Loading...
1990 10 17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Jim Wildermuth and Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 1S SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF-'AND LCOATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND FOREST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION. Public Present: Daryl Fortier Jules Smith Jim & Mary Stasson Brad Johnson Jim Duchene Craig Weinstock Rodd 3ohnson Linda 8arrk Sharon Morgan Rob Drake Richard Wing Fortier and Associates, Applicant Attorney for Applicant 6400 Peaceful Lane 1001 Lake Lucy Road 96i Lake Lucy Road 1101 Lake Lucy Road 1061 Lake Lucy Road 960 Lake Lucy Road. 940 Lake Lucy Road 980 Lake Lucy Road 3481 Shore Drive Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Conrad: We'll open it up for public comments and we'll give the applicant who is Fortier and Associates and Frank 8eddor 3r., if Daryl you have anything to say. A presentation or any comments on the staff report. We'll start it with you. Daryl Fortier: My name is Daryl Fortier. I represent Hr. Beddor. We are purchasing this property from Mr. 3oseph Troendle. I have a larger drawing here and I believe each member of the commission has received an 8 x 10 copy of this so perhaps it'd be easier if I just show it to the audience off to the side here so they can see it a bit easier. For the most part we are in agreement with the staff report. We do have two items that we'd like to bring to the Planning Commission's attention. The first addresses the additional right-of-way off of Pleasant View Road. We understand that staff is of the opinion that eventually Pleasant View Road will be widened. We also understand that the Pleasant View Homeowner Association as well as other people along the Pleasant View Road have fought this issue before and it is a highly charged politically. Previously, I believe it was 1981 there was a proposal to widened the road and that proposal was rejected by the City Council after lengthy debates. We don't believe that there is any policy or program in place that would suggest that the widening of the road Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 2 .' is indeed going to happen. Therefore, Mr. Beddor is not of, he is aisc one of the people, one of the many who are opposed to the widening of the road. Therefore he would not like to take any actions which would favor widening the road and that would include the giving of additional right-of-way for that purpose. He is therefore requesting that that be striken from the staff report or not be accepted. Be rejected. Whichever word we would choose. He is not in favor of giving up the extra 7 feet and he would like to see his property treated the same way any other piece of property along Pleasant View Road would be treated. Should the City decide that they will widened Pleasant View Road let's say 3 years from now or 5 years from now, this piece of property should be treated no differently than any other piece of property including Mr. Beddor's residence across the street. You would use whatever political consensus and finances are necessary to achieve to take the land by condemnation or to purchase it and widened the road. It will be part of the same battle as the remaining 2 miles of Pleasant View Road would be. So with that background Mr. Beddor is not in agreement to granting the 7 foot easement. The other issue we have to discuss is the Troendle garage which staff correctly points out is 21 1/2 feet from the right-of-way and this would put it in violation of the 30 foot setback requirement. We have been unable to reach Mr. VanEeckhout who is the adjacent property owner but we believe, we have reason to believe that we may be successful in altering the alignment of the road such that the 30 foot setback can be required. If I can direct your attention to the overhead projection, under Block 1, Lot 2, which is the Troendle property where the garage sits, if you will look at where the road comes in from the east which is the Vineland Estates, you'll notice that the road does not come in at a right angle. It comes in at about a 97 degree angle. We would like to see that changed to 93 1/2 degrees. If we change it to 93 1/2 degrees, it only affects 7 feet of property, less than 7 feet of property on Vineland Estates. Mr. Beddor is willing to buy one of those lots to help achieve this. We believe Mr. VanEeckhout will cooperate. This will allow us to make a subtle adjustment to the road such that the road will not angle but the road will be closer to a true east/west. This will put Mr. Troendle's garage 30 feet back from the right-of-way in which case the issue will disappear. However, we haven't reached such an agreement yet and so as a result we are asking that consideration be given to a variance, a temporary, variance. The reason we are doing this request and we are going through these extraordinary measures in trying to accommodate Mr. Troendle is that his folks originally purchased this land. He was born on this land and he is now 80 years old and has always lived on this land. We, Mr. Beddor is granting him a lifetime estate and has agreed that there will be no development in the four lots off Pleasant View Road as long as Mr. Troendle resides in his residence. He would like to make it as comfortable for Mr. Troendle as possible to see the ultimate development of his property without impacting his lifestyle or causing him any distress. Mr. Troendle does use that barn. I'm not sure for the exact purposes. He does park a car in there, he does do a number of hobbies in there. He is constantly in the yard so we are requesting that a temporary variance for a non-conforming use of that garage in terms of setbacks be granted only so long as Mr. Troendle personally resides in the residence. If he should become ill and require long term care which would not enable him to return, we would agree to immediately dismantle that garage or remove it. Similarly, if for some reason he were to decide to sell his piece of property we would similarly agree that it would be immediately removed. We are asking this only as a consideration for Mr. Troendle's Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 3 comfort and care and it really does not affect the development. We will try our best to get the road moved but failing to do that, we would ask that the variance be granted. The other items we have are really no longer issues. I've not had a chance to review the issue of a shared access off Pleasant View for Lots 1 and 4 and I've had a brief chance to review with Mr. Beddor the idea of park dedication fees in lieu of parkland. I've also talked to staff and they've indicated that they have some concern with Lot 4 of Block 1 which is immediately off Pleasant View. There was concern as to whether or not this area was filled or whether it was a wetland. We would like the opportunity to talk to Park and Recreation and consider giving that lot to Park and Recreation for a vest pocket sort of park. And depending upon how the wetlands adjacent to it on the Art Owen's property is defined, it may turn out to be a very fine addition as a park. We are not in favor or opposed to that. We are simply saying that option should be left open. Park and Recreation may not have a chance to realize that we would be willing to donate t'hat land. Any questions I'll be pleased to answer? Conrad: Okay. We'll probably have some later on. We'll open it up for other comments. Are there any? Jim Stasson: My name is Jim $tasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. My house is this house right here with the brown roof on the corner. Back when the Vineland Forest thing was developed, we were never notified through mail by the City that anythino was going on there and as I understand when it was first developed it really didn't affect us because the access to that was going to go right out to pleasant View Road. Right now if you could see, they plan on running this right over here to Peaceful Lane and we're going to have, instead of 3 houses connecting to Peaceful Lane, an infinite amount of houses. That Peaceful Lane also has a very wide radius corner which people do not slow down to go around at all. With 3 houses there it's not too bad, although Art Owens has a big family and Sunday afternoons it can be quite a traffic jam in there. Mr. 8eddor seems to be going to gain out of this and we're going to pay the bill by having all the traffic go by our house. We don't really think that's fair. He's so far off of Pleasant View Road, you can see his tennis court between the road and his house. He moved his driveway and took a good half a dozen trees off of Mr. Troendle's lot. We're talking big trees and planted them all on so he doesn't see any of the traffic. I guess I'd do the same thing if I was in the position to be able to do that. Peaceful Lane is a 27 foot road. The mouth of Peaceful Lane is 130 feet. If nothing else, we've talked to Jim Chaffee when he was the safety guy. We talked to him 2 years ago the last year. I realize he's no longer here. He said he would report back to us on you know, whether they could square that corner off and we've never heard anything from him, or from anybody. $o thank you. Conrad: Good comments. Thank you. Other comments. Rodd 3ohnson: I'm Rodd 3ohnson from 1061 Lake Lucy Road. The issue I see at hand for myself and the homeowners along the street that we're on is number one, it's open already back to Nez Perce and we get a lot of traffic that way. Sure I'd like to see that closed off at the end but I know that won't happen necessarily from what I can see. And I'm not necessarily opposed to developing the land in here in that I also built a house and the land was developed but what I have a problem with is that if the, and this Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 4 is corrected to what I see, is that they're going to put it through but I don't like the way that it's going to go through number one. I think it should go straight across. Due to the fact that if it doesn't go straight across to Pleasant View, people are going to be more apt to come down the road that I'm on now anyway because it's straight. I mean they're already going down it at 40 or 45 which has been witnessed by everybody that's on the road. And the second we have emergency vehicle access. I look at that and think the route in and out of there would be better facilitated to go straight through. I have to kind of chuckle the way that it's been all of a sudden altered around the guy that's developing his property. It's not, it seems a little like he doesn't want to bear his part of the. burden yet he's going to make the money on all this and that is kind of outrageous. Conrad: Thanks. Maybe I should just interject and maybe you weren't involved in previous hearings but we have been and maybe you weren't notified simply because you may not have been within the notification distance and we have some standards of who gets notified. I'm not sure but that's a quick guess. In the past when we've looked at this parcel, other homeowners in the area have been real concerned where the road's go and it wasn't Mr. Beddor as much as it was other homeowners along Pleasant View. They weren't, although it does look like it benefits Mr. Beddor and it probably does, I think the other homeowners were pretty consistent in terms of what they wanted. Especially the neighbor that that road would have gone right next to, within a few feet of his door and I recall that very clearly feeling rather concerned for a roadway given what he's lived in for a while. You probably have the same concerns understandably. Mary Stasson: But that neighbor was also a renter. Conrad: I wasn't aware of that. Yes sir. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I live at 1001 Lake Lucy Road. Me're just concerned about additional lots here. It looks like there'll be what, 13 additional lots that would have their only access to the trunk highway through Lake Lucy Road. I don't believe Lake Lucy Road east of CR 17 was intended as a major thoroughfare from it's construction, design and width. As Rodd already said, we've got an awful lot of traffic there as it is. I think it's unfair that we bear the full burden of the traffic out of both the current development and this proposed one. I know that they're showing this road supposedly going through to Peaceful Lane. That's kind of presumptious. They don't own the land. They don't know that they can acquire the land. They don't know that they can develop there even when it would be available for acquisition. I'm sure people on Pleasant View have some concerns. So do we. The burden should be shared fairly. Conrad: It's a funny thing how everybody does sell their land and we wish they didn't, some of us who've been around a while but you're right. There's no guarantee that that property will be subdivided but it's, land in Chanhassen is extremely valuable. Resident: Someday. 20 years from now when my kids have maybe been run over by one of the fast cars on there. We get a police car through there once every 3 months. Conrad: Other comments. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 5 Daryl Furrier: Zf Z can just address some of the concerns of Hr. Brad $ohnson has raised. The extension of the road through Hr. Owens' property is not as presumptious as it may seem. We have already studies grades. We've already studied roadways. We've already studied utilities and we have submitted much of that material to staff. We've also more importantly talked to Mr. Art Owens, the owner of the land who would favor this and he is on public record of favoring it. Resident: When? Daryl Fortier: We talked to Mr. Art Owens within. Resident: When would this happen? Daryl Fortier: We don't know. Mr. Owens is right now tied up. It is similar to the issue of when does Pleasant View get widened. We don't know. Resident: We live there now. Daryl Fortier: Yes. And people are driving down Pleasant View right now and people are driving down Nez Perce. Nez Perce at points only measures 22 feet wide and people are flying through there. We believe, now I don't want to expand this whole argument on one parcel of development to a whole city wide issue but we know there are apparent limitations in every city and some of the limitations are particular bottlenecks and I'm sure the city will do it's best to correct them. That's beyond the scope of this proposal. The proposal will really reduce density as proposed to other proposals. Not to you and not to other people but the overall development, it is following in a fairly good comprehensive plan that has been directed. My whole point of being up here is not to defend all of those issues but simply to point out to you that Mr. Art Owens is aware of this. Mr. Art Owens has been cooperative and he would favor this proposal. Resident: I noticed you said bottleneck, making sure that there isn't one. Wouldn't it be more of a bottleneck going that route than it would be to go straight through to Pleasant View? Krauss: Mr. Chairman, could I address this because there's some misleading information in Daryl's plan and I'd like to give some background on it. Conrad: Why don't you address the Peaceful Lane issue too if you can. Krauss: Yeah, I will. We first became involved with this with the Vineland Forest plat which is the chunk of land that's immediately east of the subject site. There were a number of alternative access concepts looked at for that including cul-de-sacs from Pleasant View. Cul-de-sacs from Nez Perce. Throughout it all staff advocated a thru street. We thought from a public safety standpoint, emergency vehicle access and the need to provide proper service, since there really is no north/south route between Powers and the lake, that a thru connection should be made through there. And we looked at a number of alternatives to do that. Ultimately and correct me if I'm wrong Ladd, but the Planning Commission wound up approving that without a recommendation on the street as I recall because it was such a complex issue. It went up before the City Council and the Planning Commission Heeting October 1_7, 1990 - Page 6 Planning Department with the Engineering Department looked at a variety of alternatives to provide access into that area. There is no particular order. In this one you can see the dashed line was one of the originally proposed plats of Vineland Forest...cul-de-sac from Pleasant View. Staff had a problem with this one as did some of the property owners. But this alternative had the thru street coming through down to Peaceful Lane. It was hooked into basically I think what was Art Owens' plat. Art Owens had approval to subdivide his property and that plat has since lapsed. But he apparently did intend to develop at some point in time. Another alternative here was a loop back basically from Pleasant View to Peaceful Lane. Ne didn't think it accomplished what the City needed to obtain through here which was a thru movement. Alternative 4. Here was the thru movement directed...by Vineland Forest but there was also a link through here so we didn't have an inordinate number of dead end streets. They weren't cul-de-sacs to provide the residential atmosphere. Ultimately the one that the City Council went with was Alternative 3 and this is what the Vineland Forest was built to. There's a temporary cul-de-sac which I'm sure you're all aware of that sits sort of right over here right now and there's a sign on the end of it that says this street is intended to be extended in the future. What we did is lay out a route that made grades and made some sense from a design standpoint that really is...cul-de-sacs, we were most concerned with the thru movement, that obtained a reasonable connection to Pleasant View Road. One diffetence with the plan that Daryl showed tonight is the thru movement comes through here. Now it was never intended to go straight into Peaceful Lane and it was always assumed that when and if this is done, that this whole intersection needs to be rebuilt and that question of the 127 foot wide road would be resolved at that point in time. There is no replat on Art Owens' property right as I understand and this is kind of hearsay, that the property is tied up with a tax issue or something like that or an estate issue. But basically the City Council adopted a concept that was supposed to guide these decisions as properties are developed in the future. Is that the only way to serve it? No. Clearly there were other alternatives but this was talked about for a good 3 months or so and this was the compromise that came out of it. As to traffic on Pleasant View which was one of the comments that Mr. Fortier raised, nobody denies the fact that improvements to Pleasant View would be a long and arduous process and nobody envisions a 4 lane street going through there necessarily at some point in the future. I believe at one point in time the extension for the crosstown highway was supposed to come through there. Around through there but there's no denying that Pleasant View Road is a highly inadequate and often unsafe road. It's underwidth. The turn radaii are too tight. We've got over 1,000 cars a day using it today. We've 3ust gotten the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and in a weighted model that basically says that people will realize how bad a street this is and try to avoid it, even in the weighted model it's anticipating that in the next 10 to 15 years, traffic on that street will grow up to about 2,500 trips a day. Now at that point in time, while you're not seeking to widened it to 4 lanes, you certainly will be seeking to widened it so that there's sufficient pavement width for people to pass one another in opposite directions and that you can safely take curves. Nobody's looking forward to dealing with those issues. We realize it's going to be tough but it's something that somebody sitting in this chair at some point in the future's going to have to deal with. That gives an overview of the process. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 7 Conrad: Other comments? Mary Stasson: I have a comment. Alternative ~4. This one. I live on the corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane and this proposal shares the access by everybody. Pleasant View Road which I'm a part of, Peaceful Lane which I'm also a part of and Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road. Here I see this is the perfect way to go because the burden is shared by everybody in this proposal. Conrad: I think the concern at that time, and there were a lot of concerns. A lot of different opinions. What a lot of residents along Pleasant View were concerned with was to get the access as close to CR 17 as possible. Mary Stasson: But see the thing is, if they want to go down Pleasant View Road, they're still going to go up Peaceful Lane and then they're going to turn and go down Pleasant View Road. You're talking 3ust a minimal amount of space. Conrad: That was their opinion. To get the access as close to CR 17. Mary Stasson: They're still going to go down Pleasant View Road... Brad 3ohnson: ...that stretch can be what, a quarter mile if not a half mile at the most? Conrad: But the other end of Pleasant View as it dumps out on TH 101 had the same. The residents had the same concern. Same exact concern and I heard both those. Resident: The traffic I don't believe would be going that direction. They're going to go out to CR 17. Krauss: No, that's not true really. You've got to realize that Crosstown Highway is going to be extended to TH 101 in the next two years and that's going to introduce a lot of movement to the east through there. How they're going to get there we frankly don't know. Pleasant View Road's the only road that goes there. Brad 3ohnson: I acknowledge that you did the Vineland Forest. Those of us on Lake Lucy, we are naive. Ne saw the way they were doing things and we thought that street was going through there. It was at one time. He didn't know anything about these processes so we weren't here. We were quite upset when we found out it wasn't and we realized it was a little late then. We don't really... Jim Stasson: Also at that time the way this is shown on Art's property, that was already done. We knew about that and okay we're going to have 15 more houses on there. We can live with that but now when you connect it all up and you get rid of the other access to Pleasant View Road, we've got 50-100 houses coming by now. Or after that. Mary Stasson: Our driveway, it comes out right here. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 8 Jim Stasson: You're looking at the wrong side. We're right here. Our driveway comes out right there and the people that come around this corner, like I said before. They'll come around it at 30-40 mph. Mary Stasson: This is 130 feet across here. Jim Stasson: Right now there's 3 houses accessing that. With 50 or 60 houses accessing that, my dog won't be safe more than 2 steps off the driveway. Mary Stasson: We have a 30 foot driveway that empties out on that road. Conrad: As Mr. Krauss said, if development goes through that road has to change. Period. In terms of access to Pleasant View. It just has to and the City's committed to doing that. It can't stay the way it is. Mary Stasson: We're not going to be able to get out of our driveway. That's what's going to happen to us and that's why we've already been trying to get ahold of 3ira Chaffee to have him come out there and look at the situation for us. Even the way it sits right now. Jim Stasson: You mentioned that this, Nez Perce is 22 feet on the corner? Krauss: No, I never. Jim Stasson: Where it ties into Lake Lucy? Right down here. Krauss: Oh! Jim Stasson: Is that 22 feet? Krauss: Yes. Nez Perce is an undersized street. Lake Lucy Road was built to a better standard. Nez Perce road and that whole neighborhood to the southeast of there, I think we're all painfully aware of the fact that it was built with inadequate roads. It was buit without storm sewer and the utility systems are old and beginning to fail and something's going to have to give in there but that is the only thru street in that neighborhood. Brad Johnson: Have you done a study on how many cars are going on it now? Jim Stasson: That street wasn't there until what, 3 years ago. Jim Duchene: 2 1/2 years ago when they put Lake Lucy thru. There's another street down, Carver Beach Road which is down. I'm Jim Duchene on 961 Lake Lucy Road and what I guess I'm opposed to is the traffic that we're getting back from the other side of Nez Perce. We're getting a great deal of traffic feeding out onto our road our front. It is a bad corner. If you haven't been down there, 22 feet. They come around on probably a 90 degree corner. It's a problem. I don't know. I think the City ought to look at that. I think it should be closed off. I think they should take that road out and still leave a fire lane through there. It wasn't there before. We're feeding now these other homes. We have a new development and I'm not sure how many lots are back there. Krauss: 15. In this plat? Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 9 Jim Duchene: No. In the previous one? Krauss: Oh, in Vineland was about 21 but 2 of those accessed out to Pleasant View. Jlm Duchene: 21. We're talklng another 15 plus we're feeding everyone else off Nez Perce now off of Lake Lucy Road. I have not seen any traffic studies. I don't know if you have as far as cars on Lake Lucy Road but being out there I do know and the homeowners that are here, we're all here tonight. Every home that's on that street is represented here. We have one missing? And it's a problem and that's why we're here in front of the Planning Commission. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy tends to become a dragstrip. You've got a 30 mph speed limit. You're got lower speed limits on roads that are wider around here. They come off Nez Perce and they, especially the younger people, and they are really flying. Brad Johnson: Because it goes downhill. They have a good time on there. Then they go up...S curve before it gets to CR 17 and they're all over the place there. Then last spring when Vineland Forest was in, all the heavy trucks were coming through before the road restrictions were off fully loaded. Our street's going to be torn up. You put development... Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Joan. Questions? Comments? Ahrens: Isn't the option of having Nez Perce Road run down to Pleasant View Road a dead issue anyway because of the plan? Krauss: It's certainly a dead issue through the Vineland Forest plat. That plat is over and done. We have no capacity to get that right-of-way save buying 2 lots I suppose. Ahrens: So the only access to Pleasant View Road is in this fashion that's shown on this photograph that we have in our plans? Is that what you're saying? Krauss: Yes. Ahrens: Unless they purchase these Lots 1 and 2 and run the... Krauss: At this point in time running the street north through Vineland Forest is not possible from the standpoint of the City being able to get the right-of-way through the platting process. /hat's all platted property. I suppose theoretically you could run that connection over on the Troendle property but I haven't looked at the grades over there. If memory serves they're not that bad. But if you move at all to the west of Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 10 Troendle's house, you start falling off into that low Net area which makes it impossible to make the road connection. Ahrens: What about this low wet area on Lot 4 of Block 17 What do you think about his proposal to turn that over to the City for parkland? Krauss: The Park Board's already reviewed this proposal and does not want the property. I don't know that they were asked specifically about that lot but traditionally taking individual lots that happen to be conveniently located for a developer is not, that does not fit the bill for the Park Board. That's pocket parks. Are interesting design features in urban areas but what they become in communities like ours is a very difficult maintenance problem and they don't serve enough people to make them worthwhile. Consequently there's a policy that the City's funds and efforts should be devoted to more significant facilities. Ahrens: I have a lot of questions about that wetland in there as I mentioned to you earlier. There seems to be a question about whether or not it's even a wetland, from what you said. And I've noticed over the last few years trucks bringing fill in there and it was a low area. I mean it looked like a wetland to me before they started filling it in. Can you shine some light on that? What is going on with that wetland? Krauss: A little bit. For more extensive report I'll really have to get 3o Ann Olsen to give it to you because she's been involved with that property for some time. But Mr. Owens' has been filling that property. The City's been going out there and having it stopped for at least the last year and a half to 2 years. That area was never pristine wetland. As I understand it, it took on wetland characteristics when drainage out of the area was altered and there's been some indication that the City may have altered it somehow during a construction project, whatever. But since the water's impounded now, it's causing wetland vegetation to spring up. The wetland proper or the more significant part of the wetland does not truly fall on the Troendle property but to the extent that it does, it's being preserved or improved if you will into a retention pond that will have some water in it. We still have an issue with the fill on Owens' property. There was a hope that it would have been rectified. I believe Mr. Owens wanted to have some lots there with his plat and staff always said that that's where your drainage goes and even if it wasn't a wetland, it's a retention pond so there was always an issue there and it was one that was supposed to have been resolved as I understood it when he came in for his final plat but in the event he never did. Ahrens: How was he going to resolve that? Krauss: At this point I'm honestly not sure. I'd need to get updated by my staff. Conrad: Joan, it was not an officially mapped wetland but it sure was one. Ahrens: Well that's what I thought. I've driven by it and before he started filling it it sure looked' like a wetland. Conrad: It always was what was mapped Paul? Things over an acre and a half I think. This might have been under so it wasn't mapped. It was a Planning Commission Meeting October i7, i990 - Page 11 wetland. Ahrens: The City's asking for a 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road and the developer has said that they're not going to go along with that at all. I imagine that, I mean I don't know how, if Pleasant View Road is going to in the future be improved, t don't know how we can approve a plat without an allowance for the additional right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. Do you see how that can happen? Krauss: Well it's obviously our recommendation that we do take the 7 foot right-of-way. As I said earlier, we believe that there is a significant traffic volume on that street now. We expect that to grow regardless of everybody's efforts to keep it low. Ahrens: Didn't we require that further up on Pleasant View? Krauss: There was right-of-way that was taken off a subdivision across the street that was for Mr. Beddor's son. I don't recall exactly how much it was. Christmas Acres. Ahrens: And also further east. Batzli: Did we take it for Vineland? Krauss: I don't believe, no. We did not take it for Vineland. Ahrens: Not for Vineland but for the one that's on the other end. The three lots that was, what was that? It starts where Pleasant View curves and goes down the hill. There's some lots being developed right in there where it's going to be divided into 3 lots. Krauss: I think that's the Christmas Acres. That's across the street. Ahrens: No, no. It's way down at the other end. Anyway. Gerhardt: The east end. 3ay 3ohnson: She's on the other side of the lake. All the way on the other side. Ahrens: Right. Where we just divided those 3 lots. Gerhardt: Fox Chase? That one? Krauss: That's next door to this. Jay Johnson: North Lotus Lake Park. Batzli: Right. Yeah. The one across from the North Lotus Lake Park which is what 3ay just said. Right across the street there where they subdivided those. The guy that had the water in his basement continuously. Krauss: Oh, oh, oh. By the street that. Batzli: Well those right there and then across the street again. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 12 Krauss: Yes. We did take extra right-of-way off of that, yes. The one where we had the city lift station down by the lake? Batzli: Yeah. Those and directly west. Krauss: Baldur Avenue? Batzli: Yes. Krauss: Sathre Addition. Ahrens: I mean that's a nothing isn't it? That's what I thought. You know it seems to me that Mr. Troendle's also making a lot of money off this development. I kind of feel like with all the new proposals that the developer has brought in tonight, I feel like it's real difficult to discuss this. There's a road change that's being proposed and a slight road alteration and he wants a variance. And the 7 foot right-of-way.·. Conrad: But that road alteration would eliminate the variance. Ahrens: The what? Conrad: The road alteration would eliminate the variance. Ahrens: I have more comments but I agree that the sight lines on Peaceful Lane are terrible and I realize that the City does intend to fix that road but boy, it's bad now. Batzli: Why didn't we take 7 feet or additional at Vineland there right next door to the east? Krauss: Commissioner, we're really not certain. I think it falls into the category of being an oversight. I mean things were so focused on which end you're coming in on and it was running in a different direction from there. I don't offer that as an excuse but just I think it was overlooked. I'd also have to say too that the data that we're using now for the traffic forcast and it comes out of the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and that's only been completed and delivered to the City in the last 3 weeks. Ahrens: When was that approved? Krauss: The Carver County Transportation Study? Ahrens: No, no· Vineland· Krauss: It was approved in something like November of last year. Batzli: On the plat it shows a portion of Pleasant View Road to be vacated on one of the maps here of the plans· Is that assuming I would suppose that they don't have to give up the additional 7 feet? What is that for? That's Lot 4, Block 1. Krauss: Oh, I see what you're saying. I don't know. That's probably a presumption by the applicant that they were going to maintain existing Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 13 right-of-way Daryl? We're looking to maintain 80 feet throughout. Now that's 40 foot on either side of the center line and I believe we have a 66 footer there so it's traditional that you take 7 foot on either side. We would seek to, assuming the condition is upheld, we would seek to rectify that. Batzli: How long is this Troendle May cul-de-sac? Krauss: It's approximately 400 feet. Well from Nez Perce it's approximately 400 feet. Batzli: What's our normal guideline on that just out of curiousity? Krauss: We've traditionally used 500 feet. There's been a lot of them approved between 500 and 1,000. Until the connection's put through to Peaceful Lane or to Pleasant View, this is quite a lengthy cul-de-sac because you've got to add in all the distance back to Lake Lucy Road. The only reason we're somewhat comfortable with that is that so much effort's been put 'into the concept of how this is ultimately going to be connected that we view this as a temporary situation. Batzli: Is there any problem from staff's point of view in any of the realignments of the roads regarding lot sizes after it's either widened and/or adjusted? Krauss: The proposal that Mr. Fortier brought to you tonight? Batzli: That as welt'as the proposal, I think the cul-de-sac road isn't wide enough as I understand it. Krauss: Oh, no. Those lots are all oversized. There's plenty of give with that. The lot in Vineland Forest where they would propose to swap land if they swung that road a little further south, that's an 18,000 square foot lot so there's probably room for that too. We'd want to see how this layout occurs that Mr. Fortier's proposing. It looks reasonable. We don't want to introduce too many curves into this street though because it's already somewhat curvalinear and this is supposed to be a connecting street. The more curves you introduce, the less utility it will have. Batzli: I would be much more in favor if it's possible to realign the street a little bit than provide a variance even if it's just for lifetime estate on that particular structure. If I had my druthers. Folch: Just a correction on that Troendle Way. The actual right-of-way width on the street portion at 50 feet is currently adequate. It's just the cul-de-sac, the radius of the cul-de-sac that's being increased to 60 feet. Batzli: Okay. My other questions had to do with whether Lot 4 is a wetland or not. I guess we've already discussed that a little bit and having been through staff's study of the various ways to have traffic flow through these potential developments, I guess I didn't expect the problem tonight. It sounds like until the road goes through to Pleasant View and until they improve that particular corner, there may be some problems and don't know what we do about that in the meantime. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 14 Conrad: Problems where? Batzli: Regarding traffic both loading up south and as far as eventually coming out onto Pleasant View from, this small route here. Conrad: Is that a concern with Nez Perce traffic? Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. Steve? Emmings: I support the recommendation that's been made by staff. Just a comment on the issues that we've got that have been brought up tonight. At least the ones on that proposal. There's no doubt in my mind that we should require the additional right-of-way. We have the right to do that as a condition of the plat and it should be done. As far as treating Mr. Beddor the same as everybody else. Everybody else isn't subdividing or we'd be requiring it of them too I'm sure. And with regard to the, the only other one that kind of caught my attention is the garage that's located on Lot 2 on Block 1. I guess I'd make a proposal or there shouldn't be any variance granted. That's clear to me but I think maybe, it's my understanding Mr. Troendle is what, 80 years old? I think that we could make an accommodation here that would be reasonable and I what I'd propose is that we simply say that either that the garage be removed or relocated or the road will be adjusted to create the necessary setback. And that the timing of that, that will be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, 8lock I or when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property, whichever occurs first. I think I could live with that, to not change his property until he's no longer living there. Otherwise I don't have anything else. Batzli: But I mean the road, if it's adjusted will happen before anything develops so it's an either or really. Either the road is adjusted or then you don't issue a building permit for Lot 2. Is that what you said? Emmings: Right. That's essentially right. I guess I just said that either you move the building or you move the road. If you have to move the building, you do it before there's a building permit or when he's no longer living there full time. I don't know how we'd ever know but that's a separate issue. Conrad: That's staff's problem. Anything else? Emmings: No. I guess as far as the location of the road, that's done. Resident: There's always alternatives. Emmings: As far as the road goes, that's done as far as what we're doing tonight. It's a non-issue and what I was going to say was I think you have some valid concerns but I think they ought to be addressed to the City Council. Jim Stasson: You mean the existing roads or are you talking about the proposed roads? Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 15 Emmings: I'm talking about Nez Perce the way it's lined up to go. If you're interested in... Jim Stasson: You mean outside of the development? Where are you talking about? Emmings: The road, as Nez Perce is designed to go through to Peaceful Lane, that has been determined by the City Council and if you've got issues on that, address it to the City Council. Brad 3ohnson: Are you saying that that part over Art Owens' property is a done deal? Emmings: This path, as I understand it, this path for Nez Perce. Batzli: It's not platted. Krauss: There's a conceptual alingment. It only becomes effective when their property is platted. 3ira Stasson: So it's not done. Emmings: Okay, it's not done. Then don't address your concerns to the City Council. I mean I'm telling you that if you have concerns, this isn't the forum for them. This is not an issue in this plat. This fits with the conceptual plan of the road. Brad 3ohnson: We don't think the plat should be approved unless that issue is taken care of. Rodd 3ohnson: This plat is still open. He can still access the Pleasant View Road right through. Mary Stasson: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Satzli: What I think, we get our guidance from the City Council and they have looked at this and reviewed it and basically given the guidance to us that conceptually this is what they want to see and for us to tell the City Council now that no, we don't like that. Do something else. We probably won't take that step because they told us what they think they want to see. Mary Stasson: But when do we get a chance to speak? 8atzli: You'll get a chance to go to the City Council when this goes up to the City Council and that's really, I think you have to get your group back together and address your concerns to them because they're the ones that told us this is what they want to see. Brad Johnson: So what is the purpose for tonight then? Rodd 3ohnson: Why are we all here for an hour and a half? 3im Stasson: If you guys don't have anything to say about it. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 16 Batzli: Well we have a lot to say about a lot of issues but on this particular issue, I don't think we're going to change what the City council has told us they want to see. Conrad: I'm interested. I think we have our input so I guess I'll reflect a different opinion. I feel comfortable with the alignment that was proposed and only because we struggled with it for so long. I think it's unfortunate, and there weren't any good solutions. I think most people that live in the area don't want that area developed at all, as I would guess you wouldn't but on the other hand it is. Flat out it is and I think we struggled with that. I think the alternatives that I heard mentioned tonight were not acceptable to me before and they still aren't. That doesn't mean we explored other alternatives. I guess I'm interested from a Planning Commission standpoint. Not that the City Council decree that this is the road alignment. They did to a degree do that. I'm curious if anybody feels that you'd like to reopen that issue and suggest to the City Council that they reopen the issue. Emmings: I can tell you for me I think that this is the plan they adopted is a good one because it doesn't put another entrance out onto a road that, out onto Pleasant View. So I preferred this one. Conrad: And that was my opinion when we looked at that. I think two roads and especially the straight that would have connected the Carver Beach area and the strip straight across to Pleasant View I thought was a negative alternative. This is a better alternative as I see it. This is just me speaking. Brian. 3oan. Do you have a feeling to want to open up or to recommend that the City Council looks at road alignment or are you comfortable or do you not know enough at this point in time to even, you may not have been around. I don't know. Brian, you were. around. 3oan, I don't think you were. Batzli: Of the options that we have remaining since Vineland went in and the road is where it's at, I think that this is the best alternative that I've seen. I mean sure there's probably other alternatives and I thought we addressed a fair number of them and this was a reasonable alternative at that time. Ahrens: I agree. I think that we should be directing as much traffic as we can as quickly as possible onto CR 17. Conrad: Just a comment. Paul, this neighborhood obviously was not involved when the other neighborhoods along Pleasant View were and they're thinking they got the short straw in this one. Brad Johnson: How about know? Conrad: Don't be so negative. We're trying. Brad Johnson: I'm sorry. It's our street. Conrad: I know it is. I empathize. I know what you're feeling. What was the reason they weren't involved? Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 17 Krauss: I honestly don't recall who was notified. I know that we had some comments from people on Peaceful Lane because... I certainly got phone calls from someone. Conrad: I thought we did too. Brad 3ohnson: I called after I found out what was going on but that was after it was already going to City Council. Before we even had a shot at coming in here and saying. This was done in November. Krauss: The final plat was approved in November. Conrad: Okay, it might have been. Mr. Emmings gave you some input and probably nothing that you're really thrilled with. I guess I'm telling you from my position I'm pretty comfortable given all the negatives and positives and some of the things, requirements we were trying to do and really it's hard to reflect back months ago. But I'm not uncomfortable uJith this road alignment. I think you really should be at the City Council meeting to express your concern. They did say that this is what they'd like. I don't say that we'll just dump it off on them. I'm telling you that I feel comfortable with this road alignment as I looked at the alternatives many months ago but I think you've got to stay, as I prefaced before, if you all go in with the numbers you had tonight, they may pay some attention to you to reopen the issue. Okay? Some other questions. Block 1, Lot 4. That's a buildable lot? Krauss: Frankly Mr. Chairman I don't believe it is. It's very tight which is why we've recommended a shift of lot lines to increase the building pad. And some of that pond is being excavated out and it's also possible to shift that excavation somewhat further to the south. Conrad: So, okay· I missed that Ahrens: How could you adjust the lot line of 3 and 4...buildable. It looks like the only corner that's buildable. Krauss: No, not between 3 and 4. Between i and 4. We require 90 foot of width and that lot 1 is 140. Basically you skew the property line so that it runs to the northeast. Conrad: Help me Paul. Where's the recommendation that we do what you just said? I'm scanning real fast and maybe t just can't pick it up. Ahrens: You talk about it in the report. Krauss: I 'm sorry, it should be in there. I know we talked about it in the text. Conrad: Yeah, it's not there so I don't know that I can approve that unless there's a motion to claim it an unbuildable tot right now until it's proved that a building pad could meet setback. Z too, I don't have any problem with the 7 foot requirement in the staff report. That's the wa>' it's got to be. It's an absolute· We'll take it. Now's the time to do it. Not that I'm really wild about expanding Pleasant View to tell you the truth but I think now's the time to do it and that's not even a debate in Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 18 my mind. I agree with Steve in terms of his motion. I think that road should be realigned to try to meet the setbacks. I don't know, I could never say what you said but I hope you can reconstruct what you said Steve. And from the neighborhood standpoint, we'll look into finding and Paul, can you get back to me next, 2 weeks from now. Is that a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan? What's 2 weeks from now, anything? Krauss: It should be a regular meeting. Conrad: Okay. I'd like to know why this group was not involved. Every 2 weeks we come here and we talk to our neighbors like yourselves and there's always somebody saying he wasn't informed. As Paul says, the first thing he learned in planning school is the neighborhoods come in and say why wasn't I informed of this so it's pretty standard but it appears to me that they're are a lot of you here that were not informed so I'd kind of like to look and find that out. It may not help you, you know right now and you're sort of at the end of a process which is unfortunate. I think if the Plesant View owners that were here in the other time periods, they're probably double your numbers that were here talking about they don't want this at all. Maybe very similar to what you're saying and then okay, if we've got to have it, how do we minimize the traffic coming from Carver Beach? How do we minimize the traffic going down Pleasant View? How are we safe? How are we this? How are we that? Here's what we came up with. I know you don't like it but that's what we tried to, we tried to satisfy some of those needs and now you have another one. I think the only other thing I can say is that the road access out to Peaceful Lane will be improved to be acceptable when that link is made. It would be acceptable to according to standards. There couldn't be any other way. That may not feel comfortable either but it would have to be. Resident: ...would that be south where it used to run down CR 177 Krauss: Yes. Resident: That was looked at? Krauss: There's actually a stub right-of-way that comes up from Lake Lucy inbetween two homes. Resident: They did look at that? Krauss: Yeah. As I recall the grade was too significant coming through there. Brad 3ohnson: That's our big problem...Art Owens property. The access to Pleasant View. And to approve this thing now when that is, people can say what they want but nobody here knows when that's going to happen. Conrad: That's true. Yeah. We have situations like that all the time. Is that good or bad? It's probably bad but there's no perfect way to solve that problem. You can't hold up somebody's right to develop unless you can prove that it's unsafe. Rodd Johnson: When you talk about being unsafe...Nez Perce and Lake Lucy corner that we're talking about that was 22 feet and I believe... Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 19 Krauss: No. A normal right-of-way which is the land we own is 50 feet. Charles, normal pavement width is what curb to curb now? Folch: It is 28 feet face of curb to face of curb on a minor residential street. Rodd Johnson: Is Lake Lucy a minor residential street? Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy it would be okay but it's that Nez Perce corner... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Conrad: I think the comments from Mr. Fortier, I understand them but I don't agree with them. I do agree with Steve, your comments and I don't want Lot 4, Block 1 to be a buildable lot at this time until it's proven to be buildable. So how do we handle that one Paul? Krauss: Well I'd add a condition. It was an omission on our part because under the grading/drainage section we do discuss the fact that that lot is marginally buildable and there's no rear yard for the homes should they build one there. Put in a condition to the effect that the lot lines and grading shall either be reconfigured to enlarge the buildable area on that lot or it should be combined with Lot 1 to make a single larger lot. Conrad: Okay. Any other comments? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision ~90-15 of the Troendle Addition as shown on the plans dated "Received September 17, 1990" subject to the conditions in the staff report. 1 thru 13 as presented in the staff report and then an alteration to 11 as follows. That one will read that the garage barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or relocated or the road shall be adjusted so that no variances are required. If it is necessary to remove or relocate the garage or barn, that shall be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property, whichever should occur first. The balance of that llth condition will stay the way it is. Then add a condition 14 that would state the following. That Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an unbuildable lot. That the applicant must either adjust the lot lines or otherwise combine the lot with the other 3 lots in Block 1 or in some other way insure it's buildability to the satisfaction of the City staff. Conrad: Okay, thanks Steve. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any discussion. Batzli: Yeah. I'd like to make two minor amendments to the plan and the third point of the 8th condition I'd like to add the following sentence. This is after the additional 7 feet of right-of-way. No vacation of Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstanding the plans submitted by applicant. And then the 10th condition I'd cross off, will be accepted and insert the words, shall be required from the applicant. Conrad: Would you modify your motion? Emmings: Sure. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 20 Conrad: Any other discussion? Batzli: Yeah. I think that that's the first motion I've ever heard you second and I was really impressed. Emmings: I'll second that. Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #90-15 for Troendle Addition as shown on the plans dated September 17, 1990, subject to the following conditions: A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block ~ prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear cutting, except for the house pad and utilities will not be permitted. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 4. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership. 5. The cul-de-sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet and the street name shall be modified to either Troendte Circle or Troendle Court to eliminate any 'confusion in applying it as a through street. Final street plans shall be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. 6. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding area until such time that turf is established. Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing. 7. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4, Block 1 is required and a cross access easement shall be provided. This common section of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10~. 8. Provide the following easements and rights-of-way: a. The drainage and utility easements along the westerly property line of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown on the preliminary plat accordingly. b. The acquisition of a drainage easement through the property immediately west of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 will be required for the discharge of the detention pond. c. Additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. No vacation of Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstanding the plans submitted by applicant. Planning Commission Heeting October 17, 1990 - Page 21 9. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding basin. Eight inch sanitary sewer at a minimum rate of 0.4~ shall be constructed on this subdivision and service locations for all of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal review. The final plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 10. Park and trail fees will be required from the applicant in lieu of parkland dedication. 11. The garage barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or relocated or the road shall be adjusted so that no variances are required. If it is necessary to remove or relocate the garage or barn, that shall be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property, whichever should occur first. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed. 12. The temporary cul-de-sac should be provided with an easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade equipped with a sign indicating the road will be extended in the future. 13. Lots 1 and 1t, Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Way. 14. Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an unbuildable lot. The applicant must either adjust the lot lines or otherwise combine the lot with the other three lots in Block 1 or in some other way insure it's buildability to the satisfaction of the City staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: This goes to the City Council on the 5th. Are you telling them that? Okay. I think you've got to go into them with some specifics. It's pretty characteristic. What you said tonight is pretty standard for what we hear from neighbors on a lot of things. If you want a particular road alingment, if you don't like that one you know, you should have a recommendation that says City Council we would like you to do this. We would like you to study the traffic patterns from Nez Perce. It's dangerous now and we can prove it. You've got to go in with some solid stuff because we hear this all the time. They really were the ones that did set this alignment in terms of the general direction and I think they're the ones that can take another look into it. So thank you and don't stop your interest. Mary Stasson: Will they again look at the safety? Conrad: I'm not sure. It was a major issue of alt other homeowners who came in at previous times and safety is an issue with the Planning staff. We just don't like to do things that don't make sense. This is not a high intensive use of that land. It's a pretty low intensive use. You know if we were talking about 12,000 square foot things and high rises and what have you, we're not talking a whole lot of intensity here. Even though Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 22 it's far more than what's acceptable to you because you're dealing with, it is. It's not out of character with what Chanhassen is becoming. And so it's, the safety issue was a concern before as we made that link between the Carver Beach area and Pleasant View because it was simply a straight shot. across and that was the concer. It was going to be a dumping ground for, you know it's just going to be the quick route to the Crosstown. Paul is telling us tonight, it's still going to be a quick route to the crosstown no matter what so you know, we dealt with that information before. Well, I just wanted to talk to you a little bit. Brad Johnson: Lake Lucy now is a dumping ground and a quick shot for everyone down on Nez Perce so, talking about safety, that corner is bad. I think that's what our homeowners are concerned about. Conrad: I appreciate you coming in. Brad Johnson: Is there a record that goes to City Council? Conrad: They get this. We have a City Council member here tonight so. Emmings: They get verbatim Minutes also. Batzli: Tune in every Saturday and watch the video broadcast of this thing. PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1. THE PURPOSE OF THE MODIFICATION IS TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT TO AUDUBON ROAD. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Steve? Emmings: I don't have any comments. Conrad: Brian? Batzli: I don't have any questions. I think it's a wonderful resolution. Perfectly consistent with the development of the city of Chanhassen. Conrad: You go along with anything the government wants right? Batzli: Right. Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? Resolution #90-2: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution finding the Modified Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 consistent with the City's Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 23 Comprehensive Plan and the development of the City of Chanhassen. voted £n favor and the motion carried unanimou$Iy. All APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad: We have approval of Minutes but we can't approve them. Emmings: Why? Batzli: We did it before. Emmings: Three of us were here right? Oh no. Batzli." Only two. See we did that before where we had less than a quorum and we approved it and our city staff was going to come back and tell us if we couldn't do that. Emmings: ...A majority of the people who are here now who were there then. Conrad: I don't think that's right. Emmings: I made it up. I'm willing to accept that it's wrong. Batzli: We could always move to approve them and then this time we could actually find out later if we can do that. Ahrens: Why don't we be daring and do that? Emmings: Why do we care? Batzli: The City Council actually adopts them once we approve them don't they? Krauss: No, they accept them. Batzli: They accept them, oh. Emmings: What do we need to do here? What can we do? Conrad: I think there are cases if you don't approve the Minutes, well you're a lawyer. Emmings: So what? Conrad: That's what I've always said. Makes no difference to me. Surrounded by legal people and you're alt saying break the rules. I don't understand that. Batzli: Well you two are going to vote. We're going to abstain so we don't care what you guys do. Conrad: Yeah, if you would like to, let's just do it and see what. I really do think Paul you've got to get back to us on how we, what are the rules regarding approval of Minutes. But anyway, is there a motion? Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 24 Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the Minutes or-the Planning Commission meeting dated October 3, 1990 as presented. Emmings and Ahrens voted in favor and Conrad and BatzIi abstained. The motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION: Conrad: Paul, what else do you want to take us through tonight? Krauss: WeI1 on the Open Discussion stuff, number 3, Review City Notification Policy for Ordinance and Development Review, that was put on here. Tim Erhart catted me up and wanted to discuss that and since he's not available. Conrad: Let's bring it back next meeting. Krauss: I think it was relative to the industrial and the testing station. By the way I should tell you that the testing station has apparently secured an alternate site. It's on that outlot that's next to McDonalds on the eastern side of there which is in the BH District. Batzli: Wasn't there a Class B wetland right in there? Krauss: No it's not. This is quite a large lot and it's on the other side of it. Emmings: That's better? Well, maybe. Conrad: I don't think that is better but. Ahrens: I would think access would be harder. Krauss: Well it's got two signalized intersections. Dell Road is being built as one right now and Dakota. You're looking at a property that the owner believes can be split up into four commercial sites right now and under the BH District, each one of those could be a fast food restaurant. Ahrens: How exciting. Krauss: Yeah. So an alternative that generates half the traffic of a fast food restaurant may be appropriate. I don't know. I guess I've always had a concern that this is going in a BH district anyway but that's the site they're looking at. They're planning on bringing that back to you the second meeting in November I believe. Satzli: What happened last week? I didn't read the Minutes? Emmings: It was a 3-2. Batzli: To go in there? Emmings: To allow in the 10P and Tim felt very strongly about it and I think 3im. They both felt very strongly it was inappropriate there so it was pretty hotly contested. I have a feeling that this is a good alternative. First of all, I think it's appropriate in the BH, Second of Planning Commission Meeting October _17, 1°)90 - Page 25 all, it just will eliminate all the bad feelings it generated about it going into the IOP so I think it would probably be a good idea. Krauss: Well you'll get a chance to take a look at it. It will be right next to the IOP district line but you'll see it in a few weeks. Or next month · REVIEW OF BERM IN LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST ALONG AUDUBON ROAD. Krauss: We did look into the berm issue on Lake Susan Hills West. Commissioner Batzli I believe was inquiring as to why that wasn't done on a recollection that there was supposed to be something there. What was supposed to be there is quite minimal. The trees aren't there yet. They'll be installed after the roadway improvements are done but there is no significant buffering or berming that was proposed on that site for whatever reason. Emmings: I was the one. I distinctly remember. I know and I still remember that we talked about a berm there and how it didn't get into the plan I don't know but I know that we discussed that. Krauss: It'd sure be handy if we had one or had some mechanism to force it. You're aware of the Comp Plan public hearing is being held next week at the Chan Elementary School. Batzli: What time? Krauss: 7:00. We didn't send out separate notices because I thought mentioned this at the last couple of meetings. Conrad: Oh no. Emmings: 7:00 on, this is the 18th. Krauss: October 24th. It's from 7:00. They usually shut the school down at 10:00. I asked them if we could lock it up at 11:00. They agreed to that. You don't have to tell the public that if you don't want to. We notified everybody on our mailing list which is, I don't know the exact count now but over time people who have expressed an interest have been put on a mailing list. It's probably upwards of 150 people have received mail notice from us. I've got articles running in both newspapers this week so anybody that reads the local papers. Commission Ahrens tells me it's in the Sailor on the front page. I haven't seen that yet. We do have copies. You've got the entire draft in front of you now. That's the entire text plus a new map. In the paper and in my memo I told people that the plan text is available to them tomorrow morning. I've only got 10 copies of that because I don't think really many people, apart from Eric Rivkin who's already requested one, are really going to take it ~ome and read it. But maps are being given out today and as we speak. We're just handing them out to anybody that's expressing an interest. You may want to give a little bit of discussion. I know Commissioner Batzli and I talked about this a few weeks ago. To how you want us to manage that meeting. I think possibly, well both neighborhood meetings we had I thought were good illustrative examples of how to manage a meeting. There was an overview given. Time limits were set. The questions were addressed to the Planning Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 26 Commission. In fact I felt very good about the fact that at the second meeting particularly that Chairman Ladd, you and the Planning Commission were responding to the questions and it wasn't staff that was asked to respond to them. Conrad: I'm not doing that anymore Paul. That hurts. No, we'll try to do that. Emmings: Did you see the Blues Brothers you know when they sang at that Country Western bar and they had the screen up between them and they were throwing bottles. Will we get one of those screens? I think we might need it. Or could we have a garbage can cover so we can deflect anything. Jay Johnson: You did Eckankar without a screen, you can do this without a screen. Emmings: That was a piece of cake. Conrad: We'll just put bags over our heads. Batzli: I feel strongly, let me just follow up-on what Paul said. I feel strongly that we have to speak about our own plan and not just leave it up to the staff and consultants. Because if we don't understand the plan and if we can't express some sentiments as to why it's a good plan, I don't think it's a very good plan. Conrad: What's your format for presentation Paul? Krauss: Well I thought we would do it the way we did it at the neighborhood meetings where I gave a short intro. Mark stood up and explained what the plan was pointing it out and then we threw it open. I think by and large most of the faces that you see there will be familiar of]es · Conrad: Okay. During those, the reason we had the neighborhood meetings was to air, to hear their comments· Now we're going to throw out something and basically we have not incorporated most of their comments into this plan. Krauss: Well I don't know that that's true though. Conrad: Well, we've incorporated some but we obviously haven't taken care of Eric. I bet you we've incurporated a third. So there's two-thirds that we haven't. So I think we have to aggressively deal with the comments that we heard and how we resolve them. Some of those that we resolved were late at night. We said we just plain don't want to deal with that. I guess I'm curious as to ho~4 the commissioners want, they're going to be real irritated, they're going to feel like we didn't pay attention if we don't at least describe the concerns that we heard and provide the rationale for why we didn't incorporate those. Am I wrong or do you feel we should just present what we've got and deal with their comments as they come up and deal with why as they come up? Deal with why we didn't incorporate them. Ahrens: I think the way we should do it. The big issue we discussed at length like Eric Rivkin's proposal. It's real obvious at that neighborhood Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 27 meeting that a lot of people who were named on his petition who weren't necessarily in agreement with him and a lot of people stood up and said they didn't like, who weren't on the petition, said I wouldn't go along with that anyway and, I don't know. We're going to leave that to you Ladd. Conrad: I do have something else to do that night. But I guess if nothing else I need a cheat sheet or a recap Paul of the major issues that were brought up as well as what you believe our rationale was. I know you're taking 7 comments but I think maybe it's even your creativity that justifies why we didn't incorporate it. And the only other thing that I'm interested in, we did change the plan based on the community's involvement and I kind of what to provide a sense that we listened and when it was important, when it was relevant and the right thing to do, we changed it so therefore most people will only focus in on the one issue that they care about and if they lost, they lost and as far as they're concerned, we weren't sensitive to anything but how do we provide them with the feeling that we did pay attention? We did try to do the best modifications that made sense. Krauss: Possibly we can give them an overview of those. Now in the letter I sent out to everybody and in the articles I hope that are printed, I did ask both newspapers to explore what the main points of contention were over the summer and that we've heard and what the response was. I guess there were basically 5 points that they touched on. In the letter I described the fact, you know Timberwood was always an issue. Timberwood is now surrounded by residential development. That Sunridge Court raised a concern with industrial being up against their property tine. As a consequence the Rod Grams property was changed to residential. That there was a lot of investigation as to which, should you go with the original plan or the alternative plan north of TH 5? Did the Commission determine that the original plan was historically correct and followed the Lake Ann Interceptor and made sense to do? There was concerned raised about a commercial center, neighborhood shopping center at the intersection of Galpin and TH 5. As a result of that concern, that was eliminated. Then as a result of the general issue of how industry interfaces with residential, we developed a buffer yard concept amd that's now on the plan. Ahrens: ...time with the Rivkin plat because I don't remember any specific arguments why we didn't go along with his proposal except for it just seemed like the right area to develop. I mean they're going to say why did you change your decision oD some areas and not ours. That's going to be a tough one I think. Conrad: I wasn't here for that gathering and I tell you, whoever is going to have to. I can justify what the decision was but I don't know, I wasn't here to listen to all the different comments. Emmings: Can I ask something Paul? Now it sounds like people, ail of you who have been talking about this so far feel that the public hearing is a place where they have to justify to the public what we've done in putting together the comprehensive plan and I'm not sure that that's true. A public hearing is a place for the public to have input into the process. If they stand up and say I don't like this part of the plan for these reasons, that's satisfying what the public hearing is for because then we get to consider what they say and so does the City Council. Itm not sure Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 28 we have to justify every decision that's been made along the way. Conrad: Don't have to. You're absolutely right. Emmings: But you want to? Conrad: Yeah, I like that just from a personal, this is how government works. On the other hand Steve, you have to come to grips with the fact that it is a public hearing. Those other two meetings don't count. In a public hearing like we had tonight, if they say something that triggers something that we didn't consider, I'm sure the developers are going to come in along TH 5 and sue us. I'm sure that the lawyers will be here so you're going to have to say, well am I comfortable with this? You don't have to pass it on to City Council. We don't have to do anything. It is a public hearing for their input for us to consider and we're not ramming it down anybody's throat so we have the option of saying we still believe that we're right and this is what we want City Council to see or we can deal with issues that were brought up again and send it back to staff. So those are, you've got to come in here basically, even though we struggled for 2 years on this thing, you've got to come in with an open mind and say hey, Z don't want to deal with it or I should deal with those things and figure out what you want to do with it. Emmings: Ladd, to me what you just said cuts against coming in with an attitude of justifying what's been done. Because it looks like you've already made up your mind if you're there justifying it and I'm not crazy about that. Batzli: What I would suggest is in the overview at the front explain, you know touching on these major issues. These were the concerns we heard. This is what we've done to the plan and not as they get up one by one defending the plan but rather as an overview at the start talking about how we feel we've at lease listened to their concerns and try to do some things. Emmings: I'm very comfortable with that. Ahrens: And these are the changes we've made to date so that people who are eccumating who have new concerns, they don't feel that they're not going to be heard because we have a done deal here and we're just presenting it to you and we're going to justify it all. Emmings: See I want to stay away from defending it to each person that comes up to the podium. If we can tell them why we did what we did, that's fine but not in an attitude of oh yeah, well, because it could turn into that very easily. Ahrens: And it is a public hearing though. I mean there may be new things that come up that we may say hey they have a real good idea there. Ne may want to change something else. Emmings: Then as another point, some of the explanations for why we did what we did. I mean if you went down the row of 7 people, there may be 7 different reasons. There were certainly be several. You know Rivkin as an example. His point of cutting out these islands to me just conceptually Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 29 that was a bad notion. Well, is that really a justification for doing it? I mean just sort of philosophically I said you're either in the MUSA or you're outside the MUSA but we're not going to carve islands out of the middle. Conrad: So you don't want to say that during the meeting? Emmings: Well no, I will. I'm not shy. I'll certainly say that if that's the way I think it ought to be. Conrad: I think that's appropriate. Emmings: But I don't know, that's not really based on taking into consideration what the reasons he wants it. It's more, it takes such a much broader view· It's not very specific. Conrad: See, nobody cares. Well they all care about their opinion but the most important thing to the public is that we paid attention to what they said and we came up with our own decision and right or wrong, they just want to know that we paid attention to them. If we can project that, that's half the battle. You still don't have to agree and they don't have to agree with us but you've got to tell them we paid attention because that's the most irritating thing is when, like the group tonight. They say well why are we here. Emmings: And this was a perfect example of what we'll see again because they were so convinced that we didn't have their interest at heart that they didn't listen to us when we talked. I tell them this isn't really an issue for here but you give them something tike take your concerns to the City Council. They immediatley say oh yeah, like you're trying to snow them when in fact you're trying to tell them how to deal with their concerns within the system that we have. They dido't hear that. Batzli: It's frustrating to...person that doesn't have the authority to do that · Conrad: But we're conducting a public hearing. Ahrens: How are we going to handle the presentations? I mean I imagine people will come in, some people with quite detailed presentations. Krauss: Well I think the meeting management is a real issue and in the two previous meetings you gave people a strict time limitation and you gave them one shot and if time permitted, you gave them a second. I think that's real important to keep in mind. We were even more focused during those neighborhood meetings because we split the city in half. Belaboring a point. Having 20 people standing up saying the same thing or repeating the same thing that you've heard on 3 previous occasions needs to be directed somewhat so they understand that they've been heard but it's not bulk that matters, it's content. And I think setting a real time limit on how long people can speak and if people want to give you additional documentation for you to peruse at a follow-up meeting, I think that's reasonable to do and I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if some of that happened. I was telling Commissioner Ahrens, in the packet you've got in the comprehensive plan, in the end of it I have a comment section which Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 30 contains the dozens of letters I've gotten. Neighborhood plans. Newsletters. Articles. Responses. Basically up to this point in time and they're in chronological order from the most recent to the past. Batzli: I assume if you get those out, our comprehensive plan would be the length of Excelsior's? Ahrens: I liked that. Emmings: They've got 2,500 people. I just never realized Excelsior was that small. Batzli: I never realized you could put a comprehensive plan in 30 pages. Emmings: We're doing something wrong. Ahrens: Presentations will have to be well organized and I don't know how you want to do that. Emmings: One thing I proposed at one time and I don't know if it would work but when you've had these mass meetings, if it turns out that there's 100 people there or 150 people, you let somebody speak and then just ask, if there are other people in the audience who share this point of view, put your hand up and then put on the record some idea of how many there are because you might discourage them all from feeling like they have to get up and say the same thing. Ahrens: I agree because there are some areas as we know that are more organized than others and I think it's frustrating to other people too to sit there when they think they have a concern that's just as legitimate as 25 people who are trying to get up and speak on their issue and it takes up everybody's time and it takes time away from. I know we want to listen to everybody but I think that it's frustrating for us. 8atzli: What if you give them 5 minutes max? Emmings: Rivkin can't give his address in that. Batzli: I know. I know but give them 5 minutes and if there's time at the end of the meeting he can talk again. Conrad: What's our timeframe at that school? Krauss: 7:00 to 11:00. And we've got to be out. Batzli: At 5 minutes per person, that's 12 an hour. Conrad: Jay? Jay Johnson: I've been getting anywhere from 2 to 3 letters a week from the landowners along TH 5. That is going to be probably the significant group in there addressing you. That group of landowners. Every one of them says the same thing. Not quite exactly the same words. They didn't exactly plagerize... Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 31 Emmings: They all say they're going to sue the city. 3ay 3ohnson: Oh no. They don't say that yet. Batzli: You got different letters than I did then. Emmings: I got letters that said that. Batzli: I think they will be a significant group. They may not even be the most significant group by numbers unless they bring a lot of attorneys each one of them. I think we're going to see landowners north and south of the city that come in as a group will be sheer numbers. Maybe they don't have the most bucks behind them or number of blue suits in the crowd but. Emmings: So there will be 5 minutes per person and then if they could come back lip if after one pass through, they could come back up and have a second shot if there was time. That sounds fair. Krauss: I guess I envisioned after the pubtic hearing coming back to you at a follow-up meeting, a regular meeting and putting an agenda item on. Are you prepared to pass this along to the City Council with the comments you receive that you'd want to do anything else to it. Conrad: So it is a public hearing. It requires a motion. Krauss: Well, you can either act to close the public hearing and act to pass, or recommend approval of the comprehensive plan is basically what you'd be doing. Or you could just close the public hearing and hold over action on the recommendation to a future meeting. Emmings: That's what we should do because we should get a summary I think from staff of the content of the meeting. Consider it and then pass it along. Batzli: But those people may want to be at the meeting when we do the action. Conrad: They might want to hear what we're doing. Batzli: Unless we want to do a second public hearing. Krauss: You could theoretically do that. Conrad: Basically what we have to do is take down a list of their concerns and we have to decide whether additional thought has to be given to those concerns. Additional research. Additional whatever. If we decide not, we could move it onto City Council and they'd all be in attendance watching US. Emmings: You mean do it there? Conrad: Right then on the spot. If we don't have the information, then we do have to delay. Emmings: But you're rather just take care of it there? Planning Commission Heeling October 17, 1990 - Page 32 Conrad: I think we should discuss where we want to go and not hide it and do it at an additional meeting. They want to hear 'where we're .going. They ~4ant to hear what we're doing and what we're giving to the City Council so I think the way I'll handle the meeting, unless you tell me not to, I'll take, we'll be listing down the comments and when we close the public hearing we're going to go around the group and respond to each one of those and decide as a commission. We'll vote as a commission whether to reopen the issue or not. Batzli: If we reopen the issue and do further study or change the plan, does that then require a second public hearing on the modified plan? Conrad: I don't think so. Krauss: I don't think so either but I guess I'd have to ask Roger that. I suspect it might hinge on the extent to which you've changed it. Conrad: You should find out. Emmings: You know in other matters where we have public hearings, we lots of times change them. We did that tonight. Batzli: But this is of such import that if you changed it with any severity and then moved it on at a subsequent meeting when there really wasn't a lot of people in the crowd, I think there'd be a lot of cries of foul play. Emmings: Yeah if you moved a line. Like all of a sudden something that was residential is now industrial. Batzli: Yeah. Ahrens: So Ladd, how much time are you going to give us to discuss things? Are you going to close the public hearing at what time? Batzli: If we have to be out of there by 11:00, I mean you're going to have to close it at 10:30. Conrad: Or close it at 10:00. Emmings: Is there a World Series game that night? Ahrens: It might be. Krauss: It's not going to go 7 games. Ahrens: Yes it may. Last night was great. Conrad: Okay. I gave you, remember what I gave you a couple weeks ago. Emmings: I gave it to Tim. Conrad: Any comments at this point in time? Paul, it was on your recommendation on our Bloomberg deal. 3ust seeing if Steve, do you want to talk about that now or should we wait for Tim? Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 33 Emmings: You know, I read that and I can't remember. This is horrible. I don't want this on national television. I can't remember what I thought about it. I'm going to have to look at it again. I gave it to Tim and I told him. Maybe he'll remember. Conrad: Okay, we'll bring it up later. What I was hoping is to float this around because I got a comment from somebody about bow the staff reports our decision to the City Council. Our recommendation and if the staff decides to override what we decide, how it's presented. This was 3ust, you know staff has the, it's sort of like the last word. So the issue that I 3ust wanted to surface, because it was brought to my attention, is staff surfacing our opinion and their's in the right light to the City Council and that's what I gave Steve to be circulated to everybody. Batzli: He immediately, not only lost it but forgot what he thought about it. Conrad: Forgot the whole thing. Emmings: I read it and gave it to Tim. My recollection is that it didn't bother me. Conrad: You don't have to sway them right now. It's just a case where I wanted. Ahrens: We don't sway that easily. Conrad: Okay, anything else we should talk about? Batzli: Have we received anything from the Moon Valley? Krauss: Yeah, a Summons. Batzli: When did we get that? Krauss: A couple weeks ago. Batzli: Okay. Conrad: Anything else Paul? Krauss: Not really if you read the report from the Director. The only interesting was the Redmond arrangement. Conrad: Curb's going in? Krauss: Yeah. Well what happened with that was that the City Council accepted your recommendations and ours relative to. Conrad: See that was sort of tricky. We weren't exactly in the same boat with you guys as I recall. Krauss: Nell actually that was that test case type of thing? Conrad: Right. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 34 Krauss: Yeah. I was uncomfortable with that. Conrad: So they accepted our recommendation and yours and they were different so what did they? Krauss: Yeah, to the extent that you recommended they build it the way they were supposed to. So they approved the off site parking without any variances on the Lotus property. Then they left hanging the issue of what happens on the Redmond site proper because there were two variances associated with that, the hard surface coverage and the setback variance. on the hard surface coverage, Redmond proposed buying an adjacent lot that we own that's got a wetland on it. Wouldn't anticipate doing anything to the wetland but by their ownership of it, they've met their hard surface coverage requirement. I felt a little uncomfortable about that because I thought it met the letter of the law but not exactly the intent. However, it seemed to be a relatively comfortable way to get around that particular issue. We encouraged them strongly to buy the land from Lotus Garden Center. The owner is not interested in selling. We had put Southwest Metro or asked Southwest Metro to contact them and follow up that way too. But the long and the short of it was, that was the only way that it appeared possible to do it and to let them put on that plant modification that they'd like to do so they can stay on that site with the $6 million expansion they want to do now there. They confirmed to the City Council that no way, shape or form are they going to build the new facility here. The second problem relative to setbacks. Oh, I should tell you. We couldn't agree on a price. The Assistant City Manager calculated it based off of what we paid for some similar property recently and thought it was worth approximately, I don't know, $200,000.00. Redmond calculated their way and thought it was worth $36,000.00 so there's a significant variance. Conrad: On a price for what? Krauss: Well, if we're going to sell them that 1.6 acre wetland, we're going to be paid for it. Conrad: So Chanhassen owns that? Krauss: Yes. And it's not a matter of the dollar. I mean it's a matter of paying real dollars. What was agreed to was the retention of appraisers. One representing us. One them and if they need a third party, they can mutually decide and both parties had agreed to abide by their decision. There's no clear direction as to what that money might be spent on. That's something the City Council would have to look at. But they haven't made a decision on that. Conrad: It should be to acquire more wetland. Krauss: Well that was initially the staff thought too but on the other hand, we're not losing the wetland. I mean there have been a number of instances in the past when a wettand's being altered that you buy a replacement wetland and give it to the city but this wetland's not being changed at all. It's going to look exactly the way it does right now. Conrad: It's real clear you're getting around the law. It's not what the, the intent of the 70~ impervious surface is you know, there's a real intent Planning Commission Meeting October i7, 1990 - Page 35 for that and they're getting around that intent by acquiring wetlands so I have no problem taking that money and putting it some other place to try to meet what we have the 70~ impervious surface for. There's just no doubt about that. It's clear to me. Krauss: Well I guess it's fair to say that Redmond doesn't particularly care what we spend it on. It's up to the City Council. The second matter of the parking setback is going to be resolved' based on a suggestion that Councilman Johnson made. That we took at a performance approach to that and the Council ultimately approved giving them a variance oD the assumption that we're going to change the ordinance to allow them to do what they're going to do and have asked us to bring forth to you an ordinance amendment that does achieve that performance standard. At the same time too I was going to throw on, I spoke to our City Attorney and the buffer yard concept that we have adopted in our comprehensive plan needs to be reflected in the zoning ordinance add since it relates to mostly parking lot setbacks, I figured I'd tie the two together and come through you with one ordinance amendment that took care of both. Batzli: Change the 8F district back to A-2 in the same fell swoop right? Krauss: Oh yeah. Conrad: When are we going to review the 8F district? Krauss: Well Chairman let's get, Z keep wanting to do these things and let's get the comprehensive plan out of here and we can do all of those. Conrad: Is that pretty much close to a highest priority after the comprehensive plan? Krauss: If you say so. Batzli: It's getting to be late fall. Krauss: Well, whenever it gets real close we just change the date. Conrad: Let's take a look at that. I had a vision for that property. I did and now I forgot it. It was real clear how to handle it down there. After one meeting. Yeah, I went home and I wrote it down exactly how to deal with it. Emmings: Then you gave that to me and I lost it. Conrad: I've forgotten totally how to do it. It was one of those illuminations. Gone. Anything else? Batzli moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim