, the
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 2
Ouinn's feel that conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the staff report are totally
agreeable and that part of condition '1 relating to the right-of-way
dedication of the change in the 27 feet to'the 7 feet on Lyman Blvd. is
also acceptable to them. We would'however like to pursue a little bit of ..
dialogue regarding the extension of Quinn Road from where we propose it to
end and give some reasons why we think that it might be. more prudent to
look at the development or the actual amount of right-of-way given for
Quinn Road at a time when the property to the east is developed. Right now
the roadway and the gravel driveway that serves two houses to the east of
Quinn's, sits right on the top of a hill. Any further roadway extension to
the north would be down in a.n approximate 4:1 or 3:1 gradient. Therefore,
to make that a feasible road connection, a fair amount of earth work and
cutting and filling and this'sort of thing which would totally change the
character and the heavily wooded area once you move north of this site so
there are some physical constraints to the site both on the property to the
east, which is identified as the Chadwick parcel and also the Quinn parcel
as far as topographic features. And right now what the Quinn's have put in
place is an easement for roadway purposes. Driveway easement between the
Chadwick parcel and their parcel which would allow for a future access to
the right-of-way on the Quinn parcel. And then a final right-of-way'could
be defined at that time which would then only reflect what is needed for a
future connection going east over there. And it's not that the Quinn's are
opposed to the right-of-way issue-but it becomes more of a practical matter
of the timing and their cooperation I guess would be best served if
development plans to the east were more forth coming and then they would be
I guess in a position to work with this group and the developers on the
other side there. And just as I guess a footnote to this whole issue of
the parcel, currently they have, and I'll just talk in very round numbers,
10 acres of property of which .2 of'an.acre is the'right-of-way on Lyman
Blvd. as it currently exists. The proposal submitted to you tonight
without the conditions or the dedication requested in item number 1 would
result in the Quinn's either dedicating or end up having to sell to MnDot
4.8 acres of their 10 acre parcel or 48~ which by most measures is
extremely high and in fact those longer term members on the Commission
probably have never seen a subdivision, come in that was-going to either
dedicate or end up giving right-of-way to 48~. The conditions of item
number i would add almost another half an acre of requirement to the amount
of right-of-way pushing this to almost 54~ of the site just.consumed by
right-of-way. $o we're looking at hopefully some sympathy toward the
Quinn's. Not that they're opposed to the right-of-way issue but to work
with them on the timing issue of extending and actually platting right-of--
way to the north on Quinn Road. One of the final things that we would like
to have entered into the official Minutes here tonight also is that a lot
of value of the property is in it's wooded nature out there and right along
Lyman Blvd. it's fairly heavily treed with a-large stand of mature trees.
We would like, and we know that the City is very sensitive toward
preserving trees and the reduction of right-of-way requirement from 27 to 7
is really a positive move. Ne would like that to continue to reflect a
condition that as many of those existing trees be preserved because that
truly does provide I guess a buffer to whatever development takes place in
the future on Outlot A on the Quinn parcel. $o we are here and available
to answer any questions that either you have or that comes from the
audience. 8o with that I'll close my remarks.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 3
Batzli: Before ! ask for other public comments, 3o Ann. Have we looked at
the sIope and whether that wouid even be a feasibie roadway to put it in?
Olsen: Right. If you look on the second page of the plans you can see
that there is still some area even between where the slope and the trees
actually start beyond where they're giving the 60 foot'right-of-way. That
area is potential for where the curve in the road could exist and until we
know exactly where that's going, we really want to have that right-of-way
because now is when it can be dedicated. We've explained to the applicant
that once that road is determined, that right-of-way that is not necessary
we can have vacated. If we do not get that right-of-way at this time, and
the Chadwick property is developed in the future, then it's difficult to
obtain that right-of-way. We would have to possibly pay for it or condemn
for it so right now it's to the City's benefit to retain as much right-of
way as they think is necessary. $o yes it is possible still to have the
road actually go into beyond where they're providing the right-of-way at
this time.
Batzli: If we didn't do it at this time, what is the most likely way that'
you'd be able to get access to Outlot B? Would it be over the Chadwick
property here somehow?
Olse.n: Outlot B will be Highway 212. You'll never need access to that.
If you can see where the driveway is sketched in, the dotted line.
Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to make comments? .Can
you give your name and address please?
Gene Quinn: My name is Gene Quinn and that's our property there that we're
looking at. When I first looked at selling this parcel of land, okay first
of all you've got 4 acres that's I guess legally mapped now f. or the freeway
so I'm really forced into subdividing this to ever sell it. Because the
Highway Department won't buy it right now and who knows what it's worth.
And so I have to go through this whole process. You know basically all I
want to do is put in about 6 property boundaries. I'm not changing land
use. I'm not changing how many people live there. That road has been
there for, I don't know, 15 or 20 years at least.. Everybody that's lived
around there, it's been there for .15 years. I feel overall it's, why are
we looking at having to even look at that road at this time. You know I'm
not looking to subdivide it. At the time that people want to subdivide
that land, they can come in and look at the whole 'picture of it.
Batzli: Anything else?
Gene Ouinn: Especially the piece up to the north of that, I've got an
easement to Chadwick. In fact Dick Chadwick wrote it up himself. He's an
attorney and he owns the property' up next to it. I guess I don't feel that
we really have any justification for taking all that right-of-way up there.
I would leave it going up to the property line and maybe up 16 more feet to
get to Chadwicks but to take it, that's 200 and some feet.- From there up
to the freeway line.
Batzli: What is your easement with Chadwick's say?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 4
Gene Ouinn: Well it's a 60 foot by 60 foot easement that would extend just
north of where I'm showing the road parcel.
Batzli: But that's just to get on Chadwick's?
Gene Quinn: Would get onto his property. Right now the road goes from
that corner. It goes along east. $o there's an existing gravel road there
and all that serves them other two houses.
Batzli: You don't have an agreement with Chadwick regarding going over his
property to get to what is going to be Outlot B?
Gene Ouinn: No, I don't need it.
Krauss: Unless Outlot 8 is not acquired for 212 for'some reason; which is
possible.
Gene Quinn: I'm going to keep an easement straight north Up to where the
land that the freeway's going to take just so it's not landlocked. And if
you stand out there and look at that road, to .ever get it down the hill, it
makes no sense at all. It makes no economic sense.
Batzli: Okay,' well thank you.
Gene Ouinn: Well thank you.
Batzli: Anyone else?
A1 Klingelhutz: A1 Klingelhutz. My land abuts Mr. Ouinn's. I'm very
familiar with the parcel of land. Mr. Quinn said the road was only there
for 15.years. The private road or Ouinn Road. Gus Grippendrof who lived
to be nearly 100 years old lived there for about 50 years. I think was one
of the first houses, was the only house on that 40 acres at that time and
that's where he laid out the road because it was the most appropriate and
best place for a road to go into the property. When you look at the map
there, just beyond where the road turns, there is'a considerable steep
slope. I'm sure that those lines on there are 2 foot contours and you
count those lines and there must be a drop from the space between the two
wider lines just north of the pink line-there of about 18 to 20 feet. And
I think that's why Mr. Chadwick feels that's where the road should have to
turn because of the future possibility of even fitting a house into that
corner lot. If you went down the hill a little further, the house would
more than likely sit down in the wetlands. But if he could keep enough
land into the slope of a hill for a walkout home, and keep the road
approximately where it shows on the line or'just a little bit further to
the north. It would make it much more feasible for Mr. Chadwick and to
extend that 60 feet down to a new highway proposed 12 which really runs
down into some pretty low land. In fact. you try to walk out there in the
spring or right now', you'd be walking in water. Thank you.
Batzli: Anyone else like to address the Commission?
A1Klingelhutz: Oh, there was one other thing I waS'going to say. 'Those
trees along Lyman Blvd. have sort of been a beautiful landmark, especially
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 5
in the fall of the year. They're huge oak trees. The first time I can
remember when I lived on that land 70 years now, and it'd be almost a shame
to destroy any of them for right-of-way. I did talk to the Carver County
engineer on this and he said there's a good possibility when they would
take a look at it if Lyman Blvd. ever became a county road, which is
proposed in the eastern Carver County transportation plan. That they~would
try to avoid as much of those trees as possible. Plus the fact that two
houses adjacent to Lyman Blvd. just to the east and I think the City here
is taking a good hard look at that because they did reduce the amount of
right-of-way along there. It would almost bring that right-of-way up to
their doorsteps. And just a little further east there's about a 2 1/2-3
acre wetland which would be encroached upon too'.
Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public'hearing. Ail voted in
favor and the motion carried. The publ'ic hearing was closed.
Erhart: It's shown on the plan here.as a utility easement. Is there a
need for a utility easement aside from the desire to have the street
easement?
Olsen: We're not exactly sure where the utilit'ies will go once they're
brought to that site.
Erhart: Would you bring it across the freeway?
Krauss: Well from what we know on the' current feasibility studies, no.
There's no utility crossing proposed over there. We didn't sketch that
utility easement on in that area.
Erhart: It was put in there by the develope~?
Olsen: Right. The utilities would come up from Lyman-Blvd..
Krauss: Or come along this new road that may extend.'
Erhart: You mean that wasn't put i-n at the same time the 60 foot dotted
line was? Or they put that in afterwards? I don't understand that.
Krauss: Commissioner Erhart, what-we're saying is we requested a 60 foot
right-of-way for what is now Quinn Road. The utility easement extending up
to the highway is not something we requested. It was on a survey.
Erhart: Oh, somebody just put that on there?
Olsen: So we're requesting that that also be.
Erhart: Alright. Then I guess for one thing, I guess tradition has it, if
you feel you have, well I'll just say I guess it would seem to me that
going beyond what would be needed to curve the street there to the east
would be unnecessary, particularly if we don't feel that there's ever a
utility easement needed to go up to the freeway. If'we did feel there's a
utility easement, it would be certainly less than 60 feet wide so I guess I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 6
would have to, in this rare case agree with t'he developer that going beyond
some point where you would start to curve to the east and then add what it
would take to complete the curve would be as much as you'd need.
Olsen: We might not necessarily need' it all the way up to Outlot B but you
do need it beyond what they're giving.
Erhart: Beyond because I 'm not sure where that it but' it has to be enough
so you can make a nice curve to the east. I don't- know exactly what that
is. I kind of scratched something in here but the other thing is, where
the current driveway goes over the Blosberg property, does that mean, I
assume that there's no easement to start the curve further south or is
there?
Krauss: No.
Erhart: No. So we really have to start the curve at that intersection of
property line I'm assuming. Then I guess my recommendation would be 'that
staff figure out how much more space you need to make a safe curve and stop
the easement at that point. Other than that, it's pretty simple.
Batzli: Tim, so you don't, you're not uncomfortable at all that Outlot B
may be landlocked even though that's where the freeway's going? If the
freeway doesn't go through, we've created something that's landlocked.
Erhart: One thing, if that would be a'concern, then the easement we ought
to be requesting ought to be 30 feet, not 60 because, tradition has that we
take half from both property owners along a line if. we consider that
someday that we would need a thru street. Is there some doubt about the
freeway at this point? After all these years. That's a real question. Oh
boy. Let me think about that one. Can anybody respond? Your question is,
is there some doubt about.
Batzli: I don't know. It seems to me that's why the condition is in there
because it would be vacated if, there'd be no reason to extend it if the
freeway goes in.
Erhart: Then I misunderstood it. If that's the purpose of asking for 60
feet, in case the freeway doesn't go in.
Batzli: Is that right 3o Ann?
Olsen: The main condern we had was to accommodate the road to service,
that's going to be servicing Chadwick was the main concern. To accommodate
that curve. I think we have more confidence that 212 will go through.
Batzli: So you just want to accommodate a curve.into Chadwick? YOu think
212 is going to go in, that doesn't matter?
Olsen: That was our primary, but it's a good point that 0utlot B would be
landlocked. I mean that's a good point.
Krauss: Well, you can always resolve that and maybe Gene's probably
willing to consider taking a private easement over his property so he can
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 7
give himself access to there.
Emmings: Didn't he say he's already done that or he's doing that?
Gene Ouinn: I'm going to keep an easement to the north.
Emmings: How wide?
Gene Quinn: How wide? I can keep 60 feet. I wouid keep that until you-
know, it would expire when the freeway land is purchased.
Emmings: Yeah.
Erhart: And we'd put that into the conditions.
Emmings: No, that's private. He's doing that for himself.
Conrad: I have nothing to add.
Emmings: Just a comment I guess. If he's going to keep a 60 foot easement
to make sure that Outlot B isn't landlocked in case 212 doesn't go through,
it doesn't seem to me to be much of a burden for us to say that that's a,
·
that we want to retain some options there and this is the time to do it.
So I'd concur with the staff report on this with the understanding that
once we know that 212 is through and once we figure out how to get into the
Chadwick property, that the rest would be vacated. That seems to me to be,
that preserves the most options for the city so that's-what I like. The
only other thing I'd say is that the northern boundary of Lot 1 would come
south. Are the plans on the highway final enough so we can say there's no
chance that that property line will change to accommodate the highway?
Olsen: I just talked to them last week and there has been no changes.
.
They're still working on the EAW so there's always still the potential but
that they don't see it changing here. But there's no guarantee that they
might acquire more land.
Emmings: Okay. I don't have any more.
Farmakes: I have no further comments.
Ahrens: Just one question for Mr. Quinn. You don't have any objections to
the long right-of-way the City wants north of, or south of the current
driveway? That runs along the east side of your property.
Gene Quinn: I have 60 feet.
Ahrens: That driveway that runs along the property. You don't have any
objection to that right-of-way I take it?
Gene Ouinn: You mean this piece?
Ahrens: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting
MaTch 4, 1992 - Page 8
Gene Ouinn: No, I didn't have any objection to here and-I'd go up even 60
more feet. To me this, if you had to put a road here you could do it the
same as the intersection in the city. I mean I don't want a 30 mph curve.
Ahrens: I understand the applicant's concern. I think the City should
only take as much land as is necessary to make the cur. ye to Mr. Chadwick's
property. As long as there's going to be a private easement...
Batzli: Does that need to be a condition or do you feel comfortable that
that's a private matter between Lot 1 and Outlot 8?
Ahrens: I think that he's going to have to do it because he doesn't want
to eliminate his options for any development of Outlot 8 if in fact...
Batzli: I don't have anything other than I guess what Joan and Steve and
Tim's comments. A motion?
Erhart: I'll move that the Planning .Commission recommend approval of
Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92-3, dated February 3,. 1992 with changes
to condition number 1 to read, that the applicant provide 7 feet of
right-of-way along Lyman Blvd. and will dedicate a 60 foot wide right-of-
way over the existing driveway easement north to a point necessary for
establishing a future street which will continue north, turning east at the
northwest corner of the Blosberg property. That distance to be, .that exact
distance to be determined by staff. All the other conditions to remain the
same.
Conrad: I second that.
Batzli: Discussion.
Conrad: We didn't talk about the trees and the concern for the trees and
the 7 feet of right-of-way. Do we need any comments on that?
Krauss: We really have no idea at this point what the impact, if any will
be of the reconstruction Of Lyman 81vd.. Only taking 7 feet of right-of-
way at this point would tend to limit any in~rusion.
Ahrens: Are the trees located in that? I don't have any idea if the trees
would be located in that area.
Krauss: I was out there today with Gene. I'm not certain.
Olsen: Some will be within there but the road will probably be centered
within the right-of-way so what we're doing is really pushing the right-of-
way to the south, which is farm field. It seems logical that .that's where
they'd go.
Emmings: Any street, the fact that the trees are in the right-of-way
doesn't mean they're automatically going to get knocked down I take it.
Number 1. Number 2. The City of Chanhassen~ what role does the City have
if the County should upgrade and widen that road?
Krauss: Nell the fact of the matter is, it's not a county road.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 9
Emmings: Oh it's not. What is it?
Krauss: It's a city street. It probably should become a county road at
some point.
Emmings: If it's a city street then we have control over what trees get
knocked down. If it's a county road, do we have control?
Olsen: He can still comment.
Emmings: Okay. I don't see we can impose any conditions on the
subdivision that are going to affect those decisions later.
Conrad: Basically what that does, this decision has put the right-of-way
more to the other side of the road and that would be acceptable.
Batzli: I have a comment on item 2 actually. I'd like to propose that we
amend that to read, applicant shall enter into a driveway easement
agreement satisfactory to the City releasing the City from liability or
maintenance responsibilities, etc., etc.. In other words we'd cross off
the first words, the City Attorney's office shall prepare and add, the
applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to
the City.
Erhart: I so amend.
Batzli: Do you agree with that, your second?
Conrad: Oh shre. I so second.
Batzli: ~ny more discussion?
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92-3 to create one single
family lot and two outlots as shown on the plans dated February 3, 1992 and
subject to the following conditions:.
The applicant shall provide an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along
Lyman Boulevard and shall dedicate a 60 foot wide right-of-way over the
existing driveway easement north to a point necessary for establishing
a future street which will continue north, turnin~ east at the
northwest corner of the Blosberg property, the exact distance to be'
determined by staff.
2. The applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement
satisfactory to the City releasing the City from liability or
maintenance responsibilities over the private driveways until the
street (Ouinn Road) is constructed to city urban standards.
3. Outlots A and B cannot be replatted or built upon Until sewer amd water
are available to the site.
4. The existing gravel drive will. have to be' upgraded to urban street
standards once utilities are available and further lot subdivisions
Planning Commission Meeting
HaTch 4, 1992 - Page lO
occur which utilize Quinn Road.
Ail voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried ~ith a.
vote of 5 to 1.
Batzli: And your reasons for opposing.
Emmings: I just go along with the staff report on this.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF TH~ COMPREHeNSiVE P~.AN AND SECTIONS OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE A-i, A-2, AND RR DISTRICTS BY
ELIMINATING THE 2.S ACRE MIN)MUM [~OT SI,,Z~. IN THE RURAL AREA.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman 8atzli
called the public hearing to order.
Aanenson: I did have a few phone calls on...concern was people who already
had 2 acre lots, could they split their lots and that's not the intent of
this. This is for someone who has 10 acres. I think that's where the
confusion came in because they thought they could split their lot and if
they could still get the two septic sites on it...
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close'the public hearing. All voted'in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ahrens: I have no comments.
Farmakes: No comments on this either.
Emmings: I can't understand something that you've written here. Number 3
says that each site must have at least 1 acre of area which can support 2
septic syste'm sites. I suppose there should be a comma there.
Aanenson: We're thinking one area. Instead of taking one acre, we want to
take out the acre and saying one area.
Emmings: Okay. It's one area which can support two septic system sites, a
building pad and a well.
Aanenson: That's what's existing right now in the rural lot.
Emmings: Okay, but the it says with a slope of 25~ or less. Does the
slope of 25~ or less go with the area or does it go with the septic
systems?
Olsen: It goes with the area.
Emmings: Okay, this is real confusing. It needs punctuation real bad.
Aanenson: What it is...
Emmings: It's what?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 11
Aanenson: It's just a portion Of that section. I should have written out
the whole.
Emmings: Well but this sentence, I mean you can't make sense of it if you
just read it and it's real simple to fix I think. If I know what slope
goes with.
Ahrens: I think the 'well is supposed to have the slope.
Emmings: Well I thought maybe it was the septic. I thought maybe it was
the septic. You had to have your septic sites in areas where you have 25~
slope or less. I don't know what that goes with.
8atzli: I think it's the whole area.
Ahrens: That's exactly the way it's-written.
Olsen: We wrote it so it was wrong. The intention was the septic site
area. Remember with the Bluff Greens?
Emmings: What it should say is each site must have one ~rea which can
support two septic system sites on a slope of 25~ or .less, a. building pad,
and a well.
Olsen: Right. That was the intention.
8atzli: Can you put a building up on more than a 25~ slope?
Emmings: I can. Any engineer can.
Olsen: Well they can grade it. You can't grade septic sites but you can
grade... I'm just saying the building pad you can grade. The septic site
you can't. You can't grade it.
Emmings: Yeah. You've got to stay completely off it. Okay. Now if it's
written that way, then I understand it and it's fine with me.
Krauss: Can we ask for you to respond on one aspect of this? 'This
ordinance totally eliminates a minimum size criteria. Basically the
minimum size becomes defacto. Can you accommodate those features on the
lot? We also, at the time this came up, -in fact Tim will remember this.
We discussed having a 1 acre minimum and if the 1 acre qualified for this,
that's fine. Otherwise it had to be bigger. Is there any perception as to
whether you'd be more comfortable with an acre minimum or without one? I
mean we're not sure what the bottom end will be. .I mean effectively it's
probably going to be bigger than a 15,000 square foot lot.
Conrad: It shouldn't be a 10,000 foot lo.t.
Emmings: We're not going to start this again are we?
Conrad: But it leaves it open. Right?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 12
Batzli: I though you were going to come back with an acre. That was going
to be my only question was what happened to the acre.
Aanenson: I met with the building department and calculated...figured a
minimum lot would be somewhere close to'3/4 of an acre... Maybe a half
acre but that's getting pretty tight.
8atzti: But what's the thought process for not putting the minimum in
there? --
Emmings: What minimum? A minimum?
Batzli: A minimum.
Krauss: It's a total reliance on a performance standard but I guess you
know, and we wrangled with it a little bit. We would not be uncomfortable
with establishing a bare minimum and if it's 3/4 of an acre, an acre.
Batzli: Tim's our expert in lots here.
Erhart: Yeah, it's about 3/4 acre. The question then is, is staff
comfortable with, if somebody comes in with an unreasonable plan, do you
feel you have the authority to say no?
Krauss: People can be more creative than we can anticipate. The other
side of this is we are allowing cluster development here where
theoretically you peg a 5 acre outlot that's going to have a drainfield for
the entire community if it's well designed. I'n that case you may want to
allow down to a 15,000 square foot lot. Maybe the 15,000 square foot
should be, I mean perceptively it seems wrong to theoretically allow
something smaller than what you allowed in a sewered area.
Erhart: Well that was, I guess are we open to discussion?
Batzli: Yeah.
Erhart: That was my question is, are we then, because we haven't dealt
with items 2, 3, and 4 here which are the setbacks, lot depth and width,
which I think we need to, are we then assuming we're adopting the RSF
standard which is a 100 foot width to 1507
Aanenson: No, we're just talking about the lots that...sti!l follow the
same setbacks...
Erhart: You're still going to require a 200 foot wide lot? Why would you.
do that? Item number 2, under 20-575. Item number 2 says you have to 200
foot lot width. 200 foot lot de~th. I assume that that was going to be,
I~m assuming we'd look at that also. If you're going to allow a one acre
lot, you really need to go. Because it was absent there, I assume you were
going to use the RSF standards as you're suggesting, the 15,000 square' feet
with the 100 foot width. I don't know. I think we have to deal with those
at the same time.
Conrad: Why don't we use 15,000 square feet?
Planning Commission Meeting
Hatch 4, 1992 - Page
Erhart: Yeah, the question is, if you're going to allow a community
system, then what you're trying to drive towards is to get normal sized
lots. So why not use the RSF standards then?
Krauss: Well as a consistent factor to establish the bottom end, it seems
like it makes some sense to do that.
Erhart: Let me ask you. When the guy comes in with a septic design,
doesn't he have to follow some book or something?
Krauss: There's the WPC 40 which has been superseded.
Erhart: And our ordinance requires them'to follow that? They can't come
in with some, nobody can come in with some hair brain idea, it has to
follow a clearly written standard?
Emmings: Isn't this just so remarkably different than what we're dealing
with in RSF that it doesn't apply? Here you may have a lot, even if the
guy could get it all into a 10,000 square foot let's say, which I don't
think you can. I don't think it's possible but let's say somehow they
design it in there. He's still got, he's on 10 acres. This one 10,000
square foot lot on ~0 acres. Do you care?
Batzli: Yeah, actually you do don't you?
Emmings: I don't know.
Krauss: I think-you care because the reason we .got into this. in the first
place is what happens when the City comes out and grabs these things and
how do you integrate it? I mean'you can perceptually illustrate if you
have 100 acres, a 10 homes on a street that would look like it"s a street
just around the corner from City Hall. And it's sitting on 90 acres of
nothing and there's a big outlot someplace out there that has the ~ommunity
system and when the city extends itself out to there, you just knock off
that community system and hook it to the sewer. That's the .lowest common
denominator.
Erhart: That's the whole point of this thing is so that we don't end up
with a Timberwood island that's there forever so that you can put in a
small little group of lots so that down the road when city sewer comes in,
and you're doing this in an area where you think sewer is going to come in.
In 30 years or something. That it integrates'right in and I would'surely
think that we'd want to use at a minimum our RSF standards of 15,000 square
feet and clearly state that.
Emmings: I wouldn't have trouble going along with that I guess. I just
don't think it ca~ be done in less than that.
Erhart: If you lay it out...
Emmings: You might as well put a fire under it.
Conrad: Is there any logic when people do this.Paul? When they take 40
acres and they can Put 1 per 10 on 40. When they start laying their 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 14
houses out, what's the thought process that they're going through? Is
there any, are they looking to the future at all or are just reall~ trying
to get the 4 houses out?
Krauss: I think it's pretty clear those pre-'87 plats didn't think about
much of anything except to get 2 1/2 acre lots.
Conrad: Is there any logic to where they put those houses?
Krauss: Well I know that in Timberwood, I don't know if A1 is still here
but Al's told me that the lots are all designed so they can be split in
half theoretically if sewer and water came through. But realistically
you're not going to rezone the odd lot in the middle of Timberwood and run
a utility system past 13 or 14 angry owners to get to that one lot.
Conrad: The only thing I'm thinking 'about is, you kno~ if there was some
logic for larger lots, that 1 acre would set a, would create an environment
for larger lots in that area. But there's probably, that's probably folly
in thinking that it's setting any kind of precedent for how a-future
developer's going to go in. $o realistically I think we should go back to
the 15,000 square foot minimum and RSF type standards. They're going to be
bigger but.
Aanenson: I can change that. I mean...all of the vacant lots that are in
place right now. Change the minimum standards until we talk about the
15...
Erhart: No, they'd have to have 10 acres.
Aanenson: ...I'm talking if we change the front yard setback...so I'm not
sure what the lots would be.
Krauss: Unless it's just lots created after the date the ordinance becomes
effective. You know'realistically too, I don't think in the next 10 years
you're going to see more than 3 or 4 subdivisions coming in under this.
Erhart: I think that's a good idea to add in there that, the fact that if
a lot's created afterwards because you don't want to have a row of houses
at Timberwood that's been set at a SO foot. setback and then all of a sudden
one comes in with a 30. It wouldn't be right. Are you done?
Conrad: Yeah, I think so.
Erhart: On the statement there, right in the middle of the page 2, where
it says large lot residential developments. Just as a clarification. If
that would read rural residential and then in parenthesis, (unsewered area
developments) because we don't use the word. large lot I don't think.
Krauss: Actually it's in the comp plan.
Erhart: It is? Okay. It would seem to me to read a little be~ter. You
can look at it. Secondly is, over on page 4. Page 3, item (a). Where
does that go?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 15
Aanenson: That's all new language.
Erhart: Okay, where does it go in the ordinance? Does it go in the zoning
ordinance or does it go in the?
Aanenson: Zoning ordinance under, we have a section called rural lot
standards...
Erhart: Well again, my feeling is one of the worst things that ever
happened to Chanhassen was for.us to get in a situation where we encouraged
the chopping up of farmland into these 2 172 acre lots. So if nothing else
accomplished in my $ years here, this is a very good change. I would
recommend one more thing, and this is a ma3or thing. That is to encourage
further that people don't go out and ever do this again is that we change
our street standards for all of Chanhassen now to require urban street
standards. Eliminate once and for all rural street sections. All future
subdivisions have to have curb and gutter and the purpose is one, I think
the city is now ready for that. Essentially we are a growing community
that we expect some day to be pretty much urbanized. Secondly is that it
will make it too expensive to go out and create a tract of 2 1/2 and 5 acre
lots because the streets get more expensive. I think we ought to do that
along with this change, and do it simulataneously. I throw that out as an
idea to again encourage people to cluster so these things fit in.
Batzli: Does the rural versus urban, if' you will, street standards, do
they vary in the amount of easement that they take or anything else?
Krauss: Well it used to.
Olsen: It's all 60 feet now.
Krauss: Yeah, it's all 60 feet now but the standard of pavement and the
lack of curbs and storm sewer are the real difference.
Batzli: But if you required that and you got curb and gutter in some of
these areas where they don't have sewer or water out there, do they then
end up ripping up the streets to put it in?
Krauss: Well, that's a possibility but they'd rip it up whether it was an
urban standard street or rural standard street.
Batzli: But it costs more to put it in.
Krauss: They'll move it or run the utilities through an easement area on
one side or the other.
Erhart: That would have to be planned out when they put the development in
hopefully. Your thinking is an urban street is not as wide as, total width
of grading is less isn't it than a rural?
Krauss: Because you don't have. the ditches on-the side.
Erhart: So you're talking, if you're looking at trying to, most of the
ones that are going to go in, if they're going to go in wooded areas or
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 16
wetlands, it would seem to me they'd have less, encourage less disturbance.
Batzli: Does that change have to be made parcel with what we're doing
tonight or is this just something we should consider and look at?
Conrad: I guess my preference is not to consider it right now or to
consider it as part of this. I'm not sure how it.
Erhart: It doesn't have to be simultaneous but I'm just saying in
conjunction with it somehow, I just think.
Batzli: Is that something the rest of the Commission wants staff to take
alook at? To basically amend the ordinances so that we're looking at urban
street standards throughout all of Chan? Pros/Cons.
Aanenson: It's the first time I've heard of it.
Batzli: I think it's the first all of us except Tim have thought of it.
I'm not sure.
Conrad: I'm not sure where I'm at on it. I don't know. You'think it's a
high priority.
Erhart: Well I don't know. It's an idea. It might be quacky. In fact
Al's here. I guess he knows more about subdivisions than'anybody here.
Maybe he's probably appalled that I'm proposing this because it'd-certainly
make a development more expensive but I-propose it because I think it makes
sense for our future.
A1Klingelhutz: Really though if you're going to cut the lot sizes down
from 2 1/2 to 1 acre...because the length of the road would be that much
longer so if you had twice the length of road to'cover the same amount of
lots. So the difference in cost per lot'would not be much different from a
rural service road than an urban.
Erhart: One thing you wouldn't want to have is a bunch of 15,000 acre lots
with a rural road.
Batzli: Exactly.
Krauss: I think it's a real valid point to ask the City Engineer to
respond to it. I think the whole idea of the rural roads stems from an
error which wasn't too long ago but where folks anticipated development in
the rural area was somewhere over the horizon and nobody knew when. We've
just confronted a bunch of situations where it's not over the horizon. It's
here.
Batzli: What I'd like to do I guess-is have staff's engineers come to a
meeting next couple of sessions that you have. Talk to us a little bit
about what that entails and whether it's something that we need to take a
look at and modify our ordinances on that. My only comment is, I would
prefer that we have a 20,000 or half acre minimum rather than a 15,000
minimum here. I think that at least 2 Council members here may support me
that 15,000 is even a small sized lot and encourage it out in these areas
Planning Commission Heeting
HaTch 4, 1992 - Page 17
is Z don't think necessarily wise idea so I would prefer, and I may be out
voted here that we look at a 20,000 square foot lot eT something rather
than 15. Other than that, do T have a motion?-
Councilman Wing: ...I clarify a question... If we're talking-15,000
square feet and it requires 2 septic system siteS, can that even be done on
that small of a lot?
Krauss: No, but that's where it becomes a performance standard. The only
way you could do a 15,000 square foot lot in all likelihood is to have it
clustered community drainfield. If you don't do that, your lot size may be
4 acres you know depending on the terrain.
Councilman Wing: So that's a big unknown at this time. "
.
Krauss: Right. It tells the applicant that they've got to give us
engineering that demonstrates they can qualify-.
Emmings: I think the thought is Dick, that someone sometime may be able to
come up with a real tiny lot and be able to accomplish this and nobody up
here wants to see them go below the minimum Ne allow in a regular
subdivision. That's the only reason for putting that number in. We sure
don't expect to see any.
Conrad: What I don't understand is our setback standards. Now if-we put a
minimum for lot size in, what are we doing? Are we. changing all the other
setbacks?
Kate Aanenson made a comment that wasn't picked up on the tape.
Conrad: But they would be different:standards in the rural and the A-2
districts. $o would we have two sets of standards?
Aanenson: If that's the direction you want to go. If we went with the
Emmings: I thought what Tim is saying is t'hat, Ladd is that as, the RSF
standards will be a minimum.
Conrad: But here we're dealing, get me out of, maybe I'm missing some
piece of logic here but where we're dealing in an agricultural estate
district or an RR district where the setbacks, side yards~ whatever, .are a
lot bigger typically and now all of a sudden' we're going to say 'across the
board we've just shrunk them to RSF standards. What we're trying to
accommodate these few situations where we're subdividing 40 acres and
giving them 4 lots and so for those 4 lots it may make sense to change, but
I guess what I'm not confident. I don't want to change the standards for
the balance of those areas.
Aanenson: ...they're going to have different standards...
Erhart: If the lots's under 1 acre you 'can do that but if it's over 1 acre
it has to be the standards that are now in there?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 18
Aanenson: Right.
Batzli: Would the Commission feel more comfortable taking a look at this
at the next meeting with it all put together?
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: I would.
Batzli: Okay, do I have a motion?
Emmings: To look at this next time again?
Batzli: I think we should bring it back.
Emmings: I'll move to table it.
Batzli: Is there a second to table?
Farmakes: Second.
Erhart: That includes looking at the urban versus rural standards? Is
that your motion?
Emmings: Are you back to the roads?
Erhart: Well, are we coming back just to talk or is'that in your mind a
separate, totally separate thing?
Emmings: I'm only talking about what's in .front Of us.
Erhart: Alright.
Batzli: I think staff is already going to put together a presentation or
take a look at it for us on the road section.
Erhart: Okay.
Conrad: But just remember from what Tim's .suggesting may make some sense
but really the people who don't like that are the developers out there or
the people that are subdividing and maybe they're not ever developers at
this time. They're somebody that' owns 40 acres and are just trying to,
they're going to give us the pitch that they don't ~ave a lot of money to
do this. So I don't know if staff, the engineer will represent one side of
the cci n.
Batzli: I don't think we're going to make a decision based on the
engineer's report other than to figure out what are the changes. I mean
they know how much it costs to build roads. We're not looking I don't
think to make a decision other than perhaps to hold a public hearing to
talk about changing it. I don't see us doing anything more than that. I
don't even understand what all the changes would be.
Planning Commission Meeting
MaTch 4, 1992 - Page 19
Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded to table the'amendment of the Land Use
element of the Comprehensive Plan and sections-of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding the ~-1, A-2 and RR District for further study. ~ll.voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: Kate, do you have enough direction on where we want to see it go?
Okay. As far as direction to Kate on the size of th'e lots, I'd like
20,000. If everyone can just kind of, what would you like to see Tim?
Erhart: I think that's reasonable..
Batzli: Ladd?
Conrad: Why do you want 20?
Batzli: I want it bigger than 15.
Emmings: How about big enough so that there's a chance for them to split
it if it ever became a 15,0007 What .if it was 40?
Erhart: That's one acre.
Emmings: 45. Or if it was 30.
Krauss: That really doesn't work in practice, I 'mean they plop the home
right in the middle and there it goes.
Batzli: I just think it's rural. The question is whether you want to
preserve any rural setting and 15 is, You're plopping them in like back
here. It's just, I don't get it.
Emmings: But once there's water and sewer there, they can do it.
Batzli: Yeah, but the question is whether you want to preserve some of the
character of the land.
Conrad: But we're preserving the other acres. Not the ones that the
houses are going on.
Batzli: That's right.
Conrad: So I don't care. I can go along with 20. It's not practical
anyway to get this on 2'0,000 feet.
Erhart: Well it only would be if you had a community sewer system. But
again, I mean I'd go along with 20 to be nice but I'm not sure there's a
point.
Conrad: If you want to make a power play Mr. Chairman.
8atzli: I'm not trying to make a power plan. That's why I'm asking you
guys. Steve. 15, 20, different number?
Emmings: I don't care. I really don't care.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 20
Farmakes: I would support 20. And 3 trees.
Batzli: 3can? And 3 trees. Did you hear that?
Ahrens: I don't really see the point between 15 and 20. I'll go with 15.
I don't see the point...
Emmings: Well there isn't any. You're not preserving rural' character
because until water and sewer come, the guy's sitting on 10 acres. After
it comes, they can put in a 15,000 square foot subdivision.
Batzli: The only time it's going to happen is if they cluster.and use some
sort of community system.
Ahrens: I'm not sure that 20,000 square foot lotsI preserve rural
character.
Batzli: No, but it avoids downtown city square'gridlock potentially. Or
helps. -.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD REsiDENTIAL STANDARDS;
Krauss: I don't know if this qualifies as moving right along.
Batzli: Okay, let's move right along and screech to a halt.
Krauss: As before, we're really not entirely certain where you'd like us
to go with this. Although I guess.I'm getting a better idea. We tried to
give you the information that you requested. We did a survey of a number
of third tier communities. It's in your packet. To the extenlt they
defined a PUD lot size, residential PUD lot size, we've given you that'
information. It goes down to some ordinances which don't establish a
minimum lot size for PUD. In fact in Eagan they Just said welt, the
smallest we'll ever accept is 8,700. I think they pulled that out of a
hat. But in Eden Prairie it's the same, 13,500. They require on normal
single family lots. On some cities like Bloomington it went from 11~000 to
15,000 if you're on a corner lot. And on but you can see that none of
those communities has the 15,000 square foot standard that we have. Now
whether that has any bearing on the discussion or not I don't know. But
that's the information. Also in your packet, we got a letter from Peter
Olin via Ladd where Peter suggests a rather simple approach is a better one
for an ordinance. With a strong intent section.' I don't disagree with
that. I mean we talked about a different approach of not being too
specific and just establishing what kind of development you want to
achieve. On the other hand, if you're real sensitive to the'minimum lot
size criteria, that might be one of the standards you want to put in there.
I also tried to focus a little bit on what exactly is the issue about lot
size. The issue seems to be that you can't get a desireable or a normal
home on the lot and I think you can approach that from two perspectives.
You can establish a requirement, and I think it should be universal frankly
because we have equal problems in normal subdivisions, that there be a
minimum buildable area. Well that.you demonstrate that you can fit some
sort of normative home, a reasonably sized deck and a back yard and if you
can't do it, and you may not be able to do it on a 3 acre lot if it's got
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 21
bad topography or wetlands and it's not a leg'~timate lot. That s~andard
should apply universally. PUD's, subdivisions, whatever.
Emmings: Can I ask you a question right there? What Stops a developer
from coming in and saying, yeah I can put this house on this lot and I can
put a deck on it and I've got a back yard and t-hen he goes out and he
builds a house that's a whole lot bigger than that and just kind of destros
the ability to put a deck on there because of the size of the house. How
do you get around that?
Krauss: Well I don't know. Then you're in the position of you took the
moral high ground. You demonstrated that it could have been done. If
somebody somewhere made an independent decision to screw it up, that's what
they did.
Emmings: Yeah, then that's their problem.
Krauss: The other aspect of it is the buildable area approach. I've
worked with ordinances that say that not only do you have a minimum lot
size of x but a certain percentage of it has to be buildable. Has to be
useable. And to get that you eliminate all the easements that conflict,
all the wetlands, the setbacks and if you don't achieve that buildable
area, again a 15,000 square foot lot may not be buildable. I mean we've
seen some that aren't. Or we've seen 30,000 square foot lots that aren't
buildable. ! think that if you establish criteria to meet those two
guidelines, I don't care if you've got-lO,O00, 15,000 or 30,000 square foot
lots, it's going to be a reality check. It's going to get you lots that
are much more consistently utilizeable without'reliance on variances.
Batzli: Define utilizable. A deck, is that Utilizable?
Krauss: We actually did in an earlier draft of the ordinance, and I think
it was a 60 x 40 house, a 10 x 12 deck and a 30 foot back yard area.
Emmings: A 60 x 40 house and garage, is that what you're talking about
there?
Batzli: Now we've got a lot of information from the other communities here
and clearly the other communities don't seem to be as uptight with minimums
as I am and I maybe convinced the Commission to be. The question is, of
course as always, where are we going to go from here? My concern was
initially from concerns I had, problems in the PUD's that currently
existed. My understanding of the intent of the PUD was to be'creative and
to cluster and to provide open space and I don't know that we got that in
the past. I'm not sure that the new ordinance 'is going to get that. From
the sounds of it, there's a new proposal in house that basically provides'
small clustered homes in a cornfield and then provides larger lots in the
wooded area. Now it seems to me that the intent of the PUD would be to
cluster even more tightly either in the cornfield and provide open space in
the trees and preserve all of them or to provide some sort of ballfield or
something else in the cornfield. 8ut I'm not sure why clustering 'homes in
the cornfield, in essence putting them on smaller sized.lots than we would
·
require than the rest of the city and then allowing the developer to charge
a premium into the trees, meets what we really want to get out of the PUD,
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 22
other than if we want to save some trees. That's the only thing that I can
see that's beneficial to the city and once the developer sells those lots,
the people can do whatever they want to the trees so I'm not sure that
we've gained anything. What I'd like to see, and my only point, in getting
on my high horse on this whole thing has been, how can. we be proactive so
that people are encouraged to use the PUD where w'e get a creative
development and the city wins, the developer wins and the people moving
into the development win. That's what I'm asking, i'm asking for
creativity. I'm asking what is it that turns developers on that we can
give them so that we get an above average development. We save open spaces
and trees and wetlands and everybody who moves in is happy as well. You
.
know Ladd suggested last time, well let's just put in a density and'maybe
that's what we have to do. Maybe we 3ust leave it wide open. Let them
come in. We look at the density. See if we like it and as long as we warn
the people moving in that they're in a PUD development. If you don't
understand what that means, then check with Paul Krauss. Maybe that's what
we do but I don't know that we're being proactive enough to say how are we
going to encourage these people. You know the developers, because it seems
in the past all we've done is we've given the developer a greater
opportunity to charge a premium for some lots and probably not reduce the '
price on the homes that are on undersized lots. And I use undersized lots'
euphamistically because they're undersized compared to the rest of our
standards. I mean it's not necessarily that they're undersized. They may
be useable. They may be utilizeable. They may be fine to put the house on
the pad, with the deck, 30 foot back yard but they are undersized compared
with our other standards. I don't know.' I mean we've heard a lot of
people. I know you're frustrated. Probably with me but I don't know that
this is going to work. I don't know that there is a way to make it work.
Krauss: I guess from a staff standpoint, I mean we do from a professional
standpoint feel that these things have utility. But we're not here to
twist your arm and keep coming back with something that's not going to fly.
I mean we've been working on this one since last spring, and the trees are
.
about to bud out again. I think that from a design standpoint it certainly
has validity. We're not in the business of manipulating the'market. I
mean the only influence we have over a ide'veloper is we say, here's our
ordinance. You can either develop"that way or you can use this more
creative approach that may make you a little more money but you're going to
give us what we're looking for too. I mean that's the only carrot 'and
stick we have in this world. Now Brian talked about a plat, and I
mentioned that I was going to bring a copy of it to you to look at. I've
only got these two blue line prints. I can spread them out up there if you
like and you can take a look.
Batzli: You guys want to see it?
Emmings: Yeah.
Batzli: Okay.
(Paul Krauss presented and explained the subdivision and PUD plan to the
Planning Commission at this point.)
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 23
Erhart: And what did we get? You say you think we can get open space
where?
Krauss: Well we've got a park, we are getting Ultimately. You've got park
dedication here.
Batzli: Do you get that anyway?
Krauss: What you get though is you draw boxes around these trees.
Ahrens: Why couldn't you get that...
Krauss: Well ultimately we basically are getting it. Or getting something
close.
Batzli: In the straight subdivision?
Krauss: Yeah. It looks more like this but I'm convinced that we could
have done a better job had we still had some flexibility. I mean these are
what, these are executive home lots? I don't know what the current
vernacular is but these are going to be more expensive homes up in the
hill. They'll bump up to the homes'in Timberwood. 'If we had some
flexibility on lot area, we could encourage that trend a little bit more.
Erhart: And those are what, 20,000 square feet?
Krauss: Yeah. And this is completely without any influence.
Ahrens: The developer makes more money off those treed lots too. I mean I
can't believe they would come in and develop in a straight subdivision like
that, lots that they wouldn't make much money off of.
Krauss: Oh I think that's certainly true but I don't want to sound
patronizing but after doing this for 15 years I've stopped fighting the
free market impulse. I mean if we can come up with a scenario where they
make more money but we get something that we would prefer to have out of it
anyway, that's fine with me.
Ahrens: Right, but if we can get it anyway.
Emmings: I think Joan is saying, wouldn't he do that anyway. Just because
he's going to get more money off of it..
Krauss: Well as I say, this story has a fairly happy ending. We're in the
process of reviewing these plans and we'll see how, they look fair-ly good
at first blush.
Batzli: But in general? I mean this example aside, wouldn't this normal
average developer want to put larger houses in a treed area like that in
the hills against a larger subdivision?
Krauss: This developer happens to be a fairly quality, fairly reputable
developer and the answer to your question in this case is yes. But
developers run the gamet and we've had our share of developers who come in
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 24
here and say the subdivision says this and I'm not giving you' once thing'
more. And from a legal standpoint that's an appropriate response.
Farmakes: What about from the legal standpoint if you don't feel that the
developer's providing for the intent, can you refuse it on that basis
alone?
Krauss: Sure. You can be fairly arbitrary On a rezoning action.
-.
Farmakes: Let's say that we put black and white figures in here. Let's
say we put specific figures about minimum square footage and some of the
stuff that we've been talking. We still don't like the plan. Does that
mean that legally the city can say then, we don't think so?
Krauss: I don't know. Maybe we ought to have the City Attorney here to
answer that specifically but Roger's always told us that we have a great
amount of latitude on a rezoning action, particularly when they have
recourse to do a standard subdivision anyway. I mean we're not taking away
the use of their property. It clearly has a legitimate use. The developer
is in a position of asking us for something above and bgyond and you set
out a district that says we have the expectation that we'll get something
better than normal. You have that latitude~
·
Farmakes: Peter Olin's letter in here talks about focusing on intent
rather than the specifics. That being the case, that response, from the
attorney then would be important. He apparently says, he's talking about
taking issues in court here but if they don't meet the intent of the
statement, it seems to be kind of subjective. The intent isn't going to
spelled out like square footage on a lot.
Krauss: No. That's why I indicated that I agreed with Peter's approach
but I think you have to set some b~re minimum criteria. And you have to be
specific as to what you want to achieve. Now Peter had some very mom and
apple pie language that sounds pretty. I'm not certain that that alone is
enough.
Farmakes: I think it's reasonable to give a developer some specifics about
what you feel the intent is going to be or what can sail through~ It would
seem to me that if you're going to offer a developer at the same time a
specific idea of what he's going to gain from it so that he has the
motivation, as we said before, if there's no motivation for them they're
not going to do it. I would leave it up to them to come up with.a creative
way to solve that and I guess I'm not that uncomfortable with the minimums.
I'm not sure about the 10 that we were originally proposing but if we could
still refuse it by claiming that it doesn't the intent and we've specific
with the intent, I'm not that uncomfortable with it. I'd rather see the
creativity and the burden on them of solving our-problems. If they do it,
fine. If they don't.
Krauss: We don't want anything close to just opening the door to a blanket
PUD without that intent. If we had a developer who's still working with us
come in on another property off Audubon Road who builds lower end' housing
in Chaska. That kind of thing and there's a market for that but he came to
us and the first question is well, he threw a plan on'the table that had an
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 25
average 10,000 square foot lot size and said well, I'm going to do a PUD.
We said no you're not. Well you just took away 40 lots. Our response was
you never had them in the first place. So that kind of a dialogue happens
all the time. But if you have'something that says well if you want to do a
PUD, here's how you earn one and read the intent section and a couple of
guidelines.
Emmings: Maybe the best thing to do, it would be nice if we had some
examples. Here are examples we've approved in our town that we're proud
of. '
Batzli: Do we have any of those?
Emmings: Well, go take a look. Wouldn't that be a way to show a developer
what we've got in mi nd?
Krauss: Yeah, but I think Brian's question is accurate.
Emmings: I don't know. It would be good if we could get one here that we
like so we could say this is the kind of thing.
Batzli: Well, we may be proud of the Ersbo one when that's up.
Krauss: Except it was different. I mean that one has a 30',000 square foot
lot size.
Batzli: But the effective lot size is much smaller given that most of it's
in the swamp. I would favor going wit~ an intent statement and a density.
A warning and basically a statement that indicates that lot sizes below
15,000 will be scrutinized carefully by the City and maybe rejected out of
hand. Something like that. Basically kind of, it basically puts I think
something further in there that if you go below our minimum, .we're going to
look at it carefully and we have the ability to reject it. That way they
can go below but they're still going to be looking at a density and I'm
more concerned about the people moving into the city in the end result.
That they're somehow put on notice so the developer should be required to
during the sales process put them on notice that they're buying a PUD so
that they have the opportunity to talk to what they're getting into.
Conrad: The less we put down the more nervous the developer's going to be.
Is that a fair statement Paul?
Krauss: Wel 1, they might...
Conrad: The more specific he sees stuff, the more he knows if we can match
it and helps him in the design stage so the less we put down,-is he less
likely to take a crack at it?
Krauss: Until you get a track record of having said yes or no on some.
Emmings: Well it may depend on the developer too.
Conrad: Developers put a lot of money into design.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 26
Emmings: We just had one come in and we approved a PUD and he not only
didn't have any standards, we didn't have anything in our ordinance about
residential PUD's. And he got approved.
Ahrens: You know I don't think'we have to be so worried about scaring away
deveIopers. I reaily don't. I think that they're going to come in here.
They want the land. They want to develop. .I think that if a developer
comes in for this specific piece of property and we said we have a minimum
lot size of 15,000 square feet. He or she says I'm not interested in
deveioping as a PUD. Then I want to go with the straight subdivision and
we say that's fine but we have these stands of trees that you have to work
around. Wouidn't we end up with just as good a product in the end because
we'd have 15,000 square foot lot minimums?
Krauss: I think it gets to Brian's question from last meeting. Can't you
achieve the same thing without it?
Ahrens: Yeah, I guess I'm not convinced that you can't.
Krauss: I tend not to believe that we can. I mean the flexibility to
alter standards gives you tremendous room to'innovate. Ne don't have and
no community has a standard that says you Just can't cut down a significant
stand of trees. Now we're trying to.develop an ordinance that would
overlay the city that would get at that somehow. But the best way to avoid
cutting a stand of trees is to allow the developer to build that house
someplace else. I mean that's the carrot and'the stick. You can mandate
you so much and beyond that you've taken the person's property or you've.
damaged the land. If you allow that unit to be transferred to more
appropriate site, everybody comes out better if it's done right.
Emmings: I kind of agree with what Brian said. I'd go for an intent
statement. A density and maybe I first thought it was a bad idea to put in
the warning but I don't mind that the more I think about it. This .plan
over here which you're calling a PUD is.
Batzli: This doesn't look like a PUD to me.
Emmings: No. This is almost no creativity whatsoever over here. And I
think that's proven by the fact that there's the same number of lots on
each one somehow but still this is a better plan than this one, which as
you say is an overstatement. This is still a better plan. And could this
plan be approved under our subdivision ordinance?
Krauss: The better one?
Emmings: The one he's calling a PUD. It couldn't because of the small
lots. But still this is a better plan than a straight subdivision on that
property I think.
Krauss: Yes it is.
Emmings: $o this, even though it doesn't show much creativity or as much
as you'd like to see, if we don't have a PUD'ordinance we're going.to wind
up with things that are, we wouldn't be able to approve something like this
Planning Commission. Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 27
which would probabiy be a better plan. So I think it's important that we
have a PUD alternative. I think it ought to be, I don't think we shouId
say anything about minimum Iot size. Just taIk about density. Maybe give
the warning that the smaIIer the Iots get, the harder we're going to Iook
at them. EspeciaiIy if they go below 15,000. I think that's a good
approach.
Farmakes: Is there enough of an incentive with your experience with
developers between 15 and the 10 that we originally proposed?
Krauss: It's a 50~ reduction. I mean that's significant.
Farmakes: What I'm saying is there enough of an incentive there. If you
put the warning at 15, is there enough of an incentive there that they feel
if they get 12 or they do 13 that they may have a chance?'
Krauss: I honestly don't know Jeff. I mean it sounds reasonable. I guess
we won't know until we try it.
Emmings: But they're talking to you at the same time aren't they? 'I mean
they're getting some direction from you too.
Krauss: Oh sure. I mean this .developer frankly, I mean he wanted, he
originally talked about wanting to. come before you and exploring it on a
concept basis. I think it was after I last brought this up in December I
called him up and said forget it. Again I think he's come up with a pretty
reasonable subdivision but some of this stuff that was nice and kind of
helped to define that PUD was dropped out. I mean he had boulevard
landscaping. Well, he had a boulevarding of major streets .and a couple of
other features and they're not being proposed right now. What we're
getting now is the landscaping along Lyman and Galpin that our new
landscaping ordinance in the subdivision requires and the buffering and'
that's about it. It gives the capability to negotiate. There isn't a
whole lot of latitude to do that in a straight subdivision.
Batzli: I've said this facetiously before and I've said it kind of half
seriously and I've said it seriously. I mean I still think that the best
way to get them to go PUD, if that's how we want to do it so that we have
greater flexibility to protect, some of these natural features, is to raise
our other lot size, and I'll say it one last time before I give up, a
broken and defeated man on this issue. So ahead.
Erhart: You mean raise our minimum lot size in the city?
Batzli: Yeah.
Erhart: That was my point at the last meeting and nobody talked about it
so I almost wasn't going to bring it up. I think the choices are one',
forget the PUD and stick with what we've got. Or'two, if we really believe
that practically every major subdivision that we're going to see has' some
unique characteristics about it that we'would like, rather than us try to
dictate what gets done to preserve it. To allow the developer to be
creative in how to preserve some wooded land or some open area or whatever.
The only way that it's going to work, and three. Is that I personally
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 28
believe that 10,000 square foot lots.are too 'small. I think that a 12,500
square foot lot for example, perhaps is what we ought to have as.what we
would consider a small lot. I've always, on one band I've always-said that
we want to prevent urban sprawl. One of the ways to do it is to allow your
average lot size to be small. On the other hand, I've always.been a little
concerned that 15,000 might be a little bit too small for a standard lot.
When you tie all those together it tells me that the only way to do this
PUD is to raise the average, our standard lot size here .to, I'm going to
say 17,500. I have no magic number but I'm'3ust going to say that number.
You make the increment to motivate him 500 square feet, or 5,000 square
feet allows him to go down to 12,500. And so that gives him the incentive.
It solves the problem of the concern of some of the Council members and I
think myself below 12,500 is a little bit, it's a pretty small lot. The
second thing is that limits the number of lots that can be that small to
some percent of the lots in that development. At least 10~. Maybe it's
30~. I don't know. I didn't look at examples but I think we've got those
two choices. Either we can forget the PUD or the other side is, you're'
going to make it work we're going to have to raise our standard' log size so
we can offer incentive.
Ahrens: I agree that if we go with smaller lot sizes we should be more
specific. I mean we seem to have a meeting of the minds here between the
staff and the present Planning Commission what we mean when.we say there
shouldn't be too many small lots and we'll look closely at them and we're
giving you a warning that you'd better come in with a proper sized
.
development. But nobody else is going to understand after we've moved on
to greater things what we meant by that.
Emmings: But the density will prevent you from having too many small lots.
If you have a density for the project of 1.8 or whatever, you don't have to
worry about it do you?
Conrad: But you could still have some theoretically. I'm comfortable with
that. I always have been. Ever since we started talking about this but
everybody else is worried about minimum lot sizes and I'm not.
Emmings: No, I'm not either.
Erhart: But density is just another way of saying the same thing. I'm
comfortable with density.
Conrad: No. Density will allow you to have a 5,000 square foot lot.
Erhart: No, but you've still got to have minimum lot sizes.
Ahrens: Yeah if you have density, couldn't you still end up with three
huge lots and maybe two little tiny ones?
Conrad: He'd probably not want to do that. But in that situation, that's
so obvious we wouldn't even consider that and I think Paul could reflect
that pretty well.
Ahrens: But what about?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 29
Conrad: Future generations?
Ahrens: 10 years from now.
Batzli: But see that may be, if they want that, then we should give them
the flexibility. I mean this is a living, breathing statute. Why lock
them in? Maybe that's what they're going to love in 10 years when we've
all moved on. I don't know.
Conrad: Absolutely.
Emmings: I'm not worried about 5,000 square foot lots.
Conrad: I'm not either.
,
Batzli: Does anybody other than Tim and I', would anyone like to see staff
taking a look at raising the lot size in our other districts?-Ladd?
Conrad: No.
8atzli: Steve?
Emmings: I don't know. I haven't really thought about it.
Conrad: It's a lousy way to back into a PUD ordinance. If we feel that we
are crammed right now, then we should be looking. You know we don't raise
lot sizes so we can have a creative PUD. If we feel that we're developing
at a too dense a rate right now and people a~e, our decks are leaning over
each other's property lines, Nell then let's take a look and let's get the
whole community back in here and start looking at what our zoning and .our
lot sizes should be for every category. I can't imagine 'the city wants to
do that right now. I haven't heard one person, not one person other than
you Brian talk about lot sizes. Really in the last so many years, nobody's
talking.
Emmings: And we spent so much time. arriving at the subdivision ordinance
and it seems to be working. It seems to be working okay.
Conrad: I love large lots. That's why I'm out here. It's the only
reason I'm in Chanhassen is because we have some big areas. But I just, at
this point in time this is, if people want smaller lots. Things are
changing to say the smaller. The costs are getting greater. For us
philosophically to say to the developers we now want 17,000 square foot
lots, that's a different course for Chanhassen and i don't think we should
do it because of the PUD ordinance. We should do it because we feel as a
community that we want to send a s. ignal to people that this is sort of an
open space community.
Batzli: Well, that's the issue brought up by .Olin in his memo and that's
why I guess I'm wondering why you're not talking about it and that is, he
says the suggestion of the PUD is to preserve the physical and social
character of Chanhassen. Well we aren't going to preserve it by putting in
12,000 square foot lots.
PIanning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 30
Conrad: Ah, but you can preserve.
Emmings: Wait a minute. That's not what we're doing.
Batzli: I know. But that's the intent that he's written and no one has
said I disagree or that's not what we're here.for. That's just, I thought
it was interesting.
Emmings: But you can't say that anybody's proposing to put in 12,000
square foot lots.
Erhart: Steve, what's your reaction to the plan where you have how many
10,000 square foot lots in that one area?
Krauss: 107 I don't know.
Erhart: Just take a guess. 30?
Krauss: It's probably more like 40 or 50.
Erhart: And what is your reaction'to that?
Emmings: I haven't looked at this. My reaction with regard to what?
Erhart: Just seeing forty 10,000 square foot lots all bunched together,
what was your reaction or anybody's reaction to that?
Emmings: It's 40 what on here? The density of this thing is 1.9. It's a
little bit above what a straight subdivision is.
Erhart: But the concept that you could put in forty 10,000 square foot
lots all together in one spot. How does that Strike you?
Emmings: Is that what's on here?
Erhart: Yeah.
Emmings: I don't know. It doesn't scare me. I mean I wouldn't reject it
out of hand.
Batzli: Jeff, do you want to look at raising 'the lot size in the rest of
the districts or no?
Farmakes: I wouldn't be adverse to do it. ]~ guess I fall back that if
we're going to proceed with the PUD, there has to be an incentive for the
builder or we shouldn't do it period. If we can't come up with an
incentive, I don't think we should waste our time with it. I think that
there's a reason to have a PUD. I think we should pursue that. If it's a
warning, that seems reasonable to me. But there has to be a difference
between 10,000 and 15,000 if that's what we're going to have as our base.
If it's going to be 20,000 and a 15,000 minimum, that's an incentive. I
think we're just, to quote a phrase that you've had in here 3 times, we're
just beating a dead horse. We're talking about some different issues that
converge at times but I still feel that if you've got it within the 5,000.
PIanning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 31
square feet somewhere in there that' the builder's going .to come in with
something there that he gets,-the city gets, and leave it up to him to come
in and show us what it is we're getting. And that's the incentive.
Somewhere in what you're talking about here is that 5,000 square feet. If
it's a difference between 15 and 20 or 10 and 15. Leave it up to him to
come in here and say that this is, I'm meeting your requirements of a
percentage for the amount of smaller lots with a cap and I'm meeting your
density requirements. Then we can argue about whether or not he's met our
intent.
Batzli: Okay. So you'd like to see, and correct me when I go astray here.
You'd like to see an intent section and a density and potentially a cap on
the percentage or a floor?
Farmakes: I'm not as worried about a cap on.there.- As long as we can ~ull
the rug out on the intent statement that he's not meeting it. And I think
that somewhat that warning in there gives them your intent. If it's 15 or
it's 20 or if it's 10, I do agree that the overall size of. our lot is
something that's probably a separate issue because that"s going t~ affect
also considerably the difference in land cost to a potential home buyer.
And I think that your, as we raise that up we should look at that very
carefully because the cost of housing in this area is pretty steep and it
leaves out certain groups of, economic groups of people purchasing into a
home here. And when we start adding on 20~ to the land cost we should look
at that.
Batzli: 3oan?
Ahrens: What was the question?
Batzli: The question was, do you want the staff to look at raising the lot
size in Chanhassen? And the second question is, are you comfortable
proceeding on this so we can give some direction to staff so we cmn finally
move it on? Putting in the density and an intent section.
Ahrens: What's the warning in there?
Batzli: Well the warning would be, if they get too small we're going to
look at it very closely. I mean it's basically part of the intent.
Emmings: The smaller they get, the harder we look.
Batzli: Yeah.
Ahrens: I also worry about pricing people out of the market here. I don't
like that idea either. ,
Batzli: I don't think we're doing anything other than what.
Ahrens: By raising the minimum lot size'.
Batzli: The density puts it at a regular subdivision.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 32-
Ahrens: However, I'm not opposed to looking at raising the minimum lot
size. I guess I'm not opposed to that but it seems like every time we take
a look at this there's, we throw a new curve into it.
Batzli: I'm not proposing to tie that into the PUD. I say we move the PUD
along and if we decide to look at. the minimum lot size in the other
districts, we do that but that's not part of what we're doing tonight.
Ahrens: So you'r.e saying as a separate issue, let us examine raising the
minimum lot sizes in Chanhassen which I'm not opposed to looking at
something. At that. On the other hand, the other issue that you brought
up of the PUD, I guess I'm still not comfortable with the whole density
idea. I mean I like the intent statement. I think, the warning statement
is okay but I don't know.
Batzli: Just kind of a showing of hands here for direction to staff, who
would like to see staff proceed with intent, density and warning? Okay. So
for it guys.
Conrad: There you go. It's back to you Paul. What more can we do?
8atzli: What else do you want to know? We're out of time.
Krauss: As far as that goes, that's fine. But you've raised the issue of
raising lot areas. I guess if I could, I'd like to throw my two cents into
it. Our minimum lot size is already substantially greater than most every
community in the Twin Cities with a few exceptions. Those few exceptions
tend to be Minnetonka and Orono and communities of that, or.if you're going
to go out further to Lake Elmo or places that have an intent of staying
hobby farmish or quasi-rural. There is a direct translation between lot
area and cost and it's a significant one. The process is escalating. The
land cost is escalating rapidly. Thirdly, our lot areas are not Only one
of the largest lot areas in the Twin Cities but our density is even lower
than it would imply because we've been a no net loss wetlands community and
we've preserved other features. You have a very substantial park
dedication. We're on the outer fringes of both.of those. So when we tell
a developer yeah, we have a 15,000 square foot lot size, it actually takes
t'hem a lot more land to get' to that'15,000 square foot than it does in most
other communities. Now the new State wetlands law will tend to equalize
that a little bit but our density, our average density of 1.7-1.8 units per
acre, 1.9, in that range, is one of the lowest the Metro Council's ever
seen. They had to develop a new standard for us because their usual rules
of thumb didn't apply in Chanhassen. The last aspect of it is, is we've
got 10-12 years of utility projects, assessed utility projects that are
based on a density of 15,000 square feet. All these projects were assessed
on the presumption that there was x number of units on a piece of ground.
If we changed the rules, I think we might owe a lot of people a lot of
money. So I just throw that out for some thought.
Batzli: My personal feeling is by asking staff to look into this add' I
think that, I thought I heard the other night at the City Council that at
least the Mayor and Councilman Wing expressed that 15,000 might be too
small.
PIanning Commission Meeting
MaTch 4, 1992 - Page 33
Emmings: I didn't hear that.
Batzli: I thought I heard that.
Councilman Wing: Pretty loud and clear. One said 20 and one said 18.
Batzli: Yeah, so I thought that we had some people at the Council also
interested in taking a look at it. Now the number on this group that wants
to look at it appears to be maybe 3 or 4 and some people are comfortable
with it. Ladd's probably fought through the subdivision ordinance once. He
doesn't want to touch it again and that's fine and he's, I mean he's got a
large lot. He doesn't need to look at it again. Me on the other hand, I'm
still looking for that large lot.
Emmings: Couldn't you buy the lot next door?
Batzli: I think I'm going to. Okay. What I'd like to.do is at least
with, I don't want a 3 week study on it. What I'd like to' know though is
if you do have some information on you know, and I'm sure you've given this
to us before, what are the neighboring community lot sizes and what are the
issues. I don't even want them discussed in depth other than so we can
throw it around and see if we want to look at it more. Because I think
we've got at least 2 people on the Council who expressed that they've felt
that it may be a little low and I'd like to know what goes into the
decision to make it low or high and if we do change it, are we going to owe
thousands of people so much money we can't even take a look at it at this
point. So that's what I'd like to see. If other people disagree with me,
speak up.
Emmings: If you decide to go back into the subdivision ordinance to look
at lot size, Ladd and I have a mutual, suicide pact.
Conrad: I kill Steve first.
Emmings: We won't be here. I tell you, you think this is hard to do.
This PUD.
Batzli: Are you adverse to at least the staff bringing up the issues of
what are the factors that go into deciding this? I mean obviously you two-
don't want to get into it?
Emmings: Go into deciding what?
Batzli: What the minimum lot size is and if you raised it, what would the
issues be that we'd have to look at. What would be the process. I mean
it's clear that you two have no interest in raising it.
Conrad: I have no interest so you do what you like. If there's votes
from, I think Tim would go along with you.
Erhart: Well let me say, I guess after Paul's comments, I guess I wasn't,
it was kind of surprising to me that our's would already be larger. If you
consider average around the western suburbs or any suburbs I guess of the
metropolitan area. "
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 34
Krauss: Well again, you will find some that are as big, if not bigger and
you try to figure out what's a comparable community and it's always tough
and we can give you, I think you've got some statistics in here.
Erhart: What's Eden Prairie?
Krauss: 13,500.
Erhart: For minimum lot size?
Krauss: We can give you the Victoria's and Chaska. Well I think Chaska is
less but I'm not sure of that. We can certainly give that to you. It's
not so hard.
Emmings: Now excuse me but in the materials..you gave us tonight, under
PUD lot size survey, it says Eden Prairie 13,500.
Krauss: Yeah, it's the same thing as their.
Emmings: Same in the subdivision? Oh, okay.
Ahrens: So what the incentive?
Krauss: I don't think there is one in Eden Prairie.
Erhart: Well, if that's the case and our two elder commissioners here
don't want to touch it.
Conrad: No, no. Don't use us because...maybe we're out of touch.
Batzli: But I would just like a 15-20 minute 'discussion-and just some of
the basic issues that we'd have to look at and...
Conrad: I think Council is interested so I think-from your standpoint
Brian it's probably not a bad thing'and maybe that's information that
they're going to ask Paul anyway. So your asking staff to generate it is
probably a wise idea. Whether Steve and I are interested in it or not. I
think Dick, Richard cares about it and other Council members do.
Emmings: And we'll participate in the discussion.
Batzli: Let's do that at an upcoming meeting at some time. Put-it on our
list of things to do. Do you have enough direction on the PUD as to what
the beck we're trying to do now?
Conrad: Let's have Paul replay back what we might be asking him for. One
thing just sort of intrigued me. Aren't there, and I'm a believer in PUD's
and I'm not sure that we're ever going, to find a perfect one but Paul you
never brought us an ordinance that may have come, been generated in an ivy
tower environment out of American Planning Association or whatever. Aren't
there model PUD ordinances?
Batzli: We got one. Didn't that consultant guy give us one? Last summer.
·
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 35
Krauss: Shardlow? Yeah he did and I don't recall what it had for a lot
size.
Conrad: That would be interesting but I liked what Peter Olin talked about
in terms of a little bit more vague ordinance but if you' did what we just
asked you to do, a very strong intent statement and I think you've already
got that from what I recall. We have an intent statement. We have, are we
talking net density or are we talking gross density?
8atzli: Net.
Krauss: ...pretty consistent throughout as net.
Conrad: $o we're talking net density, okay.
Batzli: That takes out the.
Conrad: That just takes out streets..
Krauss: And wetlands.
Conrad: Does it take out wetlands? Okay. That's good. Will our
comprehensive plan drive the net density? Won't the comprehensive plan
place in the net density that we should be using here?
Krauss: It does but the comprehensive plan may actually give more latitude
than you want to.
Conrad: As a range out there.
Krauss: It goes 0 to 4 I believe and 4 is probably higher than you'would
prefer in these areas.
Ahrens: Do you exclude easements?
Krauss: No. For what? If it's an easement over' a wetland or a roadway,
yeah but otherwise not. If it's a park dedication, I think parks are
actually excluded. That's a question that we had and it's a matter of
interpretation. I mean it's not for this time and place but are parks
excluded from the net buildable? I would argue that they can't be because
we haven't taken possession of the park.. I mean that"s part of the
dedication process. You have 10 acres of land, you owe us so many acres of
park.
Ahrens: It's the chicken and the egg...
.Krauss: Well but it's a double hit to say'give us your park-and then we'll
figure out your density of what you have entitled to on what's left.
Emmings: The park that's up there on this plan, is that part of the 81
acres that's here?
Krauss: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, ~992 - Page 36
Batzli: That's fair. That's okay that you do that.
Emmings: The only thing I don't like there is it's shoved off on the edge.
Why the hell isn't it in the .middle somewhere?
Krauss: Well there's a reason for that. There's a slope with a heavily
forested ravine that's really quite attractive in a natural area going back
in-there. They had talked about trying to shoehorn a few lots in there and
in talking to our parks folks, we figured that it was better to do it this
way.
Batzli: I guess they do have a path back there.
Conrad: So Brian, I'm just trying, to make' sure staff or Paul's going i-n
the right direction here. At least one.that we're all consistent with.
Your comments on the warnings. $o we're talking about net density, intent
and then some warning statements. Is that what you said?
8atzli: Yeah.
Conrad: Saying if you go, now our past PUD ordinance did allow a minimum
of 12,500 as a minimum lot size isn't that right Paul and did we restrict
the number of those units?
Krauss: I think there was an average as well. An average minimum.
Conrad: There was an average in there.
Krauss: And it was like 13,500 so, I believe.
Conrad: Yeah.
Krauss: So you were sort of forcing that number up. It got at the issue a
different way. $o your warning is if you go under 15 we're going to look
real hard at what you're doing?-
Batzli: Yeah. I think that just puts it on the table because that's wha~
we're going to do anyway.
Conrad: But you're not interested in going down to 10.
Batzli: I'll be candid. If Lundgren came in and said they were going to
develop some houses like they did up in Near Mountain and do a good job and
the people knew what they were getting into, I might not have a problem
with it. Those people appear to be happy. The houses don't turn over
every 10 months or anything like that but it's going to be a case by case
basis and I don't even know that the City-Council has comfort that we even'
want to give developers an opportunity but I say let's 'float it up there
and let them shoot it down and tell us what they want at this point. Let's
get it up there so they can consider it and I think t.hat it Potentially
could be done right. I haven't seen necessarily a small lot development in
this city done right yet but it could be done and I think it's a case of
the developer coming in and Paul dealing with the developer and basically
we've got to put our trust in the people in the planning department.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 37
Conrad: How do you get to small lots Paul? · How do you get to'higher
density? How do you get to density transfer? How do you get more density
on part of this property and less in.another Paul?
Krauss: That's what your intent statement does. And you're basically
clarifying the issue. You're saying there are things on properties that we
find of value and we can list what those are. I mean the list is, mature
stands of trees. Interesting terrain and to the extent that you can
demonstrate that by the use of the PUD that you've accomplished extra
ordinary preservation of these things, then the City will consider or may
consider flexibility in other areas such as lot area.
Conrad: Do you recommend that we have a minimum set out there for
developer purposes given the nature you feel?
Krauss: I would say that you probably, just as a matter of comfort level I
would think you would. I mean I don't want, I continue to go back to, I
need a bare minimum to tell the developer whether or not that lot that they
proposed is a utilizeable lot. Now if we get at that by saying, I'd
rather, instead of maybe saying not saying 10,OOO feet. I like the
approach of saying you'll have a useable lot area that can accommodate a
home. Same thing as you just did with the on site sewer and those lots.
Demonstrate this.
Batzli: So in addition to what we just told you to do, you would like
something in there that talks about, you have enoug'h, you can demonstrate
that a house and.the backyard and a deck can fit on there?
Krauss: Right.
Batzli: That'd be fine with me. That'd be fine with me to include that.
Now the Council may look at it and say, I still hate it. You've got to put
a 13,OO0 square foot limit in there. That's fine but let's send it up
there and let them do it.
Conrad: But then we really haven't done diddily with our PUD'ordinance,
The previous ordinance is. probably better.
Krauss: Well the previous ordinance allowed all the transgressions that
occurred.
Conrad: So are we going to net out anything? Are we going to net out
someplace better with this ordinance?
Krauss: I think if an ordinance comes together and' it'-s ultimately
approved along the lines that we're just mentioned, I think that's yeah.
That gives the creativity with the control. 'If we're going to go-back into
the straight jacket that we had originally which doesn't, seems to give a
developer some latitude but doesn't give the City anything, I'd advised you
to just drop it.
Batzli: Any other discussion on this? Go for it Paul.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 38
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated February 19, lgg2 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: I'll skip through that. The only thing of interest I think there
was Commissioner 8atzli was at it and Dick was at it, Councilman Wing. We
had a Council goals setting meeting last Saturday? Last Saturday or the
Saturday before. Last Saturday and we discussed a variety of things. They
told me that I couldn't have any more than 30 minutes because last year I.
hogged the floor I guess but we did talk a lot about TH 5 corridor in
particular and there is a lot of support for doing it. It's still a matter
of doing what exactly and how much is it going to cost. One of the things
we laid on the table is a relatively recent occurrence and it has to do
with the Federal Highway Act. The Federal Transportation 8ill stands all
previous highway funding bills on it's head. Don Ashworth is amazed t'hat
the original highway bills go back to 1956 under the Eisenhower
Administration and really have changed in any significant way since then.
The new bill basically sets out not only funding for highways but for
transit and pedestrian access and for building bridges and for projects
that seek to tie a community together rather than having a highway split it
apart. That have specifically allocated funds for design amenities.
There's a specific provision in there to build wooden bridges. I mean
there's all kinds of things in there and the highway folks are amazed that
it came down the way it did. 8ill Morrish has been talking to me about it
because he apparently had some input with Moyanhan's committee in
Washington where the bill was drafted. The long and the short of it is,
we'd like to think that we have some potential for making TH 5.a
demonstration project and tapping into those sources of funds. So we're
going to try and figure out exactly what that entails. MnDot really
doesn't know yet. And put together a package to get going on the work.
Batzli: Do you want to let the other commissioners know what happened on
the TH 5 corridor study as far as the consulting and things like that? Do
you want to touch on that as far as the presentation at the Council meeting
last Monday. A week ago Monday. Whenever it was.
Krauss: Oh, oh, oh. Yeah, well basically I forwarded your recommendation
and the work that's been done to date and again the Council was very
supportive of doing it but balked or really had some trouble understanding
where we'd come up with the money to finance it. We were directed to
clarify that a little bit. The Mayor asked that I get some more specific
cost estimates. We also were-asked to, you know Don Ashworth was asked to
·
see if there's anyplace in the budget to do that. Don is, for those of you
who haven't worked with him, he's really a financial wizard. I mean it's
kind of amazing of his ability to pull stuff out of hats. Unfortunately
he's running out of hats and every time the State government looks t'o give
somebody a knock on the head to make the budget balance, they look to local
government and we're expecting another pretty good hit shortly. So the
well may be running somewhat dry but again if we use it, if we structure it
that we're tapping into another, workin.~ towards tapping into another
source of funds, there may be some way of shaking something loose. One of
the things I stressed to the Council is everybody on my staff is anxious to
work on a TH 5 project. It's one of those trend setting projects that are
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 39
a heck of a lot of fun and really a Professional challenge but I'm going to
be real short handed this summer. 3o Ann, 'as you can see is only going to
last another 5, 6, 7 weeks if we're lucky and the amount of new development
coming in the door is getting staggering. It's getting frightening.
Emmings: What kind of development?
Krauss: Well I ran through a litany of some of it. Some of it you know
of. You know Ryan's obviously going to final plat their's and get going.
Hans Hagen Homes, this one that we talked'about here has submitted and is
on, not your next agenda. We don't have anything on your next agenda for
right now but your following agenda. That's for 150 units· The Donovan
property up on Teton where the barricade is. Donovan's the fellow who told
you he'd never subdivide so you didn't have to improve Teton. Well he lost
his property in a Sheriff's sale I believe and that's being proposed for 17
units. That's on your agenda. We are coming, the fellow we've been
telling you about for 2 years was trying to put together a proposal for the
Assumption Seminary actually has submitted a PUD concept plan and it's
really kind of interesting. I think he's probably going to try to touch
base with all of you just to talk over some of the guidelines they're
working with you and I think they're working towards setting up a bus trip
to their, they have a convention hotel facility they built in Stillwater
and they'd like to show us how that place looks. It's a historic
rennovation and restaurant so if that comes together, if you're willing to
do that, that's something that's on the horizon. In addition Lundgren is
cranking very hard on bringing in their subdivision north of TH 5. The one
that you saw a year ago in the Comp Plan.
Emmings: 8y TH 417
Krauss: Yes. So we expect to have that shortly. On' Rod Gram's property,
they're supposed to be submitting in the next week another plat for about
150 homes. I got a call this afternoon that Rottlund has purchased or has
a purchase option on the Dolejsi property. A 55 acre piece off of Lyman
and TH lOl. We also hear that SoftSoap is going to make a decision on a
site in Chanhassen within the next 90 days for 350,000 square foot facility
and the rumors are ripe as to which site Target's actually going to go on.
8atzli: When do we start seeing all t~e beachlots also?
Emmings: What was Chat last one?
Erhart: Yeah, slow down ·
Emmings: What was that last one on Target?
Krauss: Target is looking at a number of sites .in the city. We've know
this for a while but we don't, I mean Target doesn't talk to us. The
brokers talk to us and they have looked at, sites that they've looked at
are, they looked at the Ward property and apparently that's not going
forward· They looked at the Eckankar site and haven't been successful with
that· They are currently looking at the Burdick piece.
Emmings: They've looked at that before.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 40
Krauss: Well they looked at that before 2 years ago when it looked like
they could do that in lieu of Market Square. Oh, Market Square closed.
Virtually. No, no, actually the ground breaking is supposed to be on St,
Patrick's Day.
Emmings: We can go and buy some virtual 'groceries at-the virtual grocery
store.
Krauss: No, it's as goocF as a done deal. I mean it is a done deal for a'll
intensive purposes so that's happening.
Erhart: Where is SoftSoap going?
Krauss: SoftSoap is looking at the Redmond expansion piece that t-hey never
built on on that unbuilt section of Lake Drive. By the railway tracks.
They're looking at two, well the Ryan plat that you're aware of and a
potential site-on a Ryan plat that really hasn't come together yet by TH 5.
They're looking at the land that McG1ynn's owns on the ·corner. And they're
looking at that project that Paul Steiner and the Opus Corporation are
looking to do on that 190 acres out by TH 5 and TH 41.
Erhart: What's the Dolejsi?
· .
Krauss: Dolejsi is a 55 acre chunk, well in fact when you go home to your
house, when you make that last turn.
·
Erhart: The one that we were talking about?
Krauss: Which one? Well just as you make that final 90 degree turn, it's
off to your left. North of Kevin Finger.
Erhart: The one we were talking about the other day. Yeah. So there is
something going on there?
Krauss: Yeah, but the original developers for that are not, I mean this·is
now, I just forgot their name. Rottlund Homes. It wasn't the original
group. You go into your office and you get a stack of messages and you get
another 150 unit plat. It's kind of mind boggling. There's going to
probably be some difficulty in getting it all done frankly. The difficulty
is the city only has so much bonding capacity to finance projects and the
Upper Bluff Creek project alone I think is a 4 or 5 million dollar project..
Erhart: ,Oh the sewer and water?
Krauss: So even if we have enough people on tap to pay for these things,
we still have to go into a debt situation to get them going and we already
have one of the highest per capita debts in the Twin Cities. I mean it's
fully financed. I mean it's backed by development that's on the ground but
it doesn't look great at the moment-.
Batzli: When do we start looking at beachlots?
Aanenson: We're shooting for April 15th.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 41
Batzli' So we're going to have all those on our agendas also.
Aanenson: We're going to try and take 2 or 3 a meeting.
Batzli: We're going to be busy. Okay, we don't have anything on our
agenda for next week at all yet? Do we want to have a little vacation,
mini vacation here?
Erhart: We have nothing on the agenda?
Aanenson: Unless you want to follow up with that comp plan land use
amendment. The one we just tabled tonight.
Erhart: Oh the rural thing.
Krauss: Can we play this by ear for a couple of days? We've got a lot
happening at the same time. If we can give 'you some structure, I mean get
back to you on some of these things, then I'll talk to Brian and we"ll go
ahead. Otherwise we'll let you know.
Batzli: If your time would be better spent working on corridor study
issues, I'm just concerned that we're going to make work for you to get
something on our agenda for next week that's taking away from something
that needs to get more of your attention.
Krauss: Well it gets mind boggling all the stuff that's happening right
now. Some of it doesn't involve you directly. It involves me. We're
going into construction hopefully in the next few weeks on the senior
center behind that wall. I've been involved with that intimately. As far
as the TH 5 corridor study goes, one of the things we need to do is we need
to, we're getting into some more meetings with MnDot trying to define the
study. We've been working with the school district quite a bit. I was at
the School District meeting on Monday night to try and figure out what
their needs are. They just came back with demographic projections that
projected a 50~ increase in school population in a relatively short period
of time and the weird thing is I think they significantly under estimated
what's going to happen. And they're shocked about dealing with what they
think is going to happen. So there's a lot of things swirling around.
Emmings: Is this the Chaska School District you're talking about?
Farmakes: Has there been any discussion for the Middle' School?
Krauss: Yeah. That's in fact the case in point. When Ryan was moving
ahead, in fact Ryan did submit plans to us for that area north of
Timberwood. Remember the concept is that it had to be office or walk like
it or look like it and basically of very high quality. One of the
conditions was'that the school site had to be locked up. Well that's kind
of our role in the public/private partnership. Well the school originally
told us that that 40 acre site at the corner was plenty big. And now
they're telling us that it doesn't mee.t their needs and their needs are
truly astonishing. They wanted 4 baseball fields, 2 softball fields, 2
football fields, 4 tennis courts.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 42
Ahrens; They're right across the street from a park.
Krauss: Well to an extent we want to piggyback city. recreational
facilities onto this but we frankly don't understand why a Middle School
needs that much. Now we've been told that the State'is now mandating
exactly what a school has to be outfitted with. In fact we called the
State and we're getting conflicting information. But they are looking at a
bigger site. The School District really doesn't have a handle on what's
happening to it.
Farmakes: I had heard terms used as a high school. Then I heard middle
school then I heard high school again. I was just wondering in the
interplay between the make-up of that committee. I know it's oriented
towards Chaska. There are more people on that-committee that live in
Chaska and I was wondering what that, how that played with the numbers that
they're talking about.
Krauss: The numbers weren't influenced by that. I mean the numbers were
prepared by Barbara Lukerman who's an old Metro Council and University of
Minnesota.
Farmakes: No, I didn't mean it for that. What I was talking about where
obviously the numbers projected are different for a high school than they
are for a middle school. I just heard that flip flopping information about
high school and then I heard middle school.
Krauss: There i's no definitive position. When. we did the comp plan, we
worked with a fellow who was then the, not the superintendent but the
administrator for the school district and he had told us that their most
likely need is for a middle school. And in fact 2 years later we're
finding from the architectural force that the middle school is severely
undersized and inadequate to meet their goals. The high school is equally
undersized. What we've been told is there's a possibility it could be a
high school. It could be a middle school. The politics of the situation,
if I could speculate on that is that there is a very high potential that
there'd be an extreme amount of relunctance on the part of Chaska to lose
Chaska High School. So even if it makes sense-to do it from an operational
physical plan standpoint, and I'm not sure it does at this point, I don't
know that there's a great likelihood that that would happen. But this
group that we're working with is not only doing physical plans. They're
trying to figure out what their program needs are. How they want to break
down classes. They're in the process of changing athletic conferences to
the Lake Conference and I think they need expanded facilities for that. So
there's a lot going on.
Farmakes: That's obviously something where the two communities are going
to meet, run into each other in that area. I 'm just wondering if we're
anticipating that it eventually, if they look that far down the road that
we have a high school, we have a middle school because right now we're sort
of dealing with that from a rural standpoint where all that education is
centered in one area and we bus everybody from al'l the communities in. As
we overtake them in population, which it seems to me.
Krauss: We did.
PIanning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 43
Farmakes: I mean even more so. 5,000 say. i0,000. What that will incur
and where we center our educational system within this city.
OPEN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES,
Krauss: I don't know what ail I can say about it in the interest of being
brief. I think we have, we need to clarify some stuff in our ordinance and.
I tried to tell you what our philosphical position is on these things.
That we believe we have an obligation to.serve the needs of all our
residents in a fair way but right now you"ve got a problem waiting to
occur. When one of the primary standards for siting a large group home in
our community is that it has to have a good septic tank, we're missing the
point. Minnetonka, to give credit where it's due. It wasn't me but it was
the woman who's the Planning Director still over there, took some real'
innovative steps with these things. Ann Perry worked on a Hennepin County
committee to help move these facilities around and came up with standards
that were really tested under fire in Minnetonka in several situations. One
was a group home for troubled teenagers going into an old school. Another
was a shelter for battered women. What I ask you to do is take a look at
the standards in the Minnetonka ordinance. We can adopt'something like
that. We can work on something else but I threw that on the table because
I think it does a fairly good job.
Batzli: I liked the standards. It looked to-me like it buffered it. It
took into account size and impact on the neighboring properties so I
thought it was a real good, you know use that as a model. I guess that's
what I'd like to see. What does everybody else say?
Ahrens: I think it's well wri~tten.
Batzli: Yeah. So do we want staff to draw something like that up?. Is
that how we want to use up more of that time with?
Krauss: I'd also tell you too, I Want to contact Chuck Gabrielson and get
his input on it. Chuck is the program director of the only real group home
we have in the city right now. I think he's a pretty decent fella who
would give us his comments.
Batzli: Straight scoop. Okay.
Farmakes: Can I ask a question, since as I'm not.as experienced as some of
the people on here. One of the definitions they had in here was mentally
ill. Is there a definition for that? It's kind of al broad range.
Krauss: I don't know.
Emmings: I'm sure there must 'be. I'm sure there is. The State has to
have one because they have MI programs and they've got to have a
definition. I don't know what it is though.
Farmakes: And there isn't a definition in here for criminal group home or
people who are .coming out of prison.
Emmings: Halfway house?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 44
Farmakes: Halfway house. Does that come under that?
Krauss: Well .I don't know. That's the details you need to get into
because a lot of those are not licensed specifically by the State. Judges
can remand people to certain homes.
Emmings: I wasn't thinking we were talking about those when I was reading
this.
Batzli: No, I guess I wasn't either. That's an interesting point though
Jeff.
Emmings: I think we're talking about licenses.
Farmakes: Well I was talking about some of the problems they've had in
Minnetonka'in a group home there where people who are sexual offenders.
Krauss: Oh, that was not actually a legal group home. That was a defacto
one that was taken over by Reverend Ralph. I forget his full name but...
Farmakes: But it was a group home?
Krauss: It waslnot in compliance. The gUY bought the home and he was, I
don't know if he was ordained but he was a minister of some sort and he
started having services in his home for the'oretically an outreach'and he
turned into a defacto group home. It didn't meet the City's criteria. I
forget why but I know that the zoning administrator was after them to close
the place down for a long period of time and it ultimately was.
Farmakes: My only comment was, the intent I think in the Minnetonka
ordinance is fine. I did have some questions in that regard and I also had
a few questions in the issue of, I'm assuming that this is for profit and
not for profit in regards to these?
Krauss: It could be either.
Farmakes: Either. And the two instances I've known in the southwest
suburbs here where there's been a problem like I just mentioned, neither
one of those house residents were from the community. I refer back to the
intent that you originally referred to in here-and I'm wondering how much.
of that if it is for profit, some of these homes' primarily get their
clients from out of the community.
Krauss: The issue as to whether somebody's remanded by a Judge or a court
system probably needs to be addressed and frankly, part of the Minnetonka
ordinance that I was less than comfortable with is the lack of assurances.
I mean some of the stuff that Minnetonka did, there's one for the teenagers
that were remanded by a Judge was do.ne fairly sensitively. They put City
Planning Commissioners and City Council people on their Board and all that
but this is a program where the kids are not locked in and have the ability
to run. The question came up, what happens if they take off? The answer
was, well then they're out of the program. Well, that wasn't a good enough
response and I felt less than comfortable with that. But those were
conditions that could be placed upon the permit. I'll try and get you more
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 45
information on that. There's another one too I think 3elf that you're
mentioning that is a large group home where they did have a problem where-
somebody, I think was raped from somebody and that was up on Hwy 12. I
forget the details beyond that.
Farmakes: How about the one in Chaska?
Krauss: The one I'm thinking of is just on Hwy 12 just before you get into.
Wayzata. But I'll try and clarify that. You shouldn't be buying
something that you're not, that opens up'the door.. 8ut the ones in
Minnetonka that were the more tragic situations I think.were the home for
battered women. And it was a neighborhood dispute that was, I mean this
ordinance was developed basically in response to the situations that arose
from that. There was a group home for mentally retarded kids suffering
from a very exotic syndrome called Praderwilly Syndrome where they
literally will eat themselves to death. And they need to be in a full
residential situation with full time guidance and they.bought an old
mansion over by Minnehaha Creek in Minnetonka Mills and it caused a big
neighborhood uproar. Oddly enough though after they moved that program out
of there, there were other groups homes that tried to get into-there
because it was set up with dormintories and what not and they didn't meet~
the criteria. Primarily because they were at the end of a reside~tial
cul-de-sac. It was just inappropriately placed and there wasn't sufficient'
open space to justify that level of occupancy. And basically you had a
white elephant and they couldn't occupy it again with a group residence. I
think converted it back to a single family home. We can get into that a
little more.
Batzli: Okay, but you're comfortable with at least the direction?
Farmakes: Yeah, I just wanted to bring up those points because when I read
through it, those really weren't answered in there.
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT REGARDING SALES OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL,
Krauss: First Amendment, Supreme Court, you can't do it. There's only two
options for doing it. Roger's told us this before and I guess it hasn't
changed substantially although I keep hearing of some new. rulings that are
coming down but chip away at the edges of it. You either can designate an
area you want to give up on, the war zone concept or-you can come up with
standards that say things like it can't be within 500 feet of a church or
i,O00 feet of a daycare center but then you have to overlay all those
criteria on a map and if you don't have a site that fits it, you've just
broken the law. I'm not sure if there's-any good solution to this thing.
It's a little frustrating because clearly, I forget which town it was but
up north where they had one that located next to a daycare center, it
destroyed the daycare center.
Batzli: I know in the past this group has said that they really don't want
to look at this and I think the Council has directed that we look at it.
Emmings: Well I think we said, I think the decision here is an important
one. I think trying to looking at the secondary effects of these p'laces I
think is real legitimate. Looking at what they're doing or what they're
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 46
selling or anything else you know to me is something I have no...
Ahrens: But it looks like we have only one option anyway.
Batzli: We can only consider the secondary effects.
Emmings: Yeah, and I think before we talk about it-though I think we talk
about whether you want to try and regulate the activity and I think that's
what we were talking about. We weren't really thinking about it in terms
of secondary effect.
Batzli: Okay, so you don't have a problem with this group looking at it as
long as we limit ourselves to that? Secondary effects.
Emmings: Right. Yeah.
Krauss: Meaning we're not trying to legislate what is or isn't obscene'
Ahrens: Nobody's been able to do that yet.
Krauss: No, that seems to be where some of the more recent rulings are
coming down. I think the Supreme Court .just. accepted a case, and I'm not
sure what the implications are going to be but I think they define that
community standard.thing a little better.
Batzli: I would like to try and avoid that. I'm sure this is one of't'he
biggest nimbe kind of issue ever invented.
Farmakes: It would go on forever. There are people who think that dancing
and bowling are obscene.
Krauss: The best you might be able to do or the best'we might be able to
pull off is coming up with some criteria that it can't be a near a church
or can't be near a daycare center.
Emmings: And school.
Batzli: And limit it to a certain district-or two. Can we limit it to the
central business? Can we do a war-zone? Put it in the CBD but you can't
put it near a church. That kills half the'CBD probably.
Krauss: Sure. But then you have the problems that come up like we have
that church that meets upstairs at the Frontier Building.
Emmings: I think they ought to share space..
Farmakes: This is material again and the piece that you handed out was
talking about adult entertainment. We got into the discussion last time
about bars or what goes on in entertainment. You talked about the liquor
license and then some people get around for that by not having liquor
served.
Krauss: Well that's true. In fact Councilman Wing in fact, it's too bad
he's left because he's got a position paper he just 'wrote up on that very
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 47
issue. HOw do you deal with these things through liquor licenses and I'm
convinced we have a pretty good handle. I mean you just don't have to give
them a liquor license.
Farmakes: Yeah, but I think there are other things too. There are other
businesses. I heard on the news the other day that they had car washes in
the nude. I didn't keep the coupon but it seems to me that.
Ahrens: Not in this climate.
Farmakes: From a practical standpoint it could get into everything. How
are you going to legislate it?
Emmings: We'll say they have to stay open in the winter. If they're open
in the summer, they have to stay open in the winter. That will get them.
Batzli: It's interesting because for example like Tampa just outlawed t'he
women sellirug hot dogs on the street corners in thong bikinis. And so you
know, people there's.
Ahrens: But men can do it.
Batzli: No, all thong bikinis are illegal in public beaches and street
corners or something. I don't know. "
Krauss: You've got to at some point define what this applies to. And does
it apply to the video store next to the Chinese restaurant?
Batzli: That's the problem because that seems to me to get into the issues
that we don't want to look at. And that's going to be the biggest problem
is how do we get this to apply to something without passing judgment on
that and that's always been my concern with doing this personally. Does
that mean that it applies to the video store or the grocery store selling
Penthouse or Playboy or? Who does this apply to then?
Krauss: And that's where I don't understand how to come up 'with something
because ultimately you have to define why can the mini-mart over here sell
Hustler from behind the counter but if some store were solely dedicated to
merchandising that kind of stuff, it was treated differently and I don't
know.
Farmakes: And what if they came in and they said Faulkner's obscene or'To
Kill a Mockingbird is obscene to me. Take it off the shelf. What criteria
do you use? I mean because you get the majority on one side that says we
feel that this is wrong.
Emmings: I think the thing that I guess I'd be concerned.about is, are
more, well I'm not even going to say that. I thought I knew before I came
in here but I don't think I do.
Krauss: Well if anybody's got some constructi've approaches to it, let me
know because.
Farmakes: Could the City council, what are they worried about?
PIanning Commission Meeting
MaTch 4, 1992 - Page 48
Krauss: I don't know. I think that, I mean I understand their fear.
Their feat is they're going to be confronted with something iike that town
was up north that they can't deal with that's very destructive and
divisive.
Farmakes: Which town is this in?
Emmings: And what is it?
Batzli: What they opened was a.
Krauss: It's up around Champlain and that area.
Batzli: It was a bookstore, magazine store, which I think also had the
little, did it have the little movie booths in there too?
Krauss: I think so.
Batzli: It was a XXX kind of a place though and they put it in within 50
feet or 25 feet of a daycare facility and all the parents were dropping off
their kids at the daycare facility went bonkers and they pulled their kids
out and it ruined the daycare facility. I 'mean that's the issue is are you
going to allow businesses to come into the community that have an adverse
impact like that on certain types of businesses like potentially schools,
daycare and be able to do it without regulating content of everybody and'
that's my concern.
Farmakes: It seems to me it's the price you pay for the freedom.
Batzli: Yeah. But is it fair to the existing stores? I mean you get into
this kind of argument.
Farmakes: You could reverse the argument also.
Batzli: Is it fair not to let them in?
Farmakes: You're a lawyer and all I can say is that it seems like it's a
merry-go-round and it would seem to me very difficult. You could reverse
the comment and have a store owner come in and say the daycare was built
next to my place of business and ruined my business. It then becomes
community judgment as to which one they wanted as fat as content goes.
Ahrens: But I think at some point communities are obliged to make
decisions of who can locate where.
Batzli: But we do that all the time.
Farmakes: ...used for zoning.
Emmings: We don't really do it based on moral judgments though.
Batzli: We should be doing it on kind of health and welfare kind of
issues. I mean the gas station can't be within a certain distance because
of the odors and the traffic and things like that. If in fact this would
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, i992 - Page 49
generate some health or hazard to the stores next door, then I thlnk it's
something we should be looking at. I don't know that it would, although I
think there have been areas in, war zone kind of areas where it does bring
in in theory crime and prostitution and whatever to these districts that
they set up.
Ahrens: ...on Lake Street where that's been a real problem.
Batzli: Yeah. And so the question is, do we try to regulate it in
advance? Keep them spread out but if we do that, how do we decide who has
to be spread out?
Farmakes: It's still a valid, under 187 Is that t.he criteria that's
used? They didn't elaborate that on here as far as age.
Krauss: I don't know.
Farmakes: Like for instance that next to a place where there are children
concentrated or something of that nature. They do that say.with liquor
don't they?
Krauss: Well frankly, some of the. liquor reviews get kind of-odd. I mean
you'll get a minister coming in saying, it's within a mile of my church.
You can't do that. Or it's 4 blocks from a high school so you can't'sell
beer. I mean it's a regulated industry you know. You're breaking the law
if you sell it but I guess I'd have to ask Roger that if we really wanted
to establish criteria to make sure that the more abusive locations are
avoided, and how do we define what we're moving around?
Emmings: Right. That's the problem. Can't do it.
Batzli: What do we need to either move this or kill this at this point
then?
Krauss: I guess I'd really like to ask Roger that question specifically. I
mean my discomfort is not being able to differentiate between Brooks.
Ahrens: We already know that we allow that. The community doesn't have a
real big problem with that. With the Brooks market selling magazines
right? We're not worried about controlling that.
Krauss: But the material, I mean some of the stuff Roger's got in here is
fairly graphic.
Emmings: I read this several times. Slowly.
Farmakes: ...and acceptable under the law?
Krauss: Yeah. But I guess I just don't know how you differentiate between
the video store with the back room with the X rated movies. The Brooks
with the stuff behind the counter from Ferris Alexander's nephew opening up
something you know downtown. If there's a creative way of doing that,
maybe it warrants making sure the worse abuses are at least taken care of..
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 50
Emmings: It's a little different here than Minneapolis I think because if'
people from the community don't go in' there, if people object to what's in
there, they don't have to go in. And I have 'a hard time-thinking that
people are going to be driving.
Farmakes: ...down south they can't sell.
Emmings: Right.
Krauss: That's true but I think that there's, from us who live in suburban
areas, I think there's a fair amount of smugness that we live in an area
that wouldn't support the business. Yet you go down to Lake Street and you
figure out where everybody's coming from.
Ahrens: They're all driving Jeeps.
Emmings: I saw you down there last time didn't I Paul? You were tookihg
to see who was comeing down there.
Krauss: Yeah, I was doing a survey.
Batzli: But you probably want to go outside of the community to purchase
it so they wouldn't be recognized.
Krauss: Well there is that. But let me ask Roger that question and see
what kind of response we can get.
Batzli: Okay. Good way to handle that. Did everybody.notice that we have
a schedule now for attendance at City Council meetings.
Ahrens: Is there any purpose for us'to be there if they're not discussing
thought any?
Krauss: At the next Council meeting? No.-
Batzli: So you're off the hook. Okay, so the only notice we get.is, oh
and it also states our terms on the back side. I didn't even notice that.
Ahrens: Mine's wrong on there.
Batzli: Is it? What's your term?
Ahrens: Well I mean the beginning date for my term is wrong.
Batzli: It says appointment date, '86. Boy you have been on the
commission a long time haven't you?
Krauss: Unless it was because of, did you fill a seat that was vacated by
a resignation?
Ahrens: Yes.
Batzli: Dave's?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1992 - Page 51
'-.o
KFauss: No.
·
Batzli: She's sitting in Dave's spot.
Ahrens: Dave Wildermuth?
Batzli: No, Jim Wildermuth. Dave Headla. So don't tack Dave's on there
with her. That looks about when Dave would have been appointed to me.
Emmings: Yeah.
Batzli: Okay, anyway. The only notice that you get of your turn in the
barrel attending the Council meeting is you get the packet a couple days in
advance.
Krauss: Friday the cops will show up at your door.
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. Rll voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting Nas adjourned at 10:20 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim