1992 04 15(34~ P~X~ C(~XS~XON
RE6~N_~R HEETX~K)
APRXL 15, 1992
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.m..
HE~ PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvlna, Steve Emmings and
3elf Earmakes
HE~ ~)5ENT= Brian Batzli and 3can Ahrens
~T~FF.pRESEN?= Paul Krauss, Planning Director; ~o Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; and Sharmin AI-3aff, Planner I
PUBLZC ~F_AR]~ =
WETL~ ~LTERATZON PE~ZT TO CREATE A WALKER 'NURP POND [NA CLASS B WETLAND
LOCATED AD3~CENT TO S[LVER LAKE AS P~RT OF T~ PROCESS FOR TI~ FZNAL PLAT
OF 5U~ZT AT NE~ HOUNTAZN~ LUNDOREN BROS. CONSTRUCTZON.
Public Pr~ent:
Hike Pflaum
Rick Sathre
Lundgren Bros. Construction
$athre-Bergquis .t Inc.
Emmings= It seems pretty straight forward. Is there anything you want to
add to the report that's here? Okay. Are there any comments from the
applicant?
Hike Pflaum= Hy name is Hike' Pflaum. I'm with Lundgren Bros. Construction
and with me is Rick Sathre of Sathre-Bergquist. The project's consulting
engineers. I have no further comments but we would certainiy look forward
to the opportunity to answer any questions that you might have.
Emmin~s: And you've seen the conditions In the report-as have been.written
up by the staff and don't have any problems with the conditions? Okay.
Thank you. This is a public hearing. Are there any members of the public
here who would like to comment on this? Is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
Erhart ~oved, Conrad aeconde~ to close the public helrl~. All voted in
favor and the ~otion carrl~l. TI~ public h~arin~ ~a~ clos~cl.
Erhart: Can someone explain how this berm works to promote water quality
by discharging water, I read it twice and I don't quite-understand it. Does
anybody know?
Rick $athre: The water's going to come north down through the hills it's
piped and this is the ponding... The basic idea is to have a barrier
along this end of the pond that wouldn't allow the water to overflow the
wetland until it ran down through the pond a ways.. $o you'd get more
retention time for the water within the pond so...
Erhart: What you're terming as the berm actually is that...
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 2
Rick Sathre: Edge of the pond and then it would Just be a foot or so
higher than the wetland.
Erhart: Okay. I guess I was wondering if that was something else. Then
it's clear. And the reason we don't deal with further south is because...
Rick Sathre: ...the mature trees and the mature wetland.
Erhart: That's my only question On that.
Conrad: That's my question too. The trade off between where we put it and
why not a...
30 Ann 01men's statement was not picked up by the microphone.
Conrad= But it is an A wetland? It is an A right? And typically we .don't
really alIow too much dredging tn an A.
Olsen: The actual area...
Erhart: On the map, where does the actual open. water start?
Rick Sathre: This is Silver Lake over here. This is Lotus Lake. This' Is
the big mountain or the hill. This is the wet area itself. The Chanhassen
border is about there so this is where that pond is purported to go. That
white area la open of trees but this Is trees upland down here and this ts
a willow orchard, shurb kind of marshy ~ro~th to the north. But you know,
throughout that whole basin tn 1987 there wasn't really any standing water.
Erhart: That whole swamp filters the water as it goes towards what is
that, Silver Lake?
Rick Sathre= It drains right out through here.
Conrad: Rick, show me again where the basin is?
Rick Sathre: This is-the wetland edge about like this. Then it comes up
this way into Shorewood. So this white area here is more of an open
wetland and this area is a wlllow...and ! don't know why that has wetland
characters except this might have been hayed at one point in time many
years ago. That's in Shorewood.
30 Ann Olsen's comment was not picked up on the microphone.
Conrad: No other alternatives? You're comfortable with It 30 Ann?
Olsen: Rtght...I'm comfortable with it.
Conrad= My only question is, it'S better than what had been planned but
still our standard is to try to improve things over the way they were to
begin with which means today. The standard says zero. When you tamper
with an A wetland, you're not saying well, when we approved the plat or
plan before and this is am improvement and it 'is an improvement but the
standard really is, as we allow dredging in wetlands, is that it's going to
Planning Commission Heating
April 15, 1992 - Page 3
improve the quality or maintain that or try to maintain whatever quality
currently have.
Erhart: But do you think this improves it or degrades
Conrad: Hy guess is it degrades it.
Erhart-" Okay. Is this going to be .permanent water in here?
Rick [athre= That would be a 6 foot deep to the middle, permanent ~ater.
It ~ould probably develop cattails around the edge of this.,.380 feet wide
and... It might make a better diversity in the wetland. I hope,
Conrad: It might?
Emmtngs: ! thought the need for this is that all of the runoff, what
all that runoff going to do to the ~etland if we don't have this?
Conrad: That's the other alternative. Well, you're right. Improvement
over another situation.
Emmings: Yeah. 5o that doesn't exist yet.
Erhart: I'd almost look at it you're taking, what ~e still consider flat,
taking about one acre from a Class B and turning it into a Class A wetland.
5o in that effect it could be an improvement.
Conrad: Particularly if it was a Class B.
Olean: It had the qualities of a Class B...
Conrad: Okay, no more questions.
Ledvina: In the comments in the staff report, there's a discussion
regarding the peat and muck and the potential need to lessen or decrease
the slope, i'm wondering if you have those type of soil materials or are
you going to really do a 'lot of, or disturb this area severely with
equipment and such? And would it be even possible to get equipment do~n in
there given the occurence of the peat and muck?
Rick Sathre: Well, anytime you try to get do~n a slope that steep to that
site, sure. It's a probable difficulty. You wouldn't want to have to go
down there very much. But the slope isn't a drop off. It isn't that bad
so sure, it will be hard to do it but if it's something we agree is good
for the environment... It will probably have to be dug out ~ith a backhoe,
or most of lt...
Ledvina: But any other areas that are disturbed as a result of this
construction, that's outside of this ~ific area that you show here Nill
be restored?
Olean: Rlght...along an easement...
Ledvina: That will be a disturbed area already? Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 4
Olsen:
Emmi rigs:
Olsen:
.Emmi ngs:
Farms kes:
Rick Sathre= ! would think we would stay within the boundary 'of where the
pond would be and take it from either side. Ne would be working from
outside the limits of that.
Ledvina= Okay. $o you'd be working from ~he ~de and ~hen Ju=~ ~h~om~ng
~ up ~he~e on ~he a~de ~ha~ you c~ea~e ~he bank? Okay.
R~ck Sa~hre= Z would ~a~ a~ ~he fa~ end and ~ork back ~o~a~ ou~
S~a~ a~ ~he ~ee~ end and ~hen...
Ledv~na= No ~u~he~ commen~=.
Emmings: Does this pond, to be effective for this purpose, have to be.
maintained tn the future? How do they get access to it tn the future?
Ne do have ~ha~ 20 ~oo~ easement.
Easement tn the same area as the pipe runs?
Correct.
~lright. I don't have anything else. Jeff?
I have no further comments.
Erhart: Is it to be reseeded? The berm is seeded, is that what it is?
Rick Sathre =
Er her t =
Olsen=
Yes.
And what kind of vegetative cover are you putting on that?
You can dictate exactly what kind that needs.
Some of the things that we're talktng about in our storm water
committee is mitigation where given some thought, there's seeds availabIe
that are more diverse in terms of wildlife.
Olsen:
Er hart:
those.
Olsen:
Erhart:
Olsen:
Emmi ngs:
Er hat t:
Than Just a MnOot mix, yeah.
Right. Maybe you could Just provide the developer with a list of
That list that we have?
Yeah.
Okay ·
Anymore, have you got anything or is there a motion?
I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of l~etland
Alteration Permit #92-4 as shown on the plans dated April 9, 1992 with the
four conditions listed In the staff report.
Planning Commission Heating
Apri! 15, 1992 - Page
Farmakee: I' II second that.
Emmings: :It's been moved and seconded. ]:s there any further discussion?
Erhart ~oved, Far~ake~ seconded that the Plmnning Comitmion reco~nd
approval of ~etland Alteration Permit t92-4 as sho~n on the plane dated
April 9, 1992, with the following conditions:
I m
Due to the anticipated poor soils in this area, the pond slopes of 4:1
may not be obtainable. Staff recommends that during the construction
process, if the proposed side slopes (4:1) are not obtainable, the
slopes should be flattened out and the depth of the pond be increased
to approximately B feet to compensate for the reduced pond volume with
the flatter slopes.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for removal of the erosion control
fence once the pond has been re-established.
3. Staff shall be notified 48 hours prior to initiating construction of
the NURP pond and 48 hours after the NURP pond is completed.
4. The applicant will be required to provide as-built'plane of the NURP
pond.
All voted in favor and the ~ott'on carried.
._~3NC. _~_PT PLaN ~ REZONIN~ FOR A CONF~/~A CENTER ON 19+ ~CRES OF
PROP~_RTY ZO~'_D A2. ~ LOCATED AT 1350 FLYIN~ CLOUD DRIVE (F~
A~,SUIqPTXOIq SEHI~Y PROPERTY). ~ 60HLXKE.
I~blic Print:
Na..we ~/drea~
Leland Gohlike
3ennifer Luhrs
Everette Olson
3os Huber
Hi ke Huber
Debts T. Olufson
Anne Karels-Delaney
Lee K. Anderson
Applicant
Representative for Applicant
1675 Flying Cloud Drive
1458 Goodrich, St. Paul
1746 presidential Lane, Shakopee
761 Sierra Trail
1161 Bluff Creek Drive
10441 Bluff Circle
Sharmin A1-3aff presented the staff report on this item.
Emmings: Let's see. This isn't really a public hearing. Are people here
in the audience who have come because of this proposal? Okay. The
applicant is here too with a presentation !'think and Paul, did you
preceive that this would be open up to the people Nho' are here for
comments?
Krauss: I think so Hr. Chairman. That would be useful so the point of a
Planning Commission Heating
April 15, 1992 - Page
concept hearing is to get as much on the table as we can so they can refine
the plan.
Emmtngs: And ! should say too. I think that staff did' a really good and
thorough Job [n putting this report together. They covered'all the bases'.
NouId you like to introduce yourself and make a presentation? ! guess what
Ne'd like you to do is make your presentation and sho~ us your .slides and
Nhatever you feel you'd Iike to present and then I think we'z[ open it up
for some comments and if there's some things then you'd like to respond to,
that'd be alright.
Jennifer Luhre: Okay. Is this on? Yeah, okay. My name is Jennifer Luhrs
and I'm working with Lee Gohlike of Stlllwater on the development of this
Project. Lee is sitting here in the green shirt. Z'm sure you're all
familiar ~ith the Assumption Seminary.site aa it looks today. You're
probably a~are of a lot of the problems with the place but you..may not be
as a~are of some of the rich history and acme of the environmental aspects
on this property. The property has been close.to the wrecking ball on a
number of occasions. One building was burned do~n for a fire department
training project. When Lee first came across the project there was a man
in a pick-up truck sizing it up for demolition. He purchased the property
and has been working ever since to develop the proposal that would allow us
to restore and preserve this important property. I don't kno~ how many of
you had a chance to read through the report. I'll go through the history
very briefly. The property was originally founded as the ~udCura
Sanitarium by Dr. Henry Fisher in I90e'[909. And he discovered the sulphur
springs and theorized that they must have miraculous and positive curative
powers. There uae really no scientific basis for'this at the time but
medicine was not as scientific and so people did work to sort of prove
their theories. And he opened the MudCura Sanitarium in [909 with Just the
first t~o stories in the front and then in 19X2 added the back portion of
the building, the two wings and also a third floor. ~nd by this time the
sanitarium ~as quite well known. People came from all over the world and
it had a capacity of lO0 patients. Here's a little bit later shot of it
with the landscaping. A little bit better, shaw.-And here's an overview
that, the doctor's house was added in Xgll and that's to the right of the
building. And then to the right of that is a dormitory that~as built in
1913 and that housed the nurses. Then there's a shed and another small
caretakers house on the property. This is a full colored postcard,
colorized picture of the MudCura Sanitarium. Speaking of postcards, -here's
one that tells ~hat MudCura did. The MudCura treatments consist of hot
sulphur mud baths. Hot and cold shower baths. Hot and cold Sulphur water
bath. Massage and electric treatments. Purported to help. cure rheumatism,
gout, neuralgia, kidney, bladder and nervous diseases. And this picture is
a rendering. This is not an actual photograph. We think that's what the
original concept ~as for the building. It has eaves and dormers. The
roofline is much different in actuality. No~ [f you're ~ondering ~hat it's
like to be wrapped in mud, this te an actual photograph and X have to thank
Joe Huber ~ho's sitting in the audience who has collected a lot of these
photos and postcards on MudCura over the years. And he has allowed us to
have those and use them and it's really helping us to kno~ exactly ~hat the
history of the place is like. What it should look like. These women have
been wrapped in mud. The mud, for your information, is warm. It's heated.
It's not cold mud. The mud from this site. has a lot of sulphur in it and
Planning Commission Meeting
~pril 15, 1992 - Page 7
other minerals. They wrap you in the mud and you'sweat and then they bathe
you and put you In a room to cool down. ~nd you kno~, It's becoming very
popular again, if only maybe because it's good to sweat once in a while.
We don't really know If the mud actually does that much but.
Emmlngs: W111 Blue Cross pay for-this?
3ennifer Luhrs: If you were In Europe, It would. [n EUrOpe, if you said
you needed a few weeks at a spa, you'd have an automatic prescription and
It'd all be paid for. But [ don't think Blue Cross would cover this. No,
these are the ladies being wrapped in mud. ~nd It's very .neat and clean
but here's a couple of guys wrapped in mud. [ don't know tf they
eventually got wrapped up in blankets or not or if they just ~eren't as
fussy with the men but. So they really do wrap you in mud.. That's one of
the things that we hope to bring back to MudCura but we'll also offer some
of the more modern spa treatments such as the aroma therapy which is very
popular right now. Massage. Sulphur and mineral baths. Steam. baths. The
typical spa treatments that you'd find In a European spa these days. This
is the dining room and we won't be decorating It quite this sparsely. I
think they wanted to make it look like a hospital but [ don't think this
would be a very popular look today. The outside, when we restore it, we
will be going for historical site status so we will do the outside
absolutely as it was. On the inside we'll make some changes to make it a
little more accommodating for people today. These are the, it was called
the pagoda.. They're spring boxes and each of those have a sulphur spring.
People walked out to them. They're out further back in the fen. [ think
one may have been for drinking and one people may actually have sat in.
Some of'those, there are remnants .of those. Mainly the concrete 'base and
the water of course is still springing up. Rnd we will be restoring those
exactly as they are there. This is the dormitory that ~as burned down for
a fire practice training and we do hope to restore that, or rebuild it
actually. It was used as a dormitory.for the nurses. Sharmin, that's not
in the proposal but after we found this picture we thought maybe, no~ that
we know what it looks like, we should consider that. ~nd this is the dam.
There's a pond behind it and then this dam apparently provided hydro-
electric power. We won't be doing that with it but we will replace the
bridge. This is what it looks like today. This is taken the day we went
out with the DNR to look at the property and there is no bridge there. The
dam ts still there. It's barely a trickle in the fall. We ~ould like to
keep the dam but we've got a lot of work to do fixing that up. ~nd this is
looking down past the dam. This is what the creek looks like. There's a
lot of debris and a lot of things that have been Just thrown in there and
dumped in there over the years. We're going out with a crew in' the next
few days to clean that up. This is the inside and ! don't know how many of
you have been in there. ~ lot of our demolition work was done for us by
the area teenagers. They're very good at taking out glass block and Just
generally tearing things up. We are also at this time demoing some of the
property. Some of the inside of that building and cleaning it up a little
bit. This is something we had in the process. That's JUSt to show some of
the windows that have been broken. This shows how we're cleaning it up.
Floors are all swept. That picture's'too dark to see.anything. Oh,
there's some structural things that we have to take care of. Get to right
away. The porch is starting to sag so we're working on some of those
things to make sure it doesn't deteriorate any further until we actually
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 8
get the approval to go ahead with the project. Rnd this picture Is too
dark but the point I wanted to make here Is that we did find a lot of the
origins! hardwood floors tn place. Since so little is left of the Inside
of the building, It's always nice when you find something original.
used to be a big pile of old trees and brush a~ ~e ~ere clean[~ that up.
It'm a big project but we are getting a [or of stuff cleaned up out of
there. Now [f you're wondering what kind of person wou[d want to take on a
project like this, I can tell you that Lee'a first tnn Project out tn
St[l[water la called the Outing Lodge at Pine Point and [t ~s some
e[m[[arLttee to the Chanhaesen project. It was a h[etortca[[y significant
project. It's on a beautiful place of property. [t'e structurally sound
but [t was a mess when he bought lt. ]u=t to give you an Idea what can be
done with a property that looks like Jt would be a white elephant and
nobody ~ou[d want to take tt on. This [$ the basement at Pine Point.
A~ther basement s~t and then after-rennovat[on, th~s [s the basement.
And th[e la a very popu[ar meeting r~. You don't even fee[ [[ke you're
[na basement. But th[e la the type of thing we ~ to do ~[th the
Chanhaasen project. Lee uses a [or of recycled t[~ers that are, we
actually cut into boardm ourselves. Flooring. In t~ u~taJrs of
Point ts 100 year old fir boards that are a~ut 20 Inches wide. They have
a lot of character because they are mo old. A lot of wood paneling. Lee
does a [or of the paneling h[mae[~, And we Just try to add as much warmth
and character and charm to the place a~ [n tht= case, ~ actua[[y added
more ~armth and charm than Pine Point ortgtna[[y had. It started out am a
poor farm and tt was one of the f[rmt ~r farms [n the State of H[nnesota.
It was founded tn 1858. So when you co~ to Pine Point, you're techntca[[y
visiting the poor farm but [t doesn't fee[ like lt. One of ~r
at Pine Point [s as a bed and breakfast on ~eken~. Zt'= a nice weekend
getaway. It's located [na 350 acre park and theme are some of the rooms.
Ne [ook for antiques whenever we can. Th.la te one of the bathrooms with
jacuzzi and [t'm all marble floors a~ walls. Again looking for antique
bede. Every room te different. Ne don't be[tare [n ~[ng through and just
doing standard rooms. Try to have different character for every room.
Th[a tm another bathroom. That's a dark green marble. A~ther bedroom.
And the staff. ~e have a very friendly staff and I think one of the
reasons that the Outing Lodge Is so popu[ar [e because the staff ~es bend
over backwards to.be very helpful' and ~arm to ~op[e. ~'[1 certainly be
attempting to do the same thing out tn Chanha~n. Ne have a fu[l time
c~. We aren't open as a restaurant to the public on a ragu[ar
partly because of our [ocatton and th[e ts a tough ~e[neae to be In. But
we keep our chef busy full time because he does wedd[n~ on the ~eekende.
He does cooking for the conference gro~s and t~n he does ~ecta[ dinners.
We do theme dinners throughout t~ year and they are very popular. Ne
do apecta[ part[em for people. And he's a superb chef. 'This ta before
landscaped Pine Point. To give y~ an Idea of ~o~ of t~ things 'that
we've had to do to make tt a [[tt[e more fr[end[y and p[easant and
landscaping will be an important part o~ the C~nhassen project. Th[m
before we landscaped again. Sort of bare. R lot.-of flowers. And that'=
Important for weddings. We find we have a lot of ~tdoor wedd[n~ tn the
garden area so we w~l[ be having gardens like that. We have one area at
the seminary site that will be met aside Just for big weddings. And winter
weddings are nice too. I have to brag a [[tt[e bit here. Do you recognize
the man on the right? That's BIll Hoyere and ~ was out for his
wedding and we were a[l pretty tickled a~Ut that. What's nice about the
Planning Commission Meeting
~pri! 15, 1992 - Page 9
Outing Lodge for weddings and we hope to also repeat tl~t at Chanhassen, is
that the families stay on the site so they have less driving around. A lot
of people choose to get married there too. They have the ceremony and the
reception there and it Just makes for a lot less driving and the people
having the wedding get to spend the whole weekend with their guests. They
get up the next morning and open gifts so it's a real nice concept for a
wedding. And of course we do a tot of Christmas parties and that is our
main interest in getting open this fail is to be able to start booking some
Christmas parties and Christmas weddings. This is Pine.Point in winter.
And we do have cross country skiing because we are in a'350 acre park. Now
·
the other aspect of our business is very important besides bed and
breakfast and besides weddings on the weekenc~. During the ~eek we keep
very, very full.with business conferences'. We have a lot of conferences
for 3M, because they are located so close to us.- We also have'done a lot
of conferences for Cray Research and then Just about every big company you
can name tn the Twin Cities. Dayton Hudson has been out a.lot. Honeywell,
IBM. It's a great place to have business meetings because it's such a
change of environment. And the other thing that people really like is that
they are given complete privacy. They take over the whole building for
their business meeting. They don't have to ~orry about anybody else .
hearing their confidential business. They move around to different rooms
in the building and the staff is completely at their disposal. And it's
nice because it's not so far from the Cities. If some people have to go
home at night, it's not a problem. Some people stay overnight. That's
going to be a very important part of the business at the seminary site and
we feel this is an excellent location to serve some of the companies in the
western suburbs that wouldn't necessarily want-to come all the way out to
Stlllwater. Now another property that Lee al'so o~ns. It's not Just
historically significant, it's also environmentally significant, is called
Seven Pines Lodge. It's in Lewis, Wisconsin and it was a fly fishing
lodge. It was first developed as a fly fishing lodge at the turn of the
century by Charles Lewis who was a Minneapolis grain broker. And he had
fallen in love with this site. Not only does it have a wonderfu! trout
stream, it also has 300 year old virgin white pines. It was one of the
last remaining tracts of white pine forest. Originally Wisconsin was
covered with this but lumbering interests left very little of the virgin
white pine. So on this location we have the trout stream, the white pine,
and then also the building is on the National Register of Historic Places.
This is a photo of the property that was taken in i913. And this is it
today and that's Lee. This is the interior in i9i3. 'And this is [t today.
So you can see we're genuinely interested in-pre, erring the building the
way it was. Not modernizing. This is another building in i9i3 and this is
it today. And then this is the stream house that's right on the trout
stream. And this is how it looks today. L~ Just worked.with the
Wisconsin DNR to upgrade this stream. As I mentioned before, we have
visited the site with the DNR and we consider it critical that ~e work with
the DNR to manage the Assumption Creek in a very sensitive way too. The
DNR report came back that not only are there native brook trout in-this
stream but it's the last one in the 7 county metropolitan area and probably
the last one feeding the Minnesota River. And it's a very precarious
population. It's a one day of heavy fishing'could seriously impair the
stream, the population. The other environmental feature that we're very
happy to have and we're going to be very careful with is the caicartous
fen. And that's sort of a swampy area ~lth peat and in this case the peat
Planning Commission Meeting
~prll 15, 1992- Page 10
has a high calcium content. The DNR pointed out that the calcarious fen is
probably one of the rarest wetlands plant communities In North Rmerica. So
we are very intent on protecting both the stream and the fen. And that's
not Just to be good guys. It's an asset to the property and It really
defines the character of [he development that we're doing. $o those are, !
don't know if X've covered everything. X'~.e probably left things out but
does anybody have any questions on these ~lides?
Emmings: Well, I'd rather not take questions and answers right now.
people have comments later.
If
Jennifer Luhrs'- Okay, thank you.
Emmings: If there are people who have shown up tonight because they're
interested in this and they have comments or questions,.as long as we have
the developer here, if you want to Just come up and tell us who you are,
and ask your questions or make your comments, that'd be alright.
Everette Olson: I'm Everette Olson and I'm their closest neighbor.
Emmings: Can you come up here so we can, okay.
Everette Olson: Well I'm Everette Olson. I live at 1675 Flying Cloud
Drive and I'm their cIosest neighbor. And boy anything they can do Is a
blessing. It would be a blessing.
Debbte OIufson=. I'm Dabble Olufson and I live In .Chanhassen. I'm Just
interested because my grandfather died at MudCura in 1931 and we were
researching the family tree and we found out about this so.that's why
I Just wanted to hear this. He got the cure but it didn't work.
Lee Anderson'- Hi. I'm Lee Anderson. I live on Bluff Creek Drive. [ too
am in support of this concept. ! really like what's going on. My one
concern or caution and I wanted to ask the question or make an observation.
We look down on this property and one of the neat things about when we
moved to the country so to speak was the fact that at night It was dark so
I hope that the lighting for the parking iota and around the building,
preserve security. We need that. But aisc isn't that it spends most of
it's time going up into the sky as much as down to the ground. I think
with ail the other things they've thought about, that they probably have
that covered but if not, my wife asked .me and !'m bringing that over also
to say that I hope that can be toned down and we don't need the lights of
the city as much as to preserve kind of the quietness of the country winter
when the sun goes down.
Emmings: Yeah, that's a good point. Have you thought about that? The
nature of the lighting will be for parking lots and so forth?
Lee Gohltke: I'm Lee Gohlike and we've run into it out at Pine Point also
and it's just an issue of the angle of the reflectors and you can make the
lights more or less stay down at a 30 degree angle or whatever so that no
light really reflects up other than some refraotional light but'the ability
to see the light bulb for example or any direct light, you really don't see
that so I doubt that it'd be very little effect I think.
Planning Commission Heating
April 15, 1992 - Page 11
£mmings= But would you be wanting to preserve that character too?
Lee Gohlike: Sure. Obviously with Just the nature of the rest of the
development, we're se nsttive to all those sorts of things·
Emmings: Okay. Any other comments or questions?
Anne Karels-Delaney: I'm Anne Karels-Delaney and I o~n the Bluff Creek Inn
Bed and Breakfast. And we're real happy to see that something's going to
be done to that property since it's such an eyesore but I'm a 11ttle
curious, where's the parking lot going to be?
Lee Gohltke: It will be located directly ~est of the building.
Anne Karels-Delaney: So as you're driving along 212 and there's kind of an
opening in there, was that where the new drtve~ay will be then?
Lee Gohlike: Yes.
the building.
It would be to the west of the building, Just west of
Anne Karels-Delaney: Okay, thanks ·
Emmings: Anybody else who ~ould like to ask any questions or make any
comments? Yes sir?
Lee Anderson: ! 'm sorry, ! have one other question. Does' this have any
implications on the development of the land to the north of it? tdould this
development, which again I'm in favor of, ~ould it open the development?
Because I'm a little concerned about the wetlands that are directly between
there and the railroad tracks themselves. I think that's kind of precious
also and I just was wondering if this ~ould open the door.
Krauss: Originally the entire site was held in one ownership. When Lee
started talking with us a year and a half, 2 years ago, Lee entered into
negotiations with the partnership that o~ned the property. It's Chart
Partners or whatever, and Lee purchased some 25 acres I think Lee wasn't
it? Up to and a little beyond the creek· The rest of it's. sti'11 owned by
the partnership. Now ! would assume it's their intent at some-point to do
something with it but exactly what really isn't clear. The semtnary's a
real unusual case with us. We would not normally allow or look at allo~lng
something like that to be on on-site sewer because we have no utilities in
that area. Because this is a historic use and because we really want to
see this building preserved and it's reasonable to do, we want to take that
shot and we think it can all york out. The long and the short of it is, ]:
don't know what's going to happen in that open cornfield area. I~han they
do plat it, their share of the fen will be protected by easement but there
are no plans to run utilities do~n there in the near future.
Lee Anderson: i'm thinking-more of the s~amp directly north or the
betlands, or whatever. Not the cornfield.
Krauss.' Well a good portion of that fen is on Lee's property and w/Il be
protected. There's a portion of it that goes-beyond it and we'll protect
it when they come in.
Planning Commission Nesting
April 15, 1992 - Page 12
Lee Gohlike: ! think the DNR is very concerned about any development.
You'd have a very difficult time building a building back there.
Emmings'- Well, we Just don't allow that in Chanhas~en anyway. There's no
development on any wetland area. To the .extent that it's ~tland, it-'s
going to stay that way, Are there any comments from up here or questions?
Farmakes= [ have a few questions. And a few comments, i've spent some
time at Seven Pines. it's a very fine place. The plan that I have here
shows some trails up in this fen area. Can you comment a little bit on
what your intentions are with that'?
Lee Gohlike= Perhaps Jennifer knows more about it right now than [ do.
Jennifer Luhrs: When ~e submitted the concept plan, that set the ball tn
motion. We did go out with the DNR. They recommended against having
trails in the fen. We don't have our heart set On it. We ~ere. not
thinking of a trail or paved or...hard surface. We were Just thinking
walking paths. Foot path maybe with a little marker that might sho~
species of plants or something. Basically if there's a problem with having
trails in the fen, I don't think they add that much because the grass is so
high in the summertime to walk out there and you can't see the water...so
those are not so intent upon. We did get approval from the DNR to replace
the trails that go out to those pagoda's and those have little bridges.
And you can still see where the trail was. .That is still there and just
basically what we'll do is Just pull up the shurbs and trees that have
grown...but we'll be very sensitive and we'ii Just change it minimally. We
will rebuild the bridges and...
Farmakes: What is the structurally integrity of the dam area? Has that
been assessed?
Jennifer Luhrs: The dam is fine. It's:holding. It's concrete. There's
Just no bridge there right now.
Farmakes: But it's fairly old? Is 'that originally?
Krauss: Well, it's original. The concrete does look sound. I mean where
there's wooden boards in the dam, they're in poor shape. It doesn't have
to, it's nothing terribly dangerous. I mean this holds up an empoundment
right there but even in the worst case, if it lets go it rea-lly doesn't
hurt a whole lot. When we were originally going out to this property a
couple years ago, frankly I was under the impression that that was the
trout stream that had been dammed up but it turns out it's anything, but.
It's basically a little backwater off the main creek system which is
further to the nor th.
!
Farmakes= The comments that the DNR makes on the letter from Harsted.
Number 6. He's making a comaent that it should be a couple of management
courses are open or strategies to manage the creek as a brook trout
fishery. Is that 'referring to this or is that referring to the Assumption
Creek area?
Planning Commission Meeting
Rpr[l 15, 1992 - Page 13
Krauss: That's to the creek where the trout actually are which ks beyond
that. -
Farmakes-' Rte you going to expand upon the fishery at all? Is that your,
do you have any intentions ~[th that?
Lee Gohl[ke: Ith[nk that it's best Just left for people to look at the
fish. The number of fly fisherman that would come out there to fish is'
fairly small. Even at Seven Pines where we're really Into fly fishing at
Seven Pines as a main occupation. There can be a ~eek go by without a
single fly fisherman show up. They maybe come up there and have bus[ness
meetings or to have dinner but [ think realistically [ think that there
would never be that much traffic so from reading the DNR's report, ! tend
to agree with we would like to have certain areas where people can Just
walk out to the edge of the brook and look at the fish. Rnyone who would
like to go fly fishing...Just allo~ that to happen. · I don't see any... Rs
long as [t was catch and release. Rnd we have the same thing at...That's
so common with fly fishing brooks today that almost all sophisticated fly
fisherman don't want to keep the fish. It's Just good fish management'...
Farmakes: I'm assuming under that then that this would not be open to the
public fishing?
Lee Gohl[ke= Well, that's a good question and that's brought up tn the'
DNR. It should et[her be open to the public and the DNR would improve the
brook and they would maintain paths Into [t but I think a more realistic
approach, given the small number of fish in the brook, it's totally
natural, it's never been stocked with any fishery grown fish. There may
be some 7 or 8 Inch trout tn there but that'd be about the maximum. On our
trip a couple weeks ago we saw maybe 25-30 fish. tn one school which means
there are a fair number of fish tn there but lt.'s not an area with the
other trout fishing areas around, ! doubt that that many people would be
interested In it enough to make [t worth while for the DNR .to even develop
It. So...It ~ould be best to, [f someone, from the publ[c wants to go
fishing there, [ think we'll let them go fishing there....
Farmakes: I 'm not even sure that many local people know it's there. I
have no further questions.
Emmings: Okay. Matt?
Ledvina: I wanted to make sure, Knapp Creek and Assumption Creek, are they
one and the same?
Lee Gohl[ke: Knapp Creek ks our Seven Pines creek.
Jennifer Luhrs: Yeah, that got into the report by m[stake.
did [t or tr...
[. don ' t know
Ledvina: Okay. So this is Assumption Creek? OkaY. Just wanted to make
sure. No, I've been to Pine Point and I really enjoyed it very much and
think I definitely agree with the concept. ! think It's a great idea for
this property.
Planning Commission Heating
April 15, 1992 - Page 14
Conrad: Amazing. You're never going to find a group like this. You've
been to Seven Pines. You've been to Pine Point and I've gone to Seven Pines
so 3 out of 5. Where have you been?
Erhart-' i've been
Conrad= Lee, when did you get Seven Pines?
Lee'Gohlike: A year ago October. When ~ere you there?
Conrad: Hany years ago. And the guy who owned it then was from 3H. And I
talked to him and had friends that go up there for ~edding parties. Nice.
Nice place. We do a 1o[ of [~ou[ ftsht~ no, ih of y~. I ~n'[ have
anything [o offer. [[h[nk ihs comments thai have
we'd be sensitive to and it appears that you're sensitive [o t~m already.
The lighting out there is a~ inter,ting point but
issues, so we preserve the stream. Pre~erve the fe~ and ~hatever. That's
where ~ main concerns are going [o ~. ~nd t~n [ think'
recommended, [he [raff[c issue. ~ have [o k~N a [[[[[e b[[ more ab~
Erhart: Again, we should be so fortunate-to have somebody take advantage
of this thing and actually give it something, it sounds like a great
utility. I'm a proponent of, ! like trails, i'm a proponent of trails.
My only concern, and again ! know this is not detailed so I'm not going to
get into details tonight but my'concern is that we don't get too rigid on
some of these requirements for the pure sake or fear of humanizing it.
Because while pure environment is nice, the fact is this is a developed
area and ! think we have to use some judgment on when we start restricting
trails and I see the Park and Rec saying do not clear the stream. Does
that mean not clear any of the garbage out? Some of-it ! think ~e have to
do this with reason and it is going to be a utilitized area. And some
times you've got to take a little bit of reasonable risk so ~e get a
product that's useable. Not only by young People such as myself that can
tramp over woods and things but people who aren't quite as able, disabled
and so forth to enjoy the amenities that ~e have.
Emmings: Are you referring to anybody up here?
Erhart: No, not today. Looks great.
Emmtngs'- I don't have anything to add. I think it looks like .an
outstanding plan. Ne need, if there aren't any other comments or
questions, we need a motion.
Conrad== 3ust a quick note and ! don't kno~ if it's ever going to show up
on another staff report but under utilities, there's a typo. The word,
municipal water and sanitary sewer services are available to the site.
Because it probably will try to use some of this- later on.
Emmings: And before anybody makes a motion, Just so the people who are
interested in coming here tonight and are interested in this project, this
is the most preliminary kind of plan we look at. ~nd we're giving, !
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 15
assume from all the comments it's going to be approved and they'll be
coming in with a very detailed plan later on and there will be a public
hearing on that detailed plan. Is that right Paul?
exactly.
Emmings.' And local landowners will be notified again so you'll get to see
it in a lot more detail at that time and have another change to make
comments and so forth.
Conrad.' I'll make a motion that staff prepare a PUD submittal responding
to t~e issues raised in this ,report. Staff .recommends that the PUD concept
plan for the conference/spa center be approved subject to the following
conditions and that's where we prepare a formal PUD submittal in response
to the issues raised in the report. While k~orktng with staff on the final
development and point number 2 in the staff report, res~3ond to issues
raised in the conceptual review which are not.-too Ban)-.
Emmings; ['11 second it. Are there any d'lscussions?
Conrad moved, Emm[ngs seconded that the Planning Coma[ss[on recommend that
the PUD Concept Plan for the Spa/Conference Center be approved subject to
the following condltiona:
1. Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding.to issues raised in this
report, while ~orking with staff on the plan development.
2. Respond to issues raised by the conceptual review.
All voted In favor and the ~otion carried.
~OMI~tl[tt-NSIV[ PLAN ~ /IND ZONIN~ ORDI~ ~-RE~ltOIN~
MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL SERVICE ~REA.
· Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this 'item.
Krauss: Oh by the way, [ should add that you might actual'l¥ see one of
these developments occur. ! ~as talking to Don Halls and Don has approval
for 35 lots I believe it is under that cid 2 1/2 acre zo. ing. He's been
asking me if he would qualify to basically replat his project under this
new guideline. I spoke to the City Attorney and we both agreed that sure,
it seems to be in everybody's best interest to do that. We would still
restrict him to that 35 lots that he was allocated under that pre '87
subdivision that he had because he's got a density problem.
Emmings: But if he replats, wouldn't he have to, why ~ouidn't he have to
be 1 in 107
Krauss: Well, that's where he becomes grandfathered in. He's entitled to
right now, until 1994, to plat out his 35, 2 1/2 acre lots. Since that is
construed to be in nobody's interest, why not let him get this 35 lots in a
smaller corner of his property. Now that's under his grandfathering.
Planning Commission Meeting-
~pril 15, 1992 - Page 16
Emmtngs: Yeah. So you leave him the same number of lots but you let him
develop it under these new ordinances. Okay.
Erhart: How many acres does he have tots1?
Krauss= ! honestly don't remember· ! mean it's ~omething like 70 or 80
acres ·
Emmings= Well yeah, if it was 35 lots, they ~ere all about 2 1/2 each
weren't they?
Erhart: Oh yeah, and that was the worst scenario. ! was wondering if
there was some way to negotiate that down a l'ittle. Middle kind of thing.
Krauss= Well !'m sure, well ! don't know. With Don ! don't know if !'d
use that word. We indicated some receptivity with working with him on it.
Erhart: I was just trying to think your elimination of 7. What happens if
somebody decides he wants to come in and do a development for 5? How with
the I in 10, he may not be so rushed to take out 7. Say he wanted to do 5
acre Iota. Would those restrictions still have some relevance? ..
Krauss: It's really something we deal' with in the subdivision process.
Neither we nor the State or the County would allow somebody to have'6
entrance permits within 100 feet of each other. You know we would make the
person put in a cul-de-sac or a street or whatever else.
Erhart: You're comfortable with that?
Krausa:
Emmi rigs:
Yeah.
That same provision appears on page 2 under number I for the A-2.
Krauss: Yes, but that's the existing 5 acre ones or 2 1/2 acre ones.
Emmings: But that you want. Okay·
Erhart: Misspelled word on page 4. Under Article 23 it left out the "l"
in leased.
Conrad: Are we comfortable that the language is clear on page 2 at the
bottom? The last. · .the following setbacks shall apply and the first one
which is talking about the minimum'lot size is 15,000.
Krause: It should probably read the following standards shall apply.
Conrad: Yeah. Standard~ in one but my main point is, when you say or
sufficient· Can that mean Ieee than 15,000? Or do we say the larger of
either 15,000 or sufficient to accommodate two septics?
Krauss= Well, that doesn't get at your question either the way you Just
worded it.
Conrad: The larger of either?
Planning Commission Heating
April 15, 1992- Page.17
Emmings: 3ust say comma, whichever is larger. Hinimum is' whichever of
those two are larger.
Erhart: I think Ladd's got a good point·
Emmings: Yeah. I think Just change the period to a comma and say
whichever is larger, you've got it.
Erhart: Also, put square feet in after 15,000.
Emmings: And site should be aires. There should be an e after it. 'You're
talking about two. And all those same comments would apply to what's at
the bottom of page 3. Change setbacks to standards.
Right.
Emminge: 15,000 square feet, sites and whichever is larger.
Erhart= In fact the whole line I ~ould probably read better if you Just
said two potential septic system sites. I think that's what we're really
trying to say.
Farmakes= Where Is that?
Erhart: The first line in ali those standards. Just say two 'potential
septic system sites.
Krause= Well one's not potential ·
Erhart= Yeah once you build the house then it's not potential anymore.
Emming~= Anybody else? This is a free for all. Since there's nobody else
here so does anybody else got any comments? Anybody ~ant to make a motion?
Matt like to make a motion? Ladd says Matt ~ants to make a motion.
Ledvina= I recommend that the Planning commission amend the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the
rural area as noted in the report subject to our d~scussion here. Is that
good enough?
Emmings: I'll second that. Any discussion?
Ledvlna ~oved, Eeing~ seconded that the Planning Co~laalon r~nd
approval of the amendmen~ ~o the Coeprehenaive Plan and.Zoning Ordinance to
eliminate the mlnl~u~ lot mlze tn the rural area am noted In the staff
report. &Il voted In favor and the ~otton carried.
.
Erhart: Is that clear that that includes the discussion over on the second
section?
Krauss:
Erhart=
Yes ·
SO we don't have to vote on two things?
Planning Commission Heating
RpTil 15, 1992 - Page 18
Krauss: Right.
~PROV~ O~ HZNUTE$= Chairman Emmings noted the Hinutes of the Planning
commission meeting dated ~pril 1, 1992 as presented.
~ITY COUNCIL'UPD~TE:
Emmings: Do you have a City Council update?
Krauss: No, unfortunately.
Emmings: Yes? Yes?
Krauss: I don't have a good excuse. I was busy.
Emmings: You not only don't have a good excuse, you don't seem to have any
excuse at all.
Krauss: I actually stayed home the last half..; They did approve the
Bluff Creek Interceptor program. The se~er program that's needed to serve
Ryan and Hans Hagen Homes. $o that should be under construction sometime
t h la summer.
Emmings: That's a big change. ~ big addition.
Erhart: Was there anything new in that John Klingel'hutz sewer system?
Krauss: Well, no. They approved the, did I ever explain that to you?
I t ' s ki nd of compl icated.
Erhart: I know it was real complicated. I thought the staff's
recommendation was a lot better and the City Council went against that.
Krauss: Well no, we gave the City Council two alternatives. But they ~ent
with the cheaper one.
Farmakes: If you get into the Minutes of that meeting, You will find that
there was some heated discussion in regards-to minimum lot size. You may
want to go over that because that's really, I got up'and said what we're
talking about here is a miscommunication because the subject matter that
they were discussing. They were discussing minimum lot size in a single
family zone and I said what we are discussing is-PUD issues. And they
thought we were sort of fitm flaming with this issue and they were grouping
them both together. That was my interpretation and maybe.
Krauss: As I understand, I was talking to Don Ashworth about it. There
were a couple things we need to address coming out of that meeting. The
first was that lot size was raised out of context and I'beileve it was
Councilman Wing and the Mayor indicating some desire to Just raise
sizes unilaterally. I was asked to prepare a memorandum. I've got to
prepare one for you anyway about the implications of raising the lot sizes.
I was asked to prepare a memo to the City Council to really get into the
meat of the issue. What happens when you raise lot sizes? Well,'and as
see it the discussion means that we already have one of the larger lot
Planning Commis~.on Heating
April 15, 1992- Page 19
sizes tn the Twin Cittes. You go out on'a 11mb. That has lmplicatlo~ for
the price of housing. You Just raised bhe price of a lot by 251. You've
raised the cost of providing services to those lots. You've thrown Into
question all the assessment programs. All the projects that we've approved
which are based on the presumption that somebody's going to get x number of
units out of their land. Well you've Just knocked It down by 25~ so then,
we've already made them pay for the right to use it but then we're saying
they can't use lt. That sounds like there's a problem invotved there.
Anyway ! was going to bring that back to them and ! can only g[ve you my
suspicion. [ think when it gets aired out In that kind of a context, It
will probably be dropped or at the very worst referred back to the Planning
Commission.
Farmakes: I did have that discussion with hlm after the meeting. A few of
the, actually it turned out to be 3 so there Is a sort of consensus among
them that we should air that problem out because I get the feeling that
they think that we're sort of stone walling this thing here. On our end,
which isn't the case. And I brought that up to them I think clearly.
Erhart: What do you think they want? Did you say 3 of them want
something.
Farmakes= They're discussing another Issue. The'Issue was single family
minimum Lot size came up as a result of dealing wi.th the PUD.
Erhart= Well I think the t~o are connected. -I think we had-discussions...
tonight.
Farmakes= That's correct but the issue that we were discussing was PUD
Issue of minimum lot size. That was not on the agenda. The single family
zone Issue that I saw. That was not on our agenda... They see it as a dual
Issue tn discussing this and what the general Information that I got is
bump it up to 20 and offer 15 as the minimum lot size in the PUD. Then the
other issues that Paul Just described have come up. You do a lot of
different things that sort of domino effect. What happens? We had a short
discussion about minimum Lot sizes. I think Ladd was talking about It --
during our conversations but again ! got the Impression that they thought
we were sitting on It and I don't think ~e have, So I don't know I.f we can
get that cleared up.
Krauss: Well like I say, I've got to report back to them on that and If
they still want something. I'mean we~ve never had a sense of what the
Council really wants and I know I've talked to Councilman Wing and the
Mayor about the PUD Issue and they've expressed to you that they're very
concerned. In fact frankly adamant about not decreasing lot sizes.
Whatever information I can supply apparently isn't going-to change that and
I tried to tell you that because It has some bearing on your discussion.
While that's come across Loud and clear, anything else concerning lot sizes
has been basically one councilman, usually at a given time raising an Issue
but there hasn't been a sense that all 5 of them voted to tell us to do
something.
Farmakes= Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 20
..
Krauss: So again, I°ll be brining it back up before them.
Farmakes= I wasn't even aware that that was a formal issue at this point.
Up until yesterday.
Krauss= I wasn't either.
Farmakes-' That we reconsider the minimum lot size for single family zone.
From there, that was the direction.
Krauss= And I could be wrong. ! wasn't there but.I also heard that this
came up somewhat later in the evening.
Farmakes: I think perhaps it started out with the t-nitial PUD. in the
Lundgren development out there on the Foster property up there. That was
where this started out with and somehow this sort of snowballed into a
situation where they're looking at it as a separate issue. Minimum' lot
size. It does relate to the PUD and then again it doesn't.
issues.
Krauss: Well, I'll keep you posted on that.
Two different
Emmi rigs:
Co nr ad:
Emmi rigs:
Conrad:
ordinance.
at that.
Emm i ngs:
Conrad: I sure know how it relates to our PUD discussion. But I guess I
don't understand. Ne talked about it Just as a residential zoning issue.
But I don't know what we ended up doing after our short discussion on Just;
I think we're saying should we rediscuss it or review it.
You're talking about the subdivision ordinance?
No. 3ust plain.
PUD?
Yeah. Just, I'm sorry. Just in terms of the subdivision
I thought we had Just indicated to Paul that we weren't looking
I thought that's where we' ended that discussion.
think some people were interested in.
Farmakes: We were asking for a direction on that. ! think we got it
yesterday.
Conrad= Oh okay. Then that clarifies our role.
Krauss= I'd like them to think about it in context and if that's .what they
want us to do, we'll do it but.
Emmings: It's peculiar though because'what's the motivation to review the
subdivision ordinance, lot size Just because we happen to-be talking about
the PUD's? That's confusing to me.
Emmings: Does somebody want to talk about that some more or should we get
on with the agenda?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 21 -
Erhart: Well we talked about it because it ~as a, I had proposed it as a
mechanism. If you're not willing to go to 10,000 square foot, it was a
mechanism to give incentive to PUD's.'
Emmings: Right.
Erhart: After I listened to Paul, I was surprised to find out that 15,000
was already Large relative to other communities, I mentally abandoned the
proposal and frankly was only Brian at that point that was, of all of us
here that night, that was still interested in pursuing a larger lot size.
I had secondary motives because I thought 15,000. was perhaps small co~pared
to other communities. Paul cleared that up.
Farmakes: ! think that some of this from some of the comments that I heard
are of an interest that as the city goes west, that there is more open.
That they connotate that as open space. More open spaces and there's a-lot
of printed information that says that that would be a very I. guess limiting
thing to do by raising again the average cost of a house in Chanhassen.
Erhart: It does and this city has got more parkland and open land, even in
the area that we do have a MUSR. &t least again what !'ye heard in any
comparable city around. When you start adding in some of the areas that
are dedicated to that purpose. Is that true or untrue?
Krauss: Well it was one of the cases that I made to the Metro Council.
That we have a regional park. ~e have a national wildlife refuge. ~e have
125 acre church. We've got an extremely well developed city park ~3~stem.
You add these things up plus our parks are continuing to gro~, which they
should and we also develop it, frankly even though our lot size is fairly
large compared to metro area communities, ~e tend to develop at a much
lower' density than they do and it's because we've always saved ali the
wetlands. Now that's going to tend to be equalized because no~ everybody's
being forced by law to do what we've been doing for 8 years. But I had to
convince the Metro Council that, they say well, across the board.
Everybody develops at 2 1/2 units an acre and we don't. Here's the proof.
Conrad: Well, I don't know where ~e go with lot size. If it bumps back
here, then at that time we can deal with it.
Farmakes: It's a politically hot issue I think because of.
Conrad: I don't understand why.
Farmakes: Well, take Tlmberwood for instance. As you get, other homes.
that come in around them w/th a higher density, they come here and make a
case, well we moved to the country. And of course now that we have moved
here, we'd like to shut the door and keep everyone else out.
Emmings: They should have bought the whole country if they wanted to move
to the country.
Farmakes: Yeah, they don't want to see 5 units in their backyard and you
know who they call up.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 22
Emmings: Well I have no patience for it. I mean I understand it. It's
Just that it's so self centered that I don't have patience for it either.
Now, I'm looking at somebody else's land and saying ! want it kept .open.
mean it's absurd.
Conrad; We went through that same psycho 5 to 10 years ago when we
reviewed all the zoning stuff because that's when the-northern part, or
that's when all this area was being developed and that's what everybody was
saying. I don't, everybody was on I acre parcels and they didn't want to
see 15,000 square foot lots moving in. -And we just beat that to death.
And in the final analysis, it was people were generally comfortable, with
the 15 and nobody was not purporting anything bigger. And it really, but
then over the time, and I was one of the proponents of big lots. Build
your o~n character. Who-cares how everybody else develops. Develop our
area with the character that we ~ant and that's big lots. Changed
dramatically on that. I don't care what size people live on, but develop
the stuff, the park systems and those ocher things that are really quality
oriented. So if we want to go up and if .somebody thinks ~e don't have
enough open spaces. Instead of adding 3,000 square feet to an average lot,
take that 3,000 feet and add it to a park. So !'d much rather see, if'we
bump up, if we want to have more open space, instead of going up to 20,000'
square foot lots. Let's take that 5,000 extra feet and put it in a park
some place and then we'll gain. Then everybody gal~.
Emmings: Raise the park dedication.
Conrad: Absolutely. That's how ~e solve, we build character. It's not
through making larger lots because you still carve up the land. And it
doesn't matter if you put an extra couple thousand feet here or there. '-You'
carve it up.
Farmakes= If we could come up with a workable buffer situation, that might
eliminate a lot of the political that's created by some-of these
developments being next to older developments.
Emmings: We know that Tom and Ursula are not running for Council this
year. Is that right?
Krauss: Correct.
Earnings: Is anybody else, any other encumbant not, is anybody else up for
election?
Krauss: The Mayor and I understood that he's already announcing he's
running again.
Emmings: Okay. And nobody else'8 term is up right now? So there's 2
spots open. Okay, let's get on with our agenda.
Krauss: I threw in two things under sort of administrative items. First
one was Moon Valley.
Emmings: Wait a minute no~.
Planning Commission Heating
April 15, 1992 - Page 23
Krauss= I didn't have that as a separate thing. It ~ould be attached to my
memo to you if there is one.
Emmings= Hey we're not do~n to that [n my packet. We'-ll get to you. The
next thing we've got is discussion of group home regulations and you need a
motion on that.
OPEN DZSCUSSZON:
·
DISCUSSION OF 6ROUP HONES.
Krauss: Yes. This ks a continuation of the discuss[on ~e had about a
month ago. This has kind of been, It's not been festering but
something that we've had on the work program for a year, year and a half
that we have a big hole In our ordinance dealing with group homes. ! mean
the State mandates that we have no say [f you have 6 or fewer people in a
single family district. You can have a conditional use permit for 7 to 16
adults in a multi-family district. That's State law. And we're
comfortable with that but where we say we have a conditional use permit .for
7 to 16 adults, we have no standards. And frankly, ! th~pk It's good
public policy to look at the thing when we're not being pr~ured by a use
to allow more of these things in more situations with reasonable standards.
If we're allo~ing more than the State mandates, we can pretty well do what
we want within reason. Now when ~e brought this to You the last time,
think Jeff raised the question that all this stuff looks fine and dandy but
how do we differentiate between a group home for retarded kicfs and a
halfway house for sexual offenders? And I wasn.'t certain that we could do
that but we did clarify with Roger that since we are going [n excess of
what the State requires, we can in fact do that.
Emmtngs: We can In fact do what?
Krauss= We can in fact, where we are allowing more than the State
mandates, we can set criteria that would allow only those types of group
residences that we're comfortable with [n our community.
Emming~s: And how do we do that?
Krauss: Well, we took a crack at Lt. I'm not sure we're totally.
Emmings: ! saw the standards in here.
Krauss= When you look at the definition for licensed residential care
facility, tt says this may include public foster homes, maternitY'and women
shelters. Residential programs and there's a comma in there. It should
not be there. It says residential programs and supportive living residence
for functionally [mpa[red adults or schools for hand[capped children. If
you don't meet this criteria, you're not going to be allowed under these
standards.
Emmings: Are you restr[ct[ng [t to these?
Krauss-' Yes. Now I think we need to..
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 24
Emmings= Why wouldn't it amy this uae may only include?
Krauss: Yeah, we can define.
Emmings: Make sure you're not Just giving ex .amp'les rather than a
definitive list.
Krauss= You know you have two option~ with this. We could either describe
it on an exclusionary basis, and this specifically does not cover' da, da,
da, da, da. Or we could try to describe the universal things ~e do allow.
And we made that attempt.
Farmakes: Did you, how familiar are you with the situation that was in the
paper not too long ago about, Shakopee I believe. There was a group home.
Like something of 6 or under moving into a single family zone. [t was a
troubled kid situation and the neighborhood was up in arms. It was an
upper ! think $250 again was the price on the house. To handle that many
kids, it would have to be 6 bedrooms. 7 bedrooms. Anyway, i'm not sure
how that resolved itself.
Krauss: I don't know. But if it's a State protected group home with 6 or
'fewer, there's not a dang thing we can do about it.
Farmakes: I understand that. I was just wondering ho~ the situation
resolved itself. Whether it did or not.'
Krauss: I don't know but I really thought that the State really showed
some wisdom when they did that because any one of these things, any time it
comes along is a horrendous hot' potato. Typically. And the experiences
we had in Mlnnetonka, I thought they thought of some fairly creative ways
of helping to diffuse that and some of that's in here like if you're going
to be in our community you're going to appoint some community leaders to be
on your board. You're going to work with us on that kind o'f a basis. But
fundamentally, and the State licensing, the State protected group home does
not include halfway houses for criminals or whatever. We're talking about
relatively innocuous things. People's fears aside, ~e're talki, ng about
relatively innocuous groupings of people that are functioning as a single
household unit and under State law they're going to be determined to be
basically a family and nobody can say anything about it. We're taking a
little bit, we're going further than we need to. I think you need to be
clear on that. My personal opinion is that we function in a society where
we have an obligation to take care of each other and to me that means that
we don't dump our problems down on Chicago Avenue. That where if we have
problems in our own families or neighbors do, where their kids need some
structure. Where they have some medical problems or whatever, that there
should be provisions for those people to live in your community. It's
harder than hell to come up and say that stuff when you've got one of these
things on the table and 100 angry residents about it.
Emmings: Right. Everyone thinks they're necessary. They Just don't ~ant
them next door.
Krauss: And I think too, these criteria are well designed .enough that you
put them in a place that's appropriate. I kno~ that we had a situation in
Planning Commission Nesting
~pril 15, 1992 - Page 25
Mtnnetonka where there was a group home .for battered women that we really
did support as a staff but the property that they' had purchased was not
ideal for it. It was way at the end of a long dead end street and there
wasn't quite enough open space and we learned, from that. So anyway we
throw this on the table for you to kick around and tell us What you'd Ilks
to do.
Emmlngs: What you're looking for here. We're not passing anything onto
the City Council here. You're asking us to give you direction whether to
have a public hearing?
Krauss: Right.
Emmings: Okay. Does anybody here have any specific comments on the
conditions or criteria or think that it shouldn't be published for a. public
hearing? Does anyone have anything to say about either one of ~ho~'e?
Ledvina: as a basis, when you use the City of Mlnnetonka case?
Krauss: Well that's the one I'm most familiar with. It turned out'that
Kate Ranenson who's working on this had similar standards developed
completely in a different, I mean without any relationship in a place she
worked outside of Salt Lake City. The Minnetonka stuff ~as developed by
the Planning Director over there who served on a Hennepin county Task Force
to deal with group home issues and they eat for about a'year and a half.
And so the regulations came with probably more wisdom than I can offer. It
came with that input plus the experiences that we had in the city at that
time.
Ledvina: So in other words, it-'s a hybrid done?
Krauss: Yes.
Ledvi na: Okay.
Conrad: Where did you get the vehicle trips per day Paul? The standard
here. You had 23 vehicle trips.
Krauss: You know [ honestly don't recall. A single family home is 10.. I
can find out. I'll check. I don't know if the intent was that it'd be
roughly comparable to not too' much out of the ordinary for single family.
The idea is that these things function as a home situation and not a
dormitory where people are being shuttled in and out. The only exceptions
that I'm aware of. Well, we had a home for kids that were suffering, it
was a form of retardation. It was called Prader Willie Syndrome. There's
only one home like it in the United States. I think now there's
a very, the manifestation of the retardation is that these people can't
control their eating and they literally eat themselves-to death. If they
don't live in a very regulated environment and in that case there was some
buses in and out during the day because they ~ent to a sheltered workshop
kind of a thing. It was very more trip generation because it was all
structured housing situation.
PLanning Commission Meeting
~priL 15, 1992 - Page 26
Conrad: Yeah this is really tough to get in and analyze. It looks good to
me. It Looks good but boy I'm Just such a.
Ledvina: So many foreign things.
Conrad: Well yeah. ! can't disect. When you Look at different issues.
! Just don't know how to be perceptive enough to kno~ if this is right or
not. It looks okay to me but boy that's coming from a real ignorant
position. ! guess the only comment ! made when ! read it before is that
the standard is to fit into the neighborhood. They didn't ~ant this to
change the neighborhood character in any way o.r significantly. Rnd you put
that in terms of the building. Then we talked about other things.
Traffic. Parking. ~nythtng else that might happen that might affect the
character of the neighborhood?
Emmings: I think so. I think just by the nature, if you put up to 16
people into a residential neighborhood and they're 16 unrelated people
living in this house, that's more than a normal household. By a long shot.
4 times probably. But the baseline here I think is that. these things at
least up to 6 are permitted. There's nothing ~ou can do to stop them. So
and what I understood we're trying to do is at least have something in
place so when one comes along, we're comfortable that at least physically
how big the building is and how many vehicles there will be and what kind
of parking there will be, that we've already got something established for
criteria. And on that basis, this thing make~ a Lot of sense to me. 8ut
will it change the character of the neighborhood? If that's your .intent,
you'd never get one in because it will change it Just by virtue of the
attitudes of the people who live around it.
Conrad: Rnd that's beyond what we can deal with. Like they have 10 cars.
Well, then they'd each be allocated 2 vehicle trt~.
Krauss: No. You have to take the~e things on a case by case basil and if
the nature of the program Is such that people are commuting in and out
every, at multiple times of the day, they're not going to be able to meet
that criteria. Steve Just mentioned, what if it's a home for 16 kids. I
don't know, just picked a number. If it was a home for t6 kids in one of '
our single family neighborhoods, it ~ould have to be on a 48,000 square
foot lot which is over an acre in a 4,800 square foot home which is a
mansion. Well not a mansion. Big house. But it's not something, you're
not Just going to go down Frontier Trail and ~ee the next ranch house over
with t6 kids in it.
Emmings: No.
Farmakes: Well not even with 6. It'd have to be a pretty substantial
house even with 6. You're not talking entry level home' there.
Krauss: Now I don't know what else I can, you have been confronted with
these things. I don't know what else I can give you aox. We do have one
group home in town. Chuck Gabrlelson. I have not run this past him. I
don't kno~ if he'd be for or against it frankly but I'd be happy, [- mean
I'm not in any rush to do this. If you wanted, I could give Chuck a call
and Let him have a copy of this and let him come and talk to you and give
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 27
you his feedback on it. He runs a program that, I don't know if his
comments would be good, bad or indifferent.
Erhart: Well ! think it'd be entertaining. He's a funny guy.
Krauss: He's an interesting guy·
Ledvlna= How many Individuals does he have £n his group home?
Krauss: I don't know. I think about 20.
Farmakes: I've been through this in...proper[y went through some of the
commotion at City Hall in another city and most of the p~ple aren't worry
about their safety or even about the Interaction of the kids. A lot of
them are Just worried about the bottom line. How It affects their property
investment. That's where the majority of the arguments really lie. A~d a
lot of that has to do with fear of the unknown. People move into a single
family zone, they think that they're somehca~ protected and we've had a lot
of unique factors in this town that have changed some of that. We have a
church with ltke you said, 120 some acres. In a single family zone, we
have on the board here a density that even tn a medium size development you
could technically get several homes within that development as a group home
situation. And if you're familiar with Minneapolis or if you go down to a
bail game down in the Twin Cities there's kind of a Concentration there.
Heavy concentration of group homes. This Is the type of thing, it' sounds
well and good on paper until it comes next door to your house and then of
course you see people down here pounding on the floor. The response ia
going to be, take it up with your State Representative because as you said
when this was litigated up and down.
Krauss: It is but again, you've got to rec~ntze-that the way we've
proposed this, you're doing more than you have .to. You would be allowing
in more than is mandated. You'd be controlling better what is mandated in
the multi-family districts but it ~ould allow more than you had. to do.
Farmakes: I think as long as these people are from our community, that's a
good response. At least a start when they come in to argue about it. At
least It is for me.
Conrad.' Paul, where are we allowing more than what is mandated?
Krauss: Okay, at the .top of page 2. In the single family district, the 0
to 6 persons permitted. That's State la~ in a single family district.
You've got nothing to say about that. In the multi-family districts, State
law says that Chanhassen, you as a city have to allow by conditional use
permit licensed, residential care facll'ities for 7 to 16 people. The law
doesn't say we can't develop standards for allowing those in our
communities and we don't have any right now so ~e've got kind of a problem
waiting to occur· That's under State mandate. No~ the way this is
written, you would be allowing a 16 person group home in a single .family
neighborhood by conditional use permit. Subject to criteria. You don't
have to do that.
Erhart: I thought it was just in a multi-family.
Planning Commission Heating
Rpril iS, 1992 - Page 28
Conrad: That's what [ thought too.
Krauss: No.
Erhart: Is that what it says? That when 16 people are in the multi-family,
it only requires that the City allow them in the multiple family area. Did
you read that there Steve?
Emmings: Sure.
Erhart: I read it. I can't find it now.
Emmings: Right at the top of the page.
Erhart: Yeah, R-8, R-12 and R-16.
Farmakes: Right, there it is.
Krauss: I need to clarify the language with Kate on that but the way this,
the way I interpret this and the way we clean it up to ~ork, unless you
tell us not to, is that this would accomplish two things. It ~ouid give
you criteria for the multi-family district, which ~e don't have. But-it
also allows in or would allow in larger than 0 to 6 in a single family
neighborhood.
Erhart: We have to decide if we want that.
Emmings: Yeah. Well, yeah. We'd be subject to this criteria so it'd be
real limiting on the criteria. Why b~Jld we want to do that? Why would we
even want to consider it? What do we get back?
Krauss: Well this Is where I, this le kind of a crusade.
Emmings: Okay. That's what I thought.
Krauss: When you have a group residence, whether it's for the retarded or
seniors or kids with problems, whatever, battered women, do we relegate
that stuff to an industrial zone? Or to a., combat zone like Chicago Avenue
is. I mean where they want to be is in residential settings. I mean the
whole purpose of these kinds of places is to have it as close to a
residential situation as possible, and what they seek to do typically, the
ones we're looking at, is buy a home. Large home and e~tabiish a
residential atmosphere and let their kids or .their seniors or whomever
become part of .the community. No~, that can be a real frightening prospect
but that's.
Emmtngs: But Paul, if what they're seeking Is a more normal living
environment, having 16 people isn't, is that giving it to themT
Krauss: Well the only way they're having 16 people is if' they're having
nearly a 5,000 square foot house on. an acre lot.
Emmings: Right. But even then. If you're Interested in accommodating
these people, would you rather see 'those 16 people in 3 homes or .in 1 big
Planning Commission HeeLing
April 15, 1992 - Page 29
one? [ don't know.
Krauss-' I don't know. That's where the performance standard comes' tn.
But arguably, If these things are managed in this kind of a format, I8 It
any different? ! mean I think we stand a-lot more risk of having 5
unassociated teenagers renting a house and being disruptive to a
neighborhood. Or someone who for whatever reason, religious or otherwise.,
has 12 kids living in a little 3,000 square foot rambler. I mean these
kinds of things happen all the time. We don't regulate that. I really
wouldn't want to but what we're saying here is that if somebody wanted a
group living situation, we would throw all-theBe standarc~ at them and make
them live in a much larger' house on a much larger lot at a much lower level
of impact· We're applying a much tougher standard.
Conrad: I Just keep playing over the 7 to 16 people in a residential area.
Thinki~ how that changes it. b~anting to be responsible, i totally
believe in what you're talking about Paul but I'm'also concerned with how
the residents of that neighborhood could change by a big, you're not
talking about a family, which Is typically there. You're talking about a
different unit which has different character and when you magnify it, the O'
thru 6, I'm comfortable with but when you magnify it by twice-that much or
more than twice, then all of a sudden :]: don't know what I have anymore.
Don't know what the risks and I don't know that I would feel real
comfortable with it.
Ledvlna: I worked at a group home with 6 residents who were
developmentally disabled. I worked weekends mo :]: actually spend the night
there and 6 individuals in a house, and it.was a big house.. I think it was
over 3,000 square feet and that place was like a beehive. I think that it
was, it seemed to be almost taxing to the neighborhood. Not that these
weren't good people. Not that the neighbors weren't receptive lout the
tndt. viduals liked to be outside and Just a lot of thlng~ happening with
those people. I think that if you get more than 6 people in a group home
setting, it almost becomes like an Institution type of thing and I think
you're, certainly with 16 people you're really, it would be very difficult
to have like a family type of situation. That's my feeling.
Erhart: Another point of view would be to really be optimistic and assume
that somebody on the State level, private c[tJzen, the next person
involved, people came in and developed this standards as one that's adopted
statewide I would assume.
Krauss: The 0 to 6 and the 7 to t6, multi-family state law.
Erhart: · · .assume that they've put a lot of thought behind that. Probably
more thought than we as 5 people could develop here at least [n one
session. I think it's Just one more reason why .! would tend to want to
follow Just that recommendation. That somebody ~et a standard there
probably more expert In it than we are. And say we'll do our share in'
it...
Emmlngs: 7 to 16 in residential seems too big to me~
but In a single family neighborhood, I don't think.
· ·.family Is fine
Planning Commission Heating
~prll 15, 1992- Page 30
Krauss: Well okay. If that's the sense, you're sense ts coming across
clearly. Why don't you let me come back ~lth this then dealing ~lth it
from the context that these are the standards that would apply or these
~ould apply. In reviewing those conditional use permitted ones for 7 to
in the multi-family.
Emmlngs= And get comments from.
Krauss"- Yeah, and ta!k to Chuck. Okay.
DI~JS$ION O~ AMENDMENT _R~G~DIN8 5~LE$ O~ SEXUALLY ORIENTED M~TERI~L.
Emmings: Next item, do you think we ought to turn the TV off for this?
I'm not sure that anybody should actually be reading a report like this.
The next item in our packet here is discussion of an amendmen~ regarding
sexually oriented, regulating sexually oriented businesses.
Krauss: We were asked to get something on the books by the City Counctl.
The Hayor in particular ~hen we set our annual goals. .And when ~e looked
at this the first time, I think we mutually had a lot of questions as to
ho~ do you do this ~lthout trampling on the Consititution and is it
possible to do and how do you define it? Well, I found that attorney's can
define almost anything. And apparently have. Roger's telling me that this
is really becoming the boiler plate ordinance and' I think it achieves the
best you can achieve and still be legally defensible. Now this gets away
from the combat zone approach which I really ~ouldn't advocate and goes for
defining what these businesses are and requiring them to be a distance from
certain protected categories of land u~e. At the moment I can't find what'
the distance
Emmlngs: 500 feet.
Krauss: 500 feet?
Emmin~:
Farmakes:
Yeah.
$o this would be similar like a liquor store.
Krauss: Well liquor store really doesn't say that. Liquor store, people
make that up as they go along but yes, it Is somewhere in that people don't
want a liquor store around a school yard or something like that.
Conrad: Do we have this is our fast food? Do we have a fast food
ordinance?
Krauss: We have a convenience store ordinance.
Conrad: Convenience, yeah.
Farmakes: Can you define principle bus'these purpose? What criteria do you
use to define principle business purpose?
Emmings: And beyond that, it didn't say .just principle business. Didn't
it say one of their principle business purposes?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 31
Farmakes= Yes.
Emmings= So it wasn't even their principle business. Zt said one of their
principle bus,ness.
Farmakes= What is that 10~ of revenue? '20~ of'revenue?
Emmings: That may be even harder to define'. There's iota of stuff to
quibble ~ith here.
Krauss: Well, this seems to be the one. Roger's cla~ming that this is
basically the one that Minneapolis has adopted and Bloomington Just adopted
and Ramsay adopted after their situation. It's rather detailed and lengthy
and if you marked up something with some questiorrs, I gUess if you could
give that to me, ! can go to Roger and say these are the things that were
raised. I don't know what else to do with it.
Earnings: It's overwhelming. It's like we don't have any here and ~e're
adopting a lO page ordinance. It's Just ~ike, it seems like you're hitting
a fly with a tank. That's what it felt like to me. Al! this, ! don't
know. If people don't like this stuff, they don't have to go there, you
kno~ what I mean, and then they go out of business. That's the way
regulate it. Otherwise ~f you want to regulate them, this looks good to
me. If this is how you do ~t through an ordinance I think. I thought
was very reasonable. It's Just, I Just can't get interested in it myself.
..
Krauss: Well, and like ! say, the Council asked that we take a crack at
it. We've talked about this Steve and I guess I share some of the same
concerns about that k~nd of ordinance. On the other hand, the situat~on,
I'm pretty sure it was Ramsay, that they ~ent through. One of these places
opened up next to a daycare center. It was one of those th~ngs where
everybody agrees is pretty abominable and this at least gets to those
travesties and as well, yeah you can have ~t town but you Just don't do it
there.
Emmings= The other thing then is, if that's one of your goals and I think
that's a really, why say 500 feet. Why not say 1,000 feet?
Krauss= Because you can't do that.
Emm~ngs: Why?
Krauss:
~r hat t:
There has to be legitimate sites.
Ns're a big city. Nhy not Just say South Chanhassen.
Krauss: I remember ~hen Minneapolis and St. Paul, maybe ~t was St. Paul,
tr~ed this thing. No, it ~as M~nneapolis. And who's Ferr~s Alexander's
constant attorney?
Emmings: Yeah, I know who you mean.
Krauss= Randall Teich. Yeah, he showed up again with the handguns and
these great issues. He did an overlay map because the first crack
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 32
'.
Minneapolis had where they said you can't be, what was it, 1,0007
think Minneapolis did have 1,000 feet from residential districts. Well you
go along Lake Street and there's always a single famtly house within 1,000
feet of Lake Street.
Emmings: Yeah but this is 1,000 feet from churches, child care centers,
what else? Other stores. Are you restricting it to those?
Krauss= Which already restricts it quite a lot. I mean we still have a
church in the Frontier building downtown.
Ledvtna: Could you draw on a map and identify all those and do circles and
see if there's anything?
Kraues: I'd rather leave it up to Randall Tetch to make the map'actually.
Conrad: I don't think you'd find many places other than out-in Tlmberwood.
I think close to Ttmberwood. -
Emmlngs: You're going to get Mary Harrlngton in here with comments like
that.
Erhart: I think it's good. If Council wants to. One of the things is I
think while we want to do our share in a lot of things, when it comes to
situations where it's pretty universally deemed as less than destreable, I
think you've got every right to try to discourage it from coming into
Chanhassen altogether. The second thing.is, if all the other cities are
doing this, all of a sudden we're going to be the last one and they're
going to look to us as the place to go.
Conrad: I don't mind it. I agreed with you Steve. I thought geez, this
is a big, terrific, all encompassing ordinance. I thought whoa, we don't
even have a problem yet but.
Krauss: One of the unfortunate things is, if you adopt this, you'll never
have to see it again because it's not in the Zoning Ordinance. It becomes
a licensing issue. Public safety. In fact you won't even have to hold the
public hearing.
Erhart: Where's the recommendation.
Emmings: What do you want us to do tonight?
Krauss: I'd like you to recommend. Make a recommendation on the ordinance
and then what I was going to do is submit it to Public Safety and let Scott
take it through their Commission for a comparable recommendation. Then let
the Council hold a public hearing.
Erhart: I so move.
Emmings: Second. Is there any more discussion?
Planning Commission Meeting
April I$, I992 - Page 33
Erhart moved, Emings seconded that the Plannino Coa~isalon recommend
approval of the a~endment to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding the 5ale~ of
Sexually Oriented Material. All voted in favor and the ~otion carried.
DISCUSSION OF HIC1H~Y CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Emmings: Paul, what do you want us to do here?
Krauss.' Nell, this is kind of a tough one to get a handle on. I .think you
all know what we've done to date. You've seen the newsletter that Bill
Morrish published. I think you're aware of the fact, or you should be
aware of the fact that we're talking to a couple of firms to give us
proposals to undertake the corridor study. Ne're actually trying to
implement these kinds of recommendations now as we go along working with
MnOot. as development is being proposed, we're working with the developers
to get this kind of stuff done. One of the problems that we have is that
we have a set of concepts down in a very nice format that make people feel
good but there's no beef. The plan isn't developed. The standards aren't
developed. The ordinance isn't developed yet things are happening all
around us all the time. And this overlay, district was an attempt to get
our foot in the door and say hey, our expectations are different. You're
in a different area. Ne don't know'exactly what we want yet but we know
some of these things and that we can put down in an ordinance. The
ordinance also would reference and does reference the newsletter that Btll
did, because that's the only documentation that exists right now. I would
also adopt by reference whatever we do in the future as a formal corridor.
plan and revise the ordinance. The context that we're viewing this in is
kind of tough because while you've been through the process with the HRA
and the City Council and Tom Lapic has .written a couple of articles about
it, by and large nobody out there in 'the city knows what we've done and
I've still got developers walking in the door and property o~ners all the
time thinking it's business as usual. And when ! say no, we have different
expectations here, you get funny looks and then you've got 'to kind of ~ork
through the process. There's been no public input on what we've done to
date and that scares me to death. If you want tO move forward with an
ordinance like this, we have homework to do because we need to have
meetings to educate the property owners and the developers and the folks
out there as to the wisdom of pursuing something like this.. You could
wait. You could wait until we finish the ordinance and the plan and we'll
try and slog through best we can. I'm not sure if this is going to work.
I mean this is more touchy feely than you like an ordinance to be. I
bounced it off of Roger and his initial reaction was, don't do that.
Emmings= Don't use so many adjectives. Use nouns.
Krauss: Exactly.
Emmings: I like that.
Krauee: I'd use the nouns if I had them but I think Roger and I'discussed
it enough that if we tinkered with this he thinks it's probably a
defensible ordinance. But again there's a big sell Job to do and you'd be
a part of that in the hearing process.
Planning Commission Heating
Rpril 15, 1992 - Page 34
Emmings: Now are you talking about, so if we start getting public input by
having public hearings on this overlay ordinance? Is that the idea?
Krauss= Yeah. It's a cart before the horse situation that scares me.
Erhart: The $40,000.00 that we were talking about to do the corridor plan.
Krauss= 40 to
Erhart= Actually we're going to lay out the actual streets, the side
streets?
Krauss= Oh yeah.
Erhart= So what happens then if we did that' and all of a sudden a
developer comes in and says [ don't want to do It that way? I have
better plan. Did we waste that money?
Krauss= Well you can make the same argument about the entire comprehensive
plan. I mean we made the best attempt we could to gather information and
predict the future in 1990. If somebody comes along with a helluva good
idea in 1995 that we didn't think of, I think we've all acknowledged that
we'll sure give it due consideration. But you still have a framework for
everything to be hung on and to evaluate everything against. If We do this
plan and the plan defines center lines for the parallel collector streets
and defines land uses, I mean that's the gauge that you're going to hold
everything else and every amendment up against.
Emmlngs= It's a starting po[hi.
Erhart: The problem is you've got all these little parcels of land and
even if you do a complete plan, there's nothing that says that that guy has
to actually follow that plan.
Krauss= Well, that's where the ordinance comes in. This isn't, I-mean in
Canada they can kind of demand that people buitd a certain kind of
building. We don't do that here and clear-l¥ an indivi_dual property owner
would have a range of acceptable uses but within those acceptable uses
we're going to have defined rights-of-way that we want for parallel
streets. We're going to define that your building has to be oriented in
such and such a way and your parking lot has to be away from TH 5. And
that the kind of landscaping we're looking for is this. We may define that
we have a greater open space requirement in the corridor. There's lots of
things that you can add on that would pretty Ne[[ direct development and
hopefully get you what you want.
Erhart: Do you envision any other corridors besides the one we're.
discussing today?
Krauss: No, not at this point in time. If you want to project down close
to 1995 and you look at opening up additional MUSA area along 212, you may
want to have that.
Erhart: You mean existing 2127
Planning Commission Meeting
Apr i ]. :15, :1<)<)2 - Page 3.5
Krauss: New 212. New 212 though, Highway $ is a linear corridor because
of the kind of highway it is. It has a lot of .intersections. If you did a
corridor plan along new 212 that would more rightfully be called an
interchange development plan.
Erhart: How about TH 417 TH 41, the way We have it zoned, it's all
residential up there. We're really talking about this corridor, we're
talking about no purpose in future use. ! guess the thought was and I'm
Just thinking out loud like, Ladd taught me this. Haybe If we took this to
a consultant for $10,000.00, you could actually lay this into a corridor
area. A corridor overlay ordinance. Get the nouns. Replace the verbs
with nouns. Haybe we'd get more out of it than we would bY actually trying
to go in and do a specific design and let the developers pay for this.
Emming$: But don't we need to have, we're not designing individual
parcels. What He're doing is setting up Just the network 'of frontage .roads
and what's feeding into them and things like that. But that's all we're
dictating to a developer. Ns're not trying to lay out his streets.
Farmakes: There's criteria landscaping.
Erhart: You're talking about the $40,0'00.00 to $60,000.00 plan.
Emmings: Well, who kno~ what it costs. To me you know, we've got the
plan. I don't know why we can't take what.
Krauss: Let the describe the elements that we're trying to get tn this
package. Ne want to have somebody on board who can work-with HnDot and
help us structure a.nd redesign the Highway 5 const'ruction program so that
it meets our goals. And qualifies for this ne~ funding source unde~
new hlg~ay bills. So we'~e hoping [hal ~hl~ ~60,0~.00 lnves~n[ oT
T~['s :he pZay on [[. Bu[ you kno~ ~e're Zook[ng. a[ tinkering ~[th
design [n :arms of adding bridges instead of culvert. ~dd[ng ~rb
of ditches. Rddtng ~etaining ~aiis to save trees. Those kinds of things.
Then ~e need to define the center [inca and probably officially map ~here
those parallel, collectors are going to go because in "large part that's
going [o, If you read Morriah's plan, that's going to define the land
that occur off of it. So Ne really need to have ~rd and fast information
on ~here that should be. We're ~ing to need to define Nhat public
should be on this corridor. Ho~ does the ~A get involved in the future?
Do Ne need additional treatments at intersections and corers? Do Ne need
to buy up something as devei~nt occur's to make sure that ~e save
of trees that ~e Nouidn't o[herNiae save. What stands of trees, ~hat
features are going [o make the developer save so that ahead of time ~ can
telia developer you've got this area. Or Fleet Farm. Like the ~ay Fleet
Farm's supposed to fit on that corner. That ~ act~lly have a plan and
say, ~ei[ Nhether it's Fleet Farm, K-Mart or lo~d kno~s N~t, this la the
~ay you're going to fit in a big building. And ho~ you orient t~
ia up to you. How you develop your alta plan and ~hat It looks like,
those things can be decided in the future but Ne Nant to save this wetland
and ~e Nant to save those trees. T~y're real im~rtant relative to the
corridor. The corridor plan la then going to defi~ enforcement
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 36
because we're going to need to take an active role in this, the same way
the HRR's taking an active role in this stretch' of TH 5. It's going to
define an ordinance that's going to get us where we want to be. It's
probably going to expand on Bill Morrish's design concept. This is kind of
late breaking stuff in planning, the last 5, 6 years in terms of design
ordinances and the ones that seem to be most effective are not those that
say like Eden Prairie, you have to have brick buildings. But rather say
what kind of elements you need. You know we°d [[ke ~ou to incorporate
these kinds of ele~nts in a plan and then sketch up how those things might
work and then you give it to their architects and you sa~ these are our
ideas. Build upon them. Some latitude to do t~t. You roll all that
a package and that's what ~e're asking people to give us proposals for.
~ again, one of the direct goals of this program is to yield many
millions of dollars of additional ~und[ng out of the federal
Emmings: Now to get to the specific topic at. hand here. 'The draft high~ay
corridor overlay district. What's the function of this? To get something
on the books to say that there's activity in this area and to-start the
process of educating the community at Large about ~here ~e're going?
Krauss= Yeah. And again, I'm not lO0~ convinced that this is the best way
to go because it is a cart and horse situation. You're telling People we
want to have an ordinance but we can't tell you exactly what it's going to
define. On the other hand, I'm in meeting after meeting ~ith people
developing properties or talking about developing properties along-the
corridor and I go ~el[, gee you kno~. The Planning Commission really would
feel pretty good if you put this this way and the City Council has told me
don't put any green buildings up and He do like trees so take ali this into
account when you develop the site and the guy coa~es back and says, screw
it. This is the Rapid Oil I put up in Burnsville. I'm going to do the
same thing here. And yes, we go back and forth and ~e're usually able to
get a whole lot better, I hope we're able to get a whole lot better program
than they had come in with.
Erhart: I guess I see it doing more than that Steve.' I would say If you
have an overlay ordinance, even though it's not ali that definitive, the
fact is that you can, ~hen a developer comes in, you lay this ordinance on
them and see our goals and so forth and.don't most developers ~ant to come
in with a plan that responds to what they perceive that the Planning
Commission, Council, staff want or am ! naive?
Krauss= You're right. If you can define exactly what you're looking for
and they know it, even if they disagree...they'[[ feel a ~hole lot more
comfortable because they kno~ what they're' dealing with. 14hat's probably
going to scare them about this is that it raises more questions than it
answers. Which means to them that 'they're going to spend a whole lot more
money and time trying to figure out ~hat we really mean. No~ in point of
fact that's true without the ordinance.
Farmakes: Isn't the object here to buy us some time?
Krauss: ! think so because.
Planning Commission Nesting
Apri! 15, 1992 - Page 37
Emmlngs: And give some legitimacy to'the things .that he has to talk to
them about. So I think it's good to do something rather than nothing
I guess.
Farmakes: I don't think we should wait one minute.
Ledvina: At the last meeting I asked the question about the potential for.
a moratorium and I see you discuss that briefly here and again you cite the
situation in Woodbury but I think, and' I've spoken to attorneys involved in
that case and it's my impression that for something like a corridor study,
that is a very legitimate use of a moratorium and would be legally upheld
if you had some challengers by developers. $o maybe there's some
misconception regarding that Woodbury case. :rust because they lost and
they used the moratorium inapprop~..~ately, I don't think that should, if
that's really a tool that we can u~e, I don't think we should throw it out.
I mean if we Teally need to bide time. I don't disagree with an overlay
district but I don't know that that should be toe~ out.
Krauss: We1! frankly, I mean I think ! mentioned last time that the
Council has talked about moratorium and wasn't terribly supportive of it. I
fully agree with you Matt. I mean Woodbury messed up and invited a suit.
And I asked Roger about it and we both agreed that with a defined time
limit, you ate legitimately able to do these things. Now if the
alternative to a developer or property owners in the corridor is either we
trip a moratoTium or we trip an overlay district that allows you to move
forward with as much guidance as we can give you, then Z think I know what
their answer is going to be. I would Just hate to see us have missed
opportunities that we get to a point on a...project where there's Just a.
great deal of discomfort and concern and a moratorium comes out of that
kind of a reaction rather than.
Ledvlna: It's kind of a definitive thing. It's not an if. It's not a
negotiation.
Farmakes: Can the moratorium be placed at a later date?
Krauss: Oh I don't see why not.
Farmakes: Did they do that with another development here in town?
Erhart: Convenience stores.
Farmakes: Convenience stores? Was it temporary? Not quite the same
thing.
Ledvina: A moratorium as I understand it is really exactly set up for this
type of purpose where you've got an area that you know you-need some
detailed planning and you want to incorporate it into your comprehensive
plan. You need the time to do that, this is appropriate.
Erhart: It might be but at the same time, if you have to put a moTatorium
on and you have to commit to doing the plan which nobody wants to do.
Nobody wants to pay the money, it's going to be pretty ridiculous.
Planning Commission Meeting
~pril 15, 1992 - Page 38
Krauss= I want this to go to the Council because I don't even think they
should do this overlay district unless they're willing to commit to
finishing the process.
Ledvina: I agree. There's got to be a concerted effort here and the time
line has to be adhered to. Absolutely.
Krauss: You know the TH 5 corridor, I was playing a~ound with doing some
maps in trying to define what I thought the TH 5 corridor is based upon all
our discussions. ~nd it includes the property in front of DataServ. It
includes the property by The Press. It includes the HR~ property on 79th
Street and the Ward parcel. [i'm not Jumt west of CR 17.
Conrad= I guess I would consider a moratorium if ! thought there were
funds ready to be put into the project. But I really don't knave so I don't
even want to consider that tonight.
Ledvina= Maybe not tonight but it seems to be thrown out and based on the
situation in Woodbury and if that's a misconception, I'd like to disspell
that.
Conrad = Yeah.
Erhart= Was it clear to the .Planning Commission that our recommendation
was to go ahead with the design?
Krauss= The design?
Erhart= That we ought to be...
Emmings: Oh yeah.
Er~art: I guess at this point maybe we ought to-go back and re-emphasize
it again. That we've reviewed the subject. We unanimously recommend that
we go ahead with the design. Short of that,.we believe that we ought to do
this overlay. Or even simultaneously. Just go back and re-emphasize that
we think that it's urgent that we support sta'ff or whatever and get the
money committed.
Emmings-' Rte you getting bids to do that work?
Krauss: I'm getting one.
Conrad= Why just one?
Krauss= ! guess. ! mean ! can tell you off the record about a couple of
things but there's not, I'll tell you off the record.
Conrad= But tell me, well ! think we should be going ahead with the
overlay district unless there's a moratorium. So all these things are kind
of.
Ledvtna: It's either one or the other. Or maybe the moratorium at a later
date too. If we feel this doesn't work and we're pressured.
Planning Commission Nesting
~pril 15, 1992 - Page 39
Conrad: Well what do you know that's happening that's going to affect
something? What's happening o43wn TH 5 that's going to come in the next 6
months that you don't have control over?
Krauss: This should be off the record too. we've been talking to a number
of individuals about some fairly significant developments, both in downtown
and outside. The timing may work out well to our advantage and even if the
recession's ending right now, nobody's beating do~n the doors to build
major industrial projects or commercial projects. But we do have one
commercial project that you're probably going to see in the very near
future in downtown. Rnd we've seen the site plan for it and we think we
can do a whole lot better. Okay? Now downtown gives us a fortunate amount
of leverage because most everything that happens in the downtown, the HRR
subsidizes. $o we can attach strings. But we had a meeting on this
project. We being, staff, Bill fforTish, Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, and Barry
Warner to develop what we think is a better site plan for the same kind of
uses but does what we think needs to be done relative to this site's
prominence along TH 5. ~e think, because of the HRA we may have enough
leverage to pull it off but there's a lot of other things involved here and
it would sure be nice if we had something on the books that said thou shall
instead of won't you please. [ mean things are happening incredibly fast
around here. We know that there's a 350,000 square foot industrial user
that's been talking about building for a year and a half but is actually
got it down to 3 sites, all of which are in Chamhassen. One of which could
be the 35 acre McGlynn property. That's a big one. I mean that's a very
prominent site. I mean all ! know right now ts'! don't want another 50
foot h'igh tip up panel building ~.ight there on the corner. But 350,000
square feet is going to have some of that involved with it and where do you
put it? How should it work? $o it's hard to kno~ that. Things are
changing weekly.
Earnings: Are people generally, are you going to take this proposal up to
the City Council with our reaction?
Krauss= I thought I b~>uld.
Emmings: And then...public hearings on it and so forth?
Krauss: Yeah, see the biggest problem ! have' m/th this whole TH 5 process
to date. is getting concurrence on exactly what me should be doing. I want
to take it to you and get your feedback and then up to the Council.
Emmings: Okay, does everybody support this overlay district at .this time
so we get started with something? Along with like Tim says, to reiterate
to them that we think this is one of the most important things ~e've got to
do and to get going on. Is that the kind of me,age you want to send up?
Conrad: Yeah, I think so.
Emmi rigs: Okay.
Farmakes: Is there anything being done, the other part of this that you
were talking about was communication. Getting the word out to the people
out there. Is there anythink being done on that end?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1992 - Page 40
Krauss: No, and that would be a very btQ part of this plan proposal. I've
already stressed that to them that.
Farmakes= The paper actually says very little of this. They've written
two small articles.
Krauss: And your letter.
Farmakes: I think my letter was maybe twice as long as their articles.
Forgive me for that.
Earnings: That's fine.-
Ledvina.' Do we need a motion?
Emmings: No, we don't need a motion. He's just going to, do we?
Krauss: ! can carry the sense.
Emmings: Let's do Moon Valley litigation. Anything you want to say? I
cut you off before on that. Anything you've got on that. and'then you can
wrap it up.
Krauss: Oh. We won.
Conrad: Really?
Krauss: I think ~o. Roger thinks so. I'm reall pleased.
Emmings: Did everybody think so?
Krauss: Well, I talked to the Moon Valley, the guy that Moon Valley hired
to design their plan and he's saying that Moon Valley is comfortable with
the decision, which disturbs me because if I'm hel:)PY they shouldn't be.
But look at it on the face of it. Moon Valley maintained that we had no
authority to require them to get a permit because they're a non-conforming
use. The Judge said that's garbage. Moon Valley maintaine~t that we had no
right to stop them from mining on the north parcel off of Pioneer Trail.
The Judge said we have every right to stop them. They have no inherent
right to mine up there at all. Moon Valley submitted two alternative
grading plans to us, one of which was bad. The other which was ludicrous.
The Judge said the ludicrous one is ludicrous. The bad plan has a kernel
of truth to it and served as the basis-of developing a better document. He
gave them 30 days to submit an application for permit. What else i the JUC~
said is that Moon Valley has an inherent right to mine everything they want
to within reason, health, safety, welfare, on the main pit site.
Emmings: We had conceded that right?
Krauss: Basically. Well, we conceded the 'fact that they have do rights to
mine. Now I guess you draw lines in the sand as to exactly what health,
safety and public welfare is and I'm not sure how much leverage we have. I
mean saving a portion of the bluff line, requiring a reforestation plan,
all that kind of stuff. Roger and I believe that ~ have ample right to
Planning Comiesion Nesting
April 15, 1992 - Page 41
do. I'm going to have my first meeting poet' ruling with their planner
tomorrow afternoon. It took a long ti~e though but I think we achieved
most of the points ~e wanted mo I'm p~ettY co~f. ortable with it.
Conrad: Did he put significant financial resource into this litigation?
Hoon Valley.
K~auss= They hived the law fi~m of Siegel, B~ill and a Quy who's name I
find, I can't remember because I don't like him. I have a tendency to
forget it. And they've spent a huge amount of time on this. They Had
their planner do a series of plans and hold negotiations with us and t~en
come to court to testify. $o I assume they spent a whole lot of money
spinning their wheels. No~, I mean I spent a lot of time.
Con,ad: $100,000.007
Krauss: I don't think it's anything like that. Well, I don't know. I
don't know what the attorney's billables are. But we have, I mean our law
firm is under retainer. You pay me whether I sit in court or not ~o I
think it cost them a lot more than it cost us. No~ I don't know if all the
gravel pit operators get together to defend each other. I sort of suspect
that they do because they all use o~e law firm.
Emmings: Is there anything else any~>ody wante to talk about? Is the~e a
motion to adjourn the meeting?
Erhart aoved. Farmakes .~-o~ to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meet. lng .a~ adjourned at. 10:10
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim