The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 09 04 ~L~ININ~ CO~fIIS$ION ,~ MEETIN6 :MBER 4, 1991 Chai' man Emmings called the meeting to o~de~ at 7:50 p.m.. ': Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings and Jeff Farmakee ~T: Annette Ellson, Joan Rhrens and Brian Batzli ': Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo ~nn Olsen, Senior ; Kathy Ranenson, Planner il; Sharmin R1-3aff, Planner [; and Oave Hem , S~. Engineering Technician Publ Present: Ro na I & Li nda Landi n Wes & Carol Dunsmore Karen Hasse Matt 'hill Orlin Schafer Kyle :olvin Mark ,asset Doug larinsky Don W ~ite Chery Hobbs 710 West 96th Street 730 West 96th Street 630 West 9$th Street 9610 Meadowlark Lane Carver County Assessor 701 West 96th Street 8037 Erie Avenue 873! Audubon 8850 ~udubon 8850 Sunset Trail Kathy Aanenson presented an update of the staff report on this item from the 1~ st meeting. Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order. Wes nsmore: Wes Dunsmore over on West 96th Street. I guess I wasn't aware of this even going on until last week. We got a notice on it. Ours is of them that was added, West 96th Street. I was wondering why it was a( when nobody that's affected on our street even requested it? Emmin : This was motivated by the Planning Commission. That's us up here. When we were doing the Comprehensive Plan and we've been doing some other , it seemed to us that the RR classification, that the rural one fit better in the RR classification than they did in the ~-2 on and so we asked the planning staff to come forward with a to make that change. . Wes e: Well our neighborhood is an old one. It's well established. There no development going on in there. Any of these things that you peopl~ are concerned with, beds and breakfast, cemeteries and wholesale .es and stuff have nothing to do with it and I guess I can't ever that coming into our neighborhood. Emmim : Do you see this adversely affecting your neighborhood in any way? Plan' Sept, Wes thin. CUP Sere' the the sell That sudd, or ye marks want it's got t we dc lng Commission Meeting mber 4, 1991 - Page 2 unsmore: Well it does. ! look to this. ! see no benefit. The only there's a disbenefit to us by the fact that now we've got to get a we want to do some agricultural buildings. We've got horses. al people on our street have horses or whatever and I can see it in 3ng run too maybe if some of the people, and I know there's a few on treat that are looking to retire in the next tO years or so and maybe That whole neighborhood is like a little hobby farm neighborhood. what attracts people out there. They like a few acres. If all of a this is going to put a binder on us where we can't have the horses can't have the pole barn or whatever, that could really affect our value down the road. And it's going to cost us what? $75.00 if we apply for a CUP and right now we don't even need that. I think .00 and then you wait on it but ! can't see any benefit and I've neighbors here that signed a petition that we are in favor. That not want it. Emmin ,s: Alright. Have you presented that petition to the City? Wes D nsmore: No. I went to the Jeurissen neighborhood too and I believe that' just George and then Chuck and Sandy. It's Just two houses and they' e on the end of our street. !'ye got the signatures and stuff here. Emmin ~s: Sure, why don't you give them to Paul. Wes D, nsmore: But I guess I want to make that feeling clear here that nobod' in our neighborhood that I've talked that's going to be effected by this s interested in doing it. We like it the way it is and everything is worki g. We'd like to leave it that way. Now I understand where all these other neighborhoods are there's a lot of development going on and you've got t, make rules and regulations and stuff now but there's nothing on our street anymore to be developed. There's maybe one lot right there on TH 10:. I guess if they put a cemetery in, that's fine. That's quiet with me. 'ye got no complaints. Emmin s: Here comes our quorum. Wes DL nsmore: I guess that's the main point I want to make here is that we are a 11 established neighborhood. The oldest one around there ! think and w~ are not interested in being changed. We'd like to leave it agr' ltural. Thank you. Emmin~ : A couple points that he brought up. As far as having horses, the chang~ in the zoning wouldn't affect that. Is that correct? Aane n: Continual use? Emmtn~ : build have Yeah. They could continue to have horses but if they wanted to structure, an accessory structure like a pole barn, like he said to horses in, then they would need to come in for a permit for that now RR where they don't have to under A-2. He's right about that Plan Sept, Olse to c, got ,Lng Commission Meeting ,mber 4, 1991 - Page 3 ,: Agricultural buildtngs...tf they want more horses, they would have · e in. If they want to expand over the number of horses that they've hich was one of their concerns. Emmirgs: Okay. The West 96th neighborhood has brought in a petition sayt~ g they don't want this change. Alrtght, is there anybody else here who ~ ants to be heard on this? Don ~ tie: Yes, Don White, 8850 Audubon Road. ! heat my home with a heat pump that uses well water and it's a pump and dump arrangement where the ¢ scharged water flows out into the creek but goes across the lower end of th been exist Krau~ speci days. sort restr knowl Don property. I know in some more recent zoning that type of system has luded and I'd just like some clarification to make sure that that lng system would still be permitted under the proposed changes. : There is no city ordinances or regulations that I'm aware that ically deal with that. Now the DNR is regulating those things these If you're pumping over a certain amount of gallons, you need some ~f a withdrawal permit from them and they're getting much more .ctive on that. But we did not regulate that to the best of my ,dge and we're not proposing to change that at all. W lite: Okay, thank you. Matt 'hill: My name is Matt Thill. I'm from 9610 Meadowlark Lane. That's in Ri ey Lakes Meadows. We have horses and we went through a lot of troub e and expense to get that okayed with the city and I guess I wouldn't want o add any restrictions to having horses in that rural area. You know if th property were to change hands, if new people would like to bring hot in for that kind of reason. I know that there's other issues in the r{ 'ng that have brought this up but just from that standpoint I'd reall~ like to see horses not restricted anymore than they are. We have never a problem with any of the neighbors. None of the other neighbors in oul neighborhood have horses and we try to be proactive about it and ask them make sure that they're happy with the way we're keeping them and stuff tke that. And everyone's real happy. Sometimes their kids are down there ~d stuff like that. I really think it's a compatible use and I don't nk you should have to get a permit and have to take a chance on that. I guess if I were trying to sell it to someone and they knew that there a conditional use permit, maybe that might not be so clear. They might 1ova on to another property. So thank you. Cheryl Hobbs: I'm Cheryl Hobbs and I live on Sunset Trail which is Country Hills ~nd I have three questions. First of all, Country Hills is about 4 houses on Sunset Trail. Would you be rezoning Just one side or one portion of tbs street? Emmint : I don't know the answer. Krauss Jo Ann, you're probably most familiar with how the neighborhood lays o, t. Olsen: Country Oaks? Plan' Sept, Kr au; Chef Olse Char' Olse~ Chary Emmir know Olser stree Chary Count Olse~ Chary ftgu~ the s one w Emmin look Chary Emmin the 14 Cheryl Olsen Chary Olsen Chary impor' lng Commission Meeting mber 4, 199! - Page 4 s: Country Hills. 1Hobbs: It's a deadend street and there are. gs: Do we have an overhead here of this? Is that the one off of Audubon? Hobbs: Off of Lyman. Where it's just a street that goes straight up? Hobbs: Yes. ~s: Could you point that out on the map so we're sure, we're sure we ~hat you're talking about. I think it was our intention to do all of the, both sides of the · Hobbs: The actual part that was subdivided and which is called y Hills is like 3 or 4 houses. It's on the west side· Hobbs: And the other neighbors didn't get a notice of this so I ~d the reason was because they weren't part of it which means half of .rest where the homes that were there the past i5 years would be zoned .y and then another section would be zoned another way. ~s: Apparently we don't know but that's something we probably should :t. Your's is the newer of the sides? Hobbs: Right. This would be the portion that was subdivided. ~s: Would you happen to know the name of the subdivision that created .ts on the other side of the street? Hobbs: It probably didn't have a name. It's just. Isn't there just like one lot? Hobbs: No. There would be 2 or 3 homes. On the east side? Hobbs: Yes. And then my other question. Yeah ! think would be ant to me if you knew what you were subdividing or changing. And then n? other question is, I'm coming in here with a feeling that I would rathe~ that you didn't make this change because it seems to me that it's takin~ away a lot of your options of what you can do with your land· I'd like t> ask you what benefits there would be outside of maybe having more contrcl over what your neighbor puts up. What benefits would it have to me as a ]sndowner to have it rezoned? Pl&n ~ing Commission Meeting Sept ,mber 4, 199! - Page 5 Emmi gs: I don't know. Do you want to answer that? Aane son: Well we talked about that last time too. The mobile homes. Cemet les. The pole barns. Those issues. Wholesale nurseries. Cher'l Hobbs: But I mean me as a landowner. If ! didn't care what my haig. put up. Why would I want it to be changed? Emmt s: Then there probably isn't. Conr~ : Yeah, then there's no benefit. The idea is you do care about what your ighbor puts up and that's what a lot of the other areas that are in this zoning change, they're positive about it because then they some control over what goes in next to them. That's what makes them ' shi_tiRightf now they don't have that control and that s why the lo of ng the zoning is there. Chef Hobbs: Okay. Well I guess the, you know my feeling is this area is rural we don't have a problem. We're insulated. We have plenty of trees and vegetation and I don't see that we have this problem in this area. My third question is, if this has anything to do with the MUSA line now b~ing moved, which we are not included in, and if we're looking do~n the r)ad to having sewer and water someday and being able to subdivide part. You know make 2 or 3 building spaces, ho~ does this affect it? Whi way would we be better? To have it as agricultural or? Aaner ~on: The same minimum lot size, 2 1/2 acres so. Kraus : I'm not sure that it matters. If you were going to subdivide your propel when sewer and ~ater becomes available, you have to rezone it again to RSF which is our single family district elsewhere in the community. Emminl s: Regardless of which zoning you have. Kraus= : Regardless whether it's R-2 or RR. The only problem could be, again Lf one of these uses that people were concerned with, mineral extra~ ion or the cemetery or mobile homes or whatever was located on adJoi ing property, then it would probably make your property somewhat more diffi, It to develop and sell. But I don't know whether that's a lity or not. We can't sit here and tell you these things are definJ cha the P quite these them d Iy going to happen if we don't do this tonight. There's Just a that it will. As far as this being tied into the MUSA line, I think nning Commission's request actually predated the MUS~ line moving by bit. It had nothing to do with that. It was simply that we had ically rural subdivisions sitting out there and we have some of are zoned RR and some are zoned agricultural and they allow some nt things and it was Just a desire to have that corrected. Cheryl Hobbs: Okay, thank you. Emming : Thank you. Plan ing Commission Meeting Sept, mber 4, 1991 - Page 6 Mark Laaser: My name is Mark Laaser. We currently live in Chan Estates but 'ye recently purchased a lot on Sunridge Court and our intention in buyi that piece of land was to eventually build a stable there for hors . I need a, I'm just asking a point of clarification· What does the chan in status mean in terms of having horses? I'm a fairly new resident to t area and I'm totally naive to these classifications. Aane~ : You need a conditional use permit for horses. Mark : And a conditional use permit means exactly what? KT fire that hear : A conditional use permit, it's not a guarantee. It's not a sure ng that you'll get it. It basically opens it up for public · There are some standards against which conditional use permits '.s are weighed. Does it impact other properties? Is it something consistent with the neighborhood? Those sorts of things. A public is held and neighbors are notified and their concerns are taken into . And based upon that, we make a recommendation to the Plan ng Commission. They vote on a recommendation at the City Council and it's .ltimately their call· Mar k and : Rs to whether or not to allow people like us to build a barn horses and that kind of thing? : Yes. Mark .aaser-' Well is there a grandfather provision to this such that if ~e alrea ly own the land, even though ~e haven't erected a barn yet. Kraus ~: No, the grandfathering applies if the building was Up and in use, it wo Id certainly apply in that case. Mark aaser: If we tether a horse on the property now? Kraus : You can tether one. Mark aaser= So in other words we'd have to go through that whole process if th s change, because I'm assuming that our parcel on Sunridge Court there is included in this group of 10. Kraus: : Is that the north parcel? Mark aaser: Well I can show you here on the map that I have in my hand. Aanen ,n: I think Sunridge is, yeah· Mark aaser: It is included? Okay· it th n on that basis· Alright, thanks. I would object to Erhar : In the RE district, is there any maximum size to a building that can b erected for use as a horse stable? KT how : As an accessory building there's a size limitation I believe as to yard area you can occupy. Pianling Commission Meeting Sept.~mber 4, 1991 - Page 7 Olse : It's 30~ of the rear yard. Erha' t: Is there any difference between A-2 and RR in that regard? Olse' : No. In all the other residential districts we swithced it so ther's a maximum of 1,000 square feet but in the RR and agricultural diet ict it's just 30~ of the rear yard. agr : So if you get the permit you essentially could build an rural building. There's no restriction on that. Kr not code you in : Right. There is another twist that we should point out and it's ftcally related to the zoning ordinance but rather than building You can build an agricultural building in an agricultural area and 't even need a building permit for it. State law exempts them from a building permit requirements. Now I would assume that my tion of it is that, if you're going to get a CUP approved, you also then need a building permit in the RR district. Emmi Is: Is there anybody else who wants to address this? Is there a mot to close tbs public hearing? Cot moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Emmin~s: Tim, have you got any comments on this? Erhar : I guess I don't understand, there's a list of 9 things here. If owned a 2 1/2 acre, 5 acre lot. If [ owned a 2 1/2 or 5 acre lot, there's 9 thii~gs here that I wouldn't want occurring next to me. I thought that's what ~e were trying to accomplish here because we have had our share of these here. ! mean we've had, well I'll Just take some examples. Comme"cial transmission tower that we Just approved out in an A-2 area. We had p~ ople in here from Timberwood complaining about that and that was 3/4 of a ils away. Kraus : There was also testimony from Sunridge Court residents that they ob ed to that. Erhar : Which is even further away. You had problems with the neighbors at No Nursery complaining about their operation across the street and tf 'ye got a small lot. Electrical substation. Do we have any minim~ sizes on a lot for these electrical substations. If somebody could buy a existing 5 acre lot and come in and put in an electrical substation, is true? I suppose that's theoretically correct. Erha avai as So this lot that's apparently, according to Wes, which is le on the end of West 96th Street could be an electrical substation as it's zoned Correct. Plan Sept Erha ther SUTp ing Commission Meeting mber 4, 1991 - Page 8 t: It could be a golf driving range. Cliff Simon's got enough land that you could make a golf driving range. So I guess I'm really ised that there's some negative reaction to what seems to be just a prop{.sal to enhance the protection offered to people in lot sizes under 10 acre= in general if you look through the whole group including Hesse Farms. On t e other hand, the existing stable users really have no problems unless they want to expand at which time they could come in and ask the neighbors to c, in and comment which seems to be there and pay $75.00. Given that you 't expand your stable everyday, I 'm not sure that's such a burden. So a, in I'm a little surprised at the negative reaction on it. There's no ltmi' to the size of building they can build. Only limited by what the neig~ might object to. I guess if it was really out of place I suppose they' object but if it's in an area with hobby farms, I don't know why they' object so much. I guess I still tend to believe that we're offering a lot of protection here and I'm not sure. I guess I'm speaking to West 96th treat. I think we agreed at the last meeting, all the rest of them were so I guess I'm still inclined to proceed with it. I think the lam with West 96th Street is you've got one side of the road is hobb' farms and the other side is smaller lots without horses so it's kind of same situation as Cheryl... I guess I'm inclined to proceed with it. seems to me it offers protection with very little adverse impact on it. Emmi ~s: Okay. Ladd? Conr, : I guess I echo Tim's comments. It seemed like the thing that ho nets there would like but they don't. Do we have any rationale for kicki g the West 96th group out of this zoning change? Is there any logic for t zoning change not applying to them? I haven't come up with it. Emmin ;s: The only one I thought of is that it's all built up. There's only ,ne empty lot so the potential is probably less but still it could happe with these other uses to come in there. Carol Dunsmore: Excuse me. Could you speak into the microphone. We can't hear 'cu. ~s: I'm not saying anything important anyway. ,11 I said is the only ratio ale that. Carol Dunsmore: It's very important to us. Emmims: The only rationale I could think of for excluding West 96th Stree' is it's essentially built up and of course that doesn't stop someb4dy from buying one of the places that are there. Tearing it down and putti g in some of these uses that maybe the neighborhood, that we thought maybe the neighborhood would like to have some control over. 8ut that's the oily rationale I could think of that would make it different because I think of the ones we're dealing with are places where there are some but there's still a lot of empty lots. , lot of empty large lots. Co talki the t I'm stuck on this one because we've got most properties that we're about subdivisions would like this. We deal with neighborhoods all , every 2 weeks we deal with neighborhoods talking to us about why Plan' Sept~ are Wedn ing Commission Meeting tuber 4, 1991 - Page 9 ou letting that into our neighborhood. That's literally 4 hours every sday night we listen to that. This seems like some .protection that I woul~like if I were there. And I can understand the nervousness of some~ody saying hey, conditional use permits for a stable is not a guar ntee and I understand that. I would be nervous too. I wouldn't like if I a stable, I wouldn't like that taken away. So I guess my decision is w to kill the whole thing right now or to go along with it. I the wishes of the rest of the neighborhood. I'd be interested in what rest of the, I wish there ~ere more Planning Commissioners here tonl~ to sway me because I think it's a tough issue. Emmi ~s: Do you want to try and swap Ladd Jeff? : Yeah, sway me Jeff. Far r~ : How many of the listing here that we have i thru 10, how many nts were notified in total? Do you have a tally on that? Kra list : It was quite extensive. It took quite a while to make tbs mailing · Cents : Hundreds? Aanen on: Yeah. 150. 200. F. ;es: And of that group, how many would you feel that were in the hobby farm area? Emmin~,s: What is that? Kraus~ '- That's kind of fuzzy though. That's oftentimes you're getting a sub3e, tire question as to what the owner perceives their property is and how t use it. Arguably some of the folks in Timberwood might believe they ave a hobby farm because they have 5 acres and a big tomato patch. thi some of the individuals on 96th Street have probably tend to more what ou think is a hobby farm. Farma : That's what I'm trying to do. I 'm trying to get an idea of what' on here. Kraus~ I don't have a number for you but most of the lots are in the Lake Riley ills or something like that which is, there was a whole slew of these sions that came in 1986 and 1987 for tbs most part trying to get a 7ump on the change of the City Code down to 1 per 10 acres zoning. All ,se are what I would classify as, including Timberwood, as a more trad qal rural subdivision and not a hobby farm area. That's most of the 1 . Farma : The next question that I have is, we talked a bit about taxes or about getting a response· Did you ~et a direct response on that? I read something in here but. K~ We've got better than a direct response. We have the man himself. Orlin ,chafer, the Carver County Assessor is here tonight and can directly answer your questions. Plan lng Commission Meeting Sept mber 4, 1991 - Page 10 Emmt ~gs: Let's make sure we understand what question's being asked. We're wond ,ring is there going to be a change. Is there a tax consequence asso,=iated with a change from A-2 to RR for the people who live in these? Farm~ kes: That's correct. Orli~ Schafer= That's your basic question. Whether or not zoning infllences value and consequently taxes. Farml kes: The previous hearing that's what most of the questions were in rega~ to. Orli Schafer: Right. It's similar in circumstances to the MUSA line chart. . The fact that the line changed didn't change values to the prop · Use dictates value of prc~erty. If you now have in these areas, if now have ~0 acres or more, you can qualify for the agricultural cl as we see agricultural. Emmi s: So it was the agricultural classes, Green Acres, what's commonly r 'ed to as Green Acres? Orli Schafer: Right. Or just outright without the Green Acres protection you n have agricultural. Agricultural use and He appraise it and .tely tax it in that light. By the same token we have people within the ntext of the city that are in a commercial zone that now have agr ltural class by our office on their property because the use is still agr' ltural. They're maintaining a cropping procedure. That is a truck farmi g type of operation and due to the income generated and so forth, the use o the property, it dictates that it qualifies for agricultural use and we co tinue to carry it that way on the book. And appraise it and assess it th ~t way. Property right across the street does not carry that and is asses ~ed extremely high in comparison. $o looking at the zoning strictly from tax perspective or the impact it would have on my office and our outlo k on the future values of that property, up front I would say there'd be no impact. Somewhere down the line someone in these areas is going to want o subdivide· It happens. It's nice to have the idea that you're isola ed. That your a hobby farm or that you're rural and that you'll alway: be that way but that very rarely remains the case. Somewhere along the I ne economic pressures or whatever it might be changes that and people reque= t subdivisions. If you really don't have the zoning and those tions that you're eluding to earlier in place at that time, you're openi g up a whole can of worms and then we have some negative impacts as we vi property. Not demeaning mobile home courts or manufactured housing situs ions. If one of those would be constructed in an area, the nding property is definitely impacted by it and that could be very much looki the u court and i as if and plant com a negative impact. And so those are the things that you're at. We really don't care how you rezone the property, we look at of the property. So if you leave it A-2 and move a mobile home something in there or a recreation facility of some kind into that the adjoining properties, we will look at the impact it has just manufacturing plant was built in the middle of a residential area made a conditional use permit. Sranted it or something and that an adverse affect on the residential area around that. We .ts those people for that act on your part. So we react to the Plan ing Commission Meeting Sept, mber 4, 1991 - Page ii cond, tions as they exist. Not as we anticipate them to be. £mmi ~s: the Right. And that's because you're oritentation is to the value of ty and not to the zoning classification? Orli yOU shou~ abil whet bull that cham Schafer: That's correct. And if property is properly zoned, and if not put unreasonable restrictions on this rural res class, there be no impact whatsoever on these small tract owners. I question the to build an agricultural building of a'ny size without some ctions. I don't see that anywhere else in the township. I would why you would want to allow it here. Even if it were a stable or I think you do have to have some control over structures, ~hey're agricultural or whatever regardless of where they're being You have to have road setbacks. You have to have all those things nform to any other zoning class. And unless you're really limiting people, I would see no adverse impact at all due to the fact that tt from A-2 to RR. If a tract owner out there, and we do have a coupl because I've been contacted by them. If they're in an agricultural Lt at the present time, and we have them classed ag and they get the benef .ts of the ag calculation. The ultimate calculations. They can conti lue to receive that. We have no problem with that. I've advised every ne that's asked me about it or questioned it to apply for the Green Acres classification to protect their interest in the ag classification. As we see it, it has nothing to do with the zoning because if you wanted to chang, that to non-ag use, their Green Acres would be meaningless because they' be not conforming to zoning law. But if zoning would allow an agric lturai use in a residential area, I would see no problem with it. They re entitled to the Green Acres classification if they can qualify. Anyth ng else? Conra, r: Did Don Halls call you just last week? Orlin Schafer: He was one of those people that called, yes. Conra, : depr some And last week, or two weeks ago he made an Issue that he was of his Green Acres status. I thought he did didn't he? He had Olsen Dave Halle. Emmim : That wasn't Don. That was Dave. Conra, : That was Dave. Orlin : There are some other impacts in that situation because they have rather large tract that they've subdivided and there are some other. That' an individual situation that really I don't know how zoning would im, it one way or the other because they've chosen to do what they did. We r :ted to what they did. And a couple of their lots were changed in value Dimply because they had chosen to improve them. I mean that's normal That would happen regardless of what they were zoned. So those kinds f things. For the most part they still qualify for Green Acres. Right Plar Sept Emmi Farm I be, prop4 ment: and affe, Wes righ lng Commission Meeting tuber 4, !991 - Page !2 ~gs: Okay, thank you Orlin. kes: The last thing I'd like to say on this is you made the statement ieve that you wanted the freedom to do what you wanted on your ~rty that you have now before this zoning is changed. And you also oned that you have a next door neighbor who's looking to retire soon ay want to subdivide his property and that restricts him and might t the value of his land. Is that the statement that you made? now. : No. Not subdivide. Just sell his place period as it stands Farm kes: this and I gi on a nei~ look not I thought you said subdivide. The thing that worries me about it doesn't take a person who can read into a crystal ball to look that an urban city is just over the horizon coming towards you. what we're trying to do here is plan ahead for that. It certainly the city some basis to plan and develop orderly rather than to deal isis basis. When somebody puts in something to your next door that you just can't live with and you come into the city and you some Justice to be done. What you consider to be an okay use is ily what your neighbor thinks is an okay use. And because sever 1 of you are fortunate enough to have several acres between you, what your ,eighbor does across the way maybe doesn't concern you very much but at so point in time that city is going to come up over the horizon there. You'r not far away from it and it seems to me that based on the amount of peopl that have been notified here, it's hard for me to say that those peopl shouldn't be afforded that protection because of the amount of peopl~ that are here tonight and have based a legitimate concern about their useages for their land. Horses and so on. I can understand that. It's Ins of the reasons we moved out here. Wes D nsmore: Can I say one more thing? Farms es: Sure. Wes D~ nsmore: this want is. They' give We're more let okay you I know what you're saying here is you're trying to give us on. There's nobody here says we want it. We all say we don't . Including the people that signed that. Everybody knows what this City is not going to surround us unless they can fill in lakes us and next to Tim and bulldoze out TH 101 and Pioneer Trail. not going to encroach... We know the protection you're trying to you're doing it for neighborhoods that were started in 1984 on up. .ck in the 60's in our neighborhood and there isn't going to be any opment there. And I can't believe right now that the City would put a cemetery on my place if I wanted to. Oo you think that'd be I go out there and start a cemetery or a mobile home park? Or do nk the city might step in and stop me right now. Conr You would have the right to do it. Wes Ou ~smore: I could do that? Emming, : Is that a permitted use? PI ling Commission Meeting Sept ,mber 4, 199! - Page 13 Krau ~s: It's a conditional or interim use so there would have to be a publ c hearing. Emmi ge: Even in the A-27 Wes unsmore: So they could stop me right nm without changing. They sire dy are protecting me right now without changing my zoning so I really can ' bell comi and that but do what I want right now in agricultural or residential. I can't somebody'd let me put a cemetery or wholesale nursery without before the City Council or Planning Commission or somebody to try me. Maybe they would stop it but what we're doing is the people here that signed that petition say thank you for the protection don't want it. We want to stay ag. Char Hobbs: Could I say something too? I appreciate the protection. Emmi Wes Emm i n Chery than Resid Emm i nl pub 1 i there back Farms good city of th, But I issued in, tc Is: Maybe you'd tell us your name. First of all, what was your name? Lnsmore: Wes Dunsmore. West 96th. IS: And yOUT'S ma'am. Hobbs: Cheryl Hobbs. Maybe we are more concerned with our freedom ,ur protection. The freedom to do what we want. ,nt: Can I interject one thing? !s: No, I think this is getting a little out of hand. We closed the hearing. Maybe what we'll do is finish the comments up here and if are people who've got some further comments, maybe we'll let you come ~= ~s: I think I've said my comments. I still think that this is a hing. Perhaps we can review that issue on the 96th Street. If the ants to look at that and the homeowners. If they're on the far end land useage as far as the size of acres, it's not in my back yard. still don't think that the issues that we talked about, we deal with of land all the time here and freedoms to use your land. If I put use a hypothetical issue. If somebody wants to put in pigs next door t ) you or a nuclear waste dump, you have to draw a line as to where freedc n ends as far as land use goes because we all live next to one anothe. Some of us live farther away than others but I don't think that if thi designation is changed that it really is going to be that restri tire on your freedoms. Emming : For my point of view, I was looking at this primarily as right now we ve got, we're a community that's moving from kind of a rural charac';er where we've got the northern half is rapidly becoming very urban and th, southern half we've got sort of more of a rural character but we've got th se housing developments springing up in there with large lots. When you 1o, k at that trend, there's large lots now. Those lots may be subdiv dad in the future. We don't know but the trend is towards a more urban ind of situation and it seems to me that housing developments like these ubdivisions belong in a residential category rather than an Plan .ing Commission Meeting Sept. mber 4, 1991 - Page 14 agri, uiturai one. If somebody wants to come in as the last ici in a rural subd vision with large tots and they want a stable in there and none of the neigi bors want it, they probably won't get it but I think we want to be sure that they come in and we give those neighbors something to say about it. I know if I were in a rural subdivision and my neighbor wanted a stabl , I wouldn't want it but that's just me. On the other hand I guess, so I nk this is a reasonable thing to do. The only thing that makes me need ex you just ever to o get table is in the 96th Street case, I'm not comfortable saying you s protection if you're out there .saying you don't want it. To some . We hear that a lot of times. We didn't ask you for this. Why are ng this to us? We do have to think in a little broader terms than you desire but I think that it may be a situation where if in the subdivision doesn't want it, maybe they ought to be able out. Maybe we could have a provision in there that says if they can ybody to sign something saying they don't want to be RR, leave them I don't think that's likely to happen. Er : If I can address that point. I think in the first place I have a of my neighbors here. I personally don't really care. I'm not worri ~d about these things either. But we started this process looking as you ,¥ in general with all of the 2 1/2, $ acre lots we've got in the city to of :er some protection that was already here. I mean this RR district exist,d for many years and quite frankly I guess I'm going to vote for this becau ~e I think it's good planning and that's what we're supposed to do here. Quite frankly, from a political standpoint the process is due at the Counc 1 meeting and if the Council says gee whiz. It appears that there's a mai ,rity or 100~ or whatever they want to view it, that doesn't want to be in this, I don't care. So in a sense if this petition represents you don't want to be in it and Council looks at that and says that's the polit cal will of that neighborhood, I'm fine with that too but I think from .. planning standpoint, I guess I'm going to vote for it because I'm strug, iling with the same thing you are. Emmin ~s: Yeah, okay. Now you've heard our comments and there are a couple hands going up back here that wanted some comments. If you'd make them brief Matt =hill: some of th restr More feet. inc nei~ build have your Matt Thill, Meadowlark Lane. Mr. Dunsmore was talking about f the older neighborhoods that may not have a problem. I think some newer neighborhoods may not eithe~ because they have really ire covenants. You can't put mobile homes. You know radio towers. n one accessory building or any accessory building over 850 square There are a lot of restrictions in some of the newer neighborhoods ing mine. And livestock, that came up. You can't have that in my other than horses. No businesses. Only one accessory and the other structures. The other thing about this is that you buy the lot and you hope that you can get horses but you've plunked ney down by the time you apply for the CUP. So I guess a ire buyer would want to know up front and you really couldn't say. Emmint : I suppose you could buy it contingent on approval too. Matt ill: Thank you. Pla ling Commission Meeting Sept,mber 4, 1991 - Page 15 Marl n Edwards: MarItn Edwards. I ltve at Audubon and Lyman Road. My prob em is just as the city needs to plan, so homeowners need to plan and befo' e I ever bought my 11 acre lot at the intersection of Audubon and Lyma' , I came in and taIke~ to city pIanners about the long term plans for that property and I was told that they had recently extended the existing zoni'g which aIlowed A-2 for that category of property from the year 2000 to tie year 2010. So before ! ever bought the lot ! came in and talked to the ity planners. I figured that out. I am using it agriculturally. I'm plan lng trees there. I want to have a nursery there. I realize I could appl for an exemption. Emmi is: Are you in one of these subdivisions? Marl. Edwards: Yes I am. Emmi ~s: Which one? Mar Edwards: SunTidge Court. Emmi is: Okay· Marlt Edwards: So just as the city needs to plan, homeowners need to plan. The City has no accountability. People come and go. The City chang s it's rules. I made very conscientious plans. Went through ail the props channels to figure out what the City's long term plans are. Now they =hangs plans. I don't know when I ap~ly for Green Acres. [ don't know ~ow long it will be before the city will change regulations and disal ow me to have Green Acres. Emmin Is: That's State law. We can't. Is that right Orlin? Marli Edwards: Did you not mention though that it was possible for examp e GTeen Acres protection would not protect someone if the city regul ted that agricultural uses were not longer even appropriate in that area? Orltn u permi props Acres have afer: I don't think. This is what I meant. If you put restrictions on and said that an agricultural use would not be in this type of subdivision, then you're affecting value of · It would be feasible if you no longer qualified for the Green You can get Green Acres in downtown Chanhassen if you qualify. They control over that. Marli Edwards: I guess my issue is Just as I understand the City's need to t the interest of new homeowners, I feel the City has a res lty to protect the needs of people who've gone through ali Le recourse to establish what the City's plans are. People need to plan well as the City needs to plan and I've been very disturbed with the ci.y's trends in the 3 yeats I've owned that property. I had to go and have i reclassified A-2. As soon as I built a house on it it was rural reside rial and now you're disallowing the ~-2 and I imagine the Oeglers see th writing on the wall too. I don't feel good about the trend because I bell, ye people who planned to have certain uses ought to have that respec'.ed by the City. That's just not how growth goes I guess. Plan ing Commission Meeting Sept tuber 4, 1991 - Page !6 Emmi ~gs: Alright, thank you. Erha 't: It's not clear to me, what effect the is on. Emmi gs: We should probably, you know anytime that we can talk to people abou long term, we shou-id probably have to give a warning that long term is al 3 months here because [ think that's about it today. Yes ma'am. Cato. Dunsmore: Carol Dunsmore, West 96th Street. I'd like to direct my fi question to Ladd. Because you walked in after my husband spoke, he made excellent points about why West 96th Street and the Jeurissen Addi ion should be eliminated from this rezoning and I feel that you cannot make informed comment or decision after not hearing his talk. I'm sad that didn't hear it because he gave some excellent. Emmi ~s: reca Well why don't, if you feel that's important enough, let's do a Car Dunsmore: But my other comment was, ! have a petition here that 12 out 17 homeowners on our street says no, we do not want it. Object mean.~ no. N 0 and 12 out of 17 and it's sad to see that the Planning Comm .sion is not listening to the residents. That's what I thought the publ hearing was for. To listen to the residents. Take in their conc,~ns and it sounds like it's all hogwash. That you don't even care now.!You're just going to pass something because you think it feels good. It's affecting you. It's affecting us. Emmi ~s: Right, and I guess my comment there to you would be, if notice went iut to 150 people. We've heard negative comments from a very small propo 'rich of those really and there are times also when we pass things here ,hat may not be wanted by a majority of the people but they are things that lave to be passed for certain reason. You know regulations. Nob~>dy wants to be forced to pump their septic system every 3 years and to tell us who's doing it. We put people through a lot of problems with that. Nobody with septic system really wanted to do 'that but we made them all do it. So re are times when we have to do it. I'm r~>t sure this is the same kind f issue. I'm not saying that but, why don't you tell, if you could quic y recap your comments. Wes D~ night : Again, I'm Wes Dunsmore. I don't mean to take up the whole e. Emmim : No, we asked you to. Wes D~ nsmore: Well thank you. I guess all I'm Just saying is that we, our nei hood is old and established and I realize there's got to be rules and r rulations. I know I work for tbs City of Eden Prairie 20 years. I know this stuff goes but we are established and ! cannot see where we can bly subdivide down there because most of it ls lowland behind us and a that and [ can't see, never's a long time but I can't see where we're Icing to be bringing in anything new in there or anything else. I think t's going to stay the same. If somebody's house burns down, they're just ng to rebuild it. That's all there's going to be. There's going Plan ~lng Commission Nesting Sept. ,mber 4, 1991 - Page 17 to b, no golf course there or any of these 9 or 10 issues here that you peop I ca and rems com i I that enou~ that were' 't home. e are concerned with allowing in there. Like I said on the end there, 't believe that I could go in there right now and put in a cemetery on. I think the people here would stop me and I think that's a nable request. We're already developed. ! can't see any of this in. There's no way. Whether it's allo~ed right now, I can't see people would let me do that. I think that's almost justified there. I didn't even talk to everybody on the street. Everybody did talk to last night signed that petition. A lot of people $o thank you. Emm ~s: Yeah, thank you. Alright, is there any more comments up here? who : It wasn't clear to me how this affected the fellow with the le nursery. : Well a wholesale nursery is an interim use and requires public hear is and all that. : But he already has it. T That : Well as I understand it, ]:'m pretty sure I kno~ what lot it is. s some agricultural use going on just off of Lyman in Sunridge Court. a permitted use in the RR district. Ether : What is? Kraus : The continuing of the agriculture is a permitted use in the RR distr ct. Ether : Raising trees is considered? Kraus : Yeah, so there is no implication. Now if there's a desire to build a large barn o~ have a feedlot or something else, yes. Then it would impac~ it but to the best of my knowledge, I think I'm familiar with which lot w, 're talking about, it shouldn't impact it at all. By the way too, Commi~ sioner Farmakes, you asked how many p~ple we sent notices to. Kathy was c, ng that up. There was 204 notices sent out. Farms' es: I Just want to make sure I've got that right. There are a total of 17 and you had 12 on your petitio137 Carol smote: There are 17 houses...and there's 12 now. Emmin~ : Alright. Is there a motion? Chery Hobbs: Are you going to find out about that street... Emmin~ : What? Oh. I think what we're going to have to do on the issue you r sed. Let's see, that was Country Hills? Far : Both sides of the street. Plan ~ing Commission Meeting Sept.,mber 4, 199! - Page 18 Emmi )gs: Yeah. I think they'll have to take care of that between now and the lty Council meeting. Thank you for bringing that up. Erha t: Z'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezo ing #91-9 for property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate to RR, Rural Resi. iai District with the 11 subdivisions listed in the report. Emmi s: I see lO. Erha' : Okay, yeah. There's 10. Emmi ;s: I'll second it. Is there any discussion? moved, Emming~ ~econded that the Planning Co.minion recommend of Rezonlng Ir91-9 for property zoned R-2, Rgrl~ultural Estate to Residential Oistrict for the following Subdivisions: 1. imberwood Estates 2. n Ridge Addition 3. untry Hills 4. Loneer Hills 5. ke Riley Woods North 6. ley Lake Meadows 7. D~erbrook 8. H Farms 9. W ,st 96th Street Area 10. J ,urissen Addition All ~ted in favor and the motion carried. Emmin Is: This will go to City Council when? Olsen 23rd. Emmin~ s: September 23rd and follow the issue there. Our action is not a fi action. It's a recommendation to the City Council and you have every right to politic all you want between now and then with those folks. They will ake the final decision. Cha order Emmtn Hesse Olsen: Emmin n Emmings waived the staff report and called the public hearing to I wasn't able to make it to the visit to this property out on · Did anyone who was here go? Tim and Jeff did. : Okay, ~hat did you guys see out there? P, Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 19 Erha t: ~ lot of trees. What'd we see? What we saw Nas a lot that the pets ,n purchased that's between two existing very nice homes. The lot itse.f did not have the view that the other homes had because it faced into a ,ins and therefore the home, the lot owner wanted to build the house furt ~er down the slope on a ridge that went down and over to the right. It cart .inly structurally could be done and it would afford him a very nice view and a yard further down on that ridge. On the other side, the house woul. have been right in the view of a lot of other homes looking down on it. It would have been quite visible I think it a lot of other homes. Cart.inly acutely to those two homes. Quite visible to a lot of other home~ all along the bluff and if you go around to the other, I drove around through the other side of Hesse Farms on the east side and my analysis was that all of the homes were built up and off the bluff. ~nd it's hard to tell and I might be wrong if there's any actually built down into the bluff area like that one that we're discussing that one. The analysis that ! have it is that if you're going to have this ordinance, then the ordi , if this ordinance doesn't prevent that house from being built that, , then there isn't a lot of sense to have the ordinance. I'm not sayi that the ordinance is desireable or not. If we're going to have this nance, that house...then not much has been accomplished. : It was a perfect thing to go to. For ae it was just what that ordi nce would prevent. I guess I was surprised by how little, as far as ng in purchasing that lot work had been done on his part to really out whether or not he could build a home there. You're saying it wou be possible for him to build out in that area but he's done no soil test. He's done no, as far as general conversation with him, he's done no work with engineers or inquired as to whether or not how feasible it wouldlbs to build a home down there. I'm not an engineer but it would certal~yL be a difficult operation to put in a house down there I think just istically anyway. But it also seemed to be in an area that this ordin nce, this whole intent would be to stop. Emmin s: Okay. It didn't make you feel bad about the ordinance I take it? Erhar' = It did what I wanted it to do. ! wanted to have the viewing becau= e I still had some concern about the ordinance. It's not what l inten, ed when we started this bluff preservation talk here 3-4 years ago. Obviously i'm going after the commercial area and this is the first thing that ~ot on the agenda so I've had some doubts about it but I think after havin~ gone out there I feel better about the ordinance. Emmin~ : Okay. This is a public hearing and are there any members of the publi( hear that want to address this? Nobody's talking. ~ovsd, Erhart seconded to clo~e the public hearing. All voted in favor the motion carried. The public hearing ~as clo~ed. Emmln : Other comments. Tim, do you have anything further you want to say? No. Emmin~ : Ladd? Plan ling Commission Meeting Sept ~mber 4, 1991 - PaGe 20 Conr, id: Emmi .gs: Farm~ kes: Emmi~ Er hal t: Emmi~ IS: Erha~ : Planl Conr Er Emmi is: Conr : O1 No, Jeff? No. Me either. Is there a motion? Now we know why we have seven people on the Planning Commission. Huh? So you can get motions. That's why they have seven people on the Commission is so they get motions fast. : I recommend approval. : Where are we? It's on the first page. I know but there's nothinG. Because there's so many different sections we just, you can just say r ~commend approval of the bluff protection ordinance I think will suf f i . : Okay, recommend approval of the bluff protection ordinance as in the staff report dated August 28th. Erhar : I'll second it. Emmin s: Alright, is there any discussion? Conra r~ved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commis~Ion recommend appro' of the Bluff Protection Ordinance as presented by staff in the staff report dated August 28, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carri. . Publl~ Present: Kent son Brook llestol Rick lerdings Jeff Ann Kullberg Mike 3o~nna Adler Ryan Construction 8460 Bittern Court 8461Cittern Court 8480 Bittern Court 8470 Bittern Court Plan Sept Doug Don Mar k Kath' ng Commission Meeting ~mber 4, 1991 - Page 22 Barinsky 'hits Laaser 8731 Audubon 8850 Audubon 8037 Erie Avenue Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Emmilgs: Is that retention pond taking water from what part of the site? Aane : Pardon me? Emmi ~s: What part of the site would be draining into that retention pond? Aane n: The entire project. Krau~ : dave rets ' Erha' : The entire site would drain into it. We've also asked that the develop this pond to the NERP$ standards so we're not only water but we're removing nutrients. Excuse me. The pond's not shown on the plans at this point. : No it is. If you look at the grading plan· ~on: It's on there. It's noted. Erhar~: Oh, okay. So it's completely out of what we consider existing wetland or it's out of the existing wetland? Aanen~on: It's in a floodplain. Kraus : You mentioned that the wetland that's located on the property. I think we've been out to the site several times and calling it a wetland's a littl bit expansive. Right now it's a spot in the soybeans where beans don't grow real well. Erhar : Are you talking about Outlot A or are you talking about Lot 6? Ashen on: Lot 6. Erhar : Oh, I understand that. Kathy Chai continued with her staff report presentation at this point. Earnings called the public hearing to order. Kent and ! organ] few to desi inte lson: My name is Kent Carlson. I'm with Ryan Construction Company ~ht we'd just maybe talk a couple of minutes about our ion and the things that we see happening on the site over the next · I'll make our advertisement for our firm brief as possible but you a little background on our firm, we're 53 years old. We're a ld construction development organization and we're fully ted with our own staff of design people. Our property management Our construction people. Financing and development people. We've Plan lng Commission Meeting Sept mber 4, 1991 - Page 22 been in the business for over'50 years. Started up in Hibbing in the coal and .umber business and then moved do~n to the Minneapolis area in the earl 60's and since then have developed over 3 i/2 million square feet of prop, try that we currently own and manage. During the boom years of the 80's we did a lot of development for our portfolio and a lot of third party deve,.opment. That ratio is about 75~ for our portfolio and 25~ for third part; owners and our clients who own and occupy their own facilities. Toda the market's changed a little bit. We see a lot more of our business 70~- O~ of it now being done for third party people and that's what we anti, ipate happening on this site. A number of build to suit projects whicI would be homes for'a lot of manufacturing organizations and warehouse and istribution organizations. We do plan and have on the drawing board sev, multi-tenant properties that we ~ould own and manage ourselves within our portfolio. With me tonight is Dick Koppe with RLK and lares and he is the engineer for the site. He is here to help us more technical questions and with that I guess we'll open it up to your uestions. Thank you. Emmi ~s: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing again. Are there any memb of the public here who waht to address this issue? BT Cour this amou far Lillestol: My name is Brook Lillestol. My address is 8460 Bittern [ have a couple of concerns. One was in doing this change, does n that the road itself, Audubon Road is restructured as far as the of trucks that can go through there as far as weight wise and ! mean the road itself has gone dramatically over the past year as the amount of traffic ! guess you could say and there's nothing that really do about that but ! guess my concern is, is there going to be 'e for [ think there's a zoning tike a 10 ton truck to go on or lng like that? Emmi s: Let's see, are you asking if there's a limit on the size of truc that can use the road? Brook Littestol: Yes, exactly. Hemps : Audubon Road has just recently gone through an upgrade. It's been built 'to a 9 ton commercial standard. It's proposed to be kind of a north/ south collector according to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and w, anticipate increased volumes of commercial traffic and normal resid, ntial traffic on that road over the next 10-20 years. As far as roads being built to accommodate such truck traffic, it's one of the purpo::es of the recent reconstruction of it and upgrading. Emmin~ s: Okay. Does that answer your question? Brook Littestol: Yeah, I guess so. In other words it's going to be up? In oil words there will be more truck traffic and there will be a higher? Hemps]: Well potentially yes. From this development will increase the truck traffic but the traffic study would probably give us a better anal is of which direction they would be going I guess. My first thought would access to TH $ versus going to the south however. Plan Sept Emmi Hemp Broo the anel effe, othe' Emmi Krau= ling Commission Meeting ~mber 4, 1991 - Page 23 igs= Once 212 is built that could change. 1: Exactly. Littestol: Okay. The other thing I wanted to ask you was as far as cng term effect and I'm very new at this because of the fact that I'm , homeowner and I've never owned a home before and as far as long term t. As far as property taxes. Does this at any point change? In words, with a development versus a residential area going in there. This property is right now it's zoned A-2, is that correct? s: Yes. Emmil ~s: But in our Comprehensive Plan it was zoned as industrial property and 's the way we saw it's use going. The effect on, now you live whet in relation to this property? You live across Audubon from this? Broo Littestol: Yeah, right across. My backyard faces Audubon Road. Emmi is: Okay. And are you asking me if this project is going to have an im on the value of your property? Broo Littestol: Right. Emmi ~s: I have no idea. That's a question for an assessor or somebody like .hat. There's no way for me to know. We do have also in the corn ye plan realizing that there's residential properties across the str , Paul actually came up with this buffer yard concept where we incr the setbacks for the industrial properties because we know that ther 's a residential development across the street. You get some separation with the road itself but it will also put in this buffer yard conce,t to get the buildings back even further away from the residential areas, Trying to get as much open space as we could between those two very dills'ant uses. Maybe Paul can, what's the difference between a normal :k and the difference with the buffer yard? Kra~ : The buffer yard was designed to increase the setback area and to requi' e that an area be set aside so it can be permanently landscaped to serve as additional screening. Normally an industrial setback might be 50 feet. What the buffer yard does is along Audubon Road it adds another 50 feet hat's permanently set aside with an easement and covenant so you have a muc greater setback. And internally where you don't have a street, that buffel yard is lO0 feet wide. This issue ~as explored quite a bit during the C~ mprehensive Plan. Going back a ways, so~e of the people in the audie ce, I know Doug Barinsky was here at that time. Originally one of the v. rsions of the Comprehensive Plan had the industrial property line or the ildustrial line going down to Sun Ridge Court. That was knocked out after a lot of discussion because it was concluded that the high point on the pi , this area was right about here. There were some homes on Audub(n that this could most appropriate, the Rod Grams farm, be most lately developed for residential uses. I believe your subdivision is in his area right here that's not showing up on our map. P Se Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 24 Broo Littestol: Right. Kr s: The IOP section picks up here. This is the site. There's aisc an indu ~trial site, actually two of them along the as yet unfinished road that sepa ares your subdivision, between your subdivision and the railway trac .s. What else. another thing that helps this project is that there's a 12 a. ~re site right here that the Weather Service is looking at taking and that s really the highest ground in there. They're going to be moving or they re proposing to move the weather facility, the regional weather faci ity out from the airport to Chanhassen. There is a radar unit that come. with it that they've shown us that has some height questions. It's not Is high as we thought it would be but basically on a 12 acre site they,re only going to be developing a tenth of it and the rest of it's ali goint to be green space and that's the area that's the closest to your subdl vision· So we're pushing everything back down behind the hill so it's down in that valley. Emmi ge= And the land slopes down there so. 8roo Littestol: Right. Emmi the I think we've tried real hard to try and find a way to minimize of that industrial area. Broo Littestol: Well it sounds like you guys have done some planning Iy but my third question, which me and Dave had talked about this, is the landscaping. As far as if this goes into effect, what kind of lng does it go in? You had talked about an easement on there and ever' htng else. Because I mean I really don't think they're going to put big seed out there like you did in my backyard. Kr : No. To be honest we're not, the plans haven't been that well · This is a concept stage and we're not looking at the final details yet. They'll be coming back through again and we'll have more infor ion on that. But the development itself is obligated to do some of the k and additional work would be done on individual sites. Individual s we won't know until they actually come in with them but the buffer is goi to be established along some sort of phasing program so that's up and running as the properties are developed. What we're going to be getting and tte ordinance, I don't know exactly what it's going to be because we haven't had it laid out but the ordinance talks about a combination of bermt ~g and landscaping and preservation of topography, wherever that's usefu . to do that to separate direct views. I can't tell you you're not going to see anything there because you probably will but I know that the homes are sort of located on the other side of the street and the street goes ~p and then starts going down on the other side. We'll do everything possible to screen it. There's probably going to be some... Brook Emmin= Jeff first Littestol: Okay, thank you. s: You bet. Is there anyone else here who wants to? ullberg: My name's Jeff Kullberg. I live on 8480 Bittern Court. My concern, what sort of restrictions are there and what types of P1 ng Commission Meeting ~mber 4, 1991 : Page 25 busilesses will be allowed to locate in this park? Krau rs: As an industrial park, you know our industrial park, the best exam le of our industrial park is to go see what's in the existing parks that we have right now. There's a cross section of office/manufacturing/ rese. rch and some warehouses. Now this one is somewhat more unique because wa'r, going with a zoning category that allows us to basically have a cont'act established with the developers of what will go in there. 8ut it prob bly will allow full range of industrial uses. We would expect to have proh bitions against smelting plant or that kind of a heavy industry. We woul, be looking at the high tach, lighter industry stuff and possibly Kent mighi want to expand on that but I've got to believe that this will look a whol, lot like what we already have on the ground right now. Jeff deve~ is g: The thing I'm concerned about is things, any sort of retail · Any kind of thing that could pollute the ground water or that high buildings which could be aesthetically unpleasing. Kraul : limt hill also bull Height is something that's regulated. We would establish some OhS on that. Right now I believe you can have a 50 foot height on in the industrial district. It will probably be something with that. Of course there's buildings rolling off down the you're fighting grade'so you'll see less and less of it. We would k with them to do things like shielding truck loading areas... ng mass to, to bury them towards the back. There's a lot of things we'l be working with in fine detail. Emmi Is: He asked about retail. Er add sites highs we re inten Emmi nI Kraus: build Emmin Jeff is lo truck: thing to be no pal Kraus~ it du~ : Oh, retail would not be allowed in this district. Also we should ~o that the premise that the developer's working under is that the that are along Audubon Road, because they have the visibility, are quality sites and would tend to be a higher percentage of office as ,d the proposal. The more intense uses or the more square footage rive uses would be down in the valley. IS: You mean office... : ...higher percentage of office along Audubon. The higher profile ngs. kay. ullberg: Okay, another concern we have is presently where McGlynn's ated now. There are times we drive by there, there's a dozen semi parked along Audubon Road and we were just wondering, ts that same )oing to move down to adjacent to our houses now as they're waiting )erviced in these distribution facilities? Is there going to be any king signs on Audubon? : There is no parking. In fact McGlynn's is doing it and I've seen lng construction, they shouldn't be doing it. In fact we've also had some c uestions arise when Paisley Park is doing a movie they park along there Those are both situations that should not exist and are not P Se ng Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 26 al con,, k · We do try to work with these people and when McGlynn's was u~der ion they...out there. If there's a concern or a problem, let us and wa'ii respond to that. That's not permitted. Jeff Kullberg: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Emmi)gs: Anybody else? Ann ;ullberg: Yeah, I guess I have. Emmi ~gs: Would you like to give us your name? Ann ullberg: I'm Ann Kullberg and I live at 8480 Bittern Court. I have a comm nt to that because as of right now I believe there are no parking sign: along that street. I have a concern because my lot backs up to Audul on and when I have children I do not want them running up to that and havi~ semis there. It's very dangerous at night driving along that str t. I've driven along there several nights when there's been over a dozel semis· I had a neighbor tell me today ~hen I talked to her about comi to this meeting tonight, that she saw children running along inside arou those semis. It's a very dangerous situation and I guess that's ng that ! wish you would include is possibly putting up no parking si along there. Emmi is: Okay, thank you. Doug last here why reall will insky: My name is Doug Barinsky. I live on Audubon Road just of there and as Paul pointed out, I did spend quite a bit of time ir in the land use plan when you determined what we were going to do we were against it but that's been decided and that really isn't came tonight but I think that this issue of traffic is what I was kind of interested in and the way this has been laid out I t'hink k. As long as we don't end up with variances down the road allow ng all those lots along there to have direct access onto Audubon. I 'm ad our Mayor is here tonight because this is a significant safety hazar that's going on out there right now with McGlynn's. Paul just acknoi ledged here that it's not allowed but yet for some reason the City is lgnor ng it. There are at least on some nights a dozen trucks double parks on both sides of the road. They start right at the driveway of McGIy n's. Totally block the viewpoint of anybody entering or exiting into McSly ,n's c~riveway and so my input or my reason for even standing up here is th s is approached and obviously will increase the truck traffic. This is go ng to have to be dealt with and I would hope that the City Council and t: e Planning Commission would be very adamant about when they approve the e ~trance to this whole program, that it be locked in day one in a very clear understanding that there's not going to be variances offered later simil, r to what happened I believe with PMT this last year. There they came long and wanted an expansion and got the okay to have a separate road onto udubon. $o I drive it every day both ways. I think a° lot of these peopl here do too and we're going to have more residential out there which is go ng to add to the problem. So I hope that if somebody can pass that word our safety commission, .this has 8x>t to ~et dealt with before you allow industrial development out there. So thank you. Planlling Commission Meeting Septl~mber 4, 1991 - Page 27 Emmi Mar k spri here dave toni~ to bl qual to s Chic. DownE does West betwE of ye exact into crest offic somet direc Thank you. Laaser= Again my name is Mark Laaser. We are proposing to build next g on Sun Ridge Court which is again south of the proposed development I need to say yeah, one of those lots there you just put up. I have ecific objection to this. I mean I trust the reputation of the opers. I have just a general observation to make and the meeting .bt allows me the opportunity to make it. That is this. One of the ns people like us move to communities like Chanhassen is that we want in proximity to the advantages of the city and yet enjoy the rural ty of the community in which we live. The thought that ! would like are is I had the opportunity to drive back to visit relatives in the go area and ! grew up on the west side of Chicago in a suburb called rs Grove and we have a rather well known tollway. Of course Illinois not do anything without charging a toll for it but, called the East/ Tollway and since ! have been a teenager I watched that whole area n basically Oakbrook, Downers Grove, that area and Naperville, if any are familiar with these areas, develop from a rural community like Chanhassen and Waconia and Chaska and all these other places major league industrial corridor. You kno~ the havoc that it has has been, to me anyway, unbelieveable to the point of raising buildings there with no parking and creating traffic Jams that are ing unknown to us at this point in Minneapolis. $o my comments are toward 10-15 years into the future as well as this specific area whic consi goinG know it's valua I hope the Planning Commission takes those kinds of things into ion. I would hestitate or I would hate to think that TH 5 is to become like the area I'm describing. I don't know if any of you ,his area in Chicago. It's probably a grieving issue for me because ,sen sad to see a rural area develop into high tach. High tach is le and all of that but so anyway. Emmin s: Maybe we could make Audubon Road a tollway... Would that help? Mark .asset: Well, to be quite honest with you, I mean I had every oppor ,unity in the world to move back to Chicago and take a job there as oppos~,d to take a job in Minneapolis. We chose to move to Minneapolis becau= ~e it doesn't present the hassles that Chicago does. We could have gone ight back to Oowners Grove and one of the reasons we don't is because of th way that area has developed. Your dealing there with 9 or 10 diffe* ant suburbs who cannot get their act together to plan anything in unisol and as a result there have been high ~ise white elephants go up like you c~ n't believe that I'm sure they're a tax advantage for someone because they' e losing money but well anyway. I've said what ! needed to say. Emmin : Well thanks for sharing your thoughts. You know those are a lot of th things that we talk about. We spend a lot of time talking about here. We hope we're addressing them. Any other comments? 3elf the a that par k the berg: I'm Jeff Kullberg again. I have one more question. With of the proposed 212 coming in in 1996-998 or whenever. How will ~ct the traffic flows and the access to this proposed industrial traffic then comes south? Actually starts going north on ~udubon this and then the access, as you proposed is on the north end. Ail would be diverted past our house instead of going in.- Is there Plat Sept goi~ or f Emmi say ~eff Emmi Krau roas~ site to o~ ning Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 28 to be any access from the south to keep, for these residential areas om the west? ~gs: Is there going to be any access to what from where? Would you .hat again. Kuilberg: This industrial park other than the one spot shown? No. The one spot. ~s: Highway 212 will affect, we go back quite a ways. One of the ns the Planning Commission looked at this favorably as an industrial was the desire not to put ail the traffic onto TH 5. Was the desire ient at least a portion of it from Hwy 212. Conr d: Thanks Paul. Krau : Well I thought it was a good idea. Emmi ~s: I think it was your idea Paul. Krau fur COT tO bur goi i that i that : But the access to 212 is to come over here to CR 17 which is , goes off my map but there will be a stub of CR 17 that will drop of Lyman and there will be an interchange down what is now a eld down there. Some of the traffic Do doubt will find it expediant out that way. Some of it to come up. The idea is to split the so that it's not focused on any one point. Ultimately there's to be a signalized intersection of TH S and Audubon. Rlso we have an system here where we have the Lake Drive extension. The road serving this proSect is designed to come out through our existing ial park and we're trying to basically find alternate routes for all ffic to go. You're right, ~hen 212 opens up there will be a fever ~al of some of the flow. We've got some initial projections of that in th Eastern Ca~ver County study. The numbers aren't perfect but it does try t take that future system into account. We're going to try and get some etter numbers from the developer as part of the development process. We ar looking into that further. Jeff ullberg: on ~u peopl, cuffs highw, Kraus~ It sh~ City'i the d~ we're a hall probl~ want about relat How about presently on TH 5 when you're turning to go south Iubon. There's now a turn lane. There's a paved shoulder which , go around right now. Will that be corrected as a part of the ,t widening of TH 5 or with this residential park? Will the 4 lane .y extend out past Rudubon or those turn lanes be added? Unfortunately the existing TH 5 program doesn't go out that far. uld have and it's a long story as to why it doesn't but it wasn't the fault. The question you raise is a valid one and we're going to ask veloper to respond to some of that with their traffic study. Now ~robably not in a position to say to the developer, there's a problem a mile away you've got to fix it all but it's certainly becoming a now before these guys go in there and it's something we're going to address as a part of this program. I'm not sure how that will come or what exactly will happed over there but we've got a long standing 0nship with MnDot trying to work these things out and... Plan Sept Jeff Emmi Erha faro Emmi Farm, ng Commission Meeting ~mber 4, 199! - Page 29 Kullberg: Okay, thank you. )ge: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? · t moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in and the motion carried. The public hearln~ ~as closed. gs: Comments, Jeff? Do you want to Start this one? .kes: I always get real uneasy when I hear about industrial being adja, ant to single family areas. I think the City's in the lot addresses itse f somewhat to buffering the east side of that road. Audubon. I'm stil, can you clarify the issue of why it's 50 feet on Audubon but leo to the outh? The buffer zone? Krau., : Commissioner Farmakes, that goes back to some of the discussions that held during the development of the Comp Plan. It was felt that the right-of-way itself provided physical separation. I believe the ri~ ¥ is 80 feet at minimum over there and it may be larger. And then he homes themselves are set back beyond that so you've got the home k. You've got the right-of-way for Audubon and you've got the 50 feet yard and then you've got the setback for the industrial. That ta in quite a bit of land. The only thing that will block the direct visu~ contact is the buffer itself but I believe, my recollection of it was t~at it was felt that that much distance compensates, you get more than the 1 ~)0 foot setback. Farms that obstr field And ! trees the w the r poten there beiie~ isn' t ~es: The reason I'm concerned about that is that most of the homes ,ou talked about have very flat yards. There's little or no ~ction. They're new homes that are put into what used to be a farm I'm sure. There's very little in the way of tree growth back there. 'm looking at this proposed tree line up here and it's all deciduous so at least in the wintertime they're not going to provide much in iy of cover. Particularly on Lots 10 and 1i. They still would face ,sidential home area. Lot 12, leaves more open space but I think .ially if a building was put on Lot 11 say, there's not a lot of room It would potentially be pretty close up there to the highway and I ,e that particular section is still fairly high before it slopes down it? Kraus~ : Lot 11 I believe has the high point. The buffer yard, the lands, aping that they've developed to date is conceptual and we really didn' review it for content. Your comments as to the coniferous trees being necessary there are well taken. In fact we would also look for gradilg on that site that's sensitive to that. When that site is graded for dSvelopment, in all probability that knoll is going to be knocked off. It's to re behin¢ they Farms feet be de~ oing to be flatten out and I've always visualized having the ability sin some of the height along Audubon with the building set down it. We are asking for those elements to be further refined when ~me back before you. Ds: Do you feel that if the buffer zone was increased to the ZOO tat it is to the south, that Lots 11 or 10 would be uneconomical to sloped? I mean was that a part of the discussion? lng Commission Meeting ~mber 4, 1991 - Page 30 Krau~s: It wasn't a part of the Planning Commission's discussion. I'm sure it has some economic consequence to the developer. I guess our feel.ng is we want to have the buffer do the best job. Do the job it's intelded to do. We think we can accomplish that in $0 feet. We also acco' ish it in a lot less. The room should be adequate to do what we thin needs to be done. Farm. kes: My general concern would be Lots 10 and 11. Again, not so much 12 bL .t lO and ll. The other comment I had I guess was in relationship to the .raffle.area. I'm really concerned about there is heavy traffic gene' ated there or there is there even presently even though it's not part of t is development. I get really nervous when, if there is equipment that is b lng parked and running, a lot of times those things are left running. Bein~ adjacent to a single family yard where kids play. That makes 'me very nerve to hear that. I would hope that we do something a~t that. also the issues of obviously if t~re's past the constructio~ period, t are offices, you're not going to have a lot of semis comin~ in but do they any other tenants at this point other than w~t's listed here? K 3 to . per any We are not aware of any specific tenants. Ryan may wish to on that. Normally when we deal with something that's phased over a period, or whatever it turns out to be, we won't kno~ for quite a of time who most of the tenants are. But I don't know, do you have : In office development there's a particular marketin~ plan. If it's 11 manufacturing or warehouse or perhaps office spaces. There's a l tttl different types of traffic. I realize it's a lon~ term plan. I'm just ndering if there is any other tenants on the horizon for this piece other than? Kent :arlson: We've talked to a number of users about this particular park . .industrial park thankwe will with a pure office park... This will be a ~igh tach business par . Farms:es: But it still would generate a fair amount of truck traffic? Kent 'arlson: A fair amount is relative. I don't know what you would consi er to be a fair amount. Farms es: I guess I would be concerned about the truck traffic that would be he~ ding to the south on that road. Further road improvements take place to th~ south there, which very well could be the case. A lot of semis rollilg down that road. Kraus~: to quite a bit. He was fully aware of what our expectations were. don't know what percentage of the traffic on Audubon Road will be contr devel, the area that' desi The road was upgraded last year and the City Engineer and I worked I by this project yet. We have considerably more residential that's going to occur. Audubon Road already serves as one of accesses to the City's major industrial park and the McGlynn's ich is a separate area and then the portion south of McGlynn's owned by Amcon so it is a major traffic artery in the city and we've it accordingly. Traffic volumes are high and they're going to get Pla lng Commission Meeting Se .mber 4, 1992 - Page 32 h . I dare say that would happen without this but yes. The concern for .tucks is a valid one. We're asking for some more specific detailed info 'marion but tbs road was designed to handle it. Farm kes: I was thinking of the aesthetic again to those homes to the east that are along there. There's very little if anything obstructing any of that Krau: s: It's quite true. Farm~ kes: So the City has an easement along that road to the homeowners? Is ti at right? Has an easement along that highway? Emmt ~s: For the road you mean? Farm kes: That's correct. On Audubon Road. KT a~ iht bar exi side : I think you know, also with 20/20 hinestght the next item on your will fix some of the problems that we're having with that sion. I mean the developer of that subdivision should bare and I some of the Planning Commissioners felt was obligated to do some and landscaping there. That's a situation that shouldn't have · Now we can make Ryan do the best job we know how to do on their It doesn't fix the other side. Hopefully, if we can get that ordt Lnce through, the landscaping improvements, we can address that more dir ~ly in the future. Far :es: That's the end of my comments. Emmin Is: What he's talking about there with the harming along Audubon it was, .his came up some time ago but when we approved your subdivision, my speci:ic recollection is that the developer was obligated to put berms up all a.ong Audubon and plant them. Apparently it got lost in the wash. Brook Lillestol: Exactly. That's exactly right. 3elf :ullberg: We were told that when we purchased our lots that he would put i landscaping also. Emmims: No. And apparently it's no on the plans or the approval that we gave t some of us who were bare at the time remember doing it. Remember requi lng it but it got lost someplace. For them too, I think they should know ~bout our process here· This is the first very preliminary stage when we'remlooking at this strictly as a concept. Now it's going to come back to us~lain? Yes. Emmin~ : For what stage? What's the next stage called so they know. depe prel It's called a PUO preliminary plat. We are probably going, ng on the developer request, we're probably going to combine the and final stage. Se lng Commission Meeting 4, 199l - Page 32 ~s: And there will.be another public hearing at that time? ~s: Correct. Rnd then as each site develops, when the weather station c, in or when somebody comes in on the adjoining lot, there's additional heat rigs held on those specific plans so there's a series of opportunities that you'll have to provide comment and hopefully we can make adjustments as n ~ed be to resolve them. Ems1 ~gs: It's very sketchy now but it wtll get more and more detailed as thos~ things happen. Okay. Hr. Conrad. ConT. d: Are you going to follow upon the HcG1ynn's issue Paul? KTau=:s: Yes certainly. Conr~ d: Okay. I think that's important. I like the trail in here. Both the h. I really like that. I'd like to see that in as we go through this . I think a trail system, recreation for employees and this cou handle a significant number of employees. Z really like that. I wou hope out landscaping standards are set. I'm not going to echo what Jeff id but I will. I think we need to pay attention to the east side and south side. Buffering residential areas. Just absolutely and the appl nt should be aware that that's what a major intent is. I like the plan I guess I'm starting out on a negative side but ! tike the plan very much [ think it's interesting Or it's a good thing for this particular area he way I see it. One concern that I do have on it, ~e're talking about weather station. We're talking about a lot of area but I see the buil~ ng on the fat south really close. Now is that where the radar unit fits ight on top of that pad? Krau~ : Mr. Conrad we don't kno~. They haven*t come up with a specific plan. When I met with the weather station, Ryan was at one of those meeti gs. Their plan was a computer generated thing that was pretty conce l. In fact they showed direct access to Audubon Road which we said would recommend against strongly. The radar tower does not need to be on the highest portion of the site. In fact they said it shouldn't be. It se ,s somewhere down the slope to the west. Exactly where we don't know. ConTa : And that tower can be how high? Kraus:: Our information is that. first of ail the FAm will only allo~ it to be 140 feet high. Now that's the same, the Cellular Telephone tower was origi ally approved at 180 feet at Lyman and Gaipin. The FAR lowered that to 14 feet so if you want to see what it looks like, or potentially what the h~ ight looks like, look at that tower. Now it's going to be somewhat down he hill. Certainly it's going to be ~en from a distance. There's no qu stion about that but it's going to be sitting basically in a 22 acre green One of the reasons why they have to have such a large green space is that one of the things they'll do from this site is they have a small lding that they will release sounding balloons once a day. They actually needed enough land area for the balloons to clear all obstacles helot it departed the property. These things go up 40,000-50,000 feet. $o it kind of a nice use for the site. It's a high profile, white collar jobs. 60 professional employees. There's no manufacturing. There's no Plat Sept smok get radi Conr stag bui 1 Krau Conr the lng Commission Meeting mber 4, 1991 - Page 33 · It's kind of a nice high profile type of user for the City. You'll our time and temperature and if it's snowing in Chanhassen on the all the time. $o we've been talking favorably with them. d: And I recognize this is not a site plan and this is Just a concept but on that Lot 12, the radar unit is literally, it is not on the lng or it is on the building? : No. None of the plans I've seen ever showed it on the building. : So it's not there. So the building is tucked in pretty close to and south property line. There's not a radar? Kr : No. That's a small brick, 15,000 square feet office building. Conr : A small brick, so it's a one story? : One or two. Conr make And again, I know that this is not a final deal but I just want to you know our comments before you get down too far. Kent 1son= The plans of weather service plans changed significantly. This ·..access off of Audubon would not be approved so they've gone back and m~dified. The plans currently show the road, their access entering off of ou cul-de-sac and the building would be positioned approximately where you s =e the tower shown on your plans and the radar would be pretty close to who,re it's currently shown... But the tower and the building have been moved away from... Conra, : Well that's good and that again is just a general sense, I like that, Lot. Landscape, our new ordinance will probably apply to this right Paul? Okay. We have a new landscape ordinance and you're talking a lot about that. It's pretty, I think it's nice for Chanhassen residents. I think you'll like it. I think we can apply it to this proPerty. ! think it wi 1, I can't say that this is going to increase the value of your resid .ntis1 area. My objective is to make sure that there's not an impact. It's ertainly, I don't think commercial elevates any residential property. We've got to be real direct and obviously the other thing is, there's going to be k traffic out there. There is. There's just no doubt about it but wl 'ye paid a lot of attention to traffic. We're' kind of, as we've gone throu~ some designing of where industrial and office park goes, we've kind of pa. attention to the traffic patterns so if nothing else, it may not be for you but at least we've thought about it in advance and ho ly can take care of most of the issues or concerns. Safety in one. Noise '.s another and [ think landscaping is another and I think we've taken care , at least ! feel comfortable that we've taken care of some of those But again for the developer, ! think the landscaping on the east side ainst Audubon is real important to me. And keeping that trail in. I'd like to keep that in. That's it. Emmin( : Okay, Tim. Plat Sept Er ha of t trac not prob thro some Aane' Erha~ Krau= Erha~ Krau.· Er ha'~ Kraue f 1 oo( i ndue have those ~ing Commission Meeting )mber 4, 1991 - Page 34 't: You're proposing not to put a thru street through the western half is which is very inconsistent with all the industrial area along the · By doing that you're going to increase the traffic on Audubon. But utting a thru street on there. I'm wondering is it clear that the .em with going through the Bluff Creek, I assume the problem is going ~gh the 8luff Creek flood zone is why you don't want to do that. Or other reason. leon= The existing stand of trees that are there. It: You could go south of those. s: Then you're into the residential area to some extent. t: Isn't on our Comp Plan the area to the west also industrial? s: Outlot A to the west is. : Let's go back here. Isn't that industrial? This is high and this is high and here's the large wetland, the n that comes through here and separates the residential from the isl. The former City Engineer and I looked...it's advantageous to looped street. I think as you're aware, staff usually recommends wherever possible· Our concern was that we have some very sign There for t recre conne also conne origi a res road. like icant environmental areas. Sensitive environmental areas down here. very dense tree cover down in this area· We have the floodplain creek itself. There's a desire to preserve the creek for a ional as well environmental amenity. It's not impossible to make the ion but you're really going to devastate that area to do it. We n at one time looked at the possibility of laying out a street ion that jumped back across the railway tracks. I think the one we lly laid out came like that and hooked in right over here. This is ,dential site and it Just really didn't adapt itself very well for the We would have preferred to have that option. We just didn't feel could recommend it. Ether .: I think we would agree to having it there would reduce the amount of tr~ffic on Audubon Road because a lot of the UPS and those services, they mare a route. Kraus : One of the reasons why we liked the idea of the thru street was that his then becomes an extension of Lake Drive which is the City's south alter ate to TH 5. It goes all the way over to the Eden Prairie city line. But i just didn't seem the continuity that we would get was worth the envir nmental damage that would ensue. That's where we've taken it. Ether : Well it's the thing that comes to mind with me. Having it thru would have, right now if anybody wants to go from the future western i iai park to the eastern industrial park, I mean west and east of Bluff eek has to now drive around on Audubon Road. to No. I don't know that I can, what we did though as an alternative southern route was we laid out a collector street section on our Pla~ ng Commission Meeting Se ,tuber 4, 1991 - Page 35 Comp Plan that comes through here. So traffic could come up through our indu ~trial park and come over that way rather than go all the may around scut . Erha' t: Okay. Essentially in this process that we're looking at here with the ,un, the first thing that goes in is the street .... we see is the stre t goes in first. Krau~ s: Nell keep in mind that the project will be phased so it will be grad, d. Erha~t: The whole thing, well it will be landscaped· Will all the ring landscape go in right away? says had imp I : That's a matter for some discussion. That is what the ordinance That the landscaping go in up front. I'll be honest and say that I discussion with the applicant today who was concerned about the cost of doing it all up front and maybe doing it in phasing is ng that they would propose but that's for you to determine. Er not · ever' to with here that fact be' put i : Okay, I would regarding the landscaping· This whole thing with ng that berm and the landscaping on that residential area· The al PUD across the street is really unfortunate and I was really when I saw as those houses started going up, and as I'm sure is. So I guess it seemed to me that we would at a minimum want this landscaping in along Audubon with the first phase. I agree and I think it was Jeff that stated that most of it is deciduous Deciduous used for the buffers and I'd like to see at least half of coniferous. Also go beyond that, because of that situation and the we've got a 50 foot buffer, that somehow we find a way to go our new landscaping ordinance where we have trees every 30 feet to two rows where the trees would alternate even if we have to patti ipate in that effort or some way give credit to park or something. Somehow find a way to get at least across from that residential area to incre[se the landscaping beyond what's' in our ordinance. And I guess if it's Icing a PUD, maybe that's the opportunity for us to find a way to get that ~ccomplished. I also agree, I agree with you. Let's not try, we shoul In't be trying to make wetlands out of things that aren't wetlands. That .~rea in Lot 6, that's tilled and not really wetlands that's found on a map s..meplace, we don't need to take advantage of that. We can work with the d, velopers more positively than that so I agree with you there. I think that's, I think it looks good. I think obviously we're a long way from eeing anything specific on it. I guess the other thing is it really lends some weight to our effort to get something put down regarding the Bluff Creek greenway because now we're actually talking about some devel{ which includes that area. I realize that's on one of our work items we need to get on with it here and make sure that this is going to fit with that. I like the trail. I could even use this trail from my offic, . I think'it makes a lot of sense. I think when you go into other, nicer ities. Industrial parks like out in Seattle, which I spend a lot ol time at, they've got a lot of trails and a lot of evergreens with tra through them and they've made their industrial parks really quite · I wish we would have done that in the industrial park that we're in, Ih the street's certainly easy enough to use. You see a lot of Plan Sept jog~ Emmi comm, unde' Krau and we'd some' hear, foun< seaT¢ Emmi be r, of t Krau= ~ing Commission Meeting ~mber 4, 1991 - Page 36 ~rs. To have a trail. Off street trail would have been really nice. ~gs: Okay. I don't have much additional. I agree with most the ~nts that have been made up here. I was wondering where that underpass the railroad is in relation to this property. .s: It's actually right over here. It's on the west side of the creek would imagine it's kind of the park board's area and to get to it have to structure some kind of nicely designed wooden bridge or hing across the creek to get there. We had heard rumors, or I had rumors for the last few years that this thing existed but we never it until we went searching for it one day and the applicant went hing for it. ge: I was curious about the recommendation that the developer should quired to petition for the feasibility study. What's the significance at? Quite a bit and it actually goes beyond this specific property. Therq's a need to build infrastructure most importantly in this case is the sani~sry sewer system that will serve a large part of the new MUSA expansion. Virtually the entire area located south of TH 5. That area was suppc~ed to drain into a metro interceptor called the Bluff Creek Inter~.eptor which only exists in the figments of the imagination of the litan Waste Control Commission. They've largely done away with that ever ~ening and when they approved our Comprehensive Plan they approved our of, going back to this one of parking up a lot, of basically putti a lift station down here with a pipe running up. Pipe running up. ~r they run it and letting everything flow by gravity down along Bluff Cr somehow and then lifting it either up Audubon Road or what we're looki~g at right now, out Lyman to TH 101 and back into the Lake Ann Interceptor which has the capacity to do that. That's how we got our Comprehensive Plan approved. Now this system serves a large area far beyon the Ryan proposal and we have the firm of Bonestroo looking into a garter I concept plan of how sewer and water might be provided but there needs to be a more specific...study to that to say how exactly, where's the syste going to go. What's it going to cost. What we're asking Ryan to do is pe ition it. Petition the study so the Council can get it kicked off and w ,'re asking them to pay their fair share towards that. Now we don't know ~hat that fair share is right now but clearly there are a number of props ties beyond their site that benefit from this so the City Engineer and City Council will have to think up some equitable way of distributing it. ut until that study's done, we don't have a long term answer for how to se' ve this area. Emmim s: And you want them to initiate it for what reason? Kraus: : fina The usual procedure we operate in Chanhassen is that the , the proponent petitions the study and assumes some of the I cost. Emmi n~ : talki not Alright. That sounds like a good reason to me. Park and Rec is about not accepting land in lieu of'cash. Is the land that they're lng Outlot B? Is that what's being offered? Or is that being Plan] Sept dedi Krau Emmi KTau: you: at ti Emm£~ Krau~ we sort that par k ling Commission Meeting ~mber 4, 1991 - Page 37 :ated anyway? :s: Outlot A. ,ge: Or Outlot A? The Park Board hasn't officially acted on it yet. All we can tell what the Park and Recreation Director, Todd Hoffman's recommending ~is point. It's his feeling that Outlot A will be protected. ~s: Is that what we're talking about here? : Basically. That that lot would be protected by the City in the 1 course of events. That it's mostly floodplain or wetland anyway and not normally accept that type of acreage as park. There may be some an offset for some of the trail expense because this is a trail going to be a benefit to the public as well as the residents of the Long term we envision this trail of hooking into the Bluff Creek Trai and people being able to access hopefully the new middle school site or L; Ann Park. I mean lots of things. $o there's a benefit to that and be some kind of an offset will be figured but the Park Board hasn't yet officially. Emm ~s: I guess that's all I have on my comments. Let's see, anything else ,f anybody up here? Did you have any response to anything you've been heart lands devel lands agreel That' we wi we bu crest4 users fashi the b are wl commul Kent :arlson: Ah yeah if I could make a couple of comments in regards to some )f the things we've discussed tonight and mention a couple of concerns that ~e have after reviewing the staff report and before we get your hopef{lly preliminary approval on our project. The wetlands issue, I apprefiate everybody's, on item number 6. Or Lot 6. That small area that'I been identified. I guess we'd like to encourage us to wait and see what he Army Corps of Engineers come back and says. If it is, we have addit onal land out in Outlot A that we could mitigate that area and work with ~hem there. With regards to your feasibility study for the new sewer syste& we fully intend to pay our prorated share and we're committed to do that ~so. Jeff mentioned some concerns about Lots 10 and 11 and the ~aping and the bermtng that we would do there. I think as part of the pment agreement Paul and I have talked about incorporating the aping requirements, the berming requirements in the developer's ent so in the future as lots develop we have a standard to maintain. one of the nice things about going through the PUD process is that 1 develop standards that will carry through as tenants come along and Id buildings for them or they enter into a multi-tenant building. It s value for the park. It creates value and it insures the existing in there that the balance of the park will be developed in a quality n. Unfortunately these folks something happened in the process and rming and landscaping that was originally promised didn't happen. We lling to and we have agreed to provide that assurance to the tty that that will be done. We would like to phase our landscaping as we~develop. I think we can work on some of the areas along Audubon but somec~f those areas on the southern part of the property it could be very expensive to come through and have to do all of the landscaping and the Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 38 bet ng initially so we would like to work with you on that. As far as the :s to Outlot A. Or Lot number 1 off of Audubon. We've shown that as a dir :t access to Audubon. We spent a lot of time working on the prel,minary plan coming up with some concepts on how we can develop that part cular area, especially the area adjacent to Audubon with a higher qual ty standard. We envision those buildings to be a little shorter in heig ,t. The clear height within those projects would be lower. The front of t~e buildings were more likely to have better image. Maybe a decorative bloc or burnish block along with perhaps some brick materials. Ne don't know what those standards are going to be yet but they tend to be a little smal er. They're going to be projects more the high tech space if you will with the higher quality, higher percentage of office and a little higher qual ty look. With that comes smaller projects and that's why you see that cul e-sac coming in off of ours. It develops those 4 small lots. It leav..s us that one lot up on that northeast corner that becomes a little bit lcult to access. In our desire to screen and present the best le image to the street and to Audubon we've kind of clustered those four buildings so we can keep all of the loading facilities and the truck maneL vering areas within the backs of those buildings okay. And that leav~ us that one lot up there that we would like to put the front of the bull(lng facing Audubon with the direct access to Audubon and then again allo%ing us to screen the truck access and maneuvering areas to the backs of t buildings that would be on Lots 2 and 3. $o that's kind of the reas~ ning behind that. Again we're going to go through a process with an EAN determine the traffic implications of our development and I think that ill give us a pretty good feel of that but we'd like to consider that The trail system that we're showing, we developed these preliminary pla before we found the big crossing underneath the railroad tracks and agai I think we're going to modify the trail system to try to incorporate eve lly Joining up with the other trail systems that are in your com nsive guide plan and so we may lose the trail along the railroad. Ne ~d of provided a loop here in our preliminary plans. If we do have rail tccess to a couple of the sites in the rear of the property, it won't make ~ense to have a Jogging path along it. So that's one of the things that ,ou may see changing over time. : The point is just as long as the trail goes someplace. It's got to be a useable trail and whether it's here where t see it on the map or whether it's connecting. As long ~s there's a valid place that it goes. PUT pO )e. Kent :arlson: Yeah, and again we need to work with the Park and Rec Depar ,ment to determine what the trails would be like and things like that. So le .'s see, anything else Well we'd appreciate your assistance with the lands :aping too Ladd. That;d be very nice. Along the berming and that area ~o we'd be happy to work with the staff on that. $o thank you. Emminls: Thank you. Okay. You want a motion on this I guess huh? On page 2. Conra : I make the motion that the Planning Commission approve PUD concept plan or Chanhassen Business Center subject to the three points listed in the s aff report. Is there anything else that should be included? lng Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 39 Emm ~s: I'll second your motion and let's open it up for discussion. anybody else feels there ought to be any additional conditions to appr >val. Jeff Kullberg: Can I ask a question? Emmi~gs: Sure. 3elf Kullberg: I heard a lot of different things being batted around like the =,ossibllity of thru traffic through the development and for setting back the buildings from 50 to 100 feet and the economic feasibility of that and hat we supposedly instead of getting berms on our side of ~udubon, we got walking path that will now be parallel to another one that could, if it i going to be parallel to another path, could our path be replaced with berm~ as a contingency of this development? Emm i 1 Audul Jeff Emmi into on t whet ques' Jeff matte still Farma your solve Jeff whet~ a pat ge: You're talking about a path that goes down along the east side of on presently? Kullberg: Yes. ge: There's not envisioned one to be on the west side. That one goes the project. It doesn't run along ~udubon. Not at least the way it's s plan right now. ~nd as far as all those other things you heard, ar it's 50 feet or 100 feet or all those, all of those are open ions at this point. We know it's got to be at least 50 and I think ass suggesting that maybe it should be even more but as a practical r I don't think that's going to happen but those are open questions I think the point is that we're concerned about where that abuts · It is an issue the city and the developer are working to llberg: How about the past misunderstanding with Joe Miller about this should be berms and landscaping on our side as opposed to just that somehow got approved? Emmi Excep Jeff Emmin take about here. discu: Erhar' n s: What about it? I mean that's got nothing to do with this plan. we realize that you. ullberg: It directly impacts our. ~s: Yeah. You don't have screening on your side and we're trying to :are of it on the other side but we can't go back and do anything that at this point. I'll tell you, we'll Just finish our work up Now we've got a motion and it's been seconded. Is there any sion on the motion or any further conditions anyone wants to add? : Did you have some in mind? Emmin~ : No, I don't· Do you? ng Commission Meeting 4, 199! - Page 40 : I didn't have any. I think again this is a concept type thing and thtnk that's what we're approving generally here the concept of. what t re trying but we're not very specific yet. It's still up to the appl [cant to come in here with a specific recommendations and absolutes and the we'll be maybe a little bit more critical but right now the applicant is s lng hey. Here's a concept. What do you think. That's what we're givi ~g him feedback on. Trying to give him a flavor for the things that we care about and the things that maybe aren't so important but at this point in t me I think the conditions in the staff report are Just fine. Ann ullberg: What are the conditions? Conr ~d: That's a good question. We keep you in the dark so you think wa'r, smart. Emmi gs: These things are available. I'll read them to you. NumbeY one is t e applicant prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project to be reviewed with a formal PUD request. They have to petition the ity to undertake a feasibility study and providing services to the site The third one is, prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to i raised in this report as well as all of them that had been raised at the lanning Commission and City Council meetings while working with staff on t plan development. And I tell you, you can wear yourself out thin ng about this hypothetically. When they come back next time it's goin~ to be hopefully a whole lot more specific and you're going to get able get your teeth into it a little better and so are we. Right now we'r looking at it as a very conceptual matter. Conr : On the other hand, yeah as long as you say that I think we've the applicant sort of a ~reen light to say that the National Weather :e should be in the southeast corner. Emmi is: Yeah. Well. Conr : That's the kind of things that we're saying subtley because we t really complained about it. We're saying hey, that's not a bad place for that. Emmin )st And I think they've heard your concerns and our desire that they be se sitive to your concerns. So I think you'll see in their plans that they' .1 take you into account. Alright, I'm going to call the question on the m. )rich. a the moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend al of the PUD Concept Plan for Chanha~aen Bus[ness Center subject to lllowing conditions: 1. P~ epare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project to be ri,viewed with formal PUD request. 2. P, tition the City to undertake a feasibility study on providing s, rvices to the site. Plan Sept · All PUBL ZONll L~. Chail Emmi) 1 oo k~ Conr, Farm~ Emmi bit. Farms Olser said a cop So ri organ Farms comps Chanh Olsen refor what Emmin Olsen Farma~ Emmin,, Farma~ Emmim Olsen they ing Commission Meeting mber 4, 1991 - Page 41 'repare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in this 'sport, as well as those raised at Planning Commission and City Council ~eetings, while working with staff on the plan development. ,oted in favor and the action carr fed. HEARING: AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ~ME~T TO ~ SECTIONS RE6ARDING tAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIRENENT$, man Emmings waived the staff report on this item. gs: There was just one thing I wanted to look at but otherwise it like they've taken everything into account. kes: IS: It looked that way to me but I'm surprised Dick Wing left. I had one question on this whole thing. There was one issue that came up that we argued about quite a :es: I just wondered if when the ETA for the list of trees is. We did have the DNR forester look it over and he said it's fine. He .t's got the typical trees that most other cities have. We also sent to the Hal la Nursery. We haven't heard any response back from them. ht now we're not really going to be changing the list but maybe ze them the way you were discussing with the hardwoods. ;es: Did the DNR have any recommendations as to what would be .ible with their study that they did or what's presently in ~ssen? We haven't gotten that far with that· That's more for like the ,station. We're not ready to... I think you were going to talk about ~e discussed and. s: There was one issue that came up where we were kind of split· That was whether or not, I think it's on page 4. es: 2 or 3 trees. s: No. ss: Yeah it was conifer. Whether to have it conifer. s: Well that's one of them. It was where you require the caliper inches to be replaced and if emoved trees that shouldn't have been removed, like were outside of ng Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 42 the not ~truction area, should they have to replace those or not and it was r. Emmi s: As I remember it was the tree that had to be taken down or the proJ ,ct couIdn't go forward and the question was, do they have to put that back caliper per caliper inch or can they just put back another tree or can they just go with what's in the landscape plan. I think Tim and I were on one ida and Ladd and everybody else was on the other and how did that get reso ved in here? Olse' : Well it's in number 3 but ! don't know if that does it. Erha' t: I don't think it does. I came up with some words that I think tell, ct what Steve, I thought Steve and I were saying. If I can throw them out nd discuss them. It kind of goes like this. Number 2 it says you have to demonstrate. Emmi ~s: What page? I'm on the wrong page. Give me a page. Erha' t: 4. Top of page 4. Emmil ~s: Okay. Erha~ : It says that 6 inch trees shall be saved unless it can be ated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site. that means a street. Now or have that O1 dr ive limit be sa Emmi n desig repla Olsen Erhar Emm i nI Erhar and 8 is for That's street, building pad. : Or something. Okay, and then it goes onto 3. The City will e the replacement of $ inch caliper or more. Trees or 6 inch caliper e if they are removed without approval period. In other words, they ,o get approval to remove trees that are 6 inch or bigger on areas are streets or building pads. If they go beyond that, tt's not a of may anymore. The city will require they be replaced. So when the site plan comes in and shows the building pad and the ~ay, we understand that we should have them show like a construction And so it would be understood what will be saved and what will not ~ed. is: Well 7 kind of addresses that though too because it says trees ~ated for preservation that are lost due to construction shall be :ed by new compatible trees approved by the city. We added that thinking that might get that. : Are we Just opening this for general? s: Yeah sure. Nobody else is here. : Okay. Well I didn't want to ~et in ahead of Ladd's turn. 6, 7 Obviously we're dealing with two pages here because the same text nd on page 12. Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 43 ~son: Subdivision. Erha t: I'm a little concerned here that by adding 6, 7 and 8 that we're gert' ng really hostile. It Just, for example let me review this. You know you' got to keep in mind for example, let me go through. 6 your requ ring some kind of a device out there that delineates what's going to be i the tree crown or all that and there's two issues there. One's that how uch work. effort to put all these snow fences now or other means or what ,vet it is and the other thing is, are we talking about one tree or if we'r., talking about a wooded area, where are you goin8 to put this thing? If y .u're talking about a heavily wooded area, what does the tree's crown mean when you're talking about a bunch of trees all crowded together? And I'm ~ot trying to answer questions here. Let me get a general feeling of this here first. The second thing is that I thought when we talked in the last meeting about protecting trees we were talking about protecting trees from driving equipment underneath them. Olse : It's any type of vehicle. Erha' t: Will any tree die if you drive heavy equipment over it's roots s' I thought it was just oak. : Oaks are most susceptible in terms but all the trees will suffer. Emmi ~s: Birch is very susceptible to any kind of disturbance. Erha' : Okay and again, I'm trying to get a broad view of this first and then specific. Then we go on 7 and say trees that are lost, boy you're goi to pay if you lose a tree because of construction, whether accidental or o purpose and I 'm going whoa. Do we really want to take that position And then 8, at the City's discretion we can make conservation easel over what ! assume to be some of the existing wooded lots and areas and I'm going, boy that's, we're taking a big slice here. er that's still is the landowner and ! think what bothers me about this '~s the guy who owns this land can come in and before he applies for the tvision or for the, let's see the first one is the applies for any subdi; ' ion or work. He can go in and cut all those trees down if he t like this document. You can't sto~ them. Emm ~s: And then he'll Just be subject to the landscape ordinance which we've got to have a certain amount of confidence in that doing an adequate job t ,o I guess. Erhar .: Well, but compared to cutting down an existing mature, this lands~:ape ordinance is peanuts. I guess maybe that's it. We're getting to the p, iht here with these three items, are we ~otng, it struck me that we're really getting very, very aggressive and I Just am trying to ask ourse.~ves are we, I'm starting to sound like Ladd here. Philosophical. Conra, : Sounded pretty good to me. Erhar : It's getting pretty tough and I think you're automatically putting ourse yes in an adversarial role and I'm not sure we want to do that. lng Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 44 KT : Nhen you say we're getting more aggressive, yeah we are because we that without that sense of aggressiveness ~e keep losing the battle. Er t: Other than the one up here and I guess I 'm trying to get a feel for t. s: No, it's very common. There's so many times that you have a ,der, .oper who says, well where does it say I have to put snow fence up. I'll just tell the Cat driver where he's not supposed to go. Well gee, I we t to lunch and the Cat driver just plowed down that forest. I mean it happ. ns all the time and the guys says well nobody ever told me. Or they park, d their equipment dump on top of the root system. And these aren't tots ly new. We've been putting these conditions in one shape or form on proj, cts lately and in fact the most recent one, the Lundgren one was where we a. tuall¥ when with the easements where we say, alright. If we buy the plan If we buy your concept that in exchange for this PUD one of the thin:.s we're doing is salvaging tree cover, protect it. Erha' t: No problem to negotiate that with the developer at the PUD disct ion stage. But here we're making it a potential mandate. That's I, agai0n that you can go in and that. means whoever buys that, in the case a subdivision, that lot. I mean he all of a sudden, he can't remo~ his own trees. 0 : This is like protection during construction. Erh Okay Ma they : That's not the way I read it. It's not the conservation easement. I'm hearing you on number 6, it does sound. Okay, I understand now. it does make good sense· You've got a mature woods, to go and before constructionto mark it off. Emm is: I think we've done that on several projects. Krat : Yeah, that's not uncommon. We've added it. It hasn't been in the ordin nce. It's been a condition of approval as have 7 in one way, shape or but we've never had it really laid out as to what the compensation was · Olsen What you had to replace or if you had to replace. : Kraus : Exactly. Now on 8 the conservation easements, we've only done this rice and that's on the Lundgren one where we didn't pick an individual bassw ,od in the middle of the lot and say that's where we're going to prote,:t. The line was drawn around where the significant massings were and there are a number of other trees on the property that are outside the const~ sins of that easement and what the homeowner could choose to do what the h, meowner chooses to do with those but the trees that you bought as part f the protection or part of the environmental package when you bought the s, bdivision, the bulk of those trees, the significant stand, I guess I'm of the opinion that those should be protected. Erhar : sure trees Well let's just take one at a time. 7. I'm okay with 6. I'm not reads clear but okay we've got...shall be replaced by compatible 3proved by the city. The city will require the developer to replace ng Commission Heeting 4, 199). - Page 45 thee trees with the largest comparable trees that are commercially avai able.., as opposed to our previoas rules that they have to replace them on a caliper per claiper basis. Why the change? Krau=~s: It's a different orientation ! guess and when you replace on call ,er per caliper you can replace a 30 inch oak tree with 15-2 1/2 inch righ and they're pretty cheap. I think this is something that the deve oper has pledged to save that they blew. They blew their commitment to y, u and lost. I don't know, this was kind of 3o ~nn and I kind of thou ht this up. I don't know, I've never seen this language before but it made sense to us to tell the guy you've got, if you wreck the maple, you've got o go out and buy the largest maple you can buy and have Halls come In with his tree spade and replace it. Erhal t: I mean that sounds good but as the tree gets bigger, the prob~.bility of it lasting, living gets quite diminished. Krau~ : Except we would accept professional advice. I mean we don't have the spade and if they could have their landscaper tell us what they felt 3d we would weigh that. cut what we have seen is we have seen ordi' :es that have punitive damages. They said for every inch of tree you you owe us $lOO.O0 and we looked at that and said well that may sari your need for vengence b~t what does it get you? : That's what I was thinking was I don't mind this. It just would seem me moving large trees, in the first place the language here is kind of wi 's to say what the largest comparable trees that are commercially avai e as mentioned here whereas if you used the terminology replace on a ca. per per caliper basis like we previously used, it just seems more easy .o apply. I think a higher success with trees. Far : I'm not a landscaper. I couldn't give you a survivability rate. ! knc~ that they, !'ye seen some awfully big trees put down in commercial developments for office buildings and they're still there. [ assume Halls or somebody has information for us on that. / Kraus$: The thing we found a lot of times too is you really have to depend on so ~e advice that's given by a landscape professional. A lot of times it depen is on what was the soil condition that the tree was grown in and what are y ,u transplanting it into. ~re they comparable. Will the tree fit the space The guys who do this work, the Halla's, the Beaver 8~os., Otten, I mean 'ye met them out on the site any number of times and they're pretty good ,t telling you what they think is going to survive. Erhar ' Okay. Well maybe it gets down to__.who's going to decide what the large= ~ comparable trees that are commercially available for trane ,ortation? Rte you going to get us into an argument with tbs guy? Kraus: : Well anything, it's always possible. I mean ultimately. Erhart : We're trying to make your life as easy as possible. Kraus: : Nell that's true and I appreciate that because ultimately it's my call hether I think they're telling the truth or not or what I'm willing Pla Sep' to E the the~ yOU , move Erha call tree tree tree: Krau Erha Hope corem Conr, Erhal Conr~ yOU ' and ning Commission Meeting ember 4, 1991 - Page 46 =cept. Now if I 'm arbitrary, they always have the right to appeal to ;ity Council saying that the Planning Director's Jerking me around. $o ~'s always that fallback but it's a new approach Tim. I can't tell I can't cite somebody else doing it this way but it seemed to make sense to us than the dollar cost. t: No, I agree with the dollar cost. I would just suggest that the ,er per caliper, while it certainly isn't going to get you a 30 foot or 30 inch diameter tree, it's very easy to administer. If the s gone and it's 30 inches and you put 15 2 inch trees or 7 1/2 3 inch s: It's easier. t: $o at that point it's how you administer it. You have to do that. 'ully with 6 that we would prevent that. Anybody else have any rnts on that? d: I like them. t: Just the way it is? d: I like 6 and 8. The only thing I picked up on 7 was exactly what been talking about. I didn't know if that was the right way to go guess Paul feels one way and you feel another. Erha' : I hate to get into a situation where the staff gets in a position we Just set up the ordinance where it's going to lead to an argument. ke to try to avoid that. Conr, -' can an this Well it sort of opens it up but isn't that arbitrary anyway. You some lousy oak trees that are out there that are not necessarily Sometimes we treat everything as perfect, of great value but to, well it's not an absolute and obviously that ~uts more on staff and more disagreements, you're right. Erhar~: What might be a lousy oak to someone might be a beautiful oak to the n~xt guy. Conra : Yeah. The fact that it's replaced is important to me. Emmin s: My oaks depend on the season. I like them in the spring and the fall wish I could blow them up. They d~op acorns on my deck and keep me awake all night and I have to rake up the leaves but also at my house they put m foundation within 6 feet of a oak tree you can't get your arms aroun.. It's been there 9 years now. Conra4 : 8oy, that's unusual. I've seen so many trees go. Emmim s: And I've got another one that's not very far away. Well yeah, I kim of expected it not to survive but it did. Erhar : My understanding was that it was compression of the soil on the roots PlaTning Commission Meeting Se ~ber 4, I99! - Page 47 EmmJ t and mi ~s: Well they drove the Caterpillars all around the roots of all oak trees out there and it didn't really seem to do any damage at all makes you wonder but you don't want to take that chance. I think 3 and $ are fine. 7 is the one I had reservations on too. 6 I didn't we've done it before. 8 we just tried out but ! think it's a idea or it's appropriate. Erha't: Steve, on 3 again. Did I hear it the way it is or the way ! read it? Emmi ~gs: Okay now read it again to me. Erha"t: Well again I thought you and I, I thought we kind of had agreed last time to state if they're putting a street and we approve the removal of a tree because it's on a house pad or a street, that we aren't going to go b. ck and make that guy replace those trees. Emmi' ge: Yeah, I think that's what you and I said. I guess here they chant ed it so basically now they might do it on a caliper per caliper inch but t a minimum they're going to have to replace it and I can live with this But I still, because I think more people felt the other way. That they Id have to do it on a caliper per caliper and I thought this was kind ,f a compromise and it's alright with me. But basically I don't see any they yOU ' you ' have flex to make them replace trees they have to take down. I would hope do the minimum. I suppose the other side to this though is if got a site witha lot of trees, it's not so much of a problem. If got a site where the onty trees they're taking down because they , then you'll want to do more and maybe this gives them that ility. Er : Then the other one I had was, again maybe I misunderstood but ! thou we were, if the guy had, if the developer. Emm ~s: On which page? Erhar : On page 10. Section 18-61 where we're talking about putting 3 trees in on lots. I thought we had concluded at the end of the meeting that f the guy had 3 trees that met the specifications in terms of size, type ~nd location, that he wouldn't have to put in 3 new ones. It comes out n,w that he can do 2 but he's still required to put in. Kraus : We couldn't figure out exactly what you wanted because some of the comma'ts were allow 2 of them to be waived but not the third. Some were waive all 3. Olsen You switched at the last minute. Then you, somebody brought up an examp e where what if the trees were all 500 feet back or something and then don't know. So it was hard to tell so whatever you want. We could 't remember. Emmin~ : I can't remember either. Conra, : I think we all said no. No, ~e probably didn't have consensus. now I said. Plat Sept Emmi I'm Conr thr® Emmi Conr thre Emmi sure Conr Krau tree: Emmi IS: Conr : Emmt is: make Olsl of Conr : Emmi ~s: Erhar : ning Commission Meeting smber 4, 1991 - Page 48 ~s: I don't think so. Well wait a minute, maybe that's a different. t sure. : I'm surprised we didn't do that. In my mind it was clear that all can be waived to the two. gs: As long as they've got one in the front yard. ~d: As long as they met the standards that we had set, yeah. Then all could be waived. gs: Well it makes sense. I don't remember what the issue was but it sounds like it makes sense. d: Well it's real consistent with what we're trying to do. s: We weren't sure where you'd stick the tree, I mean if they had all over the place, But if existing trees met the. Then we don't care. If they're 3 and i in the front yard is deciduous, why would we plant more trees? Just say this requirement can be waived for all three trees? All required trees? Yeah. So long as it meets the standards of the ordinance, The other thing that we were going to clarify there and it was su ;ted by Don Halls that when we say deciduous trees it must be at least 2 1/2 inches. I think don't we have to state like we previously said at some teight? Kraus : Measured at 4 feet above the ground. Emmin s: It says and 4 feet above the ground. [t should really say. Erhar' : But not in that paragraph it doesn't. Emmin~ s: Yeah it does. It's right down there. Third line from the bottol . Third and second line from the bottom. Erharl : Up on the fourth line from the top it says conifer trees must be at least 6 feet high and deciduous trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in diamel at the time of the installation. Olsen That kind of slipped. We should have the 4 feet above the ground. Pla Sap ng Commission Meeting 4, 1991 - Page 49 Erh~ t: Yeah, right up here on line 6 or 7. ge: Do you measure a 6 foot tree 4 feet above the ground? You can't do t ? Krau : What you're talking about is a deciduous tree. Olse : That's switched around. Krau s: We're talking about a deciduous tree. The coniferous is just abov the root ball. Emmi ge: Okay. So 2 1/2 inches in diameter measured at 4 feet high. Erha't: I think that's all I had. Just let me ask. We're saying then that under the subdivision ordinance that we as a city can go in and at our discretion and demand conservation easements to protect designated tree pres, rvation areas. Therefore, when the guy buys that lot and builds a hous, and moves on it,.he can't go in and what? Kr : He's going to know what the buildable area on that lot truly is and hopefully will avoid the situation where somebody comes to us and says I'll save every tree I don't have to cut down to put this house that I [ded I wanted on this property. The easement will force whoever buys the ty to design the house appropriate for the lot. Emmi s: I think Tim's asking the next question. Now I'm the owner and ! 1 on that lot. Can I cut down a tree in there for firewood? Can I pla a tree in there? Can I mow in there? What does the conservation mean? Kr, : That's a good point. I guess we don't have boilerplate language for at easement yet as to what. I guess I can only say what I'm going to, I think is that we never intended it to restrain a property owner from mai decisions or maintenance of their property in the future. But I .d have a problem with clearcutting that stand of trees and that's why that ,asement stands there. I mean if somebody wanted to do maintenance, you k~ow tree removal for healthy trees. Emmin ~s: What if I wanted a tennis court and that's where I want it. Kraus: : No. Emmin. s: Well that's going too far as far as I'm concerned. Conra, : That's going too far? Emmin~ s: Yeah. That's going further than I'm willing to go. Erhar' : Yeah, let me try to explain where I think Steve and I are coming from. I don't care if the developer and the city get together and say, we both to do this and you create a conservation easement. The problem have th it is when we have the arbitrary ability on a, when a developer comes n and says I'm developing lots and we go in and say we're going to Planning Commission Meeting Se ember 4, 1991 - Page 50 put lot to conservation easement there. And as a result the guy who buys that has restricted what he can do with his trees. I'm not sure we want that. wet In that respect though is it any different than what we do with We take drainage easements over them. Emmi ~s: I don't think it's the same kind of resource. To me it isn't. A wetl[nd, I can't fill in a wetland. Filling in a wetland seems like lng that's much more significant than cutting down a tree. I can cut a tree and plant another tree somewhere else and it will grow. I feel comf with that and I don't think that people are, ! don't think that inditidual owners are going to clear cut their own property Just for the joy ,f it or anything else. I think most people like trees. I don't think it's going to be that problem. Developers don't like trees but I think home ~wners do. Dick Wing: One comment from a phone call today from Bluff Creek... ordi lances that prevented their neighbor from clear cutting their lot and sell ng off the oak trees? She said they had beautiful stands of oak tree ...neighbors by their right sold the timber. Came in with a bulldozer, stripped out all these 100 year old oak trees, piles them up in cotI and hauled them away... Emmi ge: Not where they've got their homes though. Do they have their home there? I don't know. But if I own a bunch of trees, I don't see that an should be telling me I can't cut them and sell them for wood. That taking away something that, more trees can be planted there and more tree: will grow. It does take 100 years but that's a blink. That doesn't real bother me. This has gone on a whole lot further because I've.got ri now I live on a lot where I can't grow a damn flower because I've got so ~h shade. You're going to tell me I can't cut down a tree on my lot to a sunny garden so I can grow vegetables? Kr : No but. Emmi ~s: But that's what I worry about. Or that I can't take down 5 big tr to put in a tennis court if I've got the room for it and I w~nt one. Kr : Where that comes into play and the only time we've done it so far is the Lundgren proposal and that does mean if you buy Lot 12, that your house is going to have to be on the southern 2/3 of the property because the n~rthern 2/3 is covered by a conservation easement. Emmi~ ~s: Right but that's a little different because there you've got'it horde lng a wetland. There's another rationale for having that be a conse ration easement I think and there's other parts of the property but if yo,, just say no trees on this guy's Property, he can't cut down his trees on his property. Kraus,: No, no. The idea is to, these areas would only be designated whereIt here is significant stands of trees that, depending on how the devel 3ment is laid out, makes sense to protect. As ! pointed out earlier, the L, ~dgren property has dozens and dozens and dozens of trees that are Plalning Commission Meeting Se 4, 199! - Page $! not to otected by these conservation easements and it's up to the individual t to do whatever they want to do with those. Emm s: Right. But I want to be careful that, you know I think we can sas Ly go nuts here. I mean I've got those old oak trees, old ash trees and ld maple trees and I just really, I cut down three to build my house. I dt n't cut down any more than I had to and I risked that oak that was c and all that but still I sure as hell don't want the City telling me that if I want to take down a tree there, that I can't and I think you nigh call that a significant stand of trees. I don't know. They're huge. Erha t: And I see this as a difference between the Lundgren thing is that we nlgotiated with the developer. I mean he could have basically, said no way. I'll negotiate something else but that, no way. ~nd what we're sa¥i g here is that we don't give that option to the developer anymore here by p, tting number 8 in. Conr. d: I don't see that at all. That's just a tool. ~nd it comes to us and e decide whether we want that. It's not Paul making up something. This anning Commission, City Council has the, we don't need it. It's Just way to protect a stand of trees that we think is important for the subdJ . Emmil is: From the developer for sure and maybe ultimately from homeowners. Conr : Probably from the homeowners too. Er You car goes : But what are you buying? You know we've just had too many where you manuever a road, you move things around to save trees. ~e everything. There's added costs. There's added design aints. You think you know what you're buying and then blam-o, ,dy wants to put a hog house on the thing and because they want a 3 irage and they insist that it be on this side of the house, everything Olsen Yeah and that happens, specifically with Vineland where we went to extra The Planning Commission and the Council added extra conditions to press ve some significant trees and they're gone because they weren't, they moved the street and now they were just on a lot and that's exactly what Paul lust said. They're gone now. Emmin ~s: It's a tough issue but I think we're getting real close to infri ~ging on some very personal rights here. I buy the lot. I buy the trees They're my trees. The chances are I'm not going to touch them becau~ e they add value and aesthetics to my lot but if I think a tennis court is better, don't tell me I can't have one. That doesn't seem right to me know trees I'm trees and some those It doesn't seem fair to me. I don't know. It's hard. I don't you'd draw the line. I'm real concerned about protecting the developers because I know they view them as Just a problem but so concerned about protecting them from homeowners. We require 3 re. I propose another ~ay to look at it. Here we require 3 trees 're building in a cornfield and the developer puts in 3 trees and comes in and buys it and says I don't like trees and Just cuts trees down. Pla Sap KTaL the Emmi Erha curt Krau thin Olse KTau ning Commission Meeting ember 4, 199i - Page 52 : They're within their rights to do that. That's not.protected by nt. 'Most trees on a person's lot wouldn't normally be protected. Right. And I don't like that. t: This conservation easement wouldn't prohibit the lot owner from ng trees in that easement maybe? In the easement it would but having gone through the Lundgren mean you look at where these easements are appropriate. : It's such a unique situation. s: It's relatively unique situations. Unique stands of trees situated in different areas. I don't have numbers for you but a very sign"icant percentage of the trees in the Lundgren property aren't in those asset ants because they didn't warrant being in there. I suppose if we were to c~ try it to absurd lengths we would have drawn little circles around indi idual trees on individual lots which would have made them unbuildable. Emmi ~s: Yeah. No, I think what we did there was just fine. I have no prob with what was done on the Lundgren proposal. It seems perfectly appr late. Olse and That's just all we're proposing to do is take it one step further preserve them. Emmi s: I guess the one that scares me is where the conservation easement the entire lot. : We can't do that. I mean you're not creating a buildable lot. Emmi s: Right. Conra : I just don't see it as a problem to tell you the truth. I under rand what you're doing and I don't want anybody telling me what I do with ~y trees and I've got quite a few. If I want to take them down, I'm going to. But in this particular case we're talking about the exception. We're talking about a significant stand of trees. We're talking about someb,~dy who hasn't bought the property yet. Period. They haven't bought it. 'hey're buying it knowing there's an easement on it and they can't touch it. Emmin~ s: That's a difference. Conra, : Yes. You know we made a decision here that those are significant trees just like a wetland is. I guess I differ a little bit with you Steve years The value is a have tool. I think a lO0 year old oak, that doesn't grow up. It takes lOC grow back up and there's a good chance it's not going to make it. ing's been around here twice as long as we have and there's some that. Some of you younger people. But again, I just think this that we probably aren't going to use very often and that...we do )tal control over it and I don't know. I think it's probably a valid PI Se ng Commission Meeting bar 4, 199i - Page 53 Emmi ~s: I'm not opposed to it. I agree and I'm not arguing against it. I'm lng against it going too far. This thing could. Conr ~d: That's where Tim is too and I guess. Erha't: Z could see it being applied where everything outside the building what do you call it? Emmi ~gs: Footprint. Erha"t: Footprint is put into a conservation easement. Paul might not do that but his successor might. Olse' : But you have the final say. Emmi'gs: Yeah. Conr : You're going to be here for a long time. Erha : Hopefully not more than 5 or lO minutes. Emmi ~s: Dick, have you got any more comments on this? This is your baby in a ct of ~ays. Anything you want to say or, we've made a lot of changes to planting. You've got your 3 trees in there, bde've got 2 deciduous and coniferous. Dick ng: My comments would be my own personal opinions at the Council lave as far as I sort of establish hoN...I don't want to interfere with your ng. I don't think it's appropriate. Emmi ~s: Okay, you don't want to tell us. Dick ling: Oh I'd be happy to. I guess on page 2 it talks about wanting to cr a boulevard effect...I want to carry that over to page lO. So my con to Council would be that ! don't like pine trees. I like shade trees so I would have 3 trees. 2 of the trees shall be shade trees and then would change the wording ~ may be a pine tree so you've got an optic . Then irrespective of the number of trees, my idea were to prima ily protect the non-wooded lot. The wooded lot I don't think it parts n to front and back yard. This doesn't bother me...but I do want to follo, through...back part of the lot is wooded. I still want to require two t' see so my wording would be, three trees, one may be a pine tree and one m, ly be waived if there's...trees on the lot but I still want to require 2 tre, s in the front yard so irrespective we have this boulevard effect... Emmins: There was some question about whether you can get the boulevard effec' . If you're planting off the city easement, wasn't there? Has the City ngineer going to look at this for us? Didn't we talk about that somew ere? Conra~: Yeah. Pla~ ning Commission Heating Sap~ 4, 1991 - Page 54 ,s: Ne had some discussion about the fact that it used to be, or at lea~. where I grew up where Ne had real sidewalks and then everybody pla trees on the boulevard, between the sidewalk and the street and had elms and you had this real nice canopy effect but non I think the' re going to be planting these trees, the city wants them back beyond the =treat easement. Dic Wing: That's true Steve. Any neighborhood in the city and just the fact that the trees are...corners or up by the house, you're still creating a wo ~ded effect on that street. So you can have a mile long street with no tree in the front, ...like the Sunrise Hills Addition... So I like the 3 tree and I'm glad there's support. ! choose not to...and I'm still in faro' of the 2 trees in the front yard... NoN the other thing, if it's a wood, d lot like your house or my house... Emmi' ge: Okay. We're not too far apart. Farm~ kes: Isn't there a reason that they may want a pine tree? Didn't we talk that? Didn't they say pine trees were beneficial... Emmi is: I think it was primarily because of winter. Er : We've kind of gone through all this discussion. I hate to start this 1 over again. Emmi ~s: Let's let the City Council do it. Erhar : If Dick had something that we had missed then obviously we would have i ked to have covered that. Conra : It's probably worthwhile. Dick's the advocate and he's going to be st ering the bulk of that meeting and the reason we went with a pine tree pr an evergreen, seriously you get 6 months here Dick where we ain't got a ~y leaves. Emmin~s: I suggested we had 2 shade trees and then one, the third one be eithe~ an evergreen or an ornamental to give people like you a choice. Erhar : I still like your idea where we had two classes of hardwood trees and t n one of them had to be. Emminl : That Nas originally your idea I think. Erhart idea? You were the guy pushing it the last time. Did we abandon that Emmim : I think the list are still being developed. Olean the it Did Yeah we haven't split it down into catagories but I think Ne got Ision that it wasn't going to be split in to hardwood, softwood. still want that? Emming : Oh yeah. PI ng Commission Meeting tuber 4, 1991 - Page 55 Er t: The idea was on the two required hardwood trees, that one of them have to be from the expensive list. O1 : The hardwood and then a softwood? Erha t: Well the softwood, they're all the same. Olse : Right. Aane son: We went the whole gammer. We had medium, hard and soft and then we d, ~cided to go to just the hard and just the soft woods. Erha' t: let me rephrase it. Evergreen trees, no matter what species they are, they're the same price for the same size tree, plus or minus 10~. Hard~ cods though are significantly different depending on whether it's for exam; le an ash or a red oak. Significantly different. It's significantly dtff~ rent what you get in the end and the idea was that on true hardwoods that one of them would have to be, so we get some valuable trees and yet we have diversity, one of them would have to be from the more desireable list whicl would be red oak, sugar maple. I tell you that list wouldn't be more than 3 or 4. Olsel: But isn't an ash a soft or medium? We'll look into that. Erhar : The issue is value I think. Whether it's hard or soft. Olse~ I think that that really splits the value though too. Emmir is: Will those lists come back to us? Olsen Yeah. Emmin ~s: Okay, let's do that another time then. Erbar : We're going to get this back again? Emmin s: No, but the lists. Erhartnto'h':isInordi°rdernance.t° implement the two value trees, that has to be written Emmin: ts: Yeah it does. Olean You don't need to do value. Erhar~ : No, you bare to pick from two lists. We'll have to sit down with the I and see which goes into which...and I'll be honest with you, I think he list for the high value trees s~ould only include essentially red oak a sugar maple. Emmin: : How about a walnut or hackberry? Conra, A white oak isn't a valuable tree? Sept Erh~ ConT Erha they Emmi Erha and oak. anyw impl ning Commission Heeting 4, 1991 - Page 56 : It's a valuable tree. It's not a tree you'd want to plant. Trust : Why not? · t: First of all you can't tree spade the burr oak or white oak. re slow growing and they're not as nice a tree as the red oak. And Is: Is the red oak more susceptible to oak wilt? t: A little bit. Little bit but you can move it with a tree spade 'ou...you can't do that with a burr oak. You can't do it with a white They've got real big tap roots and you just cannot move it. Well ~y, it's stretching out. I thought it was a good idea. In order to ,ment it it has to be written into the ordinance. Emmi igs: Well then what are we saying? Either we table it or we revise that section when we get the list. Conr d: Gee, I trust staff to implement that without us seeing it again. Emmi ge: Then we don't have to say it in here? Aane specJ : You don't feel comfortable that the City will provide a list of covering that? Olsel Even if it says the list would have to be, on page lO it'd say it have no be from one column or another. Maybe we should bring that back with list and revise that. Emmi s: Let's get it onto the City Council. I think we ought to and then if feel we have to change something, we can change it at some point. Erha : Okay, do we want them to add the two classes of trees between now and e time it gets to the City Council? : Yeah. Emmi )s: Well tell us specifically what it would Say. Erhar : It would say of the two required deciduous trees at least one of those would have to be from the, let's call it Class A li~t attached to this )rdinance or a part of this ordinance. That's it. And then we've got to de,slop the two lists. Emmin:ls: Alright. Erhar': what ' maple Does that seem reasonable to you Dick? Because I'll tell you going to happen? They'll plant all kinds of green ash, silver Emmims: So give them one short list and they can basically pick the other tree hey want. Pla Sap Erh~ tree ning Commission Meeting ember 4, 1991 - Page 57 rt: Right. That way you'll get a variety plus we'll get some of the S we want. Earnings: And the only thing that will be off the list are things like, we won'~ have box elders and stuff like that· Chinese elm. Okay, is there a motion? Sure there is. ! Erha, t: Okay yes. I'll move. what page is the motion? I'll move that the lanning Commission recommends adoption, recommends approval of the Land cape Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1 as the ordinance with two chanles. One change regarding filling of the requirement for the three tree in the subdivision ordinance that was discussed here· And number two is t at we'll add verbage that will require that one of the decidious trees to b~ from a premium list that's developed and included with this ordi: ance. Conr~ Erha' appr~ d: I second the motion. t moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commla~lon recommend of Landscape Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1 with the changes · filling of the requirement of the three trees in the subdivision nance. · ng verbage stating that of the two required deciduous trees, at ,ast one of those would have to be from a premium list that's ,veloped and attached to the ordinance. All ,ted in favor and the motion carried. Emmin ,s: We didn't close the public hearing. Erhar : I'll move to close the public hearing· Conra, : We didn't open the public hearing· Kraus~: I think you held the public hearing a long time ago. Emmim s: Okay. Lucky we've got a referee out here. : The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated Augusl 21, 1991 were so noted. UpOAT~: Emmi n D you ' d We've got Tim thanking us for some toys. Report from the · It was stimulating as always. Is there anything in particular ke to talk to us about? We've all read it and studied it. No. Emmin~ : Anybody want to talk about anything on there? I thank you for it. w 'd yell if it wasn't there. Pla lng Commission Meeting Sep' 4, 1991 - Page 58 for i Just a quick comment. It doesn't seem like the $750.00 is very If the intent is to cover staff time. There's no way you can do it .00 so I guess being competitive is what the issue is. Is that the Kr rs: There's a desire to defray more of the cost but not all of it. Trad tionally communities have basically eaten the cost. I mean you proc,ss a 300 lot subdivision and charge the guy $150.00 when it took a mont and a half of staff time. Some communities try and defray all of the cost particularly those that use consultant with escrow accounts and it gets ~ind of cumbersome. Most communities we've found are trying to make the leveloper bare a larger burden of the cost but not all of it and that's the that we took. We're going to get a lot more fees out of Ryan as t sy proceed with this. They're going to come back in when they come back in for their permanent approval, they're going to come in with a subd:vision. That is $500.00 plus a per lot charge. Each site that they brin~ in is going to have a site plan approval and that's a fixed fee plus a dollar amount per square foot. So we should be generating significantly more fees than we have in the past. No, it's not going to cover all our expel but more than tt did. Emm i prob help I thought it was kind of interesting on this Halls thing. The we're having with them out there and we're also asking them to develop our list of trees. It's kind of fun. : It doesn't hurt their line of work at all. Emmi ~s: Well no. Exactly. Especially if we're going with high end trees beca. ie they're about as expensive I think as. Moon Valley. Next time Paul said there's not a lot for our next agenda. : We have no applications for the next agenda. We've been talking to a ew people. We may have some the following one. Emmin ~s: How about the non-conforming beachlot thing? Kraus : We're putting that onto the Council for discussion purposes on Monda' just to see if they'll buy into the strategy that was laid out. 8eforl going through to bringing it formally back to you though, we wanted to go and sit down with the homeowners associations on one on one basis so we ca' lay out what we're probably going to be doing or what you're probal 1y going to be doing and we can start the discussion on what we think is gr~ ndfathered and what they think is grandfathered. That was the proce.~ s that we laid out. That we were going to meet with them first and then lng it back to you. Kathy is working on, she's going to be doing a quick eview of what's out there today and we'll be starting those meetings what? Probably in the next 2 to 3 weeks I would guess. outsi : What we're going to try to do is answer a lot of their questions of this arena so they understand the process. Emmi m : moor i time. Okay, as part of this I'd request that we get this business of boats straightened out from Chapter 6 of the ordinance at the same P. anning Commission Meeti'~g 4, 1991 - Page 59 uss: I wrote up a memo to the Council on this matter. Councilman Wing that it be brought to them anyway. In there I did mention that t's been an issue that's been raised. 'ngs: Because I think it's not as complicated as when we were talking lief. There is a provision that says no watercraft shall be moored, ked or stored overnight on any lakeshore site and then unless the .ercraft is either, and then number 1 says, it's currently registered in t name of the owner of a lakeshore site. ~11 you have to do is change Lt, the lakeshore site in front of which it's moored because the [esbore site is defined as the land there. Or we could put it, it's got to be within the dock setback zone in front of the property of the person WbgsOWns} the boat. I don't think it will be as hard. There's at least two wa you can go there to get that defined. The problem that came up is so~.ebody's got a boat moored in front of somebody else's house and we've go no restriction against that right now. It doesn't quite address it so if that can get cleared up. Co ,tad: Moored in front of somebody else's house? Em~ ings: It's moored in front of somebody else's house. Co tad: Without their permission? E~ ngs: Yeah. ~nd apparently it's not, it's close to be wrong. It's c ly wrong if you read the intent but we don't have a specific provision a~ nst it and we've got to because that's the kind of thing that can start a . Co : Boy, ! 'd sink the boat. Em ngs: Right. ~11 I ask is that you please call me to help you. Nell t it doesn't look like we'll have a meeting next time? Or does that in to be seen. Nothing you can get ready for us? Kra ss: I don't think so but why don't I touch base with my staff tomorrow and Friday. I'll give you a call and then we'll get notice out. Emm ,ngs: ~nd then let's get an attendance record distributed with the next pac ',et. Erh irt: Before you got here we passed a rule that if you're not here by 7:3, , you don't count. Your attendance doesn't count. Emm ngs: Yeah, mark Ladd down for a late. Con' ad moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting, all voLed ~n favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.. Sub itted by Paul Krauss Pla ning Director Pre ed by Nann Opheim