The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 05 15CHANH REGUL MAY I Chairr ~SSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ~R MEETING · 1991 an Emmings called the meeting to order at°7:37 p.m.. MEMBE_~',S PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson,.Steve Emmings, ~r~anlSatzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Plann~ r and Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector PUBL HEARING: CONDI' IONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAG~ SHED TO BE LOCATED WI' THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 102 S~ NDY HOOK ROAD, PETER MOSCAT~LLI. Jo Ant Emmin~; Ordin~ Olsen presented the staff report on this item. s: What is the status of the adoption of the new Shoreland nce? Olsen: be me,! Emmin~ We've gotten our notification that we have to do it. I'm going to lng with Ceil next month to get the process initiated. What do you have to do? Olsen We have to pretty much review all the lake designations to still make e if it's a recreational or environmental. Then we go through a check] st of what our ordinance currently, what we have to change. Just go throu the shoreland regulations and whether or not we agree to them and cham whatever we want to change. Emmim : Wasn't there something about us having to have it done bY a certa time? Olsen: Emming Olsen: 2 years. We have until January of 1993. : Oh, okay. When do we expect to get it done? When do we expect to? Emmim : Yeah. Olsen: Well I was hoping to do it this summer. But next year, I'would not count n it being completed until next year. Batzli Until the summer of 19927 Olsen: Yes. Emmin~ : So, alright. This is a public hearing. If the applicant is here, his would be an opportunity to tell us anything additional. Peter loscatelli: I'm here but I don't really have anything additional. Plannt May Emmin.( want the ng Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 2 : Alright. Are there any other members of the public here that address themselves to this application? Is there a motion to close lic hearing? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhar : Why do we restrict water supply? What difference does it make? Is it applicant's request or staff's ~equest to restrict the water...? Olsen You mean for habitation? Erhar No. I understand the habitation. I'm just saying why not, why can't ~e have a water hose? I mean a guy can put a hydrant anyplace out there. A guy could put an underground sprinkler system in. What's the reasor for that? Olsen: I don' habit~ I think that's the wordage that the DNR uses for the restriction so know why it couldn't have water supply. I think it was more for ion. For cleaning fish or something. Erhar comme Oh yeah. I mean clearly. Everybody...habitation. That's my only that just seemed, I don't know why that's in there. Emmin~ : And along the same lines you know, there's a lot of our lakes, the s, goes between the house and the lakeshore. It'd be very easy, if you w~ to bring the water in too and water's actually harder to get in. But lng a toilet or something in there... Er~ You mean your concern someone would use it for human habitation? Emmin~ : I don't really care but I'm sure that's what the DNR's concerned about Erhar a h WOT I just think sometimes it's useful for accessory buildings to have tnt for like putting out lawn sprinklers and stuff. I'm Just ng why. Emminl : Or just gardening or potting or whatever. Conrac west? Olsen: or Was the resident to the north sent a notification? Or to the Right. Everyone within 500 feet... I know that even Mr. Pfankuch t was in. Is he to the west of you? Peter oscatelli: He's to the east. Olsen: The resident to the west, they were notified. Peter Ii: There's actually not a resident. Plann ng Commission Meeting May l. , ~99! - Page 3 Conrac : Is that a vacant? Peter lli: It's a vacant lot. Conrac : What is our standard for height on a building? It says 10 feet. That' our current standard. What is the standard for size? Olsen For size? Conra, : Yeah, Olsen: Conra~ ordin~ Well now the ordinance, it can't be like 1,000 square feet. Because that's a back, that has nothing to do with a lake ~ce? That's really just a residential lot ordinance? Olsen Right. That's our accessory structure. Conra Accessory structure. Olsen: Peter keep hill What's the height of the building that you're putting up? telli: Oh, well. It would be a maximum about 7 feet... I'll as short as possible because it's kind of down, tucked into the the visibility from my house to the lake over it. Co And what do you think if somebody built to the west of you, do you think ~t's going to be, is it obstructing a'ny visual line of sight that you can Peter iii: No, not at all. Because the lake is off in the western diret n so that lot would be the other way and the building is back from the . . . Co I guess I'm uncomfortable with the ordinance. I don't know where staff .s coming from in terms of the next ordinance that we take a look at but t 10 feet in height in my mind is not acceptable. This has nothing to do ith the applicant right now. That's not an acceptable height to me. Olsen: ...high? Conrad Yes, absolutely. 10 feet is as high as this ceiling. On the lake side, just can't imagine. If my neighbor put up a 10 foot building, that's going to block my, that's going to be offensive. We're not dealing with back yard. We're dealing with the lake side which many people treat as a ont yard. It's a whole different mentality here. The 75 foot change to 50, that doesn't bother me too much because, envir ~ntally that doesn't bother me. There's enough screening and thin~ like that? In 50 feet you can do a lot so I'm comfortable with that. I'm not comfortable that the new ordinance or wherever we're going is ta ng care of neighbors and that's why I was asking if the neighbors were i fact notified? I think in this particular, in a 250 foot standard, Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1. , 1991 - Page 4 again 's a big building in somebody's front yard. Well on the lake and if we e talking boat houses, I'm not sure what we're talking about. I'm reall kind of uncomfortable with maybe what I see. The staff report is sayi our new standards are going to be. I think we need to look at them. I thi k we need lake people input to tell us whether they're right or wrong and ously we'll go through a public hearing but I think we should make an t, and I know 3o Ann you will, to make sure the lake associations are i med. That aside, the applicant and what they're asking for, what he's king for tonight, I'm comfortable with. I just don't know that, I guess 'm only uncomfortable with am I setting a precedent? Is there any pre setting, you know we haven't gone through a public hearing and we're 'ng 50 feet is okay because that's what our new standard is going to be I'm not sure yet. I haven't had the input. Ellso Something new proposed? Co sure what Right. And so I'm trying to justify it based on something I'm not but I do feel that the applicant's proposal is acceptable based on can see. Ellso I agree that it looks fine. I did want to tell Peter though. I was ~eted at the curb by your nice growling dog so I didn't really get to see t back yard. After talking with him, the dog kind of liked me but as I too a couple more steps he started growling so I didn't even come C Batzl Sam? Is there a dog house back there with Sam on it? Peter Ioscatelli: Yeah. Batzl Okay. I called the dog the wrong name. Apologize for me. Ellso' Yeah, he didn't quite like redheads but I don't have a problem with . Batzl Is that about where the structure is going to go? Back where the dog ~se is? Peter Iii: Yeah. Batzli Because really then the vacant lot to the west is it? That's reall' up a slope in addition to the dog house being down a slope so I guess don't have a problem with this particular location. Peter oscatelli: If I could comment on the location of the structure. It would nd to obscure the view of the lake from my house more than anywhere so I' kind of taking on every effort to minimize that. To be as short as poss Le and to be tucked into the hill as much as possible. Batzli I just had a comment on the first condition. I assume when we say that i .'s made of cedar siding, that we're talking about it has an exterior of ced.r siding? Pl May i Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 5 Olsen Batzl Olsen Batzl goes Olsen Batzl ve~ Olsen Batzl Right. And in number 4 Jo Ann. Does that mean they have to maintain ion between the accessory structure and Lotus Lake and the accessory re and the neighboring properties? In other words, it's between the iented accessory structure and both Lotus Lake and neighboring les. Right. I guess just really hypertechnical but I mean there's a path that ,wn there right now so obviously it's not like contiguous. With the lake, right. That's okay? You're just talking about you need some natural ion around the structure? And to maintain what's there. Maintain that screen. That's all I have. Farma ,s: I think it's in an unobtrusive spot. I don't see where it's going bother any line of sight or anybody's visual sight to the lake and I no objections to this. Ahre alt lake. I think the site is fine too. I don't have any problem with it h I'm kind of curious as to why we call this a water oriented structure. It just seems like it's a storage shed located near a Olsen: That's essentially what it was. But also one of the main purposes of th was for his canoes and paddies and boats. Ahre 8ut it doesn't have to be used for a water accessory structure? Olsen No. Ahren~, Olsen Ahren,~ Olsen Ahren,~ It doesn't have to be used for. No. It can be used for others. ...anything that says they have to use it for any specific No. He can still put his lawnmower in there. Why is it called water oriented then? Olsen Again I'm just starting to, that's the terminology used in the DNR regul~ ions currently and the new one where it is primarily for the boat les. Motors, things like that that need to be closer to the lake PlannJ May 1 Commission Meeting lggi - Page 6 SO they e don't have to haul it as far. That's one of the reasons that allowed exceptions into the 75 foot setback. Ahre But it doesn't really have to be used for that? Olden No. Ahren~ Something seems odd there to me. I don't know. It seems like if it's t going to be required to be used for water oriented activities, why shoul we give any special treatment as to how close it is to the lake? The k. Batzl I think the people who live on the lake would say that anything built ,etween the house, the standard kind of line of the houses are inbet~sen the lake and should be considered that so you don't end up with thin,.~on the lake. You need to have that setback whether it's going to be orie for water uses or just a backyard tool shed. Ahre doesn I understand that but I'm wondering why we call it something if it have to be used for that purpose. Batzl Because it gives it more restriction if you call it that. Ahre How? Batzl Because then it needs to have a larger setback. I mean if you just lied it a tool shed and you didn't consider that you were on the lake, hen you just need what? A 5 foot, 10 foot setback off the back lot line? Emmin~ : No. No, because you can't build a structure within 75 feet of the . To have a structure in that area it must be either a boat house or a oriented accessory structure. You can't put the 1,000 foot. Olsen: Garage. Emmin~ : Yeah, or the storage building within 75 feet of the lake. But you c~ build something you call, so you change the name a little bit. I think a matter of fact 3oan, I have one of these. I have a water or . Ahr What's in your shed? Emmin : All the inflatables that you blow up for the kids to play on. The les and the knee boards and the ski equipment and it would be, life would pure hell for me if I didn't have it I can tell you. Ahr Well, that was my point. Emmin~ : But I think as a matter of fact people, at least with my nei s and things, the stuff like lawn mowers and all the stuff you nor y put in a storage shed stays away from the lake side and the stuff PIann ng Commission Meeting May 1, , 1991 - Page 7 that assocj Ahrene used f down there by the shore is, it's either picnic stuff or directly with the lake somehow. I was just noticing that the applicant said it was going to be storage of lawn equipment. That's all I have. Emmin~ : Alright. The only thing I've got is in number 4. It seems to me that applicant should be required to screen this by vegetation. Not just ntain by vegetation. But other than that, I don't really have a probl with this. Is there any further discussion? Conra Are we setting a precedent on this case? Olsen I don't believe so. Conra Are we prejudicing the new ordinance in any way? Olsen: Oh no. I'm still using the same criteria that we've dealt before with. Emmin~ : Under the new ordinance this would be a permitted use if we adopt it the way it is. Here it's a conditional use permit and we're going under the o , I guess we're going under the old ordinance. The only question is, t I suppose you could raise would be, if we don't want these things at al and if we're going to make a stricter standard than the new ordi that's coming out, do we want to apply that in this case3 Maybe that' the same question you're asking. Ahre But if we don't know what the standard is, how can we apply it? Emmin~ Conra( 75 fee : It's hard to apply a standard you haven't made yet. All you can do is what we're doing and the only thing we've got is · Batz I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of condi .onal use permit ~91-3 as shown on the plans dated May 8, 1991 with the fc~lowing conditions. Condition 1 to read, the structure must have an exteri~r of cedar siding and a roof of cedar shakes and be painted a simila report access Emming Ahren~ purpo~ Batzli betweE neigh[ color as the principal structure. Number 2 and 3 as in the staff Number 4 to read, the applicant must screen the water oriented .ry. Now wait a minute. What did you have for that? s.' It doesn't make sense the way I have it. How about for the purpose of screening? Vegetation for the of screening. Alright. The applicant must maintain for the purpose of screening the water oriented accessory structure and both Lotus Lake and ring properties. Plann g Commission Meeting May 1991 - Page 8 Emmin~ : Is there a second? Ellso Second. Emmin~ : Any discussion? Batzl moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend appr of Conditional Use Permit #91-3 as shown on plans dated May 1991 th the following conditions: 1. T structure must have an exterior of cedar siding and a roof of cedar s kes and painted a similar color as the principal structure. 2. T structure may not be used for human habitation and may not contain supply or sewage treatment facilities. 3. T structure may not exceed a height of 10 feet. · applicant must maintain for the purpose of screening between the oriented accessory structure and both Lotus Lake and neighboring All with :ed in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and the motion carried vote of 6 to 1. Emmin.~ : Ladd why? Conra( No reason· No, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the 10 foot 'd. I think I'd like to review the new ordinance before, or the new 'ds that we applied. Emmin: : Well, but my understand Ladd is that he's got to have a 7 foot max' . That's the plan we're approving for him. Co feet. I didn't see that on the plan. It can't go to 10 but it's not 7 Emmin~ : Wait a minute· We're approving his plan. Has he presented a plan the structure showing a height? Olsen: It doesn't really show the height on it. Emmin~ : Alright. conrad Erhart It passed. Can you make sure it's clear in the Minutes what you're. Emmin~ : Well I certainly passed it with the understanding that it'd be 7 feet ximum is what he told us. Olsen: I'll put that to the Council when it goes to Council. Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 9 Batzl : Well I think, not to put words in his mouth that that's the walk in he ght and then you have a peak. Is it 7 feet at the highest? At the peak? Peter Moscatelli: Yeah. I can't imagine, it certainly wouldn't be more than 172 or 8 feet. Very close to 7 feet. There's a requirement on the pitch which it has to... I would try pretty hard to keep it within. Conra, : But it's also dug into the hill. Peter lli: Yeah. The hill would...probably at least that high. Conrac: Visually I think it's going to be...uncertain with some of our stand~ and I'm making a point. Emmin, : Okay. And for his benefit this will go to the City Council when? June Olsen: June lOth. PUBLI( HEARING: INTER] USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE DRIVIN~ RANGE AT SWINGS GOLF RANGE PROPERTY ZONED A-2 AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST cORNER OF HWY $ AND BOULEVARD, JOHN PRY~MU$. Jo Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Emmings called the publi hearing to order. Emmin~ : John, do you want to address us on this at all? John : Yeah. Emmin~ : If you could come up here please. John alte' archi is parki the equi the you and and ex how ,zmus: Just a couple things. The plan that I used when I did the ions was a plan that you have had. It was done by a landscape in 1986 so that's with the berming and what was proposed in 1986 we had. And I just had never finished anything north of the lot so up until this point, I did all the berming from the north'of king lot to the end and I did an additional berm to screen my ,nt because the equipment is then sitting in the parking lot. And so tional berm to the north. Now as far as the additional tee area, it's not at this point, and never will be, it's for the golf pro student. I just wanted him to be away from the rest of the people club which is coming out so staff is protraying it as a big on to my operation. It's just one person teaching another person golf back there. The batting cages would be all outdoors. There would e nets similar to... And the building there would be for the golf pro f his office and you have TV's in there to review your video of your swing nd that. Then I would have it for an additional storage for the winter My equipment is getting pretty beat up. I can't keep anything Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1, , 1991 - Page 10 runni when it has to sit out in the snow banks all winter so I would, that' why I need, I was proposing to have another building like the one up above though the berming that I've done with the landscaping would pretty much een it. I don't even know if you'd be able to see it from the road. It's set down in back of the berms so what I've done so far to this point is pretty much landscaping and the dirt I moved was for the la' 'ng and now the site for the proposed batting cages would be, you woul t have to do any more work to it so in effect while I was doing all my 1 ng, I was moving dirt from strategic areas. As far as sewer, I had d a sewer operation to come out and we had planned on having a bet septic system and somebody somewhere, it wasn't me, decided I coul t have that and they made me put in the tanks. I didn't know an about the tanks. All of a sudden that's what my option was. I didn' have any other option. So even though I had already paid for all of the cal work for the sewer, somewhere I suppose being that there will be and water out there, they didn't want to have another septic sys put in there for something. Erhar Excuse me. Who's they? Was it the City? 3ohn zmus: The staff. City staff, yeah. It wasn't me. Er Can you respond to that? Olsen It's unclear exactly why the holding tanks were approved and I'm not sL 'e, was it Machmeier and Anderson that you worked with on the septic John come Larry tank by. re : I think they came out. They were recommended by the City to and do the soil testing. Larry Vandeveire had set out, I hired ndeveire to set out to do the septic system. But now as far as the lf, it gets pumped whenever it gets 3/4 full. 3elf Swedlund stops works closely with the people of Chanhassen so it said in the that they never get a report. He works with the City. I don't know who he reports to but he pumps it. He goes by every day so he checks it and w~ ve never had. I mean if 3 more people used my tank it would cost me more pump it but it isn't going to cause any effect on the environment or an' ng else. The septic company just comes and pumps it and at this point don't know. When it gets 3/4 full and then he checks it and that's maybe ,nce every 2 weeks, 3 weeks. So I would say with my total expansion pr , I'm not going to have but 30-40-50 more people with the batting cage, more than that in the real peak season right away in the spring but i it fills up every week I'll just have to pay to have it pumped every week have a grea have t hook u But li Emming hear a of every 3 weeks. So it's not an environmental problem to tank. I thought once the city staff made me do it, I thought it was idea. You know as long as they're going to put in, we're going to MUSA line out there someday anyway, then all we have to do is just to the MUSA line and I don't have a big septic system to deal with. e I say, I didn't, that wasn't something I just dreamt up. : Just one question John. I'm sure everybody up here would like to explanation as to why we see a history like this. Why it appears Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 11 from hat we have in front of us and from our prior experience with you and with facility, why we've imposed conditions in the past that have not been lfilled on the one hand. On the other hand, you've repeatedly impr the site or made alterations to the site without getting prior appr from the City and I'd like to know why. 3ohn wrote you all fini the money all doing al buildJ yzmus: Well first of all, I didn't write that story. If I'd have story it would have read a little different. I just explained to I came up here that that plan was submitted in 1986 and it went ough the process. I didn't get it all done at the time because ally I couldn't. Once I didn't get the building, I didn't get all ming done and all the trees planted and I just worked at it when my :ams available to do the whole expansion. And all of the trees and berming. I don't know if you ever go by there but every year I'm e and more and it's always to enhance the beauty of it. It's landscaping. I haven't built anything. I haven't built one more · I haven't built anything and I still haven't. Emmin! : Are you putting up a fence? John have and I forth I 'ye was a yzmus: That was part of the original approval. I was supposed to fence not over 6 feet high in the Minutes of a deal a long time ago t the posts in 3 years ago but being that I have to go back and th dirt and trees and landscaping, I've never put the fence up. the wire ever since and I just never put the fencing on but that t of the original approval. Emmin~ : Alright, thanks. Is there anybody else here from the public who wants be heard on this application? Is there a motion to close the publi< hearing? Conrac moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens I think the site is a real good site for all the things that the appli ~nt is trying to do here. I think it looks to me like there wasn't a lot capital to begin with to develop all the things he needed to develop it fr so he's tried real hard it looks to me, even though there's been a lot o4 problems with the city and I'm not sure who's to blame for those probl, . But it seems to me he's trying real hard to make it into a nice place Even though he's got some problems with completing a lot of these thin~ he's trying to do as far as landscaping goes. I have a problem with the wl le holding tank sewer issue and I don't understand. If the City appr holding tanks, why the City is now forcing him to install a septic S' Olsen: The only reason we could figure out why they would have approved the ding tank is that the two approved septic sites had been altered. There ,as a lot of grading taking place out on the site where the two sites were to be preserved and from what I can tell from the corr e that those sites were lost when the applicant wa~ grading on the si and his only alternative then was to not be permitted what he had Plann ng Commission Meeting May I , 1991 - Page 12 or to k up to the holding tank. It's not clear. It's just all of a he was allowed to have the holding tanks. Ahr large But they were approved. And it doesn't seem to be causing any oblem out there. It has been pumped. Olsen I don't know. We don't know how often he's pumping. We're not getti Ahrens Olsen; condi: that Ahre I mea There's no impact on the environment or anything like that? If it's being done properly but we don't have, one of the ons of the holding tank was that he do, he does have them pumped and does provide us with those records and we haven't received those. Is there any reason why he couldn't continue using those besides, Olsen I'm not sure what kind of capacity... Kirchr n: The capacity of the tank can be whatever the size of the tank is. there wouldn't be a problem with continued use. Ahre There would or would not? Kirc n: It would not be a problem with continued use if there are no other ites available for septic. I guess our feeling is, the individual sewa treatment rules from the State of Minnesota prohibit holding tanks if se ic sites are available. There were two sites available at one time and t i conti recor i find in tr were apparently destroyed. If the use on the site doesn't , holding tanks were approved and I would suggest we let him using those as long as we're provided with a pumping contract and of pumping as originally agreed on. However, if the use is lied, then I would suggest that the applicant search the site to there are any acceptable sites for sewage treatment mounds and put sites. Ahr Are there any acceptable sites? Kit ~n: We don't know. He's got a lot of acreage out there. If it's all disturbed then there would be no sites. It has to be on undi rbed soil and he would have to get someone out there to investigate as he id before and rope the sites off and protect them from any constr ction activity until the septic systems are put in. John yzmus: I think at the time the only site that was available was the site the north of the parking lot. That's where the two sites were. There as going to be a hill and berm system. And at that time they were both and they were roped off. Then once they sit, and I don't know the tank became an option but once it was, then that site was not preset anymore. There weren't any other sites because it was all altere Planning Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 13 Ahren: : There are no other sites is what you're saying? John ryzmus: No. Everything had been scraped... You have to stay so far from he creek and you have to... Olsen: clear] Kirchn di they him pr But those were two sites that were protected and that was very understood that they were supposed to be preserved so. : We don't know when the sites were disturbed. If they were after he put his holding tanks in or before. We're assuming that disturbed before because I can't imagine why we would have forced have holding tanks when he had two sites that were roped off and . That's the whole idea of it was to have sites available for septi so our assumption is that they were disturbed before the holding tanks in. The reason the holding tanks were allowed was because the sites e disturbed and there were no available sites. But here again we don't any records to back that up. Ahr What are the issues involved? I guess I really don't understand still ;hy the holding tanks aren't satisfactory even if he expands the site. Kirc : Well, holding tanks traditionally have problems in that they deter rate under ground and they get cracks and they leak. Pumping has alwa been a problem. Getting the pumping contracts. Getting them pumped out ly and then properly disposing of the septage after they're pum So that is why an individual or a septic site is the preferable way treat sewage as opposed to pumping. Ahre But if it's maintained well and. n: If it's maintained well. Ahre Kirchr Ln: I mean septic systems can leak too right? Well, if they're designed correctly they work. Ahren.~ they ' Right. But if the holding tanks are designed correctly and maintained they'll work too right? Kit : That is correct. However, another point is that State Statute says if another site's available, he can't have holding tanks. So if sites ren't available and that's no choice, then that would be his only alter tire. Krauss~ If I might add too, there's a policy question involved here. We've ~just gone through a 2 year effort to get the MUSA line moved and I think ~ou're all familiar with that. One of the concepts with the MUSA 1 ne that the Metro Council feels strongly about, I think as a policy questi n we should feel strongly about. Is that areas outside the MUSA line s ould not be on the metro service system. That's the whole point of it. Hlding tanks get around that. Basically we're not having on site Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1991 - Page 14 disposal. All that stuff is trucked to where we do have a site and dumped into c~r system and it's the City that's paying for the treatment of this stuff I'm sure there's some kind of a drop charge...but it gets at, you know ~ere's a related issue that, remember several years ago Mills Fleet Farm nas talking to the Metro Council about some sort of special allowance to all)w them to have tankage ~or on site systems on the presumption that they c)uld be developed as a rural use. Well, I mean this is sort of an oddity and we're willing to live with this oddity as a status quo. 8ut there ~ some policy limitations if you're allowed to expand based on the use o' the tank and it goes against the building code, it goes against Metro Douncil policy and it goes against what I think is good rational policy for us to adopt in the City as well. Ahrens I don't argue with you on that Paul. It's just that it was appro~ ~d by the city at some point and the approval may have been against public policy at that time but there was an approval for him to use that· Olsen But not necessarily for expansion. Ahren~ No, but the expansion here involves some batting cages, a building that's going to contain, it's not really going to increase the use by that much. They're going to have a storage area for some equipment and what you'd ;ay, a video? 3ohn Fryzmus: A TV screen to show your, the pro uses a video camera when he gi~ ~s his golf lesson... Right now he's using his van. He has a genera ;or in his van until we get an acceptance. Ahrens It just doesn't seem like the use is going to be that intensified. I meat it's not like the State Fair or something where you're going to have thousa ,ds and thousands of people going through every day. Krauss We don't have good numbers for this but I think it should be clear too t~ :t the applicant is desiring to have substantial increase in on site parki ~. Ahrens Well that also may be a very optimistic move. Krauss They get pretty busy. Ahrens Yeah they do but most people go on the site for about an hour and then 1 ,ave. Anyway, do you plan to have as many, I mean the area...is huge for t~ John F more t hour h at all and I to ma seeps have. batting cages. yzmus: No, mine would be about half that. You would never have .an, well the person that comes to hit will spend about a half an tting softballs and so right now I don't have any parking problems I'm assuming that I could but with my berming and with my design .hink Dave, when I was doing the landscaping, I already predesigned k~ sure the drainage goes into a holding area with rock and so it )ut into the grass. We won't make any additional runoff... You cad · maybe 10-15 more people there but we don't get hardly any use of the Plann ng Commission Meeting May i , i991 - Page 15 bat. hr cms. That's why, and really I will have Jeff drop off the receipts of hi pumping. I thought he was doing that. I didn't know there was even a pro lem with the septic until a couple days ago. But there is very littl use of that facility at this point. People that hit golf balls come there and they're there for about half an hour. Ahren : Yeah, I can't imagine. John ryzmus: They do use it periodically but it's not something where you have inner and you sit there for an hour and a half or two and drink a lot of 1 uids and then use the bathroom. Ahre : No, I agree with that. That's reasonable and I'm going to re~ nd approval of this despite the problems. However I would like to condition that on you coming into compliance in at least the landscaping areas nd the berming. That was an issue? I don't have a problem with the building. It's going to be the same size as the existing building. It's not a y large building. I don't see that the use of the bathroom facilJ ies is going to increase that much to require a septic system, to requir that the applicant have to comply with septic system requirements. I thi k a holding tank, if the City wants to require conditions that he submi the receipts. Are there receipts of the pumping of the holding tanks something or regulate the upkeep of the holding tanks, I'd go along th that but I think it's sufficient for the use that's there now and will be there when the expansion takes place. Emmin! : Time out. Your recommendation is that we approve the sign and the 1 video games and otherwise deny any improvements until everything he's required to do in the past has been done, right? Ahre Correct. Emmin~ : And the alternative they're asking for Joan is, if we're going to appro~ expansion, then they want us to table it so they can develop cond ns. Are you saying something different than that? Ahre Their recommendation is that we approve the sign and the video games nd that we deny the improvements to the site period. Emmin : Okay. Is that what you're saying? Olsen: Right. On page 13 at the bottom we were saying that should you ret approval, that we would recommend tabling until we can. Emmim : Wait a minute. We have too many conversations going here. Batzl Take charge. Emmin! : I think if we followed your recommendation we'd be denying the expa ,on. The other improvements that he wants. And I take it that we'd cons r those again once he's done, lived up to all the conditions that have en imposed on him in the past that he has not yet? Plann Hay Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 16 Olsen Right. That's one of the options. That's correct. Emmin.. : Okay. But if there's going to be approval, you want it tabled so you develop conditions? Olsen: Correct. Emmi this thin : Alright. And I want to know if when you said you'd like to see , if you're saying something different than one of those two Ahre to I'm recommending that we approve the sign. The interim use permit it the signage. Emmin,< : Okay. And? Ahren~, And the expansion of the site. Emmin( : With what conditions? That's the problem I'm having. We don't have nditions. We have a few here from the staff but the staff says they don't ~el they've developed, adequately developed conditions for an a 1. Or are you just going to approve it the way he wants to do just ~r he's proposing? Ahre are Well there are existing, I'm a little confused about this. There .sting conditions of approval as I understand it. Olsen: Correct for what was approved· Ahr ·..conditions. Olsen: Well those were just some. Giving you a start on what we would be requi ng. Like grading and drainage plans. Ahr Those are just some. That's not a complete list? Olsen: No, it's not a complete list because we need mote, to really re, ,nd approval we need more complete plans. It's still not real clear the king that he's proposing. Emmin~ : Well, we don't know if he's proposing batting cages inside or outsi . If it's inside, what the building's going to look like. If it's outsi , is it going to be lighted. Ahr I thought it was outside. Olsen: We don't know that. Emmim : Well it may be. Ahr He said yes. Emmin! : But he hasn't submitted a plan in enough detail for the staff to even 1 ok at it Joan I think is the problem. Plann. ng Commission Meeting May l!, i991 - Page 17 Ahrens: Maybe we're looking at this prematurely then, the whole deal? Olsen: Emmin.c Ahren.~: For approval, yes. : Okay. Why don't you think about it. I will Steve. How much time do I have? Emmin~ Batzli Farma~ showir looki seems on ai is or : 4 minutes. I'll be back. : By the time it gets back to her, she'll have a lot more... : The plan that I'm looking at right now says '$6. This plan vegetation that's planned or is it also showing existing on? There's a notation on the north side that says existing on and it's got a little arrow. Is that the only tree we're at that's still standing or, I was out at the site today and there there's some vegetation that's not on this plan. Do you intend lng the vegetation as it stands now or where the batting cage area , parking area is by there? John plant we'll trees ever eta many yzmus: No I basically, other than we're doing a massive flower ...geraniums this past weekend and another 600 vinca vines and doing a couple thousand petunias but I will be adding shurbs and riodically but I'm about 95~ done. I mean the berms with the ens and the shurbs and the willows and a lot of the trees have there. I saved them all. They're expensive so I tried to save as as I can. This spring now I planted 21 more Black Hills spruce in ca~ someday the willow trees, you know I have to take the willow tree down something. I'm trying to replace... Farma : Do you intend on cutting down many trees that are there now? John : No, not at all. Farma have : So your intent then is to...this plan here eventually when you funds to do it? John yzmus: Yeah. This is, I'm done. I mean I don't have to move any, all dirt I moved was for the berming purposes and the planting of the trees the flowers and making the flower beds. In other words we're just done with making our planters and what have you. We've got about ...and flower planting is what we're doing now. Far cage : In the plans that you submitted in 1986, was there a batting sted in there? John yzmus: No. On that particular plan, where the batting cage was going o go, there was a proposal for an indoor golf and batting building. Farma ,s: What would be the maximum height of that cage? Is that a tent s [re with a... John 'yzmus: Yeah. From the berm, maybe only 5 feet above the berm. It would )e, I designed it when I was building the berm pretty much contained Planning Commission Meeting May 1.= , 1991 - Page 18 withir my area. That's the tree pIanting, what have you. I wouid hope that y~u couId...as far as seeing additional buiIding going on now...what I'm pr Dposing now. The new buiiding I'm proposing is set inbetween two berms ~nd you won't see it from the road. The batting cages wili be, you'll be standing where you won't be abie to be seen from the road. The machir~ wiIi be pitching up from down. You know the baIIs wiii run down. I don't know if you've ever been to a batting cage. Farmak .=s: Yes. 3chh ~ryzmus: Some of them the ball comes rolling back down this way and then it goes on an elevator. These would go down. You know I think they made a note that there was some washing. Well my berms all the grass has start~ J to come down. I've sodded around into there...but I didn't do anyth ng with that area that would be...I think I'm going to put blacktop and t~n carpet instead of like...has concrete. Farmak~s: Do you have any architectural things that you've submitted? Does the st~ff have anything as to the height of this cage or whether or not it would ~e seen or would be screened? Olsen We haven't received anything. Farma ~s: So it wasn't submitted in '86 and it's not submitted now? 3chh P 'yzmus: I said what was submitted in '86 was what I've done so far. The b~rming and planting and that. On the plan in '86 there was an area right ,here I put one of the teaching holes. Farma~s: So it wasn't your intent to build these batting cages or whate~r until you submitted the proper? 3ohn P ryzmus: Right. Until I get the plans. What I'm saying is, I didn't do anything basically that was illegal like it makes it sound like I was doing mll kinds of things illegal. I was planning on coming and getting a permit for the batting cages once I can financially do it. I won't be able to fir mncially do it this year but I am getting, I'm basically getting pressure from the city saying I'm expanding without permission so now I'm going ~o get a permit hopefully and I'll maybe for next year... Farma~s: Well, I have some concerns. One is the maintenance on the holding tank. The other one is I'm a little, this is sort of the second time a 'ound and there seems to be a bit of an attitude problem on some of this s ;uff for development and it seems naive to me to think that if you've got a~3roval on plans in 1986 or 1987 that you believe that construction is alrigh[ to begin in 1991. Times change. Ordinances change and I don't think [t enhances that attitude or a working relationship with the city to get i~[o this sort of thing. I hope that's changed or that that attitude will change. I like the facility. I've used it with my children and I agree. to im~ And I it wil case. one of It seems that the landscaping and so on, they're making an effort rove it and make the place look nice and I hope that that continues. nope that the relationship that you have with the City staff, maybe improve. Maybe it's a matter of circumstances. I hope that's the I guess I would approve this with conditions and I believe also that those conditions should be that we should hold that until he Plannt May 1 confo' the e Batzl time and t~ ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 19 ms to some of the points that city staff has listed on here. That's tent of my comments. : A year and a half ago I started out by saying I have a real tough eing objective on this application. It seems like he does something en we find out and he says, oh by the way can I have that. That's kind cf irritating. I'm starting to sound like a broken record I guess but I guess I'd like to see follow through on both sides. If we have conditions and if we have these things, you know both sides I think have to show ~ little bit more commitment to following through on these things that we agree on and I'm not convinced yet that if we come up with conditions that us're going to get anywhere with them. So I don't know exactly what kind cf conditions we're supposed to put in here. If that means he complies with them 5 years down the road, does that mean he complies with them right away? I like the facility. I've used it. I think it's actually an asset but the cavalier attitude about doing things and then comin! in after the fact is irritating. I still try to look at this objec' ively but that's tough to get over. That part of it. I think that given the fact that we imposed the holding tank on him as a condition and he's ~sde the investment in that, if in fact he can get the contract in here and demonstrate that it's pumped regularly and what have you, I don't see w~y we would make him go to a drainfield kind of thing. I'd like to see t~is tabled. I'd like to see the staff work with him. See if we can work th him and come up with something and a time table for doing these thin~ If we're just going to put conditions on here that says he's going to do hing and not put a time table where if he doesn't have it done, then 's the point? That's all I have. Ellso I would recommend denial of the expansion until he brings it up. I don't now that I would be heavy duty on the septic system though if we've a the OCCU a ne all t and said it's okay to have a holding tank. But I think that if some of things haven't already been met like he needs a certificate of , let's get it all cleaned up. Since the batting cage is probably year apparatus and things later, I'd rather not see myself approving until the rest is cleaned and totally agreed upon between the two move forward with the next request. Conr When the holding tank was put in, do we inspect that? Steve iirchman: We inspected the installation. The only inspection is, it's manufactured tank. We just take a look at the installation to make sure it was properly installed. Conr So can you have different conditions of holding tanks? Can it be used do they have to be new when they go in? What are the standards? I don't :now what we're talking about. Is this a metal? Is this synthetic? What i the holding tank? Steve It's It's rchman: It's a concrete, basically a septic tank is what it is. ncrete and it comes in different sizes. It's got to be water tight. .t to have a manhole cover and two clean outs on each end. Co And how do we know that it was when it went in? Steve irchman: It was inspected when it went in. Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1., 1991 - Page 20 Conra( the So we know that it was good. When it went in, it was a state of holding tank? Steve rchman: That's correct. Conra Okay· There are some things that I think just have to be brought up to ~tandards before I even consider anything here. And 3ohn, I think we like want want a they they ' sure e facility out there. I think people are using it. I just really see the few things. The things that have not been done. I don't consider anything, sign, video, anything until I can see what I to be some simple things just done. Some things that haven't been · The flood light issue is still there and my understanding is en't approved except for security and apparently maybe not on but there and pointed in the wrong direction or something. I'm not the fence. The fence was not approved in the beginning? Olsen On the exterior, yes. There's now fence on the interior and now the o7 inance requires you to get a permit for fencing. Co So it was, say it again 30 Ann? Olsen There was fencing shown on the first approved plan along Galpin and TH 5. That's where there's posts and now there's some internal fencing also. Again, they just need to get the permit. It's real simple. Make sure ,e height is the right height. Conra( You know, that seems like a simple thing to doi The permit for the f~ ~ce. I think the building has to receive the Certificate of Occu . There's just some simple things but until they're done, I reall don't want to see anything. I just want to get rid of this and it has be done right before we take a look at any sort of expansion. And I think are real simple things. They're not difficult but I'm not budgi on that until they're done. Erbar you you 0 kay, Let me try to get clear in my mind. What is the problem? What.do nk they've done? What do you think they haven't done and what do nk they have done? What's not conforming today in your mind 3o Ann? got one. You think there's flood lights? Olsen: Right. There are flood lights out there for lighting after hours. The .rs were set at sunrise to sunset. $o that's one issue that we haven Erhar How many flood lights are out there? Olsen: How many? Erhar Yeah. Olsen: There are about, I noticed about 2 or 3 along TH 5 on the telephone poles )r whatever and they were on the building. Saw it on at least 2 sides 3 sides? 2 sides? Erhart And who are you? Piann ng Commission Meeting May [ , ~99[ - Page 2[ Steve irchman: Steve Kirchman. I'm a building inspector. Erhar' : Alright. I don't know, did you introduce yourself or did I miss that? Olsen I kind of introduced him. Ellso' : Jo Ann introduced him while you were sleeping. Erhar : While I was sleeping? Okay. John, what are the flood lights for? e you using them? What are you using them for? John yzmus: Yeah, we use them for up lighting on all the shurbs is what the ginal approval was on it. Erhar To do what? Up lighting? John yzmus: Yeah. You know they're only like this high off the ground and t, shine on all the paths. Erhar For what? People to get around after dark? John yzmus: Yeah. So you are, you're using the facility as a business after dark? : The miniature golf has been open yes, after the sun went Erha John down. Er And that's not permitted. Olsen Not permitted. Erhari Okay, so in fact you are using it after dark and that wasn't perm ,ed. Okay. What else? You're saying you have some internal fences? Olsen: He just needs a fence permit for that. Erbar If 8luff Creek Golf Course came in and wanted to put up a fence bt their club house and the first tee, would they just do it or would they ye in? Ell If you wanted one you'd have to come in. Olsen: I can't tell you what they would do. They would be required to get a per t. Erbar Is there any limit to how short the fence can be? Let's say they want, to put up cedar rails or something. Olsen: It's still a fence. You know we don't have a limit on how low it can but how high it can go. The video games is another thing which. Erhar Hang on. Let me get this clear in my mind. So you think there's some i ternal fencing going on not shown. Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1. , 1991 - Page 22 Olsen I know there is. Erbar : On a golf course you can't move fences without a different site plan? Olsen Yeah, if it's different from the site plan. The only fences are agric~ tural. Steve rchman: The only issue here is he has to come in and get the permi Nobody's objecting to his fence but he does need a permit for his peri ;er fence. He just has to come and get a permit. Okay· What else then? You said there's some grading going on? Emmin! : He got a permit for that didn't he? He got a grading permit for some of the grading. Correct Dave? of it still was going to be part of this whole permit because it some of the tees. The parking lot. Grading for where the batting and the drainage. We don't have any plans on that. We don't have iled grading. How many cubic feet are being graded? We wouldn't know. We need to know that. What does the ordinance read? It's 50 cubic yards. Is it more than that or less than that? Definitely more than that. : He needs a certificate of occupancy is another one Tim. Yeah, I'm getting to that. Before we get to that one, any other Erhar Olsen But s( inc cage the Olsen Erhart Olsen Erhart HeR Emmi Erbar ones? Conr tank · He needs to supply us with a schedule of the pumping of the septic Erhar I'm waiting for that one for last. Olsen: The video games. It's the hours of operation. Erbar Yeah, I got that one. Olsen: He is currently putting in the parking lot. It looks that way. 5rhar Was that on the '86 plan? There's so much stuff here. Okay, let's go to the septic system. If you look at the conditions on page 3 there. Condition 4 is that two septic sites be protected from gradingl In condit on 5 it says the applicant shall install a holding tank. Why would we ha done that? Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1. , 1991 - Page 23 Olsen Where are you? Erhar : Your page 3 of the report. On the bottom there. 4 says two septi system sites shall be protected from grading activities. Then you go on th item 5, the applicant shall install a holding tank. Olsen Shall comply with ordinance lOB. That's where it, I remember that there conversations between the applicant and I believe Don and Barb. Do yo~ remember? John yzmus: I don't remember why it was changed from septic. Erhar This was part of the conditional use. These were the conditions to conditional use permit right? Olsen I believe that it was one of the issues was cost of installing. My recol ~ction was that the applicant wanted the holding tank. I remember that ere was a meeting in Don Ashworth's office I believe with Barb. Erhar Before it went to Council. Alright, so let's not try.to do that. Let's o back to Steve. Your letter then· Essentially is it clear to ever that we gave him, per your letter here, essentially approved a holdi tank? Steve insta rchman: A permit was issued for the holding tank and the tion was inspected and approved. Erha devel~ corre( Does Okay. Then you go on to say, I strongly urge that no further nt be permitted on the property until existing violations are · This would include installation of an approved septic system. t contradict what? Steve irchman: Well, State Code requires that if you've got sites avai Is, that you have to have a septic system. I understand but. Steve irchman: If the possibility exists that there are no available sites So if there are no available sites, then he has to continue with that lding tank. Erhar~:. I understand but I guess what I'm saying is, I think there's a tremer~dous insensitivity here. This memo drives a lot of what's going on here Steve Erhart permit here y essent Steve put in That's <irchman: I realize that. Okay. On the one hand it says that we've told 3chh and gave him a to put in this holding tank and then a few inches down the paper ,u're saying don't do anything here until this comes into conformity ally. :irchman: As I said earlier, I'm assuming the reason that we let him a holding tank was that the original septic sites were disturbed. just an assumption on my part. I don't know why anyone would let Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 24 him p, t in holding tanks. Erha : I don't think that's the point. The point is if you've given him a 1, then you've given him approval. I don't think we can go back then nd said gee whiz, you can't do anything because. Olsen But that is, you know the whole driving force behind this report. That' one of the reasons. It's also that there's additional. Er : Well that seems to be the only major one of ail these. I guess estab ishing whether they can continue using the, whether he can expand using holding tank or not. I guess my recommendation I think is pretty much long with everybody elses. I guess overall I think the facility is fine nd useful to people here and John has made his way of trying to make thin~ work. On the other hand I think sometimes, I think we have to be a littl more sensitive to these styles of businesses. Not everybody is able to in a plan, able to work in a normal, timely fashion. And if we precl that process, I think we preclude a lot of creativity. On the other hand it appears to me like 3ohn seems to be alittle more organized today I think when he started in 1986 and so I think we're both learning on how to get along a little bit better here. Both 3ohn and the city. The issue on the septic system, I realize that the Code says you can't, we're not supposed to go in disturbed areas but that's, practicality is th~ you can make systems work in disturbed areas. Steve destr may rchman: I disagree. If the area's been disturbed, then it just the properties of the soils of accepting effluent. The effluent show but it also won't get treated. Emmin~ : Can you do it in a mound? Erhar : Essentially when you go and do a septic system you do disturb the soil. And certainly in a mound. Steve rchman: No, you don't. Erhar You just lay it on top? Steve ~irchman: You lay it on top and you have to use track machinery and you'r not allowed to drive a truck over the surface where the mound is to go. Erhar Well anyway, I think obviously the tank is working and I don't see that lis is, it appears that it can work. Steve, I think you're saying that can work properly if properly maintained. On the other hand, I would refer to see a septic system. On the other hand, when do you expect the line to be put through here? K Well we're looking at serving the area behind, across the street from lis site hopefully next Friday. Theoretically, but this area is not inc in the MUSA line expansion. This area is the study area so there would no service to this property in the foreseeable future~ Erhart~ So that's what you, the other thing is I think it'd be to their advant~ge to get this as an interim use permit so I'd agree with your Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 25 recom endation to try to, anyway try to get it to that so we can tie some kind ,f date on this. $o I guess I'd go along with staff's recommendation in te 'ms of approving with the video games and trying to get interim use permi~ and try to come back with, table it and come back. I guess I'd like to se~ him clear up, maybe Steve or someone to try to clear up a uniform recoml endation on whether this holding site or septic system or something so it s a little clearer at the next meeting. And then have conditions. Olean Yeah, we'll confirm the capacity and things like that. Erharl : That's finally it. Emminl s: Okay. I'm going to adopt Brian's comments and Ladd's comments just 1.o shorten things down. I'm not going to, I don't care too much about the sl gn or video games. Whether we do something with that but he has to do, i my mind he has to do what he said he would do in the past or fulfi 1 the conditions that were imposed on prior approvals before I'm willi ,g to look at any expansion. And that's Primarily because although I'm s, re that 3chh has his own version of how things have evolved out there all I've seen here over the years is John filling in the wetland. Being told to stop. Coming in and asking for a permit. Being denied. And now h, 's doing something else and he's being told to stop and he's coming in ag( in for a permit after the fact. I think he's had enough interaction with ihs City to know that he should come here first and he hasn't been willing to do that so I'm not willing to look at an expansion until he gets everyi hing up to snuff. If it was one time I could understand it but it hasn' been one time. This is at least the third time that I can recall sitti g here and looking at this and maybe it's the fourth. So that's where I stand. Is there a motion? Conr : Yes. I move that we table action until the applicant brings the, sari les the staff's concerns about the previous conditional use permit. 8atz 1 £mmin~ Conrac Golf ~ voted with : Second. s: Is there any discussion? moved, Batzli seconded to table the Interim Use Permit for Swings ntil the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are satisfied. All in favor except Ahrens and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried vote of 5 to 2. Emmin~ : Do you want to put the reasons on the record? Ahren: : staff deni Well I've been thinking about this and I can go along with the on on this for approval of the Interim Use Permit for of expansion of the site. Erhar What was your second one? Ahren; that compl Basically the staff's recommendation. Denial of the expansion but staff continue to work with them to bring the site into ncc. Plannt May i Erbar votin, Conra( holdi figur, are bt and wt Emm i n! work they '1 ConTac that staff guys. some real Emmi n, North PUBLI~ ZONIN( PRESEF Emmin,, so th, hear i I thi Olsen Kraus: we hac ordine back some what do, f map r. where you ' 1 up th, think have Not m~ Ellso Kraus: could earlie ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 26 : Okay and I think that was what I was thinking. That's what I was for denial. So if that's what it. is, that was mine. : Now with my motion, I just want to make sure that the tank, the g tank. It is permitted so we're not asking staff at this time to out how to do a dratnfield. We're not asking 3chh to do that. We ingin~ it into conformance with the previous conditional use permit at the city has granted 3Chh to do. s: And you're not in any way discouraging them from continuing to ogether to bring it up to snuff and then look at a proposal when e got one. : That's all I want. I just don't see there are a' lot of things ou have to do 3ohn. I just do want, I want to force you and the doing things together the right way. We're not trying to be the bad I want to do it the right way so we can review this without having istory and some negatives out there. Then we can take a look at the ssues · s: Right. I think we ought to at this point take a quick break for a Stars update. HEARZNG: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO RHEND TIE CITY CODE TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE VATION SECTION. I understand that you're recommending that we table this matter we can notify affected property owners and then hold a public and complete the official map. What should we do on this tonight? that's obviously the thing to do. Look at the map. : We'd like you to look at the preliminary draft of the official map . We'd also like to discuss some standards with you that are in the nce. In fact 3o Ann and I had a long conversation. After coming rom the bluff hike, Bluff Creek hike, my personal opinion is that f the standards that the DNR recommended aren't adequate to protect e want to protect over there. One of the other things we wanted to ret of all what we're proposing is an ordinance based on an official ther than a we know it when we see it approach and so to designate this thing is. You should know though that when you see this map see it. It really does interfere indirect with a lot of properties re and a lot of property owners may fell disinfranchised by it and I that the environmental benefits of this have to be so, in addition we o have some mechansim wherein existing situations are grandfathered. de non-conforming but grandfathered so we accept the status quo. : That couldn't expand? Would that be grandfathered? : Well no. I think we'd like to work out some language where they if there wasn't prejudice against them because they happened to build r. The other thing that we'd like to do too for the public is, Dave Plann, May I and I incre or th~ are , meeti This 20 -25 would looki erosi, field liter. the p' Erhar Kraus TH actua, the b~ actua, and p~ bluff becau. exist4 excav~ trencl Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 27 have been involved with a number of properties on the bluff that have libly severe grading problems because of how they messed up drainage ,y built in an inappropriate place. Basically man made problems that mean we want to get this on video for you and whoever comes to this g because they're so dramatic. You really have to see what these For example, we were out at the Dypwicks property the. other day. allow had built a storage building of some sort that's probably about maybe 30 feet from the bluff. The erosion here is something you not believe. You stand on a precipice and you look out and you're g 70 to 90 feet and there's a sheer drop. And there's two sets of .n. There's erosion that drainage was tinkered with coming off this around this building and he is dumping huge amounts of garbage and lly trash basically in an indiscriminant manner in an attempt to stop oblem. : Where is this? : I can show it to you on the map but it's off of TH 101. West of · In the process of doing this, this is making matters worse. He's ly thrown a lot of money into this but when Dave and I went around ck of his property where the second serious erosion problem is, he ly tried to channelized the water where he collects it in a system ts it in a pipe. Well the pipe just outletted at the top of the in that sugar sand and that pipe is now suspended 15-20 feet in space e the cliff is gone. And the whole reason this drainage problem d is because whoever built this house, either he or whoever built it, ted out a low level garage door and to drain that area they built a from the house all the way to the bluff. And now all the water's funned,ed through there and you've got a problem that's just got to be seen to bembelieved. Emmin: Water,, Kraus.= Emmin~ proble when just he sa) becaus Olsen: Emmin( Olsen: It's ( Staff a nd oL s: When we were on the hike in Bluff Creek, a guy from the Riley hsd District. Was it Riley-Purgatory? : Yeah. s: Watershed district was along and he said that that's a big m in a lot of bluff areas that are in that watershed district because eople build their houses close to the bluffs, you get all that runoff rom the roof concentrated and it has a dramatic impact on the bluff s. Just even that change. Apparently these areas are real fragile s of the slope. Well, anyway do you want to look at the map? Sure. Where do you want to do it? Well I thought we could just put it and maybe stand around it. ind of an odd shape· presented the bluff line preservation map to the Planning Commission Llined points of interest.) Plann May 1, Kraus.~ that 1 need i they ( their Even 1 do, ti FaTma them? Kraus= City given do th~ that if he slope.~ Emmim it ou' that tonig Kraus. we'II but. map ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 28 : I just want to do this cautiously. I think we've got to recognize here's a selling job that has to be done with this· There's a real o be diplomatic with these folks who have gone around thinking that an do whatever they need to do and ail of a sudden we're intruding in own private little world. That can be a disturbing thing to happen. hough is probably ecologically and philosophically the right thing to ey still need to be... es: Is there any outside financial advantage that can be sold to : Well I did ask Roger, after that came up last time. I asked the ttorney to look at that and there is a tax abatement that can be for land designated for certain public or 'environmental purposes to t. I'm not sure that this particular land has been assessed at all Teat a rate anyway. We need to bring in the County Assessor. I mean s already only valued this at some nominal amount because of the , then there's probably not much of a net tax benefit. s: You ought to have him look at a sampling of properties to figure · Tell us for this property would mean this tax advantage because ould certainly speak loud to people. What else do you want us to do t? : I don't know if you have any more guidance to give us. Otherwise proceed with it. I'm not sure it's going to get on the next agenda getting video done and talking to the County Assessor and getting the gether. Batzll: I think that after Saturday there's a lot of enthusiasm by the Council and various Planning Commission and other people and I think we shoul Ahren west, Emm i n! Ellso' Batzl, see i n! Kraus: Just these gave in th an ad( plannJ coneD, about since permi and t proceed full steam ahead while we have that enthusiasm· : I would expand it too to this area as Tim suggested· Is that across the. s: West of Chaska. : I like the idea of touching bases with Chaska. : I would at least talk to them and tell them what we're doing and if they have any interest in at least preserving that. : One of the things also that's personally related is Moon Valley. o update you quickly on that. I'm having the City Attorney review things because we're in litigation with Moon Valley. Judge Canning con Valley an additional, Judge Canning supported tbs City's position t we have the right to require that they get a permit. He gave them itional 30 days to get it. They have retained John Voss who's a ng consultant who I've known for quite a while· He's a legitimate tant, to prepare their permit application. But they just told him it and the drop dead date is May 25th. It's been my expectation we've gotten into this that what we're going to get is an incomplete request which will have to go to the Judge and get some findings on en when we take them through this, when we actually bare conditions, Plann May 1, then to be the b, ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 29 hey're going to take the conditions back to the Judge and it's going a very long, drawn out process. But this is, I mean it's integral to .uff line. Here we have, I mean if you talk to Tom Zwiers, as far as he's l:oncerned, the bluff should be knocked down to the cornfield type land and f!atten it out and that will make it good for development. $o I think you h~ resol certs Ahrent Krausl Ahren~ Kraus~ us te Ahren,, Olsen Kraus: Emmi n( thereI to am~ $omeo! Batzl speak Emmint Batzl, favor Kraus,~ Olsen Kraus,~ Emmin~ Batzl~ Emmin( do to Kraus~ Olsen again ,ye a clash of values there and I'm not sure how that's going to get 'ed. You assume that he's got some rights to do what he's doing to a n extent. There's going to be a conflict. Is the application in front of the Judge? : Excuse me? You said, what was going to the Judge? : Well, the only thing that's been to the Judge so far is they sued ling us that we didn't have the right to require them. : Right, but you said something else was going to the Judge? He feels the conditions will be contested. : I think they're going to contest everything along the' way. s: I just noticed that this is a public hearing. I want to ask if s anyone here who wants to comment on the zoning ordinance amendment nd the city code to create a bluff line preservation section. Can e make a motion to close the public hearing? : Let the record show there's no one in the room that's willing to on the topic and I move to close the public hearing. s: I'll second it. moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in and the motion carried. : Don't you want to continue the public hearing? Close it or do you table it? : Continue it. s: We'll continue it. : I'll withdraw my motion. ! move that we continue it. s: Why didn't you say something before we voted? What do we have to undo this? We'll just correct the Minutes. That's okay. Just close it. Do what you did. We'll just open it Planning Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 30 Emmin. s: Okay. I like that. It's easy. Batzl : Strike my withdrawal. Emmin~ s: Does anyone else have anything on the bluff line? You have our bless ngs here to do whatever... PUBLII HEARING: CO~ TO A~NO ~%gTICLE VIII O~ T~ CITY CODF Paul :rauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings calls the public hearing to order. Erhar : Let me ask you this. What other reason why a developer would want a PUD as opposed to, anything other than a smaller lot? What other reasons in a esidential area? Is the crux? Olsen The setbacks. Erhart : Okay, so then the question would be, let's say the guy just wanted diffel ent setbacks. So he wanted to go to a PUD but the way this is formed now, e automatically has got to give up 25~, even though he's willing to stick with the 15,000 sqaure lots. That's where I guess in looking at this, if you were to use the minimum lot size which you ought to have as a scale Like if it's 9,000, then it's 25~. If it's 10,000 then it's 20~. If it s 11,000 it's Kraus~ : That's a possibility. If you figure it on the average lot size. Erbar : Well it seems to me it ought to be done on the average lot size. Not u e the minimum lot size at all. And you have a scale so that yeah, it do~ allow him to get more total lots as the average gets smaller and in exchaT le we get some open land but I don't think you can just pick a spot and s~ that's it. EllsoT: You're saying as we squish people more, we get more open space? Er hat t: lots point is, cre~ tryin~ Kraus,,~ come i sole eta the c Yeah. And the advantage to the developer is that he gets more we get more open space but what you can't do I think is pick one say, if you're going to come in for a PUD, whatever the reason 're going to be on that point. Because then you give up any ty at all to adapt to the land itself or what the developer's to accomplish there. Realistically though nobody, I can't understand why somebody would with 15,000 square foot or better lots and request a PUD. If the of their requesting a PUD is to be let off the hook on setback or street widths or something else, then there's no net gain for Erhar Okay, so that's just as unrealistic as the guy coming in with 144 9,000 ;quare foot lots? What I'm saying is there's going to be someplace betwe~ that spectrum. That particular development or that developer or Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1. , 1991 - Page 31 what e's trying to accomplish in terms of house styles and values of the house that he's going to pick and what we ought to do is, you want to nail ~ down so it doesn't get to be a negotiating, totally arbitrary and let's a little table together. It says okay, if your average lot size is 10 000 square feet and the City wants 20~, every size is 11,000 square feet. .so you allow the developer to kind of, you can still create. We can get wi.at we want but he can still create the development that he has in mind. Krausl : That might be reasonable. Again, we're flying a little bit by the seat f our pants on this one. Many communities experiences with single famil PUP's are similar to Chanhassen's and there's not, and that I'm aware of, there's not a lot of progressive thought on okay, you've all been hume, . How do you then fix an ordinance that doesn't do that? I mean it's lear to me the trade off is, some of the trade off involves open space What the magic number is I think is an issue. Erharl : Yeah. If it's just open space for the same number of lots, there s no incentive to pay the extra fees and everything. You're going to have o give them a little bit of incentive to give us the open space by actua ly increasing the number of lots. I don't think it has to be a lot. Krau~ : We can certainly play with that. Erbar : I know that a guy's going to come in with the whole place isn't going to be 9,000 square foot lots. I guess I'm having a hard time even envisioning that. Conrac: Would we still get a Near Mountain development with this? Near Mountain is a good PUD. I kind of like what this does but I guess I don't know ~hat it discourages or if it forces one thing versus another. So I s my feeling is that I'd like to have staff work a couple scenarios just like this one so we can see what it does encourage. And one would be, if it ld go back and reconstruct the Near Mountain PUD and see what this would to it. Now they have a lot of ponds and, I'd just like to know if we coLld have another development like that or if this would not allow a Near . K, doing If it : We could certainly check that. I didn't have the time but in s I was, my gut reaction was that Near Mountain should qualify. 't, then something's wrong. Erhar Do they get 25~ open space? Olsen They may have to give more open space. Kraus: Except that we've credited, I mean there are ways to credit. We're lot only looking for, this is open space that the public can use or that common open space. We're saying that of your 25~, one quarter of that n be park. You're probably going to have to dedicate more than that but could be. One quarter of that can be wetlands but then we've said if 're protecting other natural features. For example Near Mountain has a lot forested areas. If we had those forested areas, which may or may not be on somebody's lot, protected by a conservation easement, then that would , you could attribute that towards your requirement because we're Plann May 1 guara' be pr Olsen going have Kraus lots~ have ' but I Conra~ the ct squat we're formu] conce~ devel PUD t, Erhart all 9~ here. the c¢ Emm i n~ feedb~ Kraus~ Emmin~ would~ Erhart Kraus.~ the t¢ BatzlJ ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 32 teed that that open space amenity, that natural feature is going to served in perpetuity. ...remember where the outlot, the summit? That was originally to be condos and now it's single family lots. That probably wouldn't een.... : It's kind of tough adopting that after the fact too because those ere not structure with this sort of ordinance in mind. What you'd o do is go back and make some assumptions which you may be able to do think it's a useful exercise. : What I don't want to do is force, you know I don't want to stiffel eativity and I don't want developers coming in here with all 9,000 foot lots. So Near Mountain had a mixture and that's kind .of what trying to look for, plus the open space and I get lost in the a. I don't know what happens. So again, I think some of the ts is kind of neat if it works. If it works for multiple sized nments. Now I don't know how it works from a 10 acre subdivision or 1,000 acre so I guess it's a neat concept to pursue. : I think you ought to try it with the average because we don't want 000 square foot lots. This is what...kind of what we're encouraging Table of different averages and see how that works. I think that ncept that you're working on is right on. s: Maybe you ought to show Terry Forbord your example and get some ck from him. : I will. I'll bump a copy over to Shardlow too. s: And also ask him if the system that Tim isn't talking about 't be, I think that's kind of... : I think you actually mentioned it. : In fact he suggested, when he and I were talking, that was one of :icg that we thought of. Paul, would your zero lot line type things, if it was 4 foot away from the lot line, would that come under your single family detached? Krauss: I intentionally didn't deal with that and Roger raised it again as a concsrn. The most recent ordinance I've written before this one, I actua21y set that up as a separate district. Batzl !: Separate from the PUD? Kraus~: Well no, as a PUD but it was separate standards. Single family detached lots on typicaly single family homes were treated one way. Zero lot lJ les were treated another way. Rs I read through this ordinance again tonig~ though, I think that the reason for that is when you get closer. When ~3u're building on the zero lot line, you have more implications as to what the architectural design is. How you're imposing on the adjoining property owner. How you want to treat common space because there has to be Plann ng Commission Heeting May i , 1991 - Page 34 more. ommon space when it's that tight. But as I thought about it, the ordin, nce, the way we've structured it right now, the single family detacled works pretty well because we've built all that architectural stuff in there and the language is loose enough that we could allow zero lot lines under the same set of procedures and standards. I don't think we have Io change very much to allow that. One thing you may want to consider thoug} is some communities have a problem with zero lot line homes being in singl family neighborhoods. I don't know that I ascribe to that philo ophy because basically they're single family homes. They're just scrun(hed to one side. I don't see us lowering the lot size much. I don't see u~ lowering the lot size below 9,000 ever in the RSF district or in the low d, nsity district. If somebody wants to do a high intensity zero lot line :evelopment, it really in my opinion ought to belong in areas that are guide: for medium or high density use in the Comp Plan because that's the densi les you're dealing with. And I think we can make that diffe ntiation. It's not that hard. Batzl Kraus', the p~ Batzl j: archit Kraus.~: : Did Forbord like, did you show him the whole proposed standards? : No, we haven't had a chance to'sit down. I just briefed him on ne. I was curious what he thought about the foundation plans and 1 standards. The other elements of this besides the 25~. I don't know. I suspect he didn't have a problem with that that's the way they design their project anyway. I mean we're not speci cally designing for Lundgren Brothers Homes. Ahrem Yeah, I was going to say. Terry Forbord, it's fine to run some thing= past thim but we're not designing our ordinance for him. Especially since ~e's going to be coming in with probably another PUD. He has some pr in Chanhassen and we don't want to give him our ordinance and say how you want this to read and what's the best deal for you and then he can 'gn it around whatever development be wants to come in with. Batzl No, and I wasn't proposing that. I Just thought it was iht ~ting because other developers don't develop to their standards and while might not have had a problem including certain number of trees and p ntings around the foundation, I'll bet you a lot of othe9 developers would I was just curious. Kraus~ Nell I'll be happy to sit down with him. Ne can certainly do that. He's useful as a gauging point though because on the spectrum of ~tial developers, they tend to be a little better than most. E1 Right. If you want to encourage anybody it would be him. KT doesn US SO Yeah, and if he has a significant problem with something, it's y note worthy. If he believes he can live with something, it imply that all other developers can live with it but it may mean to That's the standard of development we want to achieve. PlannJ May 1) Ahrem to Kraus,, and s4 Conra( of us my i n~ If th~ densi gene)' issue I had those ope n, densit gross befor, we COil KTausE conti How mi that deman addit diffe' it bu compr. Conra( Krause we wa every, approp commuT went ~ plats densit Conrac Kraus,~ Conra( ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 35 : But there are a lot of good developers in town too. You may want it past them. : We can send it out to a few people who develop in the community e what they think. : I had a couple just statements or comments on what we see in front and I think Paul's going to work some things but just philosophically ant on this ordinance was not to put more density in but to shift it. re is more density that's fine. I guess I was, well if there is more y, I want to make sure that it's good quality density. That's just a 1 comment on my part. I'm interested about the density transfer too because I really feel that that's a viable thing. Again, if my way, if a site is approved for 10 units and we can shift 5 of units to the other half of the property and leave the other half that's what I'm trying to do. $o I don't mind butlding up the ,. I'm kind of interested In how the transfer formula works. Using yersus net. Is there a conversion factor? We've always used net in terms of units per acre and now we're going to use gross so have :ensated for that changeover in terms of the number of units allowed re? : There's no standard factor Ladd because it's really highly gent upon the individual site. How much park are you dealing with? ch wetland are you dealing with? I think though that the PUD gets at ssue in another way. It's demanding higher quality design. It's ing higher quality landscaping. It's going to demand some modicum of onal open space. You know you're achieving your goals through a ant mechanism and if the developer happens to get more units out of it looks better overall and is less impacting, I guess that's a fair miss. : But what is the standard? The standard that you set is 1.7 units re. How did we get there? How did we get to 1.77 : We developed that in doing the Comprehensive Plan. Basically what ted to do is the Metro Council was telling us that the rule of thumb, ~e develops 2 1/2 units an acre. We said well that's not an late assumption here because we are basically a no net loss wetlands ity. Our park dedications are pretty stiff and all this and so we ack in. Jo Ann and Mark and I and took apart, I don't know, 12 or 15 we've done over the last 5 years and tried to find what the average / is. Now this is standard platting. This is not PUP's. $o average gross density? : Right. : Based on history? And that turned out to be 1.77 Kraus: : Correct. Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1. , 1991 - Page 36 Conra, : Okay. Over how many years? Kraus : I would say it was the plats over the last 5 years probably. Olean Maybe even 10. Conra~ : And just a picky point. On page 5, letter (g). It said, more than ne building may be placed on one platted recorded lot on a PUD. What does .hat mean? Kraus: : Under standard zoning you're obligated to have a separate tax parce around each building. Within a PUD you're approving an overall maste' plan. You've got a lot of control over exactly what happens. What' built where. It becomes less important to us if an industrial occup nt has three buildings on a single tax parcel. You've exercised all the control you need. Conrac : Okay. Emmin~ Batzlt Ahren~ Does anybody have anything else on this? Any other comments? Yeah, I don't like 9,000 feet. I think it's too small. You think 9,000 is too small? Emmims: I wonder, what if it said something. Instead of saying you can have ingle family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 9,000 square feet and seeing some developers Just licking their lips. Can't wait to go in here and make a development of all 9,000 foot lots. What f we Just said that some of the lots may be as small as 9,000 square feet. Erhar': That's where I think you tie in this average thing. Ellso : 8ut if someone does 9,000 and it looks good and transfer and thing., like that, I think we have to, we don't know. Emmin~ : What were, the lots that we were all remarking about in. Kraus.~ : Were 9,000 square feet. That's where that number came from. Erbar : Yeah I know but there was only a lot here and there. It wasn't a mass these lots. Were there? 8atzl Yeah, they're all on one end. Ell It's one group of them and they're very well done. Co There's probably about 60. 40 to 60. Something like that. Kr view All of the professional literature says that, don't take the micro what the property line says. What kind of context is it sitting Plann May I in. fores' in a Ahren to gi~ Batzl foot say , Ahren right Emmi n! 9,000 it a KTaUS work· Emmi n( Olsen: you c squat Becau~ but.. Krause ForboT anybo¢ Ellsor Erhart ConTac Erhart on the preset Kraus¢. minim~ Erhart to wOT point away ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 37 mean if you have a 9,000 square foot lot backing up to a protected , it's going to look a whole lot better than a 15,000 square foot lot ornfield. : I think though that we're worried about implying that we're going e them something that we really have no intention of giving them. : I think if somebody comes in here with a bunch of 9,000 square ots, we're ail going to be stunned and we're going to sit here and elp us. What can we do to stop this? : I think we'd better put some language in there just to give us the to reject it. s: Or that we consider PUD's where some of the lots were as small as square feet but not less than that. Something but you've got to make ot more. : But we have that existing PUD that has the average, it doesn't s: I don't understand. Well we have it right now where there's an average of 13,500 and n go as low as 12,000. And it has worked where it's not all 12,000 foot lots but the PUD's haven't been successful for other reasons. e we still don't require preservation of open space and creativity average doesn't work. : Well I think what came across loud and clear though again for d was that a deviance of 1,500 square feet isn't enough to induce y to do anything. : That's why we came up with the 9. : ...gross density. That's not now what you're doing. : But Paul is changing the formula. : No, he's increasing the gross density. You're getting more lots original piece of land. $o that gives him the incentive then to ~e some other piece of land. But you're not going to get more lots if you have a high average · I'm not saying whether it should be high or low. You kind of have it out what it is. The way you have it now, you've only picked one mhd it has to be 25~ and what... Well that's variable but I thought the intent of this was to get 'om the hard and fast, thou shalt have an average of no less than 13. Plann~ May I Ellso and and PUD , we're even them well Erhar here Kraus,, formu That ' kind philo feet Erharl say y~ 1 ess Ellso~ Erhar Ellso ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 38 : That's what I want to do too. I think we should leave the 9,000 r intent in here is telling them that we don't want to see all that .eh you guys are certainly going to see it and the fact that it's a e have a chance to negotiate. That's the whole idea behind it but ~u~ting more fences around them before we've even seen it. We're not ~v~ng them a chance to try to bring something to us. We're telling i~ht off the bat we just have decided there's no way you can do it nd don't even bother. : I guess I'm a little confused there. You don't want a formula in ow or you do? : No, no. We're talking about two different things. The open space a I think we need because that's one of the trade offs we're getting. one of the benefits of going with the PUD. The question is what f minimum lot area do you adhere to and from a strictly designed, ophical standpoint, I don't care if all the lots are 9,000 square f everything else is done well. : Okay, but what we could do to satisfy I think the concern is to ah, you can have 9,000 square foot lots but your average can't be any hah. ¢ : 9,000. : No, no. : That's what I'm saying. If he can do a thing of all 9,000 square foot ~nd it looks good. See you're making an assumption that you'll never see a$9,000 average that would look good. You're making a big assumption. Like like Erhar' Kraus~. Erhart Conrac Ellso like 8atzl Ellso' BatzlJ say w~ Ellsor e said, if they're all backed up against this bluff area and things hat, it might not be that bad. That's not realistic. It is if 25~ of your land has to be in open space. : Oh, I see. That could be. : I think you ought to give them a chance to do it and if you don't t, tell them then. The problem is, somebody's going to come in with a plan. : That's when we deal with it. Well, it's going to happen and then we're going to look at it and in the world did we let them build 9,000. No, we didn't let them. We get a chance to look it over. Plann ng Commission Heeting Hay 1 , 1991 - Page 39 Conra~ : We don't give them the PUD. It's not what we're looklng for. Ellso : You're not trusting them enough. Batzl : Ne've seen what, never mind. I'm not convinced that we will look at it and know what we're looking at because every time we look at PUP's we sit ti,ere and we say, gee. We don't really ~et a sense of what they're doing and we don't see this and we don't see that. Ne won't see it. Ne will ~ot see what is actually occurring in the PUD until it's in and then it wi 1 be too late. Kraus~= One of the problems we've had with PUP's is, and I've heard the same hing echoed on the Council, is Ursula's often going well what are we getti g out of this. Ne're supposed to get something. Nhat are we getti g? And I don't have a good answer normally because our PUD ordinance right now doesn't demand anything. Ellso' : And we haven't given an intention of it to anybody until now. Kraus'~ : This ordinance says, if you're going to want this, you're going to have o earn it and here's how you earn it. Ellso : I think because of that intention will ward off the guy who thinks he'll be able to sell us a PUD with a 9,000 back to back thing. He'll go well I know I'm not meeting it. I'm just trying for it. We've got every reasor to say forget it. I don't think we should say an average. I think it co. ld potentially be done. Who am I to say no without seeing it? Erhart: What you're saying is if the average...maybe. It'd be interesting to lo¢ k at. Kraus.~: There's lots of examples to demonstrate it. I have some slides of it. I can give you books that show those kinds of plats. What happens when ~ bottle up that space. It's a fairly... Ellso : It's not like we're changing the residential lot size to 9. Kraus: : Keep in mind too that a PUD Is a rezoning and I think it falls into legislative ability of the city. You can be fairly arbitrary on rezoI and especially when there's an intent section now that lays out what expectations are. If you really feel something doesn't meet the st~ ds that you've adhered to, don't approve it. Ell That's the leverage we have. Con)- tryi more more stimu Do you feel Paul that we have to, my statement was, I'm 'not really to pack more in. I'm just trying to shift it so it's economically ,able but basically it's your Out feel that we really should allow nsity to encourage. Economically we need more units per acre to the open space? Plann May 1 Krausl that money make I don achie, that' excee, Batzl know the 1 a big made time. reall again: there Ahren,~ Emmi n~ Ellso~ not t} ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 40 : Well there's certain trade offs there. I mean Forbord indicated ,hat indicates when you cluster you save money on streets. You save on utilities. You save money on development costs. You probably . more attractive development which will help you sell it quicker but t philosophically have a problem if they get 15~ more lots and we've 'ed the open space that we want and we got the better standards, fine too. They're still consistent with the Comp Plan. They can't the gross density that we have in that. : I just, you know my feelings are, I live in a PUD. I don't even hat size my lot is. We have a big park next to us. I still think ,ts that our houses are on are too small. I'm the kind of guy, I like yard. Maybe it's just personal but I'm in a PUD every day and if you he lot sizes 9,000 square feet, and I go by those in Lundgren all the I think those are too small. I mean the picture makes them look nice but those things are crammed together. They back right up t the little extension of Town Line Road there. Whatever it's called : Pleasant View? s: But do the people that live there like them? : Is there a market for it? That's what Terry was saying. You're at customer but there evidentally is people. Batzl~ They're tiny lots and I don't find them attractive personally. Now maybe~there's a market for them but I don't know. I would be hard pressed to fi d something that I'd like, you know if I had a chance to look at it. If en. ugh landscaping, .enough transferring, enough open space to make it worth while to give them that small of a lot. Ellso thing: BatzlJ Ahrens Emm i n~ more : Well his example was that people wanted a 15 minute mowed lawn and like that. : I would buy something else, yeah. If I did it again. : Where are we going on this? work you ' r s: Well I guess what I hear is that you're going to work out some xamples. Maybe give us a little more concrete idea. Maybe try and cut a schedule and get some input from some other people to what e doing here and bring it back again. This is a public hearing again. Did we Krauss whole ordin~ I'm g~ hoping this p close it? Do we need to close it? Why is it a public hearing? One thing you may want to consider. There doesn't seem to be a ot of concern or issues any longer with the body of the PUD nce. It's the single family section that's generating the comment. ~wing increasingly concerned that if the Metro Council does what I'm they're going to do in the next week or two, we're going to need retty quick. Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 41 Emmin s: What do you propose Paul? Can you pull that section out and get the r, st going up to the City Council? Kraus : Yeah. Emmin~ s: So it's basically just pulling out 20-506? Kraus=: Yes. Emmin s: Now what if somebody came in with asking for a single family detac led PUD? Kraus : Well there is an existing single family detached PUD section that we wo id not be eliminating until we replace it. You may want to cancel that I,ecause it's a bad section. Emmin~.s: Right. Couldn't you do something like this? Could we put in a new s~.ction 20-506 to replace the old one that says that the City's in the process of developing standards and just use that to retract the old one? And jLst not have standards but put everybody on notice that standards are in th~ process of being developed. Kraus~ : You know you'd almost be better protected by leaving the old one in place since nobody wants to use it anyway. It will kind of hold our spot lot us. Emmin~s: Okay. Is there a reaction to that? For passing the rest of the ordinance and just pulling out 20-506? Erhar : I think we should just leave. You're talking about not making the chang, at all then? Emmim : No, we pass everything that's here except Section 20-506. Kraus~ : And we'll leave the existing single family intact until we can rep it. Ell : So you really think that if it gets approved we'll have stuff reall quick? KT seem they ' I don't know how quick it's going to be but we've got people that be chomping at the bit. But some of these projects are so large, going to take a while to get off the ground. Conra So your intent is to vote on the rest of the motion tonight? Emmin: : That's what Paul is proposing. Batzl I didn't feel like we're that far away on 20-506. I mean I'm whinn about the square footage but I'm a sole voice here. I'm just tryin~ to see if anybody is... If everybody else likes 9,000. Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 42 Conra. : No, we're just looking right now Brian. We don't know yet and it may b. , yeah I just don't know so it's not that I don't agree with you. I just on't know how to handle. I think Paul and Jo Ann have a good, there seems to be one simple solution and that's what they've presented but I want o see how that works in a variety of circumstances. I haven't disag eed with anything you've said yet. If we want to pass the rest, then I've ct to get back into somethin8 on pase 3. Under Section 20-505, Requi ed General Standards. Under Section (b). The applicant shall demon., trate that the PUD plan offers the City high. That's the word I'm questioning. High quality...and then the last line says that represents impr ement over normal ordinance standards. So are we saying higher? Is the wi rd higher? Kraus: : In that sense that's what you're looking at. Conr : Maybe that's just a small thing but I guess I'd rather see the word. Batzl : What about the word highest? Conra, : I guess I like the word higher in there. And then I get back down to my density transfer. In single family detached, which is what we're debating, so I don't know what that means. I don't know how that works. I don't know how to approve that right now until I see what we're doing in singl~ family. : Well that wouldn't be applicable until you passed the new section anywal,. Conra,:: Until we passed the new section? Okay. I'm comfortable. Emmin~ : Anybody else want to comment on whether the, what they think about 'ng the rest of this except for 20-506? Batzl back Paul on 20-505(f)? Is parking lots and driving lanes shall be set feet from all exterior lot lines? Kr Yes. 8atzl · prey to an Never mind. I was confused. Do we cover in here or have we [sly covered our recurring problem of somebody putting in a road next isting lot? Do we talk about that at all anywhere in here? Olsen We did somewhat address that with the setback. Batzl In here? Olsen: No...accessory structures and... That was something that you could .ne as part of the subdivision of the PUD. You could say no, we don't ...application. To determine setback for a road. We found out was difficult. Plann ng Commission Meeting May 1 , 1991 - Page 43 Kraus:: I don't understand the question. Olsen We don't want to allow a street at the edge of a PUD connected to someb,,dy else. You know like happened in Vineland. Batzl : You've covered it for existing streets but not streets that may be put i later. Okay. Emmin s: I think we need a motion to close the public hearing. Ahren moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmin!s: Is there a motion with regards to the ordinance? Erhart : I'll move that we recommend adoption of the PUD ordinance as outli~ed in the memo to the Planning Commission, May 6, 1991. Is that a good ay to describe it? Do we actually have the ordinance written out in here? Conra~ Erhar Unit be le Kraus~ : It's right here. : Okay. Alright. The ordinance as stated in Article VIII, Planned evelopment District except for Paragraph Section 20-506(e) which will t open with a note that. : Well I think you'd want to preclude 'the whole 20-506. Erhart Kraus~ new PI do an'~ Erhar'l Emmin~ : Okay, the whole 20-506 which will include a note that says, what? : If you just exclude this one, what will happen is you'll have a ordinance with the old single family section. So you don't have to hing. Just exclude this. : Okay, so we're going to exclude Section 20-506. : I'll second it. Ahr : Did you have some changes Ladd? Batzl I thought Ladd made some changes. Erhar Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, Ladd had some changes. Emmim : He intended to incorporate those. I heard him say that. Erhart Emmin~ Batzl brand Yeah, I said that. : And I intended that in my second also. Paul, is the old standards for residential 506? Or this is a ,aw section isn't it? Why don't we just put a 506 in there that says Plann May 1 reset Emmi n 20-501 Kraus, Emmin! Batzll Erhart Kraus~ delet, Batzl Erhar Kraus Olsen of, i Batzl Ahren: famil Emmin,, singI~ just Ahrene Emmi n : detac~d ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 44 ed or something? Because, is the single family PUD section that we have now called .? : Not unless we're Teal lucky. But I'll change the numbers around. s: We don't have a 506 Tight now. : Because 501, well. It's 504. : It's not going to work. : Well yes it would. If you just replace, if your motion says this one and replace it with Section, where am I? 20-504. : Delete 20-506 with and add existing. Section 20-504. We'll be sure not to repeal that section. The single family kind 's not real separate. : Yeah, that's the problem. : Why don't we just identify the standards as guidelines for single detached PUD's? We're reserving that section. s: Yeah, and not have one. We'll just won't have anything for family until we pass one and let's put in the section heading and ay, to 20-507 reserve for single family. : 506. 506. Reserve for standards and guidelines for single family PUD's. Okay? Is that okay Paul? Krauss Emmi n~ inclu, Erhart appro% DistrJ it's Secti¢ motiol : Sure. s: Alright, do you want to include that in your motion? I'll s it in the second. Alright. Any more discussion? moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend al of ordinance amendment to Article VIII, Planned Unit Development ct with the following change~= ~mending Section 20-506 to state that sing reserved for Single Family Detached Residential. Changing in n 20-505(b) the word "high" to "higher". All voted in favor and the carried unanimously. Plann)ng Commission Meeting May 1~, 1991 - Page 45 I APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning Comm ~sion meeting dated May 1, 1991 as presented. CITY :OUNCIL UPDATE: Kraus : I gave out tonight copies of the Metro Council's staff recom endations on our Comprehensive Plan. They're favorable. They're recom~ending that we get what we want. In fact they told us we could have asked for 300 or 400 more acres if we really wanted. Now this is with voodo, statistics that I don't know how they got to this number but I'm happy that they did. Ellsol : For this reason alone you deserve a raise. Kraus,~ : We're basically agreeing to disagree on population and employment. So wh~ t? There are conditions attached to their approval and it's on page 15. t starts, there's 11 conditions. Most of them are real nominal. The ones hat are of particular mention are, they're applying the same water quali . First of all they acknowledge that we are an advanced community in tel ns of environmental sensitivity and water quality initiatives and all this. And we received a lot of support particularly relative to the lack of re: ponse they received from Eden Prairie on the same issues. But condi ions 4 and 5 are the same conditions they applied to Eden Prairie. We're being asked to adhere to better standards. Setter requirements on gradi g and erosion control. I don't have a copy of what they're quoting here et so I'm not exactly sure what we're buying into but to the extent that t's better technology that we use right now, I don't see why we'd have ny problem adopting it. I'm sure it's more construction management type hinge that we'd be looking for. Number 6 is an interesting one. What hey're basically saying in number 6 is that as 212 is built, the highw. 17 interchange should not be constructed until or unless the MUSA line' expanded to include the interchange. And we have a very short run. It's nly about a quarter mile. When you think about timing, I don't think that his is all that big a deal. This interchange is not going to be open until 1998 anyway and this is in our 1995 study area so presumably the dates ill work out. The Metro Council is right now in a very major battle fi the cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake and Savage over a proposed inter le that they want with the new Hwy 18 bridge. Prior Lake wants to acces: it but the area where the interchange would go is between Prior Lake' MUSA and Shakopee's MUSA so the Metro Council is opposing it. And they' pave that locat and dista when bring insisting that they be allowed to grade the interchange but not , I think is their compromise position but their whole premise is re's not supposed to be any highway facilities that induce growth outside the MUSA line. They're very sensitive to this issue now technically fall into that category, even though it's only a nominal to the existint MUSA. It could trip us up if 10 years from now highway comes ,through that part, if we're not prepared or able to into the MUSA line. If they still want to argue it so it's lly a problem. It's a longer term concern I guess. Erhart Which intersection? TH 1017 Plann.ng Commission Meeting May I , 1991 - Page 46 Kraus willi Counc leery getti horiz, kick It's No, TH 101 is fine. 101's in the MUSA. It's 17. I would be to raise this. We're going to the committee tomorrow and to Metro next week. I'd be willing to raise this as a concern but I'm very to because I don't want to rock the boat at this point. I mean we're 99.9~ of everything that we want and this one has-a long enough on it that I think we're going to get it anyway that I'd rather not co much. But basically those are the only substantive conditions. pretty clean recommendation. So unless somebody comes up with a real ildcard on the committee tomorrow or on the Metro Council Thursday, I think we've got it. We'll see. Ellsol Emmin~ with , Kraus~. : We should at least send a copy to Barbara. s: I see that the Council approved the Kurvers Point recommendation ust a long cul-de-sac. : Yes they did. Ahre' : That's not a surprise. KraL : No. It was somewhat of a difficult meeting. Not only did the Kur s of course not want to construct the cul-de-sac, they didn't want to cot uct the emergency access and our fallback position on that was to say okay. Look you got away with a less than optimal intersection at the exist ng curb cut. If that's all that's going to remain, we think that this hould be upgraded to having full turn lanes into there. I mean ever' 's talking about safety here. This is a safety related issue. Well he Kurvers even kicked about that. They did what I thought they were going do is they called up somebody at MnDot and said MnOot doesn't want . us to this. Who are you to demand that we do it? Well, MnDot doesn't care TH 101. It's been a fundamental problem from the start. We have care about TH 101 because we're eventually going to have it or the Count' 's going to have it. We have talked to folks at MnDot who think that this that but we Emmi Chanh~ compr her e , them. a dandy idea but officially they're not able to write you a letter that. The Council did finally agree...to make some improvements 're supposed to work with MnDot on exactly what they are. : And they gave the applicant their alternative plan on the Medical Arts facility to have a 3 foot sign band as a 'se. We said 2. They wanted 4. They came in after the meeting came into the City Council with a 3 and the Council gave it to Farma : What was the vote on that? It was 4 to nothing. Tom abstained. Co And the 3 foot gives them bigger, what was the mechanical problem? Emmin~ : Bigger type. Plann.ng Commission Meeting May 1 , 199! - Page 47 Kraus : They agreed to 12 inch letters which I think were the standard. You w re looking at 10 inch, they were looking at 12. What they had said was t .at making neon backiit letters, you cannot make them 10 inches. The small, st that they can fit these tubes in is 12. Now I don't know if that ' . Emmin s: Give me a break. Kraus: : That's what their sign consultant was saying. Conra, : But on a 3 foot band can they stack words? Kraus: : They can stack it 2 high. Farmales: There's no color restrictions? They can make it whatever they want? Kr : Right. Emmi m Kraus~ comim usefu Satur, proce~ City going s: Okay, well. : A couple other things briefly. As I said, the Metro Council's up. The bluff line tour, I'm not going to get into. It was a exercise I think. 3une 8th is scheduled to be, 3une 8th is a · It's scheduled to be the bus tour visioning kind of a start of a on TH 5. It's going to be held with you folks, the HRA and the il and we're in the process of laying out some sites and we're have at least 2 designers on board one of whom, Barry Warner has worke~ with the HRA and a lot of downtown stuff out on TH 5. It will be good wot ks an i with is of col to 5 group to s That you to see that· The other guy is a fellow named Bill Moore who the University who I attended a seminar he gave and he's sort of esting guy. You know it's an academic slant on things so take it grain of salt but it should be an interesting exercise. Last thing ght we completed the short list before this meeting. The short list tants to do the Surface Water planning for us. We've got it down rms. We're going to be sending out final requests for detailed ls from them and hopefully before the end of 3une we will assemble a ourselves being staff. Some of you and some of the City Council the better part of a day interviewing these people and selecting so we can get this show off the road and get going on that work. it for me. Ahre I saw you on TV. My 15 seconds of fame? Ahre Yeah. Batz How come they cut the Mayor? Kr I don't know. Plann May 1 Ahren: of die no Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 48 : They had a lot on a couple of the other cities though. I was kind appointed. Kraus~: Well except they gave, they had the Polster's on. Chris Polster and h~s wife. The lead in to the story was about Chanhassen so I guess if you fJ inter% ConYa( Kraus~ Conrac was n( Emmin! Erhar' and ti Submi~ PlannJ Prepar gure in how much time they gave it but that was an hour and a half of iewing between the Mayor and myself. To wind up with 15 seconds. : Was there a point to the thing? I didn't think the whole thing was very well constructed. There was nothing. That was the disappointing part to me. There conclusion. s: Is there a motion to adjourn? moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor e motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.. ted by Paul Krauss ng Director sd by Nann Opheim