Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 21, 1999
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Allison Blackowiak, Kevin Joyce, Craig Peterson,
LuAnn Sidney and Matt Burton
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff,
Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I; and Dave Hempel,
Assistant City Manager
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.434 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS WITH AN AREA OF
27,419 SQ. FT. AND 35,066 SQ. FT. ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED
NORTHWEST OF LOTUS LAKE, 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE, ALICIA HEIGHTS,
RAY AND ALICIA BROZOVICH.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kathy & Pat Pavelko
Sandra Cunningham
John & Ann Danielson
Carl Anderson
John Miller
Ray Brozovich
David Santana
Jayne Hagedorn
7203 Frontier Trail
6665 Horseshoe Curve
6607 Horseshoe Curve
2204 Scudder Street, St. Paul
24925 Glen Road, Shorewood
6609 Horseshoe Curve
6614 Horseshoe Curve
630 Carver Beach Road
Sharmin AI-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any additional comments by staff?.
AI-Jaff: If you approve the 20% grade on the driveway, that would require an addition of a
statement that deals with a variance. Currently our ordinance requires a 10% grade. So with that
staff is recommending approval.
Peterson: All right, thank you. Any questions of staff?.
Conrad: A couple Mr. Chairman. Staff, the difference in your stated recommendation between
point number 1 and point number 12. Is there a little overlap? And is that okay? The 10 foot
right-of-way.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
A1-Jaff: A little overlap.
Conrad: So it's.
AI-Jaff: We can go with 12 and eliminate 1.
Conrad: The reason for the subdivision, it is a subdivision and why is that versus a lot split?
Aanenson: Correct. Our ordinance requires a lot split to go through the subdivision process. If
you're adding to another lot and not creating a new lot, you can do that administratively but if
you're creating a new lot, it has to go through the subdivision which requires a public hearing.
Conrad: Okay. The part that talks about lot averaging Sharmin. That is in the ordinance?
Aanenson: That came up on the Minnewashta Landings subdivision where those houses on the
north side of Minnewashta were built in the late 40's, early 50's. Some of those houses had 150
plus setback and when Minnewashta Landings...minimum of 75, there was some concern about
loss of view with such a big difference so at that time we amended the shoreland regs to reflect
that. There is some ambiguity in the interpretation of that. So we did our best to try to find some
compromise language but I think based on that, I think the applicant will comment too, that there
is a lot of trees on that side. That there might not be so much ora sight line loss based on the
topography of the trees that are...
Conrad: And then the 30 foot maximum clearance going down to the water, where does that
come from?
A1-Jaff: Ordinance.
Conrad: I think that's cool but I've never seen that before. That is in the ordinance? Okay.
Peterson: Any other questions?
Burton: I have a question. On page 6 of the report it talks about the tree coverage and how the
applicant actually is pretty significantly over the required coverage but they talked about there.
The applicant will need to show plans for preserving the trees and there's nothing in the
conditions relating to that and I'm wondering if you thought, that I could see, do you think that
should be there?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman. Condition number 8 requires the developer to submit a detailed
grading, drainage, erosion control, and tree removal plan.
Aanenson: Also number 4 also covers it too. Tree preservation fencing. That's something
generally where they commence construction we would check to make sure that tree preservation
fencing is up.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Burton: So the tree removal plan is otherwise saying preserving the trees?
Aanenson: Right, and then also that they put the fencing up those trees that will be preserved.
Burton: Okay. I didn't quite understand what the fencing was.
Aanenson: That's the large orange fencing that we put in for preservation.
Burton: All right.
Peterson: Other questions of staff?. How often have we... 10% grade variance? Is this a typical
variance? I haven't seen it before.
Hempel: I guess the reason why staff can support this one is given the topographic features of
the area, the existing driveways in the area, a lot of the homes do have quite a bit steeper
driveways than that 10%. South facing slope as well for the winter time concerns..,I think the
biggest reason was to reduce the amount of fill necessary.
Peterson: I assume the 10% grade is really for public safety reasons apparently?
Hempel: Correct.
Peterson: No other questions for staff, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission. If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Carl Anderson: My name's Carl Anderson. I'm with Waldenwood. I live at 2204 Scudder
Street, St. Paul. We have been working with the Brozovich's to design this home. Mr.
Brozovich Was told by Bob Generous that when he first started this project, at the beginning of
his application, that he had to be 75 feet back and that he could go ahead and start planning his
house to get that done so we have done that. We have actually got the house designed, the
footprint of which would be right here... And the three points that we'd like to elaborate on, and
you've already started to touch on them, is the fill. The only reason we had the fill in the project
was to meet the 10% grade and given the 20% grade, we are very happy with that. We can really
minimize fill. We have, since we have submitted our plans we have gone back to our engineer
and have two plans. Two different plans for grading and minimizing retaining walls. And we're
open to doing whatever we can work with Dave Hempel on and get him to agree to on that score.
The one, we would really like to keep the house where we have proposed it and one of the issues,
the issue of setback. The 75 foot setback, as you probably all know refers to the setback from the
high water mark and the staff report numbers are a little bit different than what they really are,
and I would have to show you but the Danielson property, which is the property to the east
basically lines up right now with the front of our property. It's scaled back from the high water
mark which is contour 898. You'll find that the Danielson property is approximately 74 feet
back from the high water mark and we are proposing to go 75 foot only at this point right here.
The rest of the house will be much further back than the 75 foot setback. If you look at the way
3
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
the property's been realigned, this is our point where we have the width. I shaped going back
and it is a hardship on us to move back and squish this house back together. We've already
talked that we will move, if we need to, we will move our porch in and thereby taking the length
down about 4 feet. So that's certainly a possibility and we'd be happy to do that. Also, let me
just say these contours, the measurements from the contour lines, about 73 feet to the
Danielson's. 75 feet to the proposed new Brozovich house. About 148 feet to the existing
Brozovich home. So we really would like to keep it there is basically what we're saying. The
final issue is, or the final issue of the setback is this ordinance, when a structure exists on a lot on
either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be greater of the distance set forth in the
above table, or the setback of the existing structure. In my conversations with Sharmin, she said
this really triggers the sight line situation. And I'd like to make an argument for sight line
tonight and that's what you see in this drawing. Really the sight line of the new house and the
Danielson house is not really affected. It's because they are basically in line. The one that's
affected is the existing Brozovich home now which is 148 feet back. But if you see this green
line that's on here, you'll notice that there is a evergreen corridor that gives sight line to the
Brozovich home. It is almost mature growth. In fact I've got a couple pictures to show you so
you can see that the sight lines is actually down this corridor from their existing home to the lake
and it virtually cuts out the view here from the Brozovich's existing home to where their new
home will be. And the final thing that we'd like to talk to you about is the dedicated right-of-
way. Both Ray and Alicia Brozovich are certainly willing to dedicate this extra 10 feet to the
road. They basically said if everyone else wants to do this and widen the road, that they would
be amenable to that as well. And that's basically all I have unless there are other questions.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public
hearing. May I have a motion and a second please.
Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please
come forward now and state your name and address please.
Jolm Danielson: I'm John Danielson. That's my wife Ann. We live next door to the
Brozovich's. Can you put the map on the screen please. Here's our home here and you can see
there's a beautiful buffer of trees over on the other side of the Brozovich property. There's
virtually nothing on our side and we've been friends of the Brozovich's for 30 years. We've both
lived there for about an equal amount of time and we both have the highest regard for each other
as individuals and friends and so on. Still do, but the issue that we became aware of on Sunday,
just on Sunday was that the setback had become a problem and as we talked about, and we did
talk to the Brozovich's about it on Sunday and they explained what it was and we talked to them
again on Monday and without knowing that the commission...had taken a position that there
should be an averaging, our thought process took us through the Brozovich's and why don't you
just set the house back a little farther. We eventually became aware of it, that's what the city was
saying also. Then what that would mean is that the house would have to be set back that much
4
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
because right now it's very...and with no buffer, no trees in-between and that's all we're here to
do is to request that the house just be set back that amount and we'd be perfectly happy with that.
Any questions?
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Carl Anderson: Could I just respond to that? We've got about 27, or almost 28 feet between the
Danielson's home and our comer of our property here. And Ray has planted all these trees and
he's already talking to the nursery people about putting a buffer up here...between his new
property and their property. One other thing I wanted to mention, I don't know if it's going to
show up on here. Maybe I'll pass this around.
Aanenson: It will show up.
Carl Anderson: Can you see that? Okay. As you'll notice, one of the things that these houses or
these setbacks are extremely random around that point of the lake and there's nothing that really
lines up and we just think that that gives more argument to the fact that we could have, we could
be up there at the 75 foot setback.
Peterson: Would you feel comfortable with conditions requiring landscaping be placed in there
as a buffer?
Carl Anderson: I'm sure that would not be a problem at all.
Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public
hearing please.
Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Your thoughts, comments. If there aren't any, may I entertain a
motion?
Conrad: Let me, there are, maybe we'll get some conversation going. I live in the neighborhood
so very familiar with the situation and the two neighbors that spoke are good friends and they
probably have a little bit ora tough situation here. Because I live there, the 10 foot, what staff is
recommending, I think in terms of the 10 feet dedication, that's appropriate for them to do. I
would hope that we wouldn't do it because we didn't do it for the last subdivision that occurred
across the street basically. It probably doesn't make sense in this neighborhood and I think if you
visited the site you'd realize that 10 feet, there's a couple reasons. One, it's sort of the quality
that we all bought into a long time ago. And two, if you start taking 10 feet there, it does take
away a lot of the atmosphere. So again I couldn't support that. I think staff is making a right
recommendation. It's their job to make that recommendation but I think the city would not want
to pay for the condemnation of 10 feet on both sides around the curve to make it safer. In terms
of the setback, I think that's a real tough issue. I think from what I can tell, as you can see, the
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Brozovich's are probably the most sensitive people in terms of ecology and whatever that I know
in the area. You can see what they handed out tonight in terms of their lots. It's not very, it's
rather sensitive to the environment so I think that's the good news for the Danielson's that if the
Brozovich's can do the same thing on the Danielson side, it will temper it a little bit. It's not
going to be the same but it might temper it a tad. The setback issue is real tough. That's why, I
was surprised that we averaged. I was not aware of that and maybe the builders might not have
developed or designed it the way they did had they really known that and maybe that's their fault
or somebody's fault but they didn't know it at the time. It seems like the impact is on the
Brozovich's themselves more than anything else. It's their house that the setback would be. It's
their house that they currently live in that probably has impacted sight line but you saw that the
sight line is taken care of. So, on the bottom line for me I think we should do as much for the
Danielsons as we possibly can. I don't know how much give there is in the setback. I think you
could make the situation worse by moving the house back too far. Building the profile from
what I can tell so again I don't even want to get into that. That's not a job that I can do but
there's something to keeping the profile lower and not impacting anybody. Ah, that's not the
right statement. Keeping the profile lower and keeping the impact to a minimum. So I guess, I
think we should put some wording in that kind of helps the Danielsons protect their privacy, even
though I think the applicant has got some, they probably have the side yard setbacks that are
essential from an ordinance standpoint. I think we still should force there to be a reforestation on
that side of the house. In terms of the setback, I tell you. I think we should encourage the builder
and the owner to try to move it back as much as possible. I'm not sure I feel comfortable of
having to move it back to the 125 foot area.
Joyce: A question. Kate, can we set a, Mr. Danielson said just about right here and I don't know
how far that is. Is there any way that we could send this to City Council saying we'd like to work
with the Danielson's and maybe find out how far right here is and see if that would work out with
the Brozovich's?
Aanenson: ...pushing the house up higher, that may be more intrusive than trying to keep it,
right. So we will look at that before it goes to Council. Look at the grades and what the profile
is.
Joyce: I was real uncomfortable with the condition number 7 where it was, the developer should
consider reducing the size. It seemed a little open ended. Kind of without any teeth and I think if
we can put something in the condition 7 explaining that we want to revisit where, it would be
amenable to both parties. That's just a consideration I guess.
Peterson: Any comments? I have no additional comments either. I agree with both of my fellow
commissioners. With that, may I have a motion and a second please.
Conrad: Well I'll make the motion so I can offend both my neighbors.
Carl Anderson: ...add something?
Peterson: Unfortunately the public hearing is over. Sorry.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Conrad: Protocol here. To allow the variance, is that a separate motion?
A1-Jaff: Actually I was thinking the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat with a variance allowing a 20% grade for a driveway.
Conrad: Okay. I'd make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat with a variance allowing a 20% grade for the driveway for Alicia Heights
Subdivision #99-4 as shown on the plans dated March 19, 1999, subject to the conditions of the
staff report with the following changes. To eliminate point number 1. To modify point number 7
that would, point number 7 would be worded something like this staff. That the developer would
work with staff to review the existing topographic conditions of the site so as to find a location
that would be least impactful to the neighbors to the east. My mind's working. It's not that I've
lost consciousness Mr. Chairman.
Peterson: We're with you. We'll wake you up if you fall asleep.
Conrad: I'm going to leave it at that. That's probably partial but, yeah. So that's 7 reworked.
Number 12. Staff I would need to eliminate the additional 12 foot of right-of-way out of that
section and I think it's appropriate again for you to let City Council know what your position is
on that point. Point number 14, which is a duplicate of, to a degree a duplicate of number 7 but
the home shall, the applicant will work with staff to keep the setback as far from the ordinary
high water mark of Lotus Lake and minimizing the building profile at the same time. See if that
makes any sense to you later on staff as you read through that. Do I need a condition Sharmin,
on the variance? Should I put in a?
Aanenson: I would.
Conrad: Point number 15 would be to allow a variance to the ordinance to allow a 20%
driveway grade. Point number 16 is that the applicant would bring in to the City Council when
this reaches them, a reforestation plan for the east side of the site to buffer the neighbors to the
east as much as possible.
Joyce: I'll second that.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
preliminary plat with a variance allowing a 20% grade for a driveway for Alicia Heights
Subdivision #99-4, as shown on the plans dated March 19, 1999, subject to the following
conditions:
The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees according to local
ordinances. Currently, the single family home rate is $2,780 per acre. Based on the size of
7
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
0.63 acres, the new lot will have a SWMP fee of $1,749.88. These fees are due at the time
of final plat recording.
2. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with city ordinances.
o
Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees
before grading can begin.
4. Building Official conditions:
a. A permit from the Building Inspections Division is required for any retaining walls over
4 feet tall.
b. A final soils report must be submitted to the city for any filling or soil correction done
on the site to determine the bearing capacity of the soil.
c. The proposed sewer and water connection details were not reviewed at this time.
Contact Randy Debner at 937-1900 ext. 138 for information.
5. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Owner must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy. Premise
Identification, Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
b. Any trees removed from the site must either be chipped or hauled away. Due to close
proximity to other homes, no burning permit will be issued.
o
The developer will work with staff to review the existing topographic conditions of the
site so as to find a location that would be least impactful to the neighbors to the east.
A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time
of building permit application for city staff to review and approve.
Drainage swales shall be installed along both sides of the proposed home on Lot 1 to
manage runoff from the front yard to the back yard. The drainage swales shall be a
minimum of 5 feet wide to minimize erosion potential along the sides of the house. Roof
gutters shall also be installed on the home to redirect roof runoff to the rear of the home.
o
Additional erosion control measures may be required along the sides of the home on Lot 1
within the drainage swale. Erosion control fence will also be required in conjunction with
the sanitary sewer connection by the lake.
10.
A sanitary sewer service shall be from the existing 8 inch sanitary sewer along the south
property line. Water service will be extended by the city at the developer's cost from
Horseshoe Curve to the north property line of Lot 1. The applicant will be required to
8
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
escrow $2,500 to guarantee the cost of the water service extension. Lot 1, Block 1 will be
responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charge at time of
building permit application. The cost of extending the water service across Horseshoe
Curve will be deducted from the watermain connection charge.
Il.
The final plat shall dedicate the standard 10 foot front, rear and 5 foot side yard drainage
and utility easements. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility easement shall be dedicated over
the existing sanitary sewer line which runs through the southerly portion of Lots 1 and 2.
12.
If material is imported or exported from the site, the developer will need to provide the city
with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. If material is proposed to be
imported from another site in Chanhassen, it should be noted that the other properties will
be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the city.
13. The applicant will work with staff to keep the setback as far from the ordinary high
water mark of Lotus Lake and minimizing the building profile at the same time.
14. A variance to the ordinance to allow a 20% driveway grade.
15. The applicant shall bring in to the City Council a reforestation plan for the east side
of the site to buffer the neighbors to the east as much as possible.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.33 ACRES CREATING 2 LOTS WITH AREAS OF
24,029 SO. FT. AND 33,833 SQ. FT. ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT
1331 ASHTON COURT, SMITH HILL ADDITION, DAVID SMITH.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of staff?. Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant or their designee
wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward.
David Smith: Just here to answer any questions.
Peterson: Could you state your name and address please?
David Smith: Oh I'm sorry. David Smith, 1331 Ashton Court and I really don't have any more
further to add to Bob's comments.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. May I
have a motion and a second please.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Sidney moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, any thoughts? Comments?
Burton: No, this looks pretty straight forward.
Sidney: Just one question for staff Mr. Chairman. Do we need a separate motion then for the
variance?
Generous: No, I believe you can roll it into this because it's part of the subdivision.
Peterson: No more comments, may I have a motion and a second please.
Blackowiak: So moved.
Peterson: A motion.
Blackowiak: Oh, a motion. I thought I was going to get off easy on that one. Gosh. Okay, I'll
move the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Planning Commission recommends
approval of Subdivision #99-5 creating two lots for Smith Hill Addition subject to conditions 1
through 15.
Joyce: I'll second that.
Peterson: Condition a variance.
Aanenson: With the variance.
Blackowiak: And, how shall I word that? Any suggestions would be helpful.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, with the variance to permit the private driveway as shown on the plans
presented.
Blackowiak: Showing 13 feet versus 20 feet.
Generous: Yeah.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'll go with Bob on that one. With a variance to permit the driveway,
private driveway as shown on the plans.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Joyce: And I'll second that.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Subdivision #99-5 creating two lots for Smith Hill Addition, with a variance to permit a
private driveway as shown on the plans, subject to the following conditions:
o
o
10.
The developer must demolish or remove from the site the westerly garage, which is in the
required building setback, prior to the city recording the final plat.
11.
In lieu of park land dedication, the developer shall pay full park and trail fees for Lot 1,
Block 1 to the city pursuant to city ordinance.
Prior to final plat approval the developer shall provide the city with canopy coverage
calculations for the entire site. Based on the city's review of the canopy coverage
calculation, the city will determine if additional landscape plantings are required.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise Identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy
enclosed.
If any trees are to be removed they must either be chipped or hauled away. Due to close
proximity of neighboring homes no burning permit will be issued.
Demolition permits must be obtained from the Building Inspections Division before
removing any existing structures.
The soil must be tested to determine it's bearing capacity for the new dwelling, if any
filling is done or any other corrective measures regarding the soil are taken.
As part of the building permit application for Lot 1, Block 1, a detailed grading, drainage
and erosion control plan must be submitted to the city for review and approval.
In conjunction with issuance of a building permit for Lot 1, a drainage swale shall be
required to redirect runoff to the northwest comer of the site away from the po01 directly
north of Lot 1.
The existing gravel driveway and proposed driveway for Lot 1 shall be paved with either
bituminous or concrete.
The developer shall escrow $3,000 with the city for extension of the sewer and water
service from Ashton Court to the property line of Lot 2. The developer shall contact the
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
city 30 days in advance to request extension of the sewer and water service from Ashton
Court.
12.
Lot 1, Block 1 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charges
at time of building permit issuance. The cost of extending the sewer and water service shall
be deducted from the sewer and water connection charges.
13. A private driveway and utility easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded in
favor of Lot I and Lot 2 by the developer.
14. The developer shall be responsible for extending a sewer and water service to Lot 1 through
Lot 2.
15. The developer shall be responsible for payment of total SWMP fees of $1,533.53. These
SWMP fees will be due payable to the city at time of final plat recording.
16. A variance be granted to permit a driveway as shown on the plans.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY PUD TO ALLOW
CHURCH FACILITIES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES OR OFFICES AS
PERMITTED USES AND TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY ON
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF HIDDEN
COURT, 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST, FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joan Andrew
Donna Becker
Monte Eastvold
Dave Cameron
Peter M. Benjamin
Dick & Pat Hamblin
Rev. Cindy and Phil Shepherd
Ivan Payne
Gordy Nagel
Greg Gmiterko
Brian Steckling
Heide & Callie Walker
10441 Lee Drive, Eden Prairie
8060 Hidden Court
8180 Hidden Court
8161 Hidden Court
7231 Minnewashta Parkway
340 Sinnen Circle
7801 Great Plains
7612 Kiowa Avenue
514 Del Rio Drive
8121 Hidden Court
8040 Hidden Court
750 West Village Road, #103
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Brad Johnson
Randy & Marilyn Koepsell
Robin Franks
Dan Lorinser
Dan Lechelt
Laurie Vercnocke
Kim Simenson
Sharon Wylie
Eleanor & Tom Kottke
Martin Wade
Thomas Loos
Lynn & David Jossi
Vemelle Clayton
Karen Cook
Sue McCarthy
Karen Hongslo
Jaime Drahozal
Jeff Olson
Bill Franzen
Steve Noires
Jim Sulerud
Lee Kaufman
Carol Watson
Paul Nicolia
Nate Castens
7425 Frontier Trail
1110 Dove Court
8694 Mary Jane Circle
8020 Erie Avenue
841 Saddlebrook Pass
Colonial Church
Colonial Church
Colonial Church
518 Laredo Lane
8028 Erie Avenue
8030 Erie Avenue
250 Hidden Lane
422 Santa Fe Circle
260 Hidden Lane
8001 Hidden Court
310 Hidden Lane
8091 Hidden Court
2520 Bridle Creek Trail
2370 Stone Creek Lane West
1451 Heron Drive
730 Vogelsberg Trail
300 Hidden Lane
7131 Utica Lane
8051 Hidden Circle
7605 Erie Avenue
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff?.
Joyce: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Would you know if that assisted living, would that be
for a profit or non-profit situation, or it could be either one?
Aanenson: Yes.
Joyce: Could be either one?
Aanenson: Could be either one, correct.
Joyce: Okay. What's the history of that development over there as far as the homes? Where
they built at the same time as the church? Or were they built before the church, do you know?
Kirchoff: The church was built after the homes. After the homes were started.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Joyce: Kate, maybe you can help me out on this. There was mention about most church
properties in Chanhassen have an underlying alternative use. And I'm thinking of that Lutheran
church right across from Festival, or what...
Aanenson: That's zoned OI. So is the St. Hubert's. Not the old, old but the old St. Hubert's
which now has Chapel Hill. That is OI. That's why the school is in that facility. As you recall
when they came in, we requested that that group show, disclose to the Planning Commission and
the Council the ultimate plans. They are putting a gymnasium in. They are putting soccer fields
in. They do have a 5-10 year plan so that use will change. The OI does allow for different
underlying uses which was some of the discussion as Cindy indicated that we went through that
list to look at.
Joyce: Will we be that specific about, and inside the definition of OI can we be that specific and
pick out?
Aanenson: Under PUD, that's why we recommended the PUD. The applicants have provided,
which they'll go through with you, the design standards which Cindy attached to the report.
That's why we felt strong or, there was a couple options. One was to try to clear up the cloud.
Whoever buys that property, there's a cloud on it. It was never given a conditional use and it's
non-conforming so if someone wanted to expand, I'm sorry my voice is going. If someone
wanted to expand, we have to resolve that issue. So we said that we would process that and clear
up that cloud by either giving them an amendment to the PUD to make it a permitted use or give
them the conditional use, but we felt uncomfortable giving the carte blanche OI because it was
never the intent when that originally came in, to give them that wide range use because they
would put the commercial on other side of Lake Drive. So in looking at that and in meeting with
the church, we said if there's shorter list that we could put together that's palatable to the
neighbors, we would consider that and that's who we came up with the shorter list. We do have
other PUD church uses, just to elaborate. The Jehovah Witness in that industrial park came in.
That is a church use only permitted on that lot. If that church was to go away and they couldn't
sell it, could they come back and ask for industrial? Would we look at it? Probably. And the
other one is the location of the Our Family of Christ which you recently approved in that site
plan. That PUD does allow for a church use only on that lot. Again, if they were to go away and
they wanted to come back and ask for something else, certainly we would go through the same
exercise and examine what would be some other uses.
Joyce: Is that a normal, are those normal l°t sizes for the subdivision in that area to make it up to
be an acre or however you were suggesting...
Aanenson: One lot size, if it was split, is that what you're asking?
Joyce: I'm saying if we, if they were interested in subdividing it, that would be the normal, that's
the minimum requirement is an acre in that particular?
Kirchoff: In that PUD?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Joyce: Yeah.
Aanenson: No.
Joyce: You did say.
Kirchoff: Yes, we did come up with standards for minimum lot size in the event it is subdivided.
Are you referring to Hidden Valley or?
Joyce: No, I'm talking about, or any area. Could they subdivide for instance in that, in the
property next door? The Northcott. Could they have subdivided that property?
Aanenson: Yes.
Joyce: Is there standards for that I guess is what I'm asking.
Aanenson: There's a minimum lot size in that district.
Joyce: And what would be?
Aanenson: That's neighborhood business district.
Kirchoff: It's 15,000 square feet but there's a larger size for development. That was one lot in a
development. The minimum size is 15,000 square feet. I believe it's 3 acres for the whole
development.
Joyce: It's a 3 acre parcel of land so why can they subdivide it in it's 3?
Aanenson: It's not zoned. It's PUD.
Joyce: Right.
Aanenson: Right, so we figure the bigger standard for that based on... We tried to find a
compromise position.
Joyce: I got it now. Okay. I understand now.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: Mr. Chairman...
Kirchoff: The only thing that has been submitted is what I've put in the packet. You can put it
on the overhead.
Aanenson: They'll go through that.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Kirchoff: They'll go through, they have a larger.
Aanenson: Yeah, just trying to articulate what the differences would be.
Peterson: Other questions? Cindy, I only have one. What's the range of zoning that would
allow for assisted living?
Kirchoff: The only zoning district that permits it is OI, nursing home.
Peterson: What's ballpark, how much of that left do we have?
Kirchoff: OfOI? Withopen.
Aanenson: I'm not sure there's a lot left. We have some guided in the future. With the 2000
plan we provided some additional along some of the collector roads as a buffer use.
Peterson: Thanks. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so,
please come forward and state your name and address please.
Vernelle Clayton: Thank you. I'm Vernelle Clayton. I am at 422 Santa Fe Circle. I am also
here because I am with Lotus Realty and I would just like to start out by saying we have a
relatively I think simple issue but a very important one. I'd like to also initially kind of clear the
slate ora couple of misunderstandings. Perhaps a couple of mysteries. One is what is Lotus
Realty's role? I understand there's been some misunderstanding as to what our role is. I think in
the narrative that I provided that was a part of your package, I explained that we have been
retained by Family of Christ Lutheran Church to assist them in the sale of their property. Our
role has expanded just a little beyond just a plain, old come and be a real estate agent and help us
sell our property in that we are here tonight helping them with this aspect and there's one other
phase that we will be moving into possibly. I'll explain that as we go. I'd also like to deal with a
little bit of misinformation. A couple of things that have come up with respect to a letter that's
been circulated. One is a little bit ora misunderstanding as to what the church's marketing effort
has been. And to understand that I think we just have to go through a few simple facts that need
to be conveyed and I'll just do them in more or less chronological order. Number one, the
church, contrary to what I said in the information that I gave you which implied that they'd been
marketing it for a little over a year. Actually looked into their file just yesterday and discovered
that time does fly and the first contact with local churches actually took place in June of 1996. In
January of 1997 they commissioned an appraisal and during the ensuing period the following
steps were taken. (A), a dialogue was had with local and (b), communication was had with all of
the church organizations which coordinate the expansion of churches such as, you've probably
all heard of the Minnesota Council of Churches for example. And I would just like to comment
that of all of the types of users of property, churches are probably the easiest to communicate
with due to their internal structuring of the church expansion process. It's relatively easy to be
sure that the information of the availability of a church location has been thoroughly
communicated and we're totally convinced that this has been done in this case. There just aren't
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
that many new church buyers at any given time and it's not quite like selling a house. Number
two, unfortunately there was I understand a statement attributed to our effort which has caused a
little bit of concern and some pain on the part of at least one of the churches that is currently
actively pursuing this property. And that was, the quote is this as was passed on to me by some
of the folks from that church. The quote attributed to us here at Lotus was that we have not had
any proposals from viable churches. And I have assured that church that, who is still actively
pursuing it, that we have never said such thing and of course would never say such a thing but
rather there may have been a comment made that we had not had a viable offer. We consider all
of the local churches viable churches. This church, Family of Christ Lutheran Church has been
willing to sell at less than it's full appraised value but it has not been willing to sell at close to a
50% reduction. The building committee of churches have a fiduciary responsibility to the
members who's money it is that has built the church. To see that these contributions are
safeguarded and it would not have been prudent for them to have accepted a drastically reduced
price. Third item to clear up is the change in zoning. It's not a rouse on the part of Lotus Realty
to seek to make a profit. Yes, until it is no longer prudent, we will continue to seek a church
buyer. There currently are two church buyers with whom we are communicating. As far as I
know they're both here in the room. We would like nothing better than to see these parcels
retained, this parcel retained as a church and we aren't anxious to undertake the additional risk.
Having said that I need to move on to another misconception and that is, the fact that this parcel
may be sold to another church does not mean that our request does not need it. I'll get back to
that in a minute but first let me explain the recent chain of events that brought us here tonight and
that's the timing. Number one, Family of Christ having determined it needed to expand and
having explored many options, purchased a new site. As you know these days one has to be sure
that one has a place to go before one sells it's current location or the new location would likely
be gone. Particularly here in Chanhassen where land is at a premium. Number two, Family of
Christ has received site plan approval for it's new site. Family of Christ's only available
financing requires that the old property be sold and closed before a new loan is funded. You may
not appreciate how difficult it is for churches to find financing. There are limited sources of third
party financing and as I alluded to earlier, there is a hierarchy, a sort ofregionalism for all
churches. Either there is, for example with the Catholic Church there's the archdiocese. That's
the group that decides in fact where new churches are planted for Catholics. That's the church
that assists with the funding or directly funds them. With all large churches there's the same type
of hierarchy. With the smaller denominations with fewer churches, there's a sort of consortium.
Minnesota Council of Churches is one entity that assists those and it's those hierarchy
organizations that in most cases are the source of funding for new churches being planted. New
churches expanding. Lutheran Brotherhood then being affiliated with the Lutheran churches has
agreed to buy the property and hold it during the construction so that Family of Christ has a place
to worship. This is however an interim effort. Lutheran Brotherhood in order to do this requires
that there be a take out third party and alternative uses to church uses for this site. Lotus Realty
has agreed, and this is where we expanded our scope of work from what it was originally
anticipated to be and that is in just assist them in selling. Has set about putting together a group
of investors to take out Lutheran Brotherhood and so that it's perfectly clear, there a couple of us
at Lotus Realty, only two of us, in a very limited way may need in order to put that deal together
to become a part of the investment group. Work on the new addition will need to start by early
fall. That is to say if there is no church purchase relatively soon, in order for the new use to be
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
available at the time that this church moves into it's new facility so that we can in fact, the new
group can take out Lutheran Brotherhood on their schedule, Lutheran Brotherhood's schedule,
some work will have to be started at the office or assisted living construction by fall. So that's
the mechanics and the timing. Next the rationale. As the staff report states quote, typically
churches are located in a zoning district that has other permitted uses such as OI or even mixed
use PUD. Going on with the quote, churches with a conditional use permit in the RS 1 district
would have limited options for redevelopment, end of quote. As a practical matter we are not
aware of any other church in Chanhassen that is so limited. As staff said, some churches have
underlying zoning as OI. Some are mixed use PUD's. Some are in industrial park areas
surrounded by office uses making a future transition to office use seemingly a relatively simple
matter. We are only asking that we level the playing field for this church so that this church
parcel is not burdened with so few options for re-use that it negatively impacts on it's value. If
what we are doing is in fact correcting a situation which penalizes one property owner, then it
does not appear that it would be construed to be improperly, given that property owner special
treatment. Rather we will be making a policy decision which puts this church on equal footing
with other churches in our community and the community benefits from a consistent policy. In
fact when compared with other churches who's underlying zoning is OI, this church out of
deference to the neighborhood is asking not for the whole list under OI, which was included in
your packet, but rather only two uses which were selected based on their low impact on the
neighborhood. Assisted living and office. We are recommending that our request be granted not
only for the benefit of the current church user but also for the benefit of any church purchaser so
that 10 years from now they're not facing the same dilemma. And in fact it could be in an initial
case, should there be a church buyer right now, the underlying, the expanded opportunity and the
underlying zoning could make it easier for them to obtain financing since lenders always look to
alternative uses for their security. Another question raised by staff was compatibility of office
use and here I need to show you a little blow up. I think perhaps I anticipated in jotting these
notes down that you would have seen the layouts, or a couple of props that we brought along
before now and so I'll just take the opportunity to show you those right now.
Conrad: Yeah, would you repeat all that Vernelle?
Vemelle Clayton: ... Staff stated that they felt information was lacking regarding the proposed
office use. We have...that we would be more than happy to be a little more specific as to size.
...There is some practical rationale for making it a little bit smaller...the office will not exceed
25,000 square feet including the existing 7,300 square feet of office and I was going to say that
we would not have more than 150 parking stalls. Currently they're in the neighborhood of 90 I
understand. So there's about 3,000 square feet less than what's shown on the overlay that I just
showed you. Some other questions that arose are among them are these. Are there other
locations available for office use? Yes. Are there too many? No. Aren't we always seeking to
improve the tax base? Is this a reasonable location? Yes, and maybe even more so by the fact
that we now have a new office building right across the street. Will the rates here be as high as
in new construction? That meaning rental rates. No. Do we have very many sites in Chanhassen
where the rates are not new construction rates? No, only three. Across the street from here by,
across from McDonald's, in the Bloomberg building and in the old bank building that's owned
by the city. Thus to begin to summarize, we're asking for three uses. Church, assisted living and
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
office. Only church and assisted living, just those two, will not provide the flexibility needed and
would not be acceptable to either the take out buyer or to Lutheran Brotherhood and the church
would not be able to proceed. I should explain that assisted living is a very specific use. If we're
trying to solve a problem for long term, there certainly is no assurance that 10 years from now,
whenever the next church, would want to have some adaptive re-use. There be any demand at all
for assisted living. We'll probably all be living until you know 120 and then just suddenly die,
but who knows. Who knows, I mean you just don't know what's going to be popular or possible
or economically feasible in I0 years. We don't even know what's going to be feasible in 6
months. Somebody may come in here and build something for 100 units and that certainly would
exceed the demand. We have reviewed several other alternatives and these three seem to have
the least impact on the neighbors. An alternative for example such as apartments might be
acceptable to the investors but it's not acceptable to the neighbors. We understand that some of
the neighbors simply want the property limited to church use.. Having heard from them we then
asked supposed it is changed, what can we do to limit your discomfort? Among the answers
were, a decision is important, as much as uncertainty is difficult to deal with. And a use with as
low traffic as possible. Based on that input we then elected to propose and discuss with the
neighbors the three uses. Church, assisted living and office, and we said again, if these plans
were approved, what can we do to limit your discomfort? The primary request was buffering as I
said. Thus we have shown rather extensive and specific buffering which we assured them we
would seek to have approved along with the use designation so that the neighbors would be given
assurance that future site plans would need to comply with the buffering plans that we establish
tonight. An additional comment was that there would be no noise along the rear from loading
and unloading, and as you can see we haVe provided no access across the rear of any of the
building. Some other observations regarding the benefit of establishing this policy for this site
are, one. The longer a parcel remains undeveloped or under developed, the greater the pressure
for increased density there is for the parcel. In other words, if it's going to come before you in
the next few years, the density will probably be much higher because so much more of
Chanhassen will be filled in which would be so much pressure on each parcel for higher and
higher density. Number two, there's perhaps nothing that is more, has a more detrimental affect
on the value of property than a vacant building. We're not saying this will be vacant but without,
with limited adaptive re-use, that's a possibility. Number three, while this community is
appropriately supportive of it's churches, it is not so supportive that it should jeopardize the
opportunity to return a no longer functional church property to the tax roles. Number four.
There is no assurance that a purchase that church with a major expansion and increase traffic and
daily activities, evening and weekends, would in the long run be a better experience for the
neighbors than the two alternatives proposed. Number five. The trend these days is to be closer
to commercial activity. For example, the apartments just rented in Shakopee had a choice of
river view or commercial street view and the later, the commercial street view apartments rented
before the river views. There is a perception that proximity to commercial property reduces
residential property values. But in real life there is very little hard evidence to support the
perception. So I would finally like to turn to number seven. That is the staff revise document
that is the development standards for this lot and block. We're requesting that the deleted
language at office be replaced but preceded by the word between office and before the word
professional insert up to 25,000 square feet.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Peterson: Vemelle, where are you at?
Vernelle Clayton: I'm at Attachment #7 in your packet. Attachment #7. Oh, it's the first page
under permitted uses, the first was church. The second one is office. The paragraph should be
preceded by the words up to 25,000 square feet of professional and business office. Kate alluded
to the fact that I might go through this with you. I certainly can. I don't know see that there is
any need to go through the rest of what is on the first page unless you would want me to explain
something. Under the special conditions, under setback. We're a lot, you know silly me. I
thought if you stood in the back of the building and looked out the back, you're looking at the
rear lot line. Little did I know that the planning staff stands sideways but anyway I do know what
they mean. I do want though to point something out to you, having made that change, there is
something that might get lost. I had said the rear lot line, parking as currently exists. No
additional parking. That was not insignificant in that now we need to add at side lot line,
existing parking to remain. Additional parking 50 feet, and just to be totally up front as to why.
We are not 100% sure that the parking that exists on the north end is exactly 50 feet. It might be
but we're not sure it iSo The rest of, do you have an interest in having me stay here so long that !
take, go through this or have you gone through it? I am assuming you've gone through it.
Peterson: I think it's fair to assume we have, yes.
Vernelle Clayton: All right, thank you. Then I will skip to the only other change then from the
modified version would be at number 11. Under office where it says per city code. I want to add
then not to exceed 150 stalls. With that I would, next I believe, I guess I would ask if you might
have any questions of what I just covered but I do want to introduce Reverend Nate Castens to
speak with me too.
Peterson: Let me open it up for questions first Vemelle. Any questions of the applicant?
Joyce: I do have a question Vernelle. When we're talking about the possibility of assisted living
or the office scenario, are you talking about adaptive re-use or are you talking about razing the
building and starting from scratch?
Vemelle Clayton: No, none of the plans that have currently been considered would envision
tearing down the existing building.
Joyce: Any idea if it was assisted use, if there would be profit or non-profit at this point?
Vemelle Clayton: Well as she said, it could be either. What we've been talking about in just a
very embryonic stage as I recall would be for profit.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant?
Vemelle Clayton: With that I'll be back but I first would like to introduce Reverend Nate
Castens, the Pastor of Family of Christ Lutheran Church.
2O
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Nate Castens: Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, I'm Nate
Castens, the Senior Pastor at Family of Christ Lutheran Church and I live at 7605 Erie Avenue.
And on behalf of the membership of our congregation I appreciate the chance that we have to talk
about our plans and to present them here to you this evening and on our members behalf, I also
express our appreciation for the service that you do individually and as citizens as your role of
planning commissioners. We realize that your service is not always, your role is not always easy
but it does benefit our community and for that we're grateful. Vernelle mentioned that in the
past few months Family of Christ has hosted a series of about four meetings for our immediate
neighbors and for other residents in our neighborhood and we have reproduced much of the same
information that we offered to those folks. We've reproduced that in the documents that you've
received for tonight's meeting. It presents the background that's rather extensive over the past oh
3 or 4 years. The background for this application and the rationale for permitting three
appropriate uses for this site versus a single use as a church. We think this background
information and it's rationale is helpful to give you the context for this application, but we are
also convinced that this application does stand on it's own merit aside from any questions about
real estate or marketing or for that matter aside from any possible or potential buyers. Alongside
church use we believe that the other two uses, the office use and the assisted living facility are
appropriate because they add to the tax base of the community. These two other uses are quite
similar to the office use recently permitted across Lake Drive East from our property. We
believe the impact of office use or an assisted living facility would be equivalent to or perhaps
less, the impact would be less than a church use. Expanded church use certainly. And these are
uses that benefit not only the community but also we believe could possibly benefit the
neighborhood by providing a buffer or transition zone between a much bigger, much busier office
on Lake Drive East. As well as providing some buffering between the Highway 5, the traffic
corridor and this residential area. In addition with our community's codes for setbacks and
landscaping and construction site and materials, especially as established in a PUD, these two
other uses we believe cannot have a more negative impact than a church because further church
development would have to meet the same requirements that those other two uses would have to
meet. We believe the question for the planning commission is whether ours is a reasonable
request for this amendment and whether these three uses are appropriate as highest and best use
of this property, and we believe so. Attending tonight also are other members of our
congregation and members of our church building committee. Jim Sulerud and Randy Koepsell
and Steve Norness in particular as well as some other people will be certainly willing to engage
in some questions and response. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Vemelle Clayton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I will be happy to come back
and answer questions but we have promised several members of the neighborhood, many of
whom I recognize and some of them seem to be new, who are here tonight, that they'll have the
chance to talk and so I think it'd be fair to let them talk right now.
Peterson: Any questions of Vernelle? Okay. This item is open for a public hearing. May I have
a motion and a second please.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please. Prior to anybody standing up, I guess I'd like to
preface. Obviously we have a lot of people here tonight and there's a lot of comments that need
to be said and need to be shared. We want to hear all of them. I would like to caveat that by
saying that if somebody has said exactly the same thing prior to you, we don't necessarily need to
have you repeat that. We're relatively good of hearing and quantity does not necessarily, isn't
necessarily needed so I ask for your consideration of both our time and everyone in the room. So
with that, anyone wishing to address us please come forward.
Sue McCarthy: I'm Sue McCarthy. I was here just two weeks ago. It seems like I get to see you
guys a lot. I reside at 8001 Hidden Court, Chanhassen and on Monday I personally delivered a
petition of 74 names from the neighborhood of Hidden Valley, including streets of Erie, Erie
Avenue, Hidden Court, Hidden Lane, Hidden Circle and Marsh Drive. So what I have to say
today is really in addition to the letters you received in the packet that we sent out. In addition to
the petition that we also submitted to you all, not to be redundant Mr. Chairman of what you just
said. We have, we as a family, my husband and I as well as the neighborhood are generally
opposed to the church's request for rezoning. That's the bottom line. And we want to explain
that our opposition is not as a result that we're afraid of change or that we want to make sure that
things always stay the same. Obviously we saw the new office go in across the street from us on
Lake Drive, and this has been a very difficult decision for us as neighbors of the church. We like
Family of Christ. We participate in their activities concerning the voting and the various other
things that they offer to the community and we're really for that particular church. And we also
really appreciate Nate and his congregation in inviting us to the various meetings, the four
meetings that he held. That was very informative. I think that was one of the few occasions
where we've had an opportunity to hear first hand from the developer as well as from the church
what is going on, so I want to make sure that that's publicly stated. However, while we do
appreciate their efforts we also see that, we have ourselves in the past have taken a loss on our
property and we really feel that what they're asking us to do in rezoning for office and assisted
living is to take another loss on our property. We've spoken to our realtor and our realtor has
told us that we will see anywhere between $5,000.00 and $10,000.00 decrease in our property
value when this decision is made to rezone. We know that the church intends no harm in this
rezoning effort, and they really want to see the best for our neighborhood. However, this request
will result in harm to the neighbors surrounding this particular piece of property. All of us
bought our homes with the idea that this was a church. And you might say well, you know okay.
So it's going to be an office building. I talked with people in all the neighborhoods abutting the
church on Erie Avenue as well as those on Hidden Court, and the people that bought their
property adjacent to that church, it was a very positive thing for them to reside next to a church.
It wasn't negative and so for us to see that rezoning take place to an office, to assisted living, is
not a positive thing for us because we like it as a church building. Not that the church can't
expand. I don't think anybody is really saying we don't want to see it expand. We're not even
saying we don't want to see it set back 50 feet from my property line or whatever the exact
amount is going to be on this particular proposal. It's the fact that it's going to be a different use.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
We, as lay people, see this zoning as a kind of covenant. It's kind ora promise and it benefits all
of us in the community of Chanhassen by assuring predictable neighborhoods and a well planned
community. And if we allow zoning to be this easily set aside for situations when it
inconveniences one party, then it will not have much value to the community as a whole. And
we're all tempted to find our interest as what is best for the community. We as neighbors also
have that same issue. We think it is best. The church sees it as best because they want to grow.
They want to move on to their new site and they want to have the ability to get the funds to move
forward with that growth. We as neighbors want to preserve the neighborhood that we like. That
we have currently and that we're used to enjoying. Now given this disagreement, the reasonable
logic leads us to say that we should keep the zoning as it is. And we think it is a mistake to
believe that this site is inadequate for any other church use in it's current zoning just because the
current church has outgrown this particular building. Not all churches have the same life cycle as
Family of Christ and we firmly believe that a church can move into the current site as it is today.
We also want to make sure that the church, Family of Christ, can move onto their new site and
we want to see them continue to thrive in our community, and we ourselves are really as
neighbors of Family of Christ, are willing to help make that happen with that other church. But
as neighbors we are not willing to give up our property values to support a development scheme
that will hurt our neighborhood. What you've heard from the previous speakers was that you
were going to increase your tax base. I have a very hard time sitting in this meeting and being
quiet when I hear that. In retrospect of 74 people who are also hard working taxpayers who will.
also see detriments to their property as a result of this change. So thank you for hearing us. I do
hope you have read our petition and you've read the various letters and e-mails that have been
sent to the committee. We appreciate you considering this and not rezoning. Thank you.
Peterson: Before you leave, could you point out where your home is.
Sue McCarthy: My home is, this is me. No, this is me. I am 8001 Hidden Court...
Joyce: I know last, when I was over there I saw the address so you're probably the person or the
family most impacted by this decision obviously.
Sue McCarthy: As well as these families.
Joyce: Definitely you're highly impacted, let's put it that way.
Sue McCarthy: You've got it. That's why I'm...
Joyce: What's your position on the berming, the screening and all that kind of thing?
Sue McCarthy: I think berming and screening is fine. Perhaps it ought to have been there today.
But I think what's more detrimental is the type of use that will be put on the property. Because
today we can see the church and we have absolutely no berming, no screening.
Joyce: Yeah, exactly. That's the reason for my question.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Sue McCarthy: It's wide open, and to be honest, it doesn't bother us. It didn't obviously bother
us because we bought the property with that notion that there was no screening. We also have an
open drainage ditch right next to our yard but also was no detriment to us when we purchased it
which will ultimately become a huge pond if this thing is put in. I personally don't see it as a
detriment today in it's current site, the fact that we don't have berming. I also don't, I personally
am more opposed to the usage that they're going to put on this and the uncertainty of the usage
that's going to be put on that land. For one thing, you've got three different uses. How can I tell
a potential buyer of my house what is going to go on that property? Today it may be church but
who's to say it's not going to be ultimately converted to an office or elderly assisted housing later
on. And then I as a good faith seller have not been telling them the truth. So I really feel it's...
conditional use and more fine tuning that isn't in today's building. We bought it...
Joyce: It seemed like the applicant was trying to say you wouldn't be able to see it with the
screening and that doesn't matter to you is what you're saying. Okay.
Sue McCarthy: I like the church...they've been a very good neighbor and I don't want to see it...
Peterson: Anyone else?
Martin Wade: My name is Martin Wade. I live at 8028 Erie Avenue. If somebody wants to flip
this up. Highly impacted. You know everyone always says, well you know I knew when I
bought my house that this was it and that's an easy thing to say kind of after the fact. The reality
is, ! did call up here to find out what the use was and it was church. So I did before I bought my
house check that. So it was important to me and you know, so ! think it should stay that way
because as you said the nebulousness. You know I thought the idea of a PUD was to plan it and
the idea of opening it up to things that we don't even know what the plan exactly looks like, that
defeats the idea to me of what the PUD is all about. So I'm really against the idea of approving
something as a PUD when you don't even have the site plan for these other suggested ideas.
She's showing you examples but nothing that says that's what it's going to be. And so the
church is fine. I'm really not fine with the berms or anything like that either. The church is
beautiful and I like seeing it there and I bought my house for that. That's all I have to say.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 8026 Erie Avenue and...this house here. An
easy way to notice is I'm the one that's doing the construction because I had a fire in my house
about a year ago and I guess that brings up the point, why did I buy the house where it is. I
bought it as a HUD house. I saw it had a lot of work to be done. I'm used to a lot of hard work
and I've lived in the church all my life. When I bought that house I saw that hey, right next to
me, most of my back yard is going to be open lot. If the church ever expands it will be right
there. And that excited me. At night, I used to have a deck out there. Sit out there. You see the
stain glass windows and the steeple. I hear all the time that you know, are you sure you want to
live next to a church by the people that...and I said yeah. I talked to a lot of the people at work, a
lot of my friends and said hey. You know that church that I used to live next to, they're talking
about moving into a, either to assisted living or office complex. What do you think about that?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Everyone shook their head and said I'd rather live next to a church. We like the church. I just,
it's hard not to reiterate everything that she said as well as Martin said. All I can say is ditto to
that but I'd hate to see it rezoned to a church because again anything other than the church, I
guess I'm kind of repeating myself but I bought there because I love the church. I love to see it
as a church. I thought it was always going to be a church. If it is office building, I doubt that I'm
going to put a deck on the back. What's the point?
Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Phil Shepherd: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Phil Shepherd. I live at 5162
Tuxedo Boulevard in Mound. I'm a member of Colonial Church at Heritage Square, meeting in
the old, old, old St. Hubert's. We are currently in the midst ora fund drive attempting to raise
the money to purchase Family of Christ and our concern is that if it's possible for office use to be
on that property, that money concerns will come in, having many more advantages than churches
do and purchase it immediately. Thus acing us out of a potential site for our church growth.
Lotus Corporation's presentation was very professional and I don't think it's fair for them to
represent themselves as the real estate company. They are a development company and before
you they are lobbyists in this particular role that they took on this evening and they're very
professional and they're very slick and ordinary citizens don't have the time to prepare overlays
and charts and graphs and I'm not as familiar with the zoning laws as they are obviously but we
feel very strongly in our church that we'd like the Family of Christ property to remain a church
and not be open for office use. That's all I have to say. Any questions? Thank you.
Dan Lorinser: Hello commission. My name is Dan Lorinser. I live at 8020 Erie Avem~e, and I
know which house is mine...
Peterson: It will make it a much safer drive home.
Dan Lorinser: Everybody who preceded me, I do not need to repeat everything that they have
said. I just wanted to show, she showed one sight line and I think it was from my house. I'd like
to see that. That's my house. Now I have been on the existing berm right there on the church's
side, on the other side of my fence. Right now with the berm that they say is very nonexistent, I
can see over my house. Standing there. So now, if they want to add a larger berm and trees, you
can say goodnight to my sunsets. It will be over. I'll be looking at nothing but land. Besides
just telling them that the church is why we bought our property. We've been there 11 years. We
did not enjoy the lot as much as we would like to. I've had a flat lot but the church in our back
yard made up the difference. We would like it to stay there or at least keep the zoning as a
church only. Thank you.
Randy Koepsell: Hi. I'm Randy Koepsell. I'm a member of Family of Christ. I live at 1110
Dove Court in Chanhassen. I first want to again thank you for considering our application. What
we are asking for is what we believe is a well thought out amendment to the PUD. To not repeat
a number of things but to point out as in the staff report, uses requested are compatible to the
neighborhood and community at large. In fact the uses requested other than church will likely
have less impact on the neighborhood than a church. This was alluded to in the staff report. As a
25
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
benefit of office use, because office hours are usually 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday.
Whereas church activities generally are on weekends. If use has a lower impact, what it really
boils down to is what will the neighbors see. Considering the quality of the development that the
city of Chanhassen requires, the neighbors will see basically the same structure, whether it's a
church, office, or assisted living. With screening, berming, landscaping, setbacks, construction
materials, the side and back views of the development regardless of the use will basically be the
same. View is basically the same and the impact the same or less than a church. Any market
value decrease is perceived at this point. Any expansion would likely have the same affect
whether it's a church expansion or assisted living or office. Again what we presented is an
application that is well thought out plan, compatible with surrounding uses. Again we are
requesting the Planning Commission to approve the use as submitted in the application. I want
to address the sell issue because I've been the one involved with that. We had a letter in June of
1996 from Colonial indicating that they were interested in the property. We got a letter in early
1997 basically stating that they felt our asking price was too high. If we wanted to do something
with the asking price, they would possibly be interested again. They said they're interested
again. At this point we don't have an offer from a church. So that's the status currently.
Peterson: Thank you.
Paul Nicolai: Hi, my name is Paul Nicolai, 8051 Hidden Circle. As far as the map, I am not on
the map. I am not in the immediate vicinity of the church. I'm more set back in this area right
here, and I guess my concern is not what I see and what is visible, the church, it's the use and
what's important to the value of my land and the value of the property is the use of this area and
what the impact is on the community. My children play on these streets and if there's more
traffic or the use is not suitable for a close knit neighborhood, it does impact my usability of the
area. The other thing, just listening to the development, the one thing I can see is that they're
asking this council to change the zoning laws more for a real estate transaction. To increase the
property values so they can go out and make a larger profit on the sale of this property and I don't
see if there are churches out there that are interested, why that can't be pursued in it's entirety.
It's not like there is no interest out there from other organizations of similar use. Why can't that
be pursued and exhausted before going through and trying to rezone something that ultimately
may not be successful and ultimately may not be required. Those are the only comments I had.
Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: There aren't any other folks speaking I do want to, I don't know if the
Shepherd's have the same sort of conversations at home as my husband and I do but, oh! Well
then I'll just say it now for what it's worth and you can argue with me. But I had a conversation
with Cindy the other day where we were talking about how this zoning change would benefit
Colonial Church if they were to purchase it. This zoning change, trust me, we're not trying to do
anything that would prevent Colonial of Heritage Square from buying this. True, they have had a
long time to make up their minds but I happen to know that they're making a really concerted last
ditch effort here. We're not going to do anything. If they can do it in the time period that's
available, but it probably isn't fair to make these people wait another year for them to get on with
their lives. This zoning change, when Colonial outgrows it as they will if they do the same sorts
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
of things that other churches do, will be a significant benefit to them. We're not trying to do it to
lessen their chances.
Bruce Kirkpatrick: My name is Bruce Kirkpatrick. I'm a resident, I'm on the map here. My
house backs into the property. I'm at 8032 Erie. And I believe anyway, half of my property
backs onto the church property and I just purchased my home in May and basically I realize when
you purchase a home you don't know what's going to happen behind you but the bottom linc is
we purchased in good faith in reference to the property being a church facility. I have an
enclosed neighborhood, and a young daughter and there's a lot of families that border on that and
I would echo what the resident just said earlier. I think the challenge would be at the daytime
activity of the facility, and yes. Maybe possibly the building structure is not going to change but
the activity of office right in the middle of a residential area is a real challenge for me as a
homeowner. And obviously there's no guarantees about property values going up or down. I
don't believe taxes are going to drop if my property value goes down. And the bottom line is,
you know why mess with something that's already in place? There is a church here that's
interested in the area and as we look at the development of Chanhassen, I think we have to look
at what is currently in existence and see if we can't put back in the same space another church
facility. The bottom line here for me is just encourage you to not move quickly on this matter if
we do have Colonial that's interested and as a resident right next to this property, it'd be ideal for
us to continue to have a church on that facility. Again, for the safety of the neighborhood and the
families and I really encourage you to take a look at not rezoning. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Karen Hongslo: Hi commission, my name is Karen Hongslo. I live at 310 Hidden Lane. I'm not
on the map. Just bought my property four months ago. I'm brand new to Chanhassen. I'm
brand new to Minneapolis. I wanted to let you know I'm a mother of three kids and we play on
Hidden Lane, which does come to an end to where the church is and I am concerned about an
office building going in. The people who talked about the possibility of an office building said
that Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00. I stay home with my kids. We're out there Monday
through Friday 8:00 to 5:00. I don't want to see traffic coming down our street. The other thing
I wanted to bring up is that we've also heard a lot of ifs, usually and possibly's. That doesn't
give us any guarantees and if you're going to guarantee the property of the church to be rezoned,
I'd like to see what kind of guarantee the commission can give us as property owners in this area
as to what would happen to our property values if something like this went on. Thank you.
Karen Cook: Hi. My name is Karen Cook and I'm at 260 Hidden Lane. I am also not on the
map, and we bought our house last summer. We moved here from out of town and knew that the
church was for sale and had we ever thought that it was possible to have it rezoned, we would
have never bought our home. I also am home with children during the day and I think...I'm not
naive enough to think or accept the fact that our neighborhood would not be affected by a
rezoned property that I live across the street from. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Lynn Jossi: Hi. I'm Lynn Jossi. I'm at 250 Hidden Lane. I just, we are also strongly objected to
any rezoning of this property. I have two arguments against several things they said. They said
their request is similar to other offices around the neighborhood. Other offices only have like
one side backing up to houses whereas here it's basically three sided. And they also said an
office or something might be a better buffer. We really think that as it is, as a church right now is
the best buffer. Thank you.
Dave Cameron: Hi, my name is Dave Cameron. I live at 8161 Hidden Court. I'm not on the
map. I'm just kind of watching the proceedings here and my main comment would be, when you
look to rezone, and especially if you're next to residential, you look to what benefit does it
provide to the immediate neighbors as well as to the community. So rezoning, I don't see how
an office would, or a plan change benefits the immediate area. Secondly I'm curious as to, it was
zoned as a church initially when they built. They built with that understanding yet they're now
looking to have it rezoned for, to make it more marketable. You know and I feel for the church
to be in a situation where it's not that easy to sell a property. But at the same time you built it
with it zoned as a church. You know it should be sold as a church. So those are my comments.
Carol Watson: My name is Carol Watson. I live at 7131 Utica Lane in Chanhassen and I go to
Colonial Church. My only comment is, not that they're trying to keep us from getting it but once
the rezoning takes place as Family of Christ has pointed out, it's difficult for churches to get
financing. Once the rezoning takes place, I'm sure that a commercial zoning would come in and
be able to come up with financing and more money than any church ever would. So I feel that if
the rezoning takes place after that point, I doubt very much that a church would ever be the entity
that would have the opportunity to get that property at that point. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you for your comments.
Vernelle Clayton: I think I'm going to wear out my welcome but I just want to point out to
Carol if that is the perception, the price is already established. It's not any higher, not any lower.
It's the same thing if the church were to buy it.
Peterson: If there are no more comments, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Joyce moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: The public hearing is now closed. Obviously an emotionally charged issue.
Commissioners, any thoughts or comments?
Joyce: I'll take a stab at this situation. A couple different parties involved here. The church, the
neighbors and really the city as well I guess. ! appreciate the church's position. I understand that
you have a beautiful facility out there, or going to have a beautiful out there by Bluff Creek.
Looking forward to that very much. I like that plan. I know we worked hard on that and it's, I'd
like to get you out there as soon as possible. I also like the idea that adaptive re-use where you
take a building that might not be utilized properly, up to it's fullest potential, whatever. Existing
building and then maybe developing into something that can be utilized for a better cause. But I
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
have to say that I don't feel that we're at that point yet. I think the existing, I just, it hasn't been
proven to me yet that that can't be a, going to be a church. The city would certainly like to clear
up some of the vagueness on the property, but I don't see a reason for doing that at the expense of
the neighbors and I guess what it all boils down to is we're talking about changing the comp plan
here and we really need kind of a compelling reason to change the comp plan. And we're just not
getting that from the church or the city. Some similarities placed between the property just west
of there, the Northcott property. Saying that that was a...an office development and this property
now, if it became, if we were to, if it ever became an office development it would naturally blend
in with what we're doing with Northcott. And I'll have to say that the church, the whole problem
I have is that the church really kind of defines the character of that neighborhood. I think they
bought their homes or built their homes when there was a church there. Actually, it's my
understanding the homes were there before the church so the church kind of came in after the
fact. But a church really does have a, develops part of the character of the neighborhood I think.
And I feel that staff has presented something that would be, I feel fair to both parties and allows
the church to add on the idea of assisted living. I think that was a good idea. I think that might
possibly work because I think it would change part of the character of the neighborhood but not
nearly as much as an office building and I feel that the applicant is really dead set on pressing this
to include that office designation in the OI. So if the applicant were to convince me that they
were just interested in that assisted living portion of it, I'd be more amenable to what they're
doing. But if they're going to present it and say it has to be assisted living and office, I couldn't
go along with that.
Peterson: Other comments?
Blackowiak: Well I'll take a stab next I guess. I agree pretty much with what was just said. The
city has offered to clear the "cloud" over the property title. All that has to be done is put a
conditional use on file and that can be taken care of so I don't think that's a big issue. One of the.
residents just brought up the point that other uses were not envisioned as part of the original
PUD. In other words it was zoned as a church and therefore why should we make a change now?
I totally agree. The original PUD saw it as a church property and I think that that's where we'll
be right now. There are indeed other churches in the city that have similar zoning requirements.
They exist with underlying zoning of only church. So I don't think it's being unfair or singling
out this property. I think that that's just what was envisioned is part of the original PUD site and
I'm comfortable with that. And Kevin alluded to the comp plan. We spent a lot of time last year
going through the comp plan and taking a look at every parcel in the city and where things are.
What makes sense and what doesn't make sense and in this last year we did not feel compelled to
change the zoning of that property. So I have not heard any reason tonight that would make me
change that decision of what we have gone through this last year. One of the paragraphs that
really stuck out in the staff report. It talked about special treatment. It said in order for staff to
justify amendments to the PUD and comp plan it must be shown that the parcel has not been
given special treatment, the changes are for the benefit of the entire community, and the action
complies with the comprehensive plan. I haven't found that tonight. I haven't heard that tonight
so at this point I would have to vote no for the proposal before us this evening.
Peterson: Thank you. Comments?
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Burton: Yeah Mr. Chairman, I have some comments. First I'd just like to say I appreciate the
turnout. Having everybody's input does help us make a decision. But having said that this is a
tough issue and it's a tough decision anyway. And I do sympathize with both sides. I understand
that the church wants to grow and needs to relocate and it needs to relocate using the value that is
built into this property. And I also understand, I think this is from one of the letters that the
neighbors want to retain. A single family, friendly, residential area and they'd leave the church
that use. And again another consideration is the city would like to get this property on the tax
roles. When we look at items like this and I look to the staff report for guidance. They set forth
the standards. The church I think has alluded to that standard as being, it seems to me anyways,
being reasonable and appropriate use for these changes. The staff report lists changes for
amendments to a PUD and the first item is whether there's special treatment. In here I'm not
sure whether there's special treatment. I think I could be convinced either way. I think that we
try to take into consideration the needs of all the residents of Chamhassen and anybody who's
faced with this tough situation like the church is, that we would take their issues into
consideration. So I'm not sure, I guess on special treatment I'm not sure where I fall on that
because I do also have a concern that we are perhaps being asked to enhance the church's value
over the residents issues. With respect to this next item that staff points out is the benefit to the
entire community and I believe the residents pretty resonantly have a feeling that that answer is
no. And I do not believe that we can evaluate this except on a specific proposal by proposal
basis. I would prefer to know what the specific proposed use is before I could make that
determination. The third item relates to the comprehensive plan and right now I believe, my
reading is that the only qualifying use is a church and I agree with my fellow commissioner that I
don't see a compelling reason to change that. With respect to specific uses, I agree with the staff
that their office use be more compatible elsewhere. With respect to assisted living, I agree with
the residents that I believe it would be inappropriate for this area but I think it could be revisited
again on a case by case basis when we know more details and we don't have that. I agree that the
PUD was passed in 1985 and this was designated as a church use and the church knew of this.
And the residents knew of this and I appreciate the comparisons to neighboring properties but we
don't know the history of those properties and what the people knew and what they were getting
into when they bought their homes. So having pointed those things out and with due respect to
the church, I do not think it's prudent to consent to the church's request. I would agree with the
staff's proposal but would limit it to a church as being the only permitted use.
Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to echo Commissioner Burton's comments, and maybe add a
few. I have listened to the other commissioners and the comments from the neighbors. Church
members. At this point I guess I think it was said quite well by a couple of the people who spoke
this evening. That if we were to change the zoning, that there should be a compelling reason
which would benefit and be acceptable to the community as a whole. And I guess when I
listened to staff in the beginning, there were things that they were asked to create a short list of
uses that would be acceptable to the neighborhood and to the community and it comes down to a
church being acceptable to the neighborhood. We heard a lot about timing. Benefits
to...property values and financial aspects. But still there.., with the expectation that the property
would be a church...Commissioner Burton that if we were to zone, that it would be very
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
important to know what the specific proposal is. At this point I just don't know what we're
buying and I guess I don't feel very comfortable rezoning...with nothing specific in front of us...
Peterson: Other comments?
Conrad: Sure. It's fun to see everybody here. Even though it's a tough issue, it's cool that
you're here. I'd love to see the tax base improved. That's real important. I think you'd be
surprised how good an office could be as a neighbor. I don't believe that your property would
lose value. Back in '85 I probably would have thought, rather than a church we probably would
have zoned that high density based on it's location. I may have even been here. With that said,
that's where you're set at but that said I think it is important that you can count... I didn't hear a
compelling reason tonight to change it to office. Logically based on what we do, it doesn't look
like office to me. I wouldn't have done that. I don't think I've been persuaded tonight that it
should be. However, it does have rights. The church has to provide, it can put a school in. It can
put classrooms there. It may have to change to serve the function of a church. If the church is
active, it has to do more than have a building. That's just the way churches have to be. They
can't be...community asset for you've got to, kind of take it that it's not always going to be the
same. It's sort of like everywhere you look, things change but therefore that's the second stage in
the set-up that I do believe that the staff's recommendation is probably appropriate. Maybe the
assisted living function...some of the neighborhood concepts that would fit into this area. So
you know I think you all have to realize that there are other uses for properties that are trying to
figure out how to get some tax base in here and we really have seen a lot of cases where this kind
of office is a good neighbor. We've seen it, it can be but again the point is, that's not what
you're counting on and I don't think I've seen a major reason for changing that tonight Mr.
Chairman so I think the staff report does give a little bit more definition to what's potential there,
and the potential is a school. The potential is possible. It's probably not going to be the same
what you've seen so anyway, I would recommend...we consider the staff report strongly.
Peterson: Are you in favor of assisted living as an option?
Conrad: Yeah.
Peterson: I will endeavor to take my own advice and not be redundant to my fellow
commissioners because I think we all have shared some very interesting insight to a very
sensitive issue as I alluded to earlier. My thoughts are succinctly, I don't see office going in
there. I've been struggling with assisted living. I, along with Commissioner Conrad feel as
though that space is certainly something that we certainly would like to strive for to increase that.
Assisted living has a connotation in many people's minds as being negative as far as wanting to
be near that. I think that's unfortunate but I think it is a fact, at least in my experience so would
probably be. Well probably, I would not vote in favor of that tonight. Again it's a charged issue
and hopefully you can empathize with the struggle that we are facing tonight and carry these
same issues and comments on to council. With that discussion, may I have a motion and a
second please?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Blackowiak: I guess I'll make the motion. See ifI can get it right here. I'll make a motion that
Planning Commission recommends denial of the revision to Hidden Valley PUD #85-1, Lot 1,
Block 7, Hidden Valley.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Burton; Mr. Chair, I have a question on discussion of this. Does it have to be seconded before
we discuss? Then I'll second.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Burton: My feeling is that our, that we want to give them a permitted use as a church. And so it
would seem to me that perhaps the motion would be tfiat the PUD be revised to permit a church
as a permitted use.
Peterson: That considered a friendly amendment?
Blackowiak: I would consider that. Kate is that, can we make that amendment?
Aanenson: Sure, you can modify that motion any way you want.
Blackowiak: I would accept the friendly amendment to recommend approval. So in other words
that would, let me just clarify this, effectively amend the PUD #85-1, and this is something that
we visited back in June of last year according to my notes from last year. In other words, this
would correct the procedural omission.
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: Okay, I would certainly accept that friendly amendment to correct the procedural
omission and approve the church on Lot 1, Block 7 of Hidden Valley.
Peterson: Any other discussion?
Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to the
City Council that the Hidden Valley PUD #85-1 be revised to permit a church on Lot 1,
Block 7, Hidden Valley as shown on the plans dated Received March 19, 1999, and subject
to the following condition:
1. The development of the site shall comply with the design standards as amended.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to
1.
Peterson: Ladd, your nay was due to?
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 21, 1999
Conrad: I think it should include the other use.
Peterson: Thank you. This goes on to City Council on the l0th of May. Thank you all for your
feedback and input.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: ...eight additional theaters at the retail space. Right now there's a lot of concern
regarding the architecture so it may come before you with just a lot of findings. I don't think we
can get it all resolved in the first meeting. We're working really hard. They're on a fast track but
there's some design issues. And then also we've got the North Bay beachlot conditional use and.
then a variance. You'll see your first variance. And also I wanted to pass out a meeting in
Shorewood regarding affordable housing. If you have an opportunity to go. It's in the morning
on May 20th, if you want to let me know. I have to RSVP. I put that on there. With the lake
communities so it's a good opportunity to get some education. Continental breakfast.
Peterson: Oh, sign me up.
Joyce: Is Shorewood the community that voted against affordable housing?
Aanenson: I'm not sure what their status is on that.
Joyce: No, I'm serious. There was one or two communities out here that, you know when the
comp.
Aanenson: Yeah, Victoria did. Livable Communities Act but they are now have, yeah. Victoria
has now signed on. I'm not sure what Shorewood's status is. But it's at the community center
which is on County Road 19 right before you get to Country Club Lane. So if you're interested
in going please let me know before May 12th. That's all I had as far as ongoing items.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated April 7, 1999 as presented.
Chairman Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33