1990 04 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 18, 1990
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
CARL CARRICO, LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED
ON LAKE LUCY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE WEST OF YOSEMITE:
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE 12 ACRES OF PROPERTY IN THE
METROPOLITAN UR8AN SERVICE AREA;
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 12 ACRES INTO 16 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AND
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AN EXISTING WETLAND.
Public Present:
Name Address
Frank Carderell
Laurie Williams
Nancy Febry
Todd & Sherill Coumbe
Roberte & Betty Slater
Scott Allen
Jeff & Becky 3essen
Pat Johnson
Mike Bomstad
Bob Spelts
Dave DeZellar
Riff Yeager
Carol Droegemueller
Ruben & Renae Perkins
Bob Gunderson
Mike Filippi
Eric Rivkin
Tom & Karl Struthers
Mark & Donna Sims
Mary Cordell
Jim Bergeson
Mark Williams
Don & Vernee 8ierle
Jim Filippi
Representative for Carl Carrico
1760 Wood Duck Lane
1710 Teal Circle
1791 Ringneck Drive
1820 Pheasant Drive
1750 Wood Duck Circle
1741 Wood Duck La ne
1_730 Lake Lucy Lane
1810 Ringneck Drive
1841 Wood Duck Lane
1731 Wood Duck Lane
1830 Pheasant Drive
1740 Pheasant Circle
1721 Wood Duck Lane
1690 Wood Duck Lane
1731 Wood Duck Lane
1695 Steiler Court
1741 Wood Duck circle
6531 White Dove Circle
1730 Lake Lucy Lane
1661 Wood Duck Lane (5/14/90)
1655 Lake Lucy
1820 Ringneck Drive
North Star Engineering representin'g
Pheasant Hills Development
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 2
30 Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: It seems to me we have a series of priorities here on this
particular issue. I think we're going to deal with them on a, well we're
goinQ to open it up for public comments but if the Commission doesn't
believe that we should be rezoning or incorporating this property into the
or petitioning the Metropolitan Council to put this into the MUSA area, the
sewered area, then some of the other issues are not real relevant. So
that's more of a Qlobal issue that the Planning Commission should deal with
and maybe some of the specific issues that you may have come here tonight
with will be addressed at some time and we may address them tonight~
depending on where we ~o because I can't speak for the rest of the
commissioners here but there are global issues that we have to deal with
and then there are specific issues that we have to deal with~ And I think
we're going to, as a commission, try to figure out how to handle this
particular subject as we go along. What I'd like to do right now is open
it up for public comments. I'd like the applicant, if they have a
presentation for us or they have comments. They obviously know that the
staff has recommended tabling or turning it down based on the
recommendations that you heard. I think it's useful for the applicant to
tell us their perspective on it at this time and why it's coming to the
commission at this point in time.
Frank Carderell: Yes, I'm Frank Carderell, surveyor, representing Carl
Carrico. First of all, I just received the report. It was supposed to be
mailed to me but I didn't get it until the meeting tonight so I haven't had
time to read it. There are some questions we have and it's kind of a
catch-22. In meeting with the Metropolitan Sewer Board, we have to bare
approval from the City first before they'll consider it and if the City has
t.o have approval before, if you have to have approval from the Metropolitan
Sewer Board before you can approve it, we're at a stalmate. There's
nothing we can do so we have to start somewhere. Furthermore, I have a
question as to the wetlands alteration permit. We don't plan to do that~
We just show a possibility if the City wanted to put a pond in there. We
are not asking to do that because we have dropped that portion of it. We
have stated that we will donate that 4 1/2 acres to the park. In order to
do that~ if you want to use the entire park for ballfields and totlots and
we have designed tennis courts and we're willing to give that land but
we're not willing to grade it. We just showed what the DNR. We met, 3o
Ann Olsen met with us out there with the DNR. With the Watershed District.
With the Corps of Engineers. This is what they said could be done in that
area. Now we don't intend to do that. We don't plan to build anything in
that 4 1/2 acres. We plan to give that to park because there was some
suggestion. We again have been working for 2 years on this particular
piece and the owner is getting very antsy to do something~
Conrad: Who is the owner by the way?
Frank Carderell: Carl Carrico.
Conrad: He owns the property?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 3
Frank Carderell: Yes, I believe he does. That's my understanding that he
does. That's why we've been working on it. He had bought it at one time I
know and still owns it as far as I know. The concern I guess we have is
that the 4 1/2 acres that we have set aside for park would be a very
generous portion of the property leaving 13 lots. Obviously the sewer and
water, the sewer is available to the north. The water does run along Lake
Lucy Lane on the south side so there is water available. However, why we're
here is to try to get something going rather than just a stalmate. If
there is no way that the City can get together on the purchase of the
property, the total 11.67 acres, then something has to be done with the
property. It's been standing now, we've had this in proposal for over 2
years and we find that this is the second time I've been before the
Planning Commission. However, we would be glad to have it delayed so that
we could work out the problems and again...
Conrad: Let me interject and normally I don't do this but you don't like
the timeframe that the City has in terms of redoing it's Comprehensive
Plan? I have to assume that you don't like that because we're in the
process of looking at the plan. Looking at zoning. Looking at changing
maybe this particular site to single family but we're in the process of
looking at all of Chanhassen and that must not agree with you. The timing
of that, you're saying I don't want to be part of that action. I want to
go this alone.
Frank Carderell: No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we've been
working on it for 2 years. We'd like to get some action. The City is
still interested in buying the property. The owner would like to develop
it. Sell it or do something with it or try to get together. We feel, as
representing the owner, that he's tried to bend over backwards. He's
offered the 4 1/2 acres for a park. And I'm showing on there that, like 3o
Ann just said, we don't want it because we can't use it. The Corps of
Engineers, the DNR and everybody we have met with said if we put an
enhancement area of approximately 1 acre there for water, it'd be no
problem. Also, we agree with the City but we want to try and get some
action going. We want to try, as I said before, we need some action. Is
it, the way it's laid out, the 13 lots, will that fit in your plan? Now we
don't expect action tonight and we're not going to ask, if it's going to be
denied or delayed, we would rather have it delayed to work with you but we
also would like to get off dead center. Either if the City wants to buy
it, fine. If the City is not happy with the 4 1/2 acres. If we can lay it
out some other way, we'd like to do that. We want some direction. That's
what we're here for tonight is direction. Thank you.
Conrad: Okay, thank you. Anybody on the Planning Commission have a feel
for how we would like to handle the public hearing tonight? Again, getting
into details may be premature yet the applicant is saying that they'd like
some direction and I think the applicant, he deserves that kind of
direction from us. Is it a feeling that we should open it up for public
comments so we get their ideas at this point in time or is there a feeling
that we should react to maybe the MUSA issue and bring this back in later
on and deal with maybe some of the park issues? Anybody with a perspective
on the Planning Commission on that?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 4
Erhart: Ladd, I think you should point out that we really have nothing to
do with the park issue. This body. It sounds like the applicant is
willing to delay any real action until we get this MUSA line thing settled
while at the same time looking for probably some comments from us about
what we think of his plan. If I'm hearing right, that's good because l
think that's my recommendation is simply to deny it and wait until we work
through the plan. Work through the MUSA line issue. If the applicant's
looking for some constructive criticism of the plan in response to his
investment in this, I think that would be warranted~
Conrad: Any other comments? Okay. I think therefore, I think it's
valuable to provide some direction and those of you who are here, make your
time worthwhile. If you'd like to make comments about the plan, I know
you're all, I know you're real interested in the park issue. I~d
appreciate it, more than likely we're going to table this or turn this down
tonight. Speaking for myself. I haven't counted noses here but more than
likely it's not going to go through. But I'm curious about your general
impressions with the plan that you see, if you've looked at it and
therefore, without getting too detailed in some of the specifics. I don't
want us to get bogged down in the real specifics but if you do have some
real concerns that we should be looking into that might provide the
applicant with some direction. Might provide the City with some direction.
The Mayor's here tonight and I'm sure he would not mind hearing some of
your comments too, if he hasn't heard them already. But I'll open it up
for any comment with that kind of direction if that's clear or foggy, I
don't know. Are there any comments?
Jim Filippi: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jim Filippi. I'm with North Star
Engineering, consultants. I represent il of the homeowners in and around
the Pheasant Hill area regarding this particular development. We understand
that it will be continued tonight, tabled. We see that as a nice
opportunity to be able to sit down and work with the developer. The
concerns that the people that I represent have relate to the park area.
The area of it. The location in particular. The suitability for
development. We think some of the points in the staff report regarding the
potential adjacent development of the Hughes property are well taken in
terms of viewing that as to how this development should tie in and where
that landlocked parcel would go. At this point we would like to, from the
viewpoint of the entire property~ the first choice would be to have the
City purchase the whole thing as a park. That there be some sort of
negotiation or purchase agreement arrived at where that could be. Barring
that~ that the roadway alignments take into account the adjacent property
and that the park location be shifted to where there may be some more
suitable property. Particularly when you look at it in view of a no net
loss policies that you're getting with the wetland and whether the
enhancement really is a 3:1 or 2.5:1 trade-off that you look at. We would
ask that the Planning Commission direct both staff and the developer to
provide an opportunity for you representative of the neighborhood to meet
with them and that a representative of the neighborhood be notified of
staff meetings~ if the developer would so consent to that as alternatives
are discussed in the intervening time so that hopefully come August or
whatever that anticipated timeframe is, we've got an agreement of how the
property should be developed rather than what you're looking at now.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 5
Pat Johnson: Good evening. I'm Pat Johnson. I'm a homeowner. I'm also an
attorney. My address is 1730 Lake Lucy Lane. We're no in Pheasant Hill.
We're in the area south of this proposed development. Lake Lucy Highlands.
We had a meeting at my house at which Mr. Filippi was there. Some of the
Pheasant Hill people were there. Some of the Lake Lucy Highlands people
were there. We're concerned about the park issue. I did a little checking
though as far as title to the land here and based on my checking. We have
a lot of questions to ask the developer based on my checking that doesn't
indicate he owns the land. So the first question is, who actually down own
the land. Title as far as I could tell was in the name of a bank. So we
do have some questions as with the developer and as Mr. Filippi said, we
would like to maybe coordinate ~ith the City, particularly the parks
department or whoever is going to, who's in charge of acquisition of this
land, and see if we can't ge~ some input together and talk with Mr. Carrico
or with the owner. Who he represents. Whatever the case may be and see
what Ne can do to work something out and I think that's the consensus of
most people at my house this evening. As far as the plan goes, again Ne
have problems with seeing anyNetlands 9o I guess is what Ne come down to.
There are some steep grades there. I think at the meeting last year
I objected to the way the road was coming in so close to the Lake Lucy.
There appears to be a change there that we'd like to look at so thanks.
Mary Cordell: Hi. I'm Mary Cordell. I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane right
across from the parcel. I guess the comment that I would have that I feel
like I would need more information on is what type of developer is Carl
Carrico. I don't have any information on him. As far as what I've heard
from the City, I don't know that they have that much information on him.
What types of homes? What price range of homes? What? You know we don't
have much information as far as what they're really thinking of putting in
as far as the homes so I think as a neighborhood resident, we have a lack
of information and I think the suggestion that we have a neighborhood
representative be working maybe with the developer and with the Planning
Commission, just so we have the information available to us would be
helpful ·
Conrad: Excuse me. Paul, could you try to answer her question the best
way possible in terms of the City's control over those types of things?
Krauss: Yes Mr. Chairman. We have direct control over the layout of the
subdivision. We have standards that they have to adhere to. Be it a good
developer, bad developer, be it indifferent, they have to adhere to the
same standard. We do not do background checks on the individual developer
nor do we regulate exactly what they build there. It's a single family
home. It has to meet standards.
Mary Cordell: I wasn't aware of that.
Krauss: I can understand why the neighborhood would be interested in what
sort of home they build and what price range but by law that's not
questions we're permitted to ask.
Mary Cordell: Okay. And also just as a personal comment, I mean my
preference is to see the City purchase the entire parcel for parkland for
Planning Commission Meeting
Apr i 1 18, 1990 - Page 6
our area. I think a lot of the people that are here ate coming in support
of the parkland. We have over 100 kids in the aTea and there's no park.
Just a comment as far as the location of the parkland, just in meeting
with Park and Rec and talking to them, it doesn't seem to be that feasible
for the needs of the area and we think we need something more and we think
we deserve something more.
Bob Spelts: My name is Bob Spelts. I live at 1841 Wood Duck Lane and I'm
involved with a number of these people in trying to develop an association
for Pheasant Hills. The Homeowners Association. There's a number of
issues involved here. With all due respect to Paul and his folks, some of
us have not had a good relationship with the developers around here and
sometimes 'the things that they say, we take with a little bit of a grain of
salt but there are a number of issues, one of which is the fact that we
don't have a park anywhere for our children to use. This area was pointed
out to us by the people that were selling us our homes and our lots that
this would be a park someday. Now I know that you can't control that at
this point but still the promises were made and we had certain
expectations. Another issue is this roadway through here. Lake Lucy Lane
has become a thoroughfare for people who don't want to go south over to
Galpin Lake Road. They cut through and I see this other road as another
shortcut through the development. We have been concerned about the traffic
through there because it's been impossible to get a stop sign put at the
intersection right around the curve so everybody guns their engine and
takes off as they come around that corner and if we create more hazards for
our children, it's just going to make those of us in the neighborhood all
the more concerned about what's happening. And then finally, if you look
at the area that's designated, the 4 i/2 acres there, if you actually go
out there and look, that doesn't make a suitable park area. We would be
destroying natural wetland and I don't think that that's a reasonable thing
to do at this point in time and the concerns that we have about ecology and
so we would recommend that the entire parcel be bought and used for park
for our neighborhood. Thank you.
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court and I live in Lake
Lucy Highlands which is right around the corner from this parcels I've
spoken before the Park Commission last Tuesday and a lot of the things
pointed, kind of the general feel of how things like this get developed and
call for the need for more parkland in this area. This is a park deficient
area. It's seen in the staff report that this is, the Park Board agreed
with that.. I would like to see this whole parcel be bought by the City as
a park. One of the things that I have brought up as an issue is the fact
that the laws. The weak laws that are in the City about standards that
have to be met when parcels are subdivided. That a certain portion have to
be set aside per person for parkland. This kind of land that he's proposed
to set aside here is not by any stretch of the imagination park. If you
visited the site, it is mostly wet in the spring of the year. There is
standing water there now. They cannot be built any totlots around it
because it is either wetland or it is too steep. And the system does not
work because it does not set aside any quality land for park. We're
entitled to parkland that can be really used. I think that funds were
shoT't, mentioned by the park board. I think in order to find other sources
of funds, we should encourage the park board to be creative about where to
Planning Commission Meeting
April ~8, 1990 - Page 7
find these funds. Maybe laws need to be changed perhaps about how parkland
is acquired before MUSA lines Get expanded and ,].and prices soar. That's
not the time to buy parkland. The time to buy parkland is now when the
MUSA line in this area is not established because land values are fairly
reasonable now. I understand that the City had a couple of assessments
done for the land of what it is worth now as bein~ less than $70,000.00. I
understand that Mr. Carrico had this appraised as if it were completed
sewered and watered and subdivided and developed at $350,000.00. I'm sure
there's a place inbetween that would fit within that would be reasonable.
So I encourage that the City should involve in negotiations with Mr.
Carrico. The other issue that I want to bring up is an ecological one.
It's very important, we've had the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association pulled
together $1,500.00 and paid Dale Hog.an, a biologist, to assess our lake and
our ~4atershed area because we want to clean up our lake and this is in the
Lake Lucy watershed. That wetland drains into Lake Lucy. It carries all
the nutrients that are draining into that wetland and if this is developed,
will contain more pollutants, more nutrients than possibly this lake can
handle right now. He found evidence, very strong evidence, to support that
fact that our lake is a seepage lake. It is fed by ground water mostly,
not by runoff. If you pave over and overdevelop land in this manner, he
said that if the area were fully developed, that you could lose 20~ to 25~
of the replenishment opportunity for Lake Lucy. That is a headwaters for a
chain of lakes. For that reason alone, Lori Sietsema commented that the
park board should deny to go ahead with this project. Also, in the Sailor
which came out today, the Metropolitan Council has a 1ynologist who stated
in here that the water quality in metro area lakes will continue to
deteriorate unless there are lifestyle changes such as no fertilizing,
reduce use of cars and modified building practices. He said that it's not
hard to find examples of large scale residential and commercial
developments in areas soon after MUSA lines get extended and transportation
systems are extended. The point in this article is that this will
contribute to a thing called non-point source pollution and our watershed
district and ourselves and other lake associations on the chain of lakes
have been trying desparately to try and Get funds together to clean up the
chain of lakes from non-_point source pollution. The main source of that .is
development. Laws have 'to be established to, better that] what we've got
now. This doesn't do justice for that reason and we need to raise our
expectations about ecological impact on our watershed. We've got our best
natural resources in this town are our lakes. We are Going to continue to
degrade them further if we put in developments like this so close to the
watershed. We've got to control and better planning to be able to have
holding areas to trap the sediments. Take them away and Give them to
farmers who want the nutrients. We've got to have better practices.
Management practices in the watershed that should be legislated hand in
hand with practices that the watershed district cannot or are unable to
enforce through planning practices. Thank you.
Conrad: Thank you .... I think it's real clear where your interests are
there. I'm interested in other issues that we could be concerned with.
don't want you to stop if I'm taking some of your comments away but we have
heard those and we're sensitive to those. I'm not sure the Planning
Commission is a, we're not necessarily the best resource in terms of park
useaGe. I think we rely on the Park and Rec and the City Council primarily
Plannin.9 Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 8
for those decisions. But as to how it's impacting a layout. How it's
impacting a subdivision, we're interested in that but again, the issue is,
we've heard the issue. I'm real interested in other things~
Carol Droegemueller: My name is Carol Droegemueller. I live in Pheasant
Hills, 1740 Pheasant Circle and I guess I responded to this particular land
and the way it's beer] proposed over the last year. Evel] through this
entire process of coming to public hearings, I'm still unsure about
particular question so I'm going to ask it and totally reveal my ignorance
here but, this is a Planning Commission here and you are responsible for
the comprehensive plan for our city. I am not sure how park needs are
designated here and I would like maybe for you to address that exactly~
If you don't zone it specifically for a park, how does it happen? Do we
knee jerk response to every development that comes through and then decide
that a park is necessary because we have all come here and complained that
we need it? I would like to see our Planning Commission look toward the
future and the numbers that are growing and, I don't know if there is a
zoning for a park and I guess I would like to hear you address how that
works so we can better use it. Then my second comment is, I would just
like to reiterate something that was said at the meeting on April
Jim Mady who is from Park and Rec, summed up the response for us that the
Park and Rec Commission had, and I think it bears repeating. He said that
we have to look at this development in terms of what it can do for the City
of Chanhassen. His feeling was that it would simply add 12 or 13 more
homes in need of a park. We would still be back to ground zero and we
would go through this process one more time looking for property that would
suit 12 more homes in need of a park.
Conrad: Paul, maybe you can help integrate for everybody the role of Park
and Rec and Planning Commission.
Krauss: The Park and Recreation Commission is charged with advising the
City Council on acquisition and development of park property. The Planning
Commission typically accepts their recommendation and then embodies that in
their recommendation to the City Council. Parks, specifically where they
should be, what they should look like are not typically addressed directly
by the Planning Commission because they're looking at the development
relative to the surrounding area. The question as to whether or not parks
are zoned as parks, typically they're not. Parks are a permitted use in
the residential and agricultural districts in the community and as such
they can go presumabely anywhere. The City does have a comprehensive plan
that does locate major park facilities and acquisitions to those and those
are the facilities that have the ballfields or the major environmental
amenities that are being protected or whatever and we identify those
because they're quite site specific and they're quite large. The facility
that we're talking about tonight is a neighborhood facility. Neighborhood
facilities are not specifically located but what they are is a designated
search area on the map and then typically as development occurs, parcels
are reviewed to see where those opportunities may lie. The park board has
some ideas given the lay of the land where a park should be but I think
you've got to recognize that the way in which we acquire parkland is only
one of two ways. We can either take it as a required dedication with a
subdivision in which case we're limited to how much we can take by state
Planning Commission Heeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 9
law and there's a reasonableness and do we have to take, and no we don't
have to 'Lake wetland as active park area if w.e don't want to but we can't
take the whole site. If we want to take more parkland that we are entitled
to under the subdivision ordinance, we have to buy it. The park board
continued this item and that's really realistically a recommendation that
t,hey'll have to make directly to the City Council. I'm a~are of the fact
that negotiations are continuing. I'm not sure if they're going to be
successful or not but we simply under the subdivision and zoning ordinances
do not have the right to stop a development because we prefer that most of
it be park. We can require a dedication and that would be done. The
comment that there aren't a whole lot of opportunities for neighborhood
park development in this area appear to be accurate. In talking to Lori
$ietsema, there's not a whole lot of opportunities left. For one reason or
another these things have been deferred over the years and we're looking at
one of the few opportunities remaining and it will be for the park board to
recommend to the City Council a course of action on that.
Conrad: Okay. Good comment.
3im Filippi: Paul, can I ask who's doing the negotiations on behalf of the
City?
Krauss: Lori Sietsema.
Conrad: So really what you're, saying Paul, and I think it's good for the
neighbors to hear that. tn this particular case, there is not a zoning
that we're doing and it is possible that in a deficient area, we could end
up with no park. That's really possible based on the process.
Krauss: It's not inconceivable. Given the fact that th~s is one of the
few remaining opportunities, there's obviously a strong desire to work
something out and work it out quickly. A lot of times we acquire park over
a period of time. As different parcels develop, you take a chunk of park
here. A chunk of park off of that subdivision and when you put the whole
together, you've got a nice piece of park. We don't have that flexibility
at this point. This is one of the few remaining sites.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. Any other comments?
3im Bergeson: My name is 3im Bergeson. I'm at 1661 Wood Duck Lane in
Pheasant Hills. After attending the meeting last week with the Parks
commission and then tonight, to me there's some major issues that kind of
stand out. One is the road that's proposed as far as thru traffic going in
and through Pheasant Hills. Another issue is the speed of getting
something done. The developer is concerned about getting something
The residents are concerned about getting a park developed and not waiting
for another year and having that drawn out. If the developer and the
community got together and did some compromising. The developer drew up a
new plan. Came up with perhaps 8 lots instead of 13 lots. Had a
cul-de-sac instead of a thru street. The parks commission bought some
additional property. My question is, would the developer be able to
re-present that proposal to the Park Planning Commission and this Planning
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 10
Commission and get something done fairly quickly as far as getting the MUSA
1 i ne o kay?
Conrad: Well I can't react to the whole thing but the MUSA line, we're
trying to deal with it not in reaction to this particular property. We're
in the process of looking at all of Chanhassen and there's a schedule set
up for doing that. We really don't want to react. If Ne took this to Met
Council right now, there's a good chance, it might be harmful for us as a
city to approach the Met Council. So therefore, there's probably a feeling
here that we don't want to do this on a site specific issue like this one.
Therefore, we are going to delay more than likely, we are going to delay
action on zoning it for residential use. That area is logically a
residential neighborhood so it's not like we're thinking commercial or
something like that but it's in conjunction with a lot of other activity
that we're going to be going through. Paul, what's the timeframe just so
people know?
Krauss: Well, we're looking at submitting the comprehensive plan amendment
to the Metro Council this summer. It's probably going to be July or
August. We need to hold public hearings on it first. Some of you may have
seen articles about it in the newspaper. There's going to be a continuing
number of those in the next few months. I guess one thing I should clarify
too is there seemed 'to be an implication that there's a catch-22 situation
with MUSA line amendments. Individual property owners and developers don't
make requests to move the MUSA line, cities do and the Metropolitan Council
responds to a City Council's request to do that. In fact they typically
dislike talking to individual developers because that puts then] behind the
8 ball. The City's been going through a comprehensive plan process for the
last 2 years that's basically considering the well being of future
development of the entire community. The City's running out of land to
develop in other areas. There are some needs for different types of things
in the community and there's a guide plan amendment, the one we~¥e looking
at is looking at moving the MUSA line to include about 2,000 acres~ Now
this particular site is well within the area we're considering and we just
have a concern and this has been related to us by the Metro Council staff
as well, that they don~t want us to come to them in a piecemeal fashion.
We're revamping our entire plan in the manner that they laid out and rather
than take these things on a catch as catch can basis, we're coming to them
wit}] the whole package. We're explaining why we need to do this. What we
propose to do. How we're going to build the roads. How we're going to
build the sewers. Everything else and frankly as staff, we support that
approach. That's why we recommended that this be continued or denied.
Conrad: So it's not totally relevant to your issues. It's a function of a
process that we, in this particular case I believe we want to follow
because it makes sense for all of Chanhassen. Park and some other things
can happen but in terms of residential going in there, there's a good
chance we can't move quickly on that.
Jim Bergeson: So it is possible that if the developer and the community
reached an agreement, the developer could sell property to the City,
develop the park with the expectation of the MUSA line approval later and
· then development of a limited number of homes?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page il
Krauss: I don't want to imply that we will refuse to talk to the
neighborhood or developers. That's anything but the case. We'd be happy
to continue negotiations on acquisition or continuing possibly the paYk
board would make, I'm not sure about this, but make a recommendation to the
City Council irregardless of what you do tonight on this development and
we'll be happy to continue working with everybody to get a plan in place
that we find that we can recommend approval of at such time as the MUSA
line moves but we don't anticipate this going ahead until that's done.
Conrad: Are there any other?
Frank Carderell: I guess I want to clarify some points, t think when we
started this there was no reaction from the City for the MUSA line. We
were alone at the time and we met with the Metropolitan Sewer Council and
that was over a year ago, year and a half ago and we are again willing to
try to work out the problems. What you're hearing tonight is the beginning
process. We obviously realize that the roads that we proposed were what
the engineering department asked for. Now that's what we did. We are here
tonight for direction. If the landowners, adjacent landowners don't want
that road to go through, we'll put a cul-de-sac on it but we have to have
direction and that's why we're here. We are here for 3 things.
Negotiation on the park. Fine, if they want to buy it all, fine. We have
laid out for Lori, I've laid out what she asked. A totlot, 2 half court
basketball courts and I believe 2 tennis courts and that's what she said
she wants on the property. I laid them out for her. We designed them. We
put them in the property and that's all she said they wanted. Well if they
want something else, we'd like to know. That's the direction we're asking.
We're not asking for...
Resident: ...is that on the wetland?
Frank Carderell: It's not on the wetlands at all. It's off.
Resident: It's not on the 4 acres?
Frank Carderell: It's on the 4 1/2 acres. Yes it is. All of it can be
designed on that 4 1/2 acres. We have done it and I've given it to Lori.
I didn't know about the Park Board last week or I'd have been there but we
do need direction and we are at this point beginning that direction and
that's what we're here for. As you can see, there's going to be a lot of
work yet to ~o in it. It will probably be August before we get the plan
laid out.
Resident: Can I ask...plan submitted this summer, like what time line are
you looking at as far as approval or not of the MUSA line? Any idea? Like
when are you realistically looking to get sewer and water into this parcel
and neighboring parcels?
Krauss: Once we submit it to the Metro Council, honestly it's somewhat out
of our hands. Metro Council has 90 days to review it. They can ask for
extensions if they feel we haven't covered something adequately or the
public community has raised objections. It enters what frankly is a
Planning Commission Heeting
April 18, ~990 - Page 12
political arena at that point and I would predict exactly when it would be
adopted~ If things proceed smoothly by November, an amended Comprehensive
Plan could be in place. That's the earliest.
Conrad: Anything else new. Any other new issues? Anything? Okay, is
there a motion to close the public hearing?
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Paul or 3o Ann, would you go through the proposed street design
and explain, if in fact that's what we wanted and the pluses and minuses
and why it came that way.
Olsen: The City does...applicant and we do approve of this connection.
Again, the 50 foot right-of-way in the Pheasant Hills PUD was put in for
future connection. The access here has been located to give us separation
from Lake Lucy Lane. It's also, because of the slope of the property and
the wetland area, is one of the reasons it was kind of designed with the
curve in it and the half cul-de-sac. We are looking at, with the Hughes'
property potentially coming in with a cul-de-sac in this direction or we've
also looked at possibly coming in in this direction. I think maybe what
some of the people in Pheasant Hills were getting at was whether or not we
could do a loop drive 'through here and not use this connection. Frankly
that's something that we haven't reviewed at the time .... there is a long
cul-de-sac here and I don't know if you're familiar with this area but
going to the east, there is an area there for future connection...so we do
need a secondary access out on that location.
Erhart: And access on Wood Duck Lane?
Olsen: Well it's not Wood Duck, it goes out to Yosemite... But anyway,
there are other options there.
Erhart: Well you state that the road design provides a 90 degree bend
which does not meet city standards. I assume you're putting that in there
to try to eliminate thru traffic. Is there a potential for a lot of thru
traffic through there?
Olsen: I know that there is a lot of thru traffic, because some of the
people were talking about with the location connection here to Lake Lucy
Lane. If you remember, Lake Lucy Road used to go straight through to
Galpin and we cut that off and it loops down now so the people on Galpin do
tend to cut, who are going to go east, do cut through Pheasant Hills. They
cut onto Lake Lucy Lane and through rather than going straight to Galpin,
or to Lake Lucy Lane and curbing back up. I don't know if they would still
be...in using this access or that same sort of thing but I'm sure people in
this northern area would be cutting. We even have had some people
recommend the City looking at vacating Lake Lucy Lane where it comes up
Wood Duck. They've got a cul-de-sac and if this went through, then it.
would just be moving...
Erhart: Okay, it sounds like you'd want to review that further.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 13
Olsen: Well we are hoping with this time that we have now, to include
the Hughes p¥operty.
Erhart.: So you could have an all encompassing approach? Okay. Well that
makes good sense and I suppose with that respect then perhaps our comments
on the street design tonight would not have that much impact.
Olsen: They'll be changing.
Erhart: Yeah. I'm a little curious. Why do we look at a plan that
doesn't have lot widths that meet the code?
Krauss: In this case it wouldn't be a very difficult exercise to adjust
the lot lines to meet code.
Erhart: Isn't it clear to developers when they finally get to this point
that they're not going to get lot widths approved that.
Olsen: They've not given the impression that they'll be approved. I think
things like this, they might just have been overlooked.
Erhart: Overlooked?
Olsen: That's making assumptions.
Erhart: The fact is it's supposed to be a professional engineer is
providing, or professionals are drawing up the plans. It just seems odd to
me that you would get to this stage in the process and we'd still have such
simple things as lot widths not meeting the standards. So from those
comments I think it's clear that the developer would have to meet that if
he's going to proceed any farther than this point. Why do you suggest that
the developer would have to put speed advisory signs?
Olsen: That was coming from engineering where because of that 90 degree
curve is a more dangerous curve that they would just recommend us to...
Erhart' Would the developer put those Lip or is that a city responsibility?
Krauss: It would be in the development contract. If we installed a
street, we would install it and assess all the costs back.
Olsen: It would be in the right-of-way.
Erhart: Okay. My recommendation is to deny this tonight. Not that I
criticize at all the developer for trying to pursue his interest in this
property. In fact I appreciate the effort that the developer has made in
pointing out to the City that in fact there's land here that would like to
be developed and obviously he believes that there are potential homeowners
that would want to have access to these lots or perhaps there's people who
want to have access for a park and I think everybody, one more stimulus to
point out to us that we need to make some action on this whole thing. As
I've stated many times here in the past, I dislike this whole concept of
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 14
the hlUSA line and think there's a far better way to limit urban sprawl than
draw MUSA lines. The fact is that we have to, I think we've been forced
over the years to accept that approach to controlling growth and the fact
that we've had to do that despite my, again empathy for the developer and
encouragement to continue to pressure us to, and the citizens to accomplish
some action here. I cannot help but do anything other than recommend a
denial at this time and would look forward to seeing the proposal at a time
when we're ready to actually take some action on it.
Emmings: I'm not going to make any specific comments. The matter ought to
be either tabled or denied. I don't see any real compelling reason to do
either one. It seems to me that if we deny it, does that mean he has to
pay another fee if he wants to bring it up again? Is that one difference
between tabling it and denying?
Krauss: Theoretically yeah. That frankly didn't occur to us but that's
true. The reason we would suggest denial or the only reason we would
suggest denial is if the developer objected to the delay, we're held under
statutory requirements to act on this.
Emmings: I understand. There's plenty of good reason to deny it and
I guess in the spirit of trying to keep negotiations open with the
developer and so forth and trying to get something resolved on all these
issues, maybe that'd be a good reason to table it but I don't have anything
else.
Ellson: I agree with the Park and Rec that it should be a park and
I prefer not to comment on this what if type of plan. What if we get a
MUSA line and if we get the zoning and you saw a plan like this, would you
approve it? That's the way I view what they're coming forward with this on
and I feel that it would put the City at a disadvantage during this
negotiation. The less apt I am to tell him that I would okay this plan in
the future, the less they probably have to show future land values and
things like that so I'd rather not comment. Whenever it comes forward, it
has to come forward like everything else with all the"approvals met. Quite
frankly,.the City spent an awful lot of time looking it over~ They've got
a lot of comments from them and more work than I'd probably recommend they
do even but I think it would be a waste of our time and it wouldn't really
help the City in their negotiating points so I would deny it. I wouldn't
table it either. I think a tabling gives the impression that it's still
active and there's still some hope and this thing doesn't meet anything so
I think it should be denied.
Batzli: I was going to ask some site specific questions if you don't mind.
Jo Ann, there was discussion last time about the 90 degree curve and that
it wasn't up to some sort of standards. Is that still the case? I don't
recall exactly what the problem with that was. Was it just a speed
problem?
Olsen: I believe that's all it was.
Batzli: There was nothing about the cul-de-sac being on the corner?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 15
01sen: The only reason there's comments usually about that is from the
public works department. Whether or not they can get the snow out of there
and they had no comments against that.
Batzli: Do we encourage that type of thing?
Olsen: We've gone both ways in the past. Again, it was discussed at this
point and it wasn't felt that it should be removed. And I know that we
have discussed where we curved it and just took out the cul-de-sac.
Satzli: We have discussed that?
Olsen: We have internally and it wasn't to that point where we had to, we
didn't agree to require them to remove the cul-de-sac.
8at. zli: Have you guys seen the plan at all that the developer's drawn up
for the totlots and things like that at all?
Olsen: I saw a copy where they showed where some of the facilities could
be developed but it is all, this doesn't show it too well, but the actual
outline of the wetland is approximately in this location. What they're
proposing is to make this the wetland and have ali. this able to be filled.
Batzli: The smaller part that's in yellow on ours would be the part?
Okay.
Olsen: But from our testing of this or research, these soils are still
really porous and there will be water...but that's where the Park and Rec
did not agree that this would be good facilities.
Batzli: Who mapped the wet, did the Fish and Wildlife map the outline?
Olsen: We did go out with Fish and Wildlife and the Corps.
Batzli: You haven't gone out there since '88 or whenever you went out?
You haven't been out there recently? This was 2 years ago when we drew...
Olsen: Not with the Fish and Wildlife or the Corps. I've been out there.
Satzli: But that was kind of previous to this drought so, okay. Then we
moved the Carrico Lane over to the west creating Outlot B. That was our
recommendation to get it away from the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and
Lake Lucy Lane?
Olsen: Yeah. If I can recall, I think that there was some remnent piece
to begin with. I don't know, was there?
Frank Carderell: Yes, that was moved over there at the engineer's
request. That's why that outlot is in there. Otherwise he came straight
down.
Batzli: Would Outlot B be deeded to the City?
Planning Cornmission Meeting
April 18, 1990- Page 16
Frank Carderell: Yes. Also, to answer your question as to that 90 degree
curve, that was Lot, I think it was i, 2, 3, 4, 5 was put a larger radius
on there at the engineer's request. This has been worked through the
engineers and the roads have been approved by the engineering staff when I
was there at the meeting. And by the way, that line on there, the part
there in green is the wetlands as staked out on the field with Jo Ann and
with the Corps and with the DNR and that is the wetlands that they claimed.
They put the stakes
Batzli: Right. But she was indicating that the plans that she saw, you
had the totlot in part of that.
Frank Carderell: They were all around. I'll get those plans for the park
where we showed the tennis courts, the totlot, the half ball courts are all
out of the wetlands completely.
Olsen: Not the existing wetland.
Batzli: How much active parkland, just out of curiousity is there if you
take out the wetlands from this 4. whatever?
Olsen: Well if you take out the existing wetland, there's not much because
the rest of it is slope. There's not much.
Frank Carderell: About half. About 2 1/2 acres are wetland and about 2
1/2 acres are high.
Batzli: Does that take into account the driveways meant at all then too?
Frank Carderell: The driveway isn't going across that...
Batzli: Okay. I guess I agree that I think a portion of this property or
nearby needs to be a park. I think obviously this needs so many variances
at this point, well it needs several variances and it doesn't meet. the,
it's not zoned correctly and it can't be rezoned until the MUSA line's
moved so that I would also recommend denial on that basis. But I think
obviously the developer shouldn't necessarily be totally frustrated and
they should continue to negotiate and work with the staff because t think
the movement of the MUSA line is hopefully goin~ to shortly be a reality.
Frank Ca~-derell: I just had one thing. That's $1,000.00 the developer has
to pay just to bring it back and that's a hardship on the developer. We're
willing to negotiate but if you deny it, that throws that out and he has to
do it over.
Batzli: You'd prefer that we table it?
Frank Carderell: Why certainly.
Conrad: If we deny it, you get to talk to the City Council.
Frank Carderell: Well that true.
Planning Commission Heeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 17
Conrad: That's worth $1,000.00 right there. You'd rather not have it go
that route?
Frank Carderell:
$1,000.00...
...other than we have to come back with another
Conrad: Okay. 3gan?
Ahrens: I'm not going to ask any site specific questions on this but I
think it should be parkland also. ! think parkland is really necessary up
there and needed. I have a question about these speed advisory signs
though. If you have any extras of those Paul I think they should be posted
all along Lake Lucy Road which is used as a raceway by I'm sure a lot of
people in this room also. I happen to live on Lake Lucy Road. Any~Jay, and
if it's a park, you may want to post those signs too because the kids
riding up and down that road are going to have to deal with the racing
cars. But. that's all I have.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. I generally agree with the staff report tonight. !
think seme good comments in the staff report. Some things that are real
important to me, I'll just hit them. I do need to know that there is, I de
need to know proof of title or ownership or some kind of contractual
agreement by Mr. Carrico. I need to know that he has an interest or some
document that proves that. Parks, I think it certainly seems like a park
deficient area. We'll wait for input from the Park and Rec Department. I
think there's enough of you interested in that you're going to get some
kind of action on that particular issue. I'm not interested in hurting the
wetlands at all. I think there is, as Mr. Rivkin said, they're rather
important, especially in the chain of lakes, that this may head up. I'm
interested in Dale Hogan. Was it Dale Hogan? I think you should get that
report to staff, if they don't have it. Make sure that Lori gets it to the
Planning group. Well, Paul you can ask Lori for that. I'm interested in
that. I didn't quite follow all the comments on that but as to how that
will affect any type of a subdivision. That's significant in my mind. I
think we have gone through some road alignment issues here that I thought
staff was sensitive to the ecology of the area and therefore, .lust so you
all know my position on the roadway, I'm not necessarily against what I see
in tine plan right now. Obviously it's .going to be dependent on parks and
going to be dependent on a whole lot of things but again, I don't see a
real negative on that road other than, and I have to take a look at it
again specifically how it impacts wetlands and how it can impact some of
tine contamination downstream. Obviously the reason that I don't want to
pass this tonight is I'm not interested in going to Met Council and having
this put into single family at this point in time given the fact that we
are going to do that for all of Chanhassen. Any other comments? I think
the applicant is recommending that it be tabled. If anybody feels that
they want to bounce this to City Council for their comments, another way is
to deny it and that will cost the applicant another
Emmings: Or we could recommend denial and the City Council could table it.
That way ttney get it both ways. They get the input of the City Council but
still don't wind up with the extra fee if the City Council decides.~.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 18
Conrad: Well there are a few Council members here tonight. Did Jay
leave? Is Jay here? I know Ursula's here. Jay, you're there. Yeah,
there are a fair number of Council people here. They heard a lot of the
comments tonight so whether, it can go to them. On the other hand, 3 out
of the 5 heard a lot of the neighborhood comments tonight.
Erhart: I think if the applicants asking us to table, let's just do that.
Conrad: It's what you want to do. Yes sir.
Jim Filippi: There are a number of the neighbors who would support tabling
rather than going to Council at this point.
Conrad: Okay.
Satzli: I move t. hat the Planning Commission tables Land Use Plan Amenctment
~88-4, Rezoning Request ~88-4, Subdivision Request %i88-19, Wetland
Alteration Permit ~88-12 based on our previous reasons, discussions and the
applicant's request to table it rather than deny it.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Emmings: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
Ellson: I have a question. What Paul was saying, how soon do we have to
bring it back then legally and things tike that?
Krauss: If the applicant agrees to the tabling motion, you don't, have a
prob leto.
Ellson: Once it's tabled, they have to say well you have to see it again?
Krauss: No. The clock only ticks if the developer intends to push it.
Have a finding that you've exceeded 120 days. They've agreed to the
continuance. It's not a problem.
Emmings: Well, do you need that from them in writing?
Krauss: It would be nice, yes. That would be a good idea.
Emmings: Well then there's a condition that, are you including that
condition?
Batzl i: Yes.
Conrad: What was the condition?
Bat. zli: The condition is that I move to table it pending the developer's
approval in writing to the City staff.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 19
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission tables Land Use
Plan Amendment ¢88-4, Rezoning Request ¢88-4, Subdivision Request ¢88-19,
Wetland Alteration Permit ¢88-12 pending the developer's written approval
to staff. All voted in favor except Annette Ellson who opposed and the
motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Conrad: And your reason?
Ellson: I'd rather deny it outright rather than tabling it.
Conrad: Okay, motion does pass. I think, for the neighbors who are here
the process in terms of Park and Rec and negotiations. How can we advise
the Iqeighborhoods right now. They do have some counsel and they're
obviously interested in working with the developer. Workif]g with staff.
What is a feasible Nay we can guide them in doing that Paul or 3o Ann?
Olsen: Well they are being notified of all the Park and Rec meetings.
Conrad: You will be in the future for sure. So is this an issue that Park
and Rec is actively dealing with and is Park and Rec going to be dealing
with it relatively shortly?
Olsen: Yes. Lori is again in the negotiating stage and looking at other
property that is available so yes, it is being actively pursued.
Conrad: So any neighbor who has signed up right now for sure will be
notified of Park and Rec meetings okay. Any other recommendations for the
community or the developer at this point in time? Anything? Okay. Good.
Thank you all for coming tonight and we'll keep you involved in the
process. Thanks much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MODIFICATION NO. 10 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TIF PLAN.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Batzli: I think you just for the record indicate that the only people in
the room are two councilmembers and staff and us.
Conrad: Okay, you just did.
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: I have a question. Item number 3 down there talks about
Hardee's. What's going on there just out of curiousity?
Olsen: As far as I'm concerned and with Paul, nothing concrete is
happening with that. It's another Brad 3ohnson deal where he keeps corning
in with plans showing Hardee's with Amoco but it's nothing that's really
being pursued at this time.
Planning Commission Neeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 20
Krauss: That's a tough one to figure because plans keep on appearing or, my
desk. Hardee's apparently has an option agreement for that corner. I've
met with them once several months ago. They're talking with Brad 3ohnson
about putting together some sort of a comprehensive redevelopment plan for
that area. Brad's been trying to put this together for quite some time and
it still hasn't come together but the TI district needs to be amended so
that the possibility of this happening can be included.
Emrnings: Once it's come up the idea of putting fast food restaurants into,
zoning them down to a small area we've talked about. We've never really
done it. I don't know how much interest there is in that or whether people
want to see these spring up wherever they will and it will be too late to
do anything about it. I have some interest in talking more about having a
place for fast food restaurants to be.
Ahrens: Eden Prairie.
Emmings: And I don't know if other people do but if part of this is to
help Hardee's come in down there, I don't know that I'm for it.
Krauss: A~ain, this deal keeps changing and I can't tell you for certain
what Brad 3ohnson's asking for on this because I don't understand where he
is right now but it was my understanding that Hardee's in particular was
not asking for any HRA subsidy. The HRA subsidy was in there to acquire
and relocate Gary Brown's car wash which is sitting where the Hardee's
would like to go.
Ahrens: Do we really want a Hardee's and an Amoco and a car wash right at
the entrance to our downtown area?
Krauss: The Amoco is a done deal. The Amoco is not part of this proposal.
Ahrens: I mean just as a big picture. You know all of them together.
Krauss: It's a valid question.
Ahrens: That's really .junky I think. Across from the Holiday and the auto
par ts store.
Krauss: Then we did, there is an ordinance now that deals with the
separation of gas pumps that followed because of that. Those two uses
could not occur in such proximity again, t think what did we apply, 250
foot separation if I recall right?
Batzli: I think it was more than that.
Krauss: 500.
Batzli: 500. 250 to a residential.
Krauss: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 2990 - Page 21
Earnings: Can we, the HRA is planning three separate things here. Can we
recommend approval of this plan for items 1 and 2 and omit 3? Or do we
have to take it all or nothing?
Krauss: I wish Todd were here to explain it directly but what I would
prefer you did is recommend approval of the plan. See approval of the plan
doesn't mean that you're recommending approval of that specific course of
action. It's allowing the HRA to work with us and I've been to HRA
meetings where they've been skeptical of the particular project the way
it's laid out right now. But it's clear that there's some interest in
doing something with the City in that area.
Olsen: kJith the Hanus building.
Batzli: Is the Amoco deal though, is that a done deal regardless of
whether of...
Krauss: Amoco was approved outside of this redevelopment. It was
approved.
Ellson: Right now this couldn't be allowed though and if we approve it it
can be allowed?
Krauss: No, Amoco...
Ellson: No, the Hardee's.
Krauss: Oh Hardee's.
Ellson: I know the Amoco, we've done all that. I mean that's kind of what
Steve is getting at. Now we're giving him an in so it's a tot harder to
deny it than to not even have it be a possibility.
Krauss: Don, do you want to field that?
Don Ashworth: The entire impetus for the plan amendment before you is
recognizing major changes in State law which basically prohibit the City
from making any additional changes within our existing tax increment
district so there's a number of projects that are shown in there that the
HRA may or may not get involved with. The Council may or may not approve.
The plan amendments are put forward to give the City the option to be able
to consider those projects or not. Chanhassen sits in a favorable
position. When the tax increment was first created it was a tool to help
stimulate economic development. Well, we've done a better job of it than
most cities in the State and at this point in time, the City's kind of
changing the rules and saying well, maybe we didn't really want you to use
it as extensively as you have. In the meantime, the City has a number of
projects, the HRA say, that are half done. For example, and let me say
that typically the HRA would not carry out a plan amendment until you had
the specific revenues in place and them come back with a plan amendment to
show the entire project. Now the State is saying, if you don't have
something in your plan prior to May 1st, you're not going to be able to do
it in the future. ~Jell that poses a problem. The City owns HRA. Pauly's.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 22
We own the PonT. The current plan does not have us acquirin9 Pryzmus nor
demolishin.g all 3 buildings. The plan amendment was put through to ensure
that ~e had the flexibility to take down that middle building and demolish
all three. When it got into the project area over south of the railroad
tracks, the one you're discussing~ staff really was debating. What you
should include in there, what we shouldn't. There have been no hearings
with the City Council. There have been no hearings with the HRA,~ I think
it is fait~ to say that both groups have a lot of concern over any of the
projects that come before then] today. Any of Brad's presentations, most of
which have been more or less...book of matches~ One of the biggest
expenditures that is in there for that size of roadway is the acquisition~
removal of Ready-Mix The major dollars that you're seeing incorporated
south of the railroad tracks is for that Ready-Mix acquisition. There are
no dollars associated with Amoco. There is no...for dollars to potentially
acquire ~ary Brown's property. His car wash. But if I'm seeing the tone
of HRA and the Council, they're really, the developer's really ~oing to
have to demonstrate that that's absolutely necessary before either of the
t~o groups... In the meantime, the plan has been prepared to give Council
and HRA that possibility.
Conrad: Okay. Does that answer your question?
Emmings: Well it's one of those deals where he said so much t don't know.
I don't know what my question was anymore. You snowed me Don. I'll all
for TIF. I'm all for buying up the Ready Mix. I'm all against the
Hardee's in that area or in that cornet-. I ~uess I was all that in favor
of doin~ this.
Conrad: I think it makes sense. Just out of curiousity. Everybody has a
problem with what goes down there. What should go down there? b4hy not a
Hardee's? What's supposed to go into this entryway to Chanhassen? Anybody
have any ideas? Planning Commission. Okay, just curious.
Ellson: We'I1 know it when we see it.
Ahrens: Any other restaurant or commercial.
Erhart: Just to counter Steve, I like Hardee's.
Conrad: See that's a natural place for a fast food or a gas station. The
challenge to us is, if we have some things that we think are appropriate,
we should be talking about those things but it always comes out, I hate
that. I hate that but what is it that we really want? This entryway. Ws
talk about this entryway to Chanhassen.
Emmings: I hate it when you ask questions.
Ash~orth: I think the traffic setting could very well... If you think
about it, you cannot get into that property from the east side. TH 101
~ill preclude the...from the east. The west access point is terrible.
Conrad: To me it looks like a lousy location for a Hardee's. Brad says
Hardee's wants to be there and I don't know. It just seems like a lousy
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 23
place for it but on the other hand, I guess that's what engineering's
supposed to tell us. Any other comments on this one? Anything else?. It
sure makes sense that we give the City the opportunity to do that.
Councilwoman Dirnler: Don, if the projects that are mentioned here, let's
say that we would not approve this. Say we don't want a Hardee's but we
want 'bo put in something else. Would this approval preclude us putting
something that wasn't mentioned in?
Ashworth: No. Actually as long as you stay within the total dollars, you
c:ould. One of them we looked at was this question, is Target going to be a
reality. Is there a necessity for HRA and the City to become involved and
how do you potentially guard against or keep options open if the Burdick
property, you have Charlie 3ames, you have the Ward parcel. The attorney
took the position that. as long as the total dollars have been allocated and
talked about a project, if the project actually ends up let's say over in
the Ward area and it ends up that the dollars that you used to straighten
out TH 101, that's a valid thing that can be done as long as you've
outlined it...
Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to keep the State from coming in and saying,
well that was approved in April and the...
Emmings: Ursula, I think in support of what's here, the motion isn't
specific about any projects at all. They're only used as examples that the
HRA is considering so I don't think our approval of this has anything to do
with specific projects. Is that right?
Ellson: Maybe we should just add that?
Ahrens: Why can't we just eliminate the Hardee's name?
Emmings: Those are just given as examples in the staff report. It's not
part of the motion. Here, are you ready for a motion?
Conrad: Yeah, I'd like one.
Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 90-2
finding Modification No. 10 of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan
consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan with a specific
understanding that the examples given in the staff report are not being
approved in any way by the Planning Commission.
Erhart: I'll second it.
Conrad: Any other discussion?
Batzli: I'm confused. As part of Modification No. 10, I mean they discuss
the examples within Modification No. 10. I mean it's not .just in the staff
report. There are concrete examples listed in Modification No. 10 on page
4.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 24
Ellson: He's saying to permit doesn't mean we're approving it is what he's
saying,
Bat. zli: I agree but it's stating that they're currently under, they're the
subject of negotiation and I just want to clarify that these are in the
Modification and not just discussed in the staff report before we vote on
that.
Emmings: Okay. What can we do about that? What Brian is saying is
absolutely right. In the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that you've got a
copy of, Hardee's is specifically mentioned as something that's...
Ashworth: The allocation, and I'll go back to the statement... As long as
they designated the type of project and dollars, if the project changes,
you're still alright. I don't see a problem with the wordage of your
motion at all.
Emmings: There may not be but I can hear Hardee's standing at the podium
saying, it said so right in the plan and you guys said the plan was okay.
Why, if we really think that's not something we want to look at. On the
other hand, is that something that's within the Planning Commission's
balewik or are we intruding on the perogatives of the HRA here or don't we
care?
Ashworth: Well it's kind of like the question posed earlier from the
citizens regarding the parks and who's responsibility. You look to a
number of different groups... The HRA provides you advice as to how they
feel the downtown should be redeveloped. However it is your comprehensive
plan that if you feel that amendments that they're bringing in are not in
character with what the Planning Commission would like to see for the
downtown area, I think that's your perview to say no.
Emmings: Nobody seconded my motion did they?
Conrad: No.
Emmings: I'm going to withdraw it at this point. Can I do that?
Conrad: Yeah, you sure can. Is there another motion? Oh yea you likes
Hardee's to my right.
Erhart: I was just kidding. I'll take a McDonalds anyday. Are you trying
to make a motion to exclude the paragraph?
Conrad: I thought you may have a different motion.
Satzli: Well do we have to be Hardee's specific? Restaurants.
Erhart: What you're talking about is excluding...
Ahrens: Can't we just identify it by location, t.he area and not define any
of these?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 25
Erhart: If you're looking for approval to expand the TIF, why don't we
just leave the proposal to them. Why do ~Je need the references to
Hardee's, Redmonds, West Chanhassen?
Conrad: Yeah, I think that's for the legislation from what t understand
for the purposes of the legislative intent.
Ashworth: If you, again talking this example, but if you use the Target
type of development ends up going somewhere else and you find yourself in a
position that the only way you can make the new roads work is to use tax
increment, if you have not put into the plan a general description of that
project, even though you moved it from one area to the other, you're not
going to be able to do it. If you don't like Hardee's, you can replace
Hardee's with retail development or .3List strike the word Hardee's. Again,
the major dollars under that section that are set up for Ready Mix and
maybe replace Hardee's with Ready Mix.
Emmings: Ready Mix is there.
Erhart: Why don't we just add some verbage that says, could include the
following but is not limited to or restricted to items (a), (b) and (c).
...nobody can come in later and say we are specifically tied to those
particular pro,3ects and it would seem to me that that would solve the
problem you have with the legislature and also to prevent any o'f thes
projects from coming in and saying we've given them approval. So Paul,
does that seem reasonable. Can you come up with some words that gives us
the flexibility?
Krauss: I'd really rather defer that to the City Manager.
Ashworth: I don't have a problem with that. So if I hear the motion
correctly, you're approving it but then amending Section (e) there to
basically remove any reference to Hardee's...
Emmings: (h).
Erhart: I though you indicated that you wanted to leave those references
in there for the purpose of going to legislature.
Ashworth: I do but if you want to take out Hardee's.
Erhart: No, I was just saying just change the wording to make sure that
we've got the flexibility in there that later on that we're not committed
to any.
Conrad: Basically in your introduction under (h). You can leave the
examples (a) thru (c) there. That's fine with you Tim as long as (h), the
i ntro to (h).
Erhart: States that we have flexibility in that and we are not committed
to those particular things and I think that resolves Steve's concern that
these guys aren't going to come in later and say well gee, this is the
amendment that we passed. So if things like include the following but are
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 26
not limited t.o or committed to or something like that. Steve, have you got
some words?
Emmings: No.
Conrad: I think include the following but not limited to sounds
reasonable.
Erhart: For the purpose of getting approval from the State, you have to
spell out some specific projects. Is that what we're hearing?
Ashworth: Right. And we can replace (c) for example and I don't know
about the header there but just say, if the projects south of the railroad
tracks, that. being TH 101 and Great Plains Bird ....
Emrnings: It's already got Amoco. It's got the car wash. It's got Apple
Valley Ready Mix and Hardee's all in there now.
Ashworth: I'm saying is if we can just eliminate all of the references.
The only reference would just talk about the general project area and to
include a statement saying it would include Apple Valley Ready Mix. But
otherwise there'd be no wordage there regarding Hardee's/Amoco/Car Wash.
Ahrens: Couldn't we just change the wording of (c) on page 4 to read this
project may entail the construction of a new Hardee's restaurant instead of
will? In the introduction it just says that the projects which are the
subject ow current or upcoming negotiation. There are no commitments to
that.
Emmings: That's good enough for me. That would satisfy me. I would
rather see Hardee's not mentioned but I think that's a good alternative to
Batzli: I think you should do that in the next several sentences though as
well. Everytime it says will. If a Hardee's is included, it may have
whatever.
Ahrens: Right. The whole wording would have to be changed in that
paragraph.
Conrad: What do you want to do Steve?
Emmings: That sounds like a good alternative. I like it.
Conrad: Okay, do you want to amend your motion? No, actually you withdrew
your motion.
Emmings: Well I'll make another motion. I'll make the motion as suggested
by the staff with a change on page 4, item H(c) along the lines that was
discussed and suggested. Basically it would read that this project may
entail the construction of a new Hardee's restaurant. The rest of that
sentence staying the way it is and the second sentence would read, if
approved, the Hardee's restaurant would have approximately 4,500 square
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 27
feet and the rest of that sentence as it is and that would be all of the
changes.
Ellson: Second.
Resolution #90-2: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning
Commission adopt Resolution No. 90-2 finding Modification No. lO of the
Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan consistent with the City of Chanhassen's
Comprehensive Plan with the following changes to paragraph H(c): changing
the word "will" to "may" and changing the second sentence to read; If
approved, Hardees would have approximately 4,500 square feet. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: That's the longest we've ever talked about one of these.
Emmings: That's because Todd wasn't here.
Conrad: Do you need a signature of mine on this? Normally the Chairman
has to sign it. Is there an official document that. you want me to sign or
can I just sign what's in here?
Krauss: I'm not sure.
Conrad: Anyway, I'll leave you this and if this works, that's fine.
Otherwise, normally somebody gets to [ne with a document that I have to
sign.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 4, 1990 as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: At the April 9th meeting the City Council approved the wetland
alteration permit for filling and alteration of the wetlands along Lake
Drive. That was something that you had raised some questions about
relative to the trade-off of wetland areas. The City Council raised
similar concerns. There's a related matter with that and that is the
McDonald's proposal which would also affect one of those wetlands.
McDonald's has revised their plan so they are not filling or altering the
wetland at all. There is still a variance for wetland setback. There is
an existing variance there. It's only 55 feet from the wetland now. Their
plan as they revised it would have resulted in a 10 foot setback and we've
asked them to revise their plan again to increase that so it's roughly
comparable to the existing variance there and we're making that
recommendation to the City Council. They have revised their plan by the
way in all the other respects that we asked them for so we're expecting to
go to the Council with a positive recommendation. The Roberts Automatic
site plan was approved by the City Council. However, Councilwoman Dimler'
raised a concern that, to paraphrase it basicall¥~ if there's HRA support
for a project, does the City have the right to ask for better than normal
or have higher than normal expectations for architecture. You may recall
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 28
that I raised some concerns with the quality of design but basically said
they met the ordinance so we're sort of limited in what we can do.
Councilwoman Dimler's suggestion was I thought well placed and it was
approved contingent upon them improving the building facade in some as of
yet. unspecified way. I'm going to meet with their architect and see what
kind of architecture we can get.
Conrad: Was it concrete?
Krauss: It's tip up panels. There's not a whole lot of definition though
in the office area and oftentimes you can get a lot of glazing or interest
there like Empak did and the Roberts site didn't really do that. We've had
the City Council authorize the consultant to help us with the consideration
of a storm water utility fund or other funding mechanisms. We keep on
talking to you about the storm water management plan and the wetland,
revised wetland protection measures. Those all get rolled into this
financing mechanism. Once we have a financing mechanism on stream, we can
do the work that we need to do. Zimmerman Farms was finally approved.
Preliminary plat. What was ultimately worked out and it went around and
around for quite a while, was a system of looped roads that in the future
is probably developers will provide a loop back from the end of Dogwood and
the end of Crimson Bay merging with a new entrance onto TH 41. So we think
that long term, the access needs of that area will be served. Lake Riley
Woods preliminary plat. The replat. That was something that you had
recommended denial of I think. They've pulled from the agenda. They
haven't gotten back to us yet but apparently their attorneys are talking to
one another trying to work that out. That was that one with the house and
drainfield are in the wrong place and the road's in the wrong place. The
zoning ordinance arnendment requiring posting of signs at developments was
given first reading. We also had scheduled discussion on the variance,
amendments to the variance ordinance which you had recommended approval of~
The Board of Adjustments, I scheduled an earlier meeting so I could sit
down and talk to then] before the City Council, raised a number of concerns
with philosophical outlook of the ordinance and how it was structured. 3ay
Johnson then said that because of his concern, he thought it was
inappropriate for the Council to discuss it and they're holding that over
for a joint meeting, which I think if May t4th scheduled for so I'll keep
you posted on that and we'll see what develops from that. One of the
things in your packet is I received a copy of a petition which, it stems
from the meeting that we had, the joint meeting or the neighborhood meeting
on the guide plan.
Batzli: Wasn't that before?
Krauss: I believe, it wasn't dated but I believe that it appears, from
reading the petition, that the petition came out in advance of that
meeting. That most of those questions were raised had answered I hope
satisfactorily at that meeting. I haven't seen anything about that since
but I just wanted you to be aware of it. I've also met with Bob Ostlund
from Chaska Schools relative to the siting of the future schools in the
oit. y. He's indicated that there is a desire to site possibly a grade
school and a middle school. The district doesn't have funding for it now.
City support of a site and potentially acquisition and holding it for the
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 29
school district would tend to strongly influence their decision. Bob is
corning over here with the School District's architect on Friday and we're
going to show him some maps and take him through some sites. The
probability is we won't be able to say specifically the grade school should
be here but we'll have to do it like the neighborhood parks, do a search
area type of approach. I guess that does it.
Conrad: Good job Paul.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Conrad: I'm trying to Get out of here relatively reasonably tonight.
Steve, you're leaving right?
Emmings: I should. I have a long drive in the morning.
Krauss: bJould you like to talk about yours first? I don't know, it's .just
a suggestion.
Emmings: I don't care.
Conrad: They're both really important issues. Let's start with Steve's.
DISCUSSION PAPER REGARDING COMMISSIONER EMMINGS NEW APPROACH TO CREATING A
"BLENDING' ORDINANCE.
Krauss: Basically as you're aware, we've talked-about a blending ordinance
on a number of occasions, most of which predate my coming to the City.
Basically, it's our understanding that the intent of the blending ordinance
is to mitigate the impact of new development which develops typically to a
15,000 square foot lots. Where it interfaces with old developments which
may have been at a larger lot size. In the interest of being upfront, I
guess philosophically staff has always had some questions with the
ordinance and we continue to question the equity of some of it but we've
talked it over with the City Attorney he believes that the approach that
Commissioner Emmings developed is one that could be upheld and because
you're interested in doing this, we want to work to pursue it and that's
why we put together the paper tonight. Commissioner Emrnings did come up
~4ith a unique approach. In the past we had tried to develop a ratio or
formula that would say you do x amount of blending at this site because and
basically found it was impossible to do that. Commissioner Emmings
approach is basically I know it when I see it and I think you paraphrased
it quite well. And again, it's something that the City Attorney felt that
in the subdivision ordinance we could uphold. I guess I'd like to ask you
to consider two modifications to it though. As I tried to apply the draft,
there were a couple things that became clear to me in discussing them with
the City Attorney. As currently proposed, the ordinance doesn't
discriminate between large lots that will ultimately be subdivided and
those that won't. I think it's am important distinction to make. I don't
want to belittle anybody coming here and swearing on a stack of Bibles that
they'll never develop but I guess to be honest, we always assume that
sooner or later they will. I think the only time a blending ordinance or
blending requirement should be imposed is when it can be demonstrated that
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - PaGe 30
the lots that you're protecting are permanently in that status. Now they
can be in that status because it's 29,900 square feet and it takes a
variance for lot area t.o subdivide it or because of terrain that there
simply isn't any way to divide it. And there's any number of ways of
proving that. There's a concurrent issue with what happens when you have a
subdivision that's adjacent to the MUSA line. I'd like to add something i.n
here that I think being adjacent to the MUSA line should be excluded from
the blending. It shouldn't automatically trip the blending unless those
lots can be further subdivided. MUSA line is a temporary fixture as we all
know and sooner or later it probably will be relocated. I Guess this isn't
to diminish the importance of the blending approach. It's just to.
hopefully introduce some equity into the thin9 and account for those
situations where we do believe that further development will take place.
The second one, and I hadn't had a chance to speak to Steve about this but
it appeared that the way it was worded~ that the blending requirement would
be applied to all the lots in a subdivision. That once you legitimately
trip the blending standard, that if you had a !00 acre plat, that all the
lots in there would have to have some reflection of this blending, or it
could be construed that way. I guess as I read it, I didn't think that was
necessarily the intent and it also causes problems because is somebody
comes to you and wants to develop a 100 acre tract and you're Going to say
everything in that 100 acres needs to be blended and somebody comes to you
in the same, 9ets the same property line and says I'm Goin~ to develop a 2
acre tract and everything beyond that avoids the blending requirement, it
becomes inequitble. So we've introduced or suggested two modifications
that we think address the issues that we've raised and basically with those
modifications, well we're looking for your Guidance on this but we think we
can put together, we know we can put together an ordinance that the City
Attorney's comfortable with and one that we think would be workable, g~ith
that we basically put this together as a position paper if you will to get
your reaction and we'll come back to you with whatever ordinances you
direct.
Conrad: Okay. Thanks Paul. Reaction. 3oan, start with you. What do you
think?
Ahrens: Of the changes?
Conrad: No, just the ordinance period. Do you want to...
Ahrens: We have discussed this in the past haven't we?
conrad: Well we have.
Ahrens: You want to talk about it again. I thought Steve's draft of the
ordinance was very good. It seemed to address the issue that we were all
concerned with. I understand the revisions that Paul made, or staff made,
and it. does clarify a couple issues. I never interpretted it the way Steve
wrote it to mean that. all lots within a subdivision would have to be
blended at some point. Is that ~hat the concern was? I interpretted it as
just the lots alon~ the periphery would have to be blended in with the
neighboring property. But obviously that wasn't clear to everyone so the
wordin~ here seems to clarify that point. I don't, have any problem with
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 31
the ordinance. I think it's fine~
Batzli: Well I think that raises the philosophical issue then of what are
we trying to do with the ordinance because if you're trying to get a true
blending, there would be kind of a trickle down through the development
from a large acreage or large lot as opposed to just requiring the
periphery to kind of match up and then the developer comes in with 15,000
square foot lots after he does one row along the periphery of large lots.
And so is the question, or is what we're trying to do to protect the
homeowners with large lots on the periphery of a lot that's going to be
developed or is it to get a true blending of lots throughout the
subdivision that's coming in?
Ellson: I think the people that are coming in get that choice but it's the
people who, earlier we were most concerned about the people who don't get
that choice. It's the people on the periphery that they've been sitting
with this big lot and then the new ones come in at 15,000.
Batzli: Yeah, I agree with that. That from an equitable standpoint of I
bought my lot. I didn't know they were going to put 15,000 foot lots next
to rr, e.
Ellson: The next guy does know that when he's buying his.
Batzli: Agreed but that's fine from equity but my question is, from a
planning perspective is what you're trying to do to protect that one group
of people with an investment along the periphery or is it to truly blend
lot sizes and go from a transition more smoothly?
Ahrens: Hopefully it would be the second.
8atzli: Well I would hope so but then this wouldn't do that necessarily.
Ernmings: This is aimed at doing the former.
Batzli: Yeah. This is an equity issue and that's the issue I wanted to
raise. The other thing I think is, ~hat the heck was it now. Oh, it will.
come to me again. I guess the question I had, it's in Roger's opinion.
He's talking about identical language that's currently in the code I
believe and he said that he has sustained denial of that but then he says
the blending ordinance would better spell out what is required and make the
requirement easier to implement and enforce. The question is, have we done
that by this ordinance? It still seems to me that anything we do, even
though we require justification the question is, is it any easier or is it
going to be just kind of an arbitrary thing that we impose.
Krauss: Well, in talking to Roger, I think the language, I think it was
Lakeville's ordinance that he upheld and it was kind of in the morn and
apple pie section of the ordinance that said the City has the right to
establish a larger lot size and it didn't say why. What you were trying to
accomplish or ~ow it would be applied. With either approach, with Steve or
with the modification we proposed, you're laying that out in much more
specifically than that Lakeville ordinance did which in Roger's opinion
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 32
gave even more meat to it and made it more defensible,
Batzli: But what's the standard? I mean Steve normally goes for a mom and
apple pie statement and then you get into the meat of it so that when
you're int. erpretting it, you understand what you're trying to do. Maybe
that's what this is missing. In part it's probably because it jumps around
through the Code so it's not laid out in a nice neat section that this is
the blending section.
Emmings: Yeah, I was looking for a place to put in kind of an intent
statement and couldn't find a place so I agree with you on that.
Krauss: There is a risk of arbitrariness with any of these things and
I mean we tried to point it out. Short of having a formula that says thou.
shall do it here because. We've already concluded that we can't come up
with that. You always run the risk of applying something arbitarily.
I think you run a greater risk of that if you don't specifically or attempt
to specifically limit or say exclusively where this blending ordinance
might apply. A for instance. Somebody comes in with that 100 acre tract.
They're adjacent to that large lot area. You have a meeting like you had
tonight where everybody opposes any development at all. Do you then say
that every lot in that 100 acre tract has to be 29,000 square feet? Or
that, you start with 29,900 and the next one's 28 and the next one 26 or
something like that. Frankly I have a problem ~ith that premise. I think
it is very difficult to administer. It opens the door to being very
arbitrary and it undermines the intent of the single family district.
We're willing to concede that there's, a valid concern for the direct impact
of somebody who has a larger lot who has development going on adjacent to
them. But I grow concerned with the assumption that they have the right to
not only dictate what interfaces directly with them but what also happens
down the street..
Batzli: Ripple effect throughout the property. The problem I have is that
if in fact let's say you, as by way of example, let's say you }nave a 2 1/2
acre lot development that you're going to be abutting. The premise would
be that you're not going to go any larger than like 29,900 or require them
to go any larger than that correct?
Krauss: Well frankly you mentioned that Brian, that's something that Roger
suggested and he suggested it to me late. It didn't make it into this but
he suggested that we put a cap.
Batzli: But at that point, if we did that and we had a 29,900 cap for the
lots which abut the 2 1/2 acre lots, after that it would be your feeling
that they could put in 15,000 square foot lots after they have...
Krauss: Yeah, because you're not impacting any existing homeowners. I
mean these are the people who are moving into this subdivision who know
full well what's the neighboring property.
Satzli: What's that do from a planning point of vie~4? I guess there was
one transition strip in there but from a planning perspective, wouldn't you.
rather make it more gradual?
Planning Commission Meeting
~pril 18, 1990 - Page 33
Krauss: No, in fact from a design perspective, it makes it incredibly
difficult to get a transition uniformally across something. You can do
that if you've got a cornfield in Kansas that doesn't have any creeks or
wetlands or anything else but with our kind of terrain, uniformity is
impossible.
Conrad: I think that's the developer's problem. The developer's going to.
do what is going to sell his property and I don't want to get into that.
All I want to do is protect who's there already. You've got to let the
developer do what he thinks is right that can sell his property and I guess
I personally don't have a need to blend internally as long as it meets our
other ordinances. I do have a definite need to try to blend with the
existing parcels.
Batzli: Those were my comments.
Ellson: I think it was a heck of job trying to do it. I still think that
it's going to be really hard to enforce. I know it goes against our grain
because here you are trying to plan as best you can but I don't know. The
only way somebody could be totally sure that they're not going to get
something 15,000 square feet next to them is by buying it or something like
that. I think they sort of, if it's zoned that way when they look into the
ordinance. Whether they look into it or not I guess is up to them but they
know that that possibility is there. I don't know how many this is going
to affect that we still out there, especially the part that it has to be
demonstrated that the lots on the periphery cannot be further subdivided
because I've seen in most of the cases the people that-are complaining
could easily tomorrow turn theirs into 5 tots and they'd be here talking to
us about it. And now we're turning them into, you won't be able to
subdivide later on or the next person that you're trying to sell to that
wants to do that. I just think it's a good try but I don't think we can do
it. I would have a hard time justifying it with one guy and trying to look
at another one and saying this is a little different so you don't have to.
So I guess I'm going to...
Emmings: I don't know if this does anything or not but I guess the
underlying notions were that this was something to be done on a periphery
of the new subdivision. And the other thing was to get something in the
ordinance so that when a developer comes in and says what do I }nave to do
to put a new plat in this town. What are the things that I have to take
into account and if this language is in there, or if the staff can say
don't forget this. You've got to be careful on the edge of your
subdivision that you're not upending existing subdivisions, that would give
them something to jawbone with. I think it's, well this is the third or
fourth attempt we've made at trying to put something into the ordinance so
obviously it's hard to do but I hope that maybe this would work. I think
it could.
Erhart: I appreciate the effort Steve's put into this. I know a couple of
us...take another jab at it. I view it also as not something that's going
to really regulate but it's just going to give us, if it was in there, just
some leverage to coerce developers into taking into account the
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 34
neighborhood developments. On the other hand, I guess my feeling about
land use is that I would never want to see the City in a position of
encouraging lots larger than half an acre. By the same token, well I'll
just state that as a general. I think 22,000 square foot tot is, that's a
big lot. If a developer wants to come in and make a subdivision full of
22,000 square foot lot8 because he feels there's a market for it, that's
just f i ne.
Emmings: This from a guy who lives on how many acres?
Erhart: I'm a tree farmer okay. It's just, my fundamental feeling is that
government should not be in a position of encouraging excessive ladd use
for homes. Individual homes. I think we found ourselves in that position
since I've been on this commission. By the same token, if this is going to
be used for that. If we're going to be out there throwing some 29,000
square foot lots in there when the market really wants 22,000 square foot
lots, I'm totally opposed to that. If I go back to the 3 1/2 years that
I've been on here and try to define where the problem has been, it's been
with those lots. Those landowners where there's a bunch of 22,000 to
25,000 square foot lots. In an older neighborhood that you're right, could
not be subdivided and all of a sudden 'we're coming in with a whole series
of 15,000 square foot lots. So. I think if we're going to put this in, I
think we ought to have a limit. I think the limit ought to be 21,500 or
22,000. Not 29,000. Because I think that would solve, in those few cases
where we had complaints where the old neighborhoods came in here can said,
gee whiz. You're going to diminish our land values because now we have a
whole neighborhood of 22,000 to 25,000 square foot tots and you've got all.
these 15,000 coming in and maybe two 12,500's in a PUD. A 22,000 limit
would have solved those people's problem and at the same time not putting
the City in a position of creating lots larger than they wanted. I just
can't imagine using the example that you had a 2 1/2 acre tot and saying
well gee whiz now you've got to have 29,000 acres in the first tier and
then 15,000 in the second tier. In the first place, you could never design
a road system around that.
Krauss: It'd be tough.
Erhart: Pardon?
Batzli: Slip of the tongue. You said 29,000 acres. That's big.
/rhart: 29,000 square feet. So those are my comments. I think the
concept's valid. I think there's a lot of statements that say well, since
there's no specifics or we're not going to enforce means it's useless. I
don't agree with those comments. I think anytime you have wording, even
adding some examples in this thing is helpful to the Planning Commission
staff to coerce developers into ultimately ending up with a plan we like.
By the same token, let's make sure we're not finding ourselves in a
position of artificially creating big lots.
Ellson: t4ell you just arbitrarily feel that a half acre is it? I mean
where did you pull 21 out of or 22? bJhat if the market is 157
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 35
Erhart: I think the City, we're protecting the neighborhood but at some
point you want to stop.
Emmings: You've got knowledge that 22, your figure of 22 is just as
arbitrary as 29,500. They're all arbitrary.
Erhart: It is except when you look around. When you look around and you
see the size of the lots coming in here today, they generally fall between
15,000 and 22,000 so that tells you that's where the market is. If a guy
wants a high quality...
Emmings: That tells you how a developer maximizes his dollars. That.
doesn't tell you where the market is.
Erhart: It might be but if a guy has a wooded area and he comes in with a
22,000 square foot land because that's the upper end of the market today.
Emmings: I don't know. You may be right.
Erhart: That's what I've seen. That's what we're seeing.
Emmings: No, what we've seen is not necessarily what the market is. Maybe
the market that's being built out here right now but that doesn't mean,
I mean you can go other places and see other sized lots. You can see 2 1/2
acres in southern Chanhassen and people are building down there so I don't
think it's all arbitrary Tim. You've got to give me that.
Erhart: No, no. No, I don't think it is. A 2 i/2 acre lots because the
City said they're going to be 2 1/2 acre lots. If you would go down and
poll the people buying 2 1/2 acre lots, I believe that 80~ of them would
have been happier with 1 acre lots.
Ernmings: You may be right.
Erhart: The only way they could get over 15,000 square feet. was to buy the
2 1/2 or 22,000 square feet. But most people who ~ant big lots would
prefer to have 1 acre because they can mow it. They can take care of it.
And I'm just saying, welt anyway.
Conrad: Are you interested in pursuing this issue?
8atzli: Excuse me? I'd love a 2 1/2 acre lot.
Ellson: But you really wanted 1 acre.
Conrad: Not Tim's point but specifically the blending.
Batzli: Yes.
Conrad: Okay. Even though we're talking about the periphery.
8atzli: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 36
Conrad: Okay. Question Paul. In terms of your example where it couldn't
be divided again. A 45,000 square foot lot could be divided again so how
are you going to preclude me, and therefore based on your ne~4 comment is,
thaL's exactly the situation that I have a problem with. It's the 1 acre
abutting the 15,000 and I really don't have a real problem with the 2 1/2
acre. I think there's some things that we just can't really solve very
easily when you have a 2 1/2 acre against anything. I don't care if He put
a 22,000 square foot there. They're not going to be happy. I don't have a
solution for that one but based on what you're telling me, an acre is going
to be able to be subdivided and therefore, based on that example and your
recommendation, this wouldn't apply.
Krauss: Generally speaking yes. You can't unilaterally say that an acre
lot can be further subdivided. I mean there may be instances where it
can't. It cow. id be a lot of wetland with a house sitting smack in the
middle and you can't subdivide. See that's where the work load increases
because we have to get that information but typically the reason why I was
saying 29,999 is because 30,000 you can divide it in half. But I think
Roger's point about a cap, wherever that cap is is well taken because it
would place some strict limits on what our expectations are.
Conrad: I don't want to drag this out any longer. I think we should pursue
it. At first I didn't like it because it seemed so arbitrary. It seemed
like we were getting into never-never land but if we put a cap on it,
I like that. I don't like 22,000. I like something bigger. I don't think
22,000 solves anybody's problem. If I'm at 15,000 and 22, I don't know.
Yeah, I just don't think 22 is the right number yet but we can debate that
one later on. I would like examples like Tim said. Either for us to go
through them during a public hearing or as part of the document that this
is. I need to know what we're looking at. I want a developer to see how we
would apply this particular formula.
Krauss: One thing I think in the interest of fairness we need to do is if
we actually structure an ordinance and put this on an agenda, we should
contact some of the more prominent residential developers in our community
and say look, we're discussing an ordinance that affects your business.
What do you think about this? bet them take a crack at it.
Conrad: Yeah. We might as well.
Krauss: I'd just as soon have a calm meeting but I think it's the fair
thing to do.
Conrad: Are we talking, is there a minimum size subdivision that we're
talking about here? Are we talking about everyone that comes? Every
subdivision or should there be a standard where you don't have to go out
and look? Are we talking about 4 pieces or everything?
Emmings: Let me add one little gloss here. The reason that the second
sentence, the second clause was in the first section here that bothered
Paul and Paul took out. It said that the proposed subdivision has lot
sizes compatible with development in the general area in which the
subdivision is located. I had a specific one in mind when I did that. and
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 37
that was the one that ~4as approved on Mi nnewashta Blvd.. If you remember
there '~ere 5 lots. Five 15,000 foot. lots wedged into a property and it
was · · .
E11son: It was across the street if Z remember...
Olsen: No.
Emmings: And it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that
it didn't fit. in the area.
Batzli: Is that the steep one down to the lake?
Emrnings: Well no. It sits up on kind of a hill and then the lake is
beyond it but ~4e approved those 3 lots because there was kind of no way not
to approve it and that's the one I had in mind here. I guess when we're
talking about the periphery, I'm thinking more of developments like. we've
seen, the one that came in next to where 3ay lives over here. I can never
remember names of the subdivisions. Where you've got rings of things.
That's where the periphery language comes in but I thought for the small
one where there's 4 or 5 lots where talking about the periphery doesn't
make any sense, then somehow they ought to somehow fit in with what's in
the area in general.
Conrad: I think you're still right.
Emmings: So that's what I was trying to get at there. I don't think, I
obviously didn't do a good job.
Krauss: Steve, in that case though, aren't they across the street, from
larger lots as well as being on the exterior, the north and the south side?
Emmings: Well the thing is, there's no periphery. They're all on the
periphery then,
Krauss: But the language, if it's justifiable.
Emmings: Maybe that's good enough.
Krauss: But there's a point that I just realized too. That you may want
to set a bottom range on this. For example, if you have a vacant 30,000
square foot plot of ground that happens to be next to a larger lot, are you
going to tell that property owner that you won't accept any subdivision at
all because they can't blend?
Emmings: No~,l wait a minute. Tell what property owner?
Krauss: If Ladd owned a 30,000 square foot lot wedged in between two
25,000 square foot lots. Current ~ording in ~the blending ordinance says
you could deny Ladd any subdivision at all because he can't blend.
Emmings: If it was Ladd I would. I don't know. That's tough. That's
tough.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 2990 - Page 38
Krauss: I assume we could put in some language that says that this
ordinance will not be used to preclude any subdivision potential or
something like that.
Emmings: Yeah, I guess I basically feel that probably that person
shouldn't be denied to subdivide that lot.
Batzli: So you're going to deny developers of large projects but not..
Ellson: But not the little guy.
Erhart: If that's what you're doing, then you shouldn't be doing this at
all .
Ellson: That's right.
Erha. rt: Then you're treating people differently.
Emrnings: Iqo. You don't, have to be, you don't have to always treat
everybody the same. That's kind of a goal but if a result is nutty, you
don't have to do it. You don't have to be dumb. You don't have to, you
could be reasonable about it. I think this is directed maybe we'll ~ant to
say that. Maybe we somehow want to, maybe we ought to just forget the
whole thing. Maybe we want to put it over but I'm more worried about the
big subdivision coming in next to the existing big subdivision. Then I am
about the single lot wed~ed between two other lots.
Councilman Johnson: This conversation brought up an interesting idea.
What if when se~er becomes available in Timberwood~ 4 or 5 of these all
have 3 acres...
Ellson: That's exactly what will happen.
Councilman Johnson: Decide to go to 15,000 acre lots right in the middle
of all these 2 1/2 acre lots and the rest of these people don't. I mean
we're getting a lot of these subdivisions where that could get, I mean one
guy could have 2 1/2 acre lot could split it off into 3 or 4 tots. Right
in the middle of a subdivision of 2 1/2 acre lots. And when you start
interspersing $500,000.00 homes ~ith
Emmings: Well see, that might be a place where you could use this language
to say we're not going to let you do that. We're not going to let this go
down to 15,000.
Councilman Johnson: And that's going to be a problem for Chanhassen many
years from no~ ~hen the southern side starts getting sewer with all of
these 2 1/2 acre lot. subdivisions. Some people are going to save some
dollars...
Ellson: Do you want him to look at caps and things like that? I think, we
go through this every time and it keeps coming up.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 39
Conrad: Well it's a tough issue but ,your choice is not to deal with it.
Ellson: Well I agreed to try to take a look at it and I think we have and
I think we're coming closer to the conclusion nobody wants to make and that
is, no, it can't be done. I don't doubt other cities have tried to do it
too. It would be a wonderful wish list but awfully hard to enforce and too
many exceptions to the rule and taking away people's rights. I just think
how many times do we have to rehash it? You just don't want that to be the
answer but, there's got to be another way.
Satzli: Why don't we just raise the minimum lot size from I5,000 upwards?
Conrad: Well that would solve it~ Well it still wouldn't~
Krauss: It wouldn't solve it~ it would defer it.
Conrad: Next step. Should we just defer making a decision right now and
go through an exercise whenever we can reschedule it and look at practical
examples of how this would work? Should we have staff develop, based on
our comments~ a draft ordinance and hold a public hearing? I'd rather not
do that one.
8atzli: I'd prefer to fine tune it a little bit more. If there's a public
hearing ~
Emmings: We're not ready for that.
Conrad: Yeah. So what would you folks like to do?
Ellson: Kill it.
Batzli: I would like to see staff work on it a little bit. I don't know
that it should be our highest priority with the Comprehensive plan and
things but I'd like to see them continue to work on it and come up with an
upper limit and potentially a lower limit as to when it would apply and if
there is a rational basis to do those two things as well as formulate an
intent statement and come up with wonderful examples. Not much.
Krauss: Well those questions also raise questions that I think I need to
pose to Roger and see if he still buys the legitimacy at that point.
Batzli: Well the cap he bought.
Krauss: The cap he suggested.
Batzli: The minimum size he might have a problem with you're saying?
Conrad: Why don't you put a little bit more energy into this one Paul for
us. I don't know how much we're talking about. I would like to bring it
back with comments from Roger on some of the specifics and maybe your
reaction to some of'the things that we've had but I would like to go
through some examples. We go to the board and just play out how it would
work with different confiuurations of developments or subdivisions that
PLanning Commission Meeting
April 18, 1990 - Page 40
might come in so we can see how we would react to it. Just little play
script or whatever. Just so we know what this would mean. How we would
handle it. when it came in. It's 10:00. Steve is ~leaving. What should we
do with the next item? The Business Fringe District.
Emmings: It's real important and it's real hard. I don't know if you
people are going to stay here real late but I sure would like to have some
input in here but I do have to
Erhart: Why don't you give us your comments?
Conrad: I really have to get out of here.
think it deserves everybody's comments.
Krauss: We could reschedule it for the next meeting.
Conrad: Are we time sensitive on this because this is a real important
issue. I really want to get into this. I don't feel real good about
skipping it.
Krauss: There's nothing happening that's going to affect anything and the
grading ordinance is proceeding on it's own relative to Moon Valley which
isn't in the district anyway.
Conrad: Okay. Do we have time on our next agenda to look at it?
Krauss: I think so.
Conrad: Okay, let's do that. Any other discussion? Any other items?
Ellson moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at lO:OD
Submitted Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim