Loading...
1985 04 10 e MINUTES CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1985 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Members Present Jim Thompson, Susan Albee, Ladd Conrad, Bill Ryan, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. Members Absent Tom Merz PUBLIC HEARING Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #85-2 to allow a building for contractor's yard activities to be increased from 26' x 36' to 28' x 40' on property zoned R-la and located at 6420 Powers Blvd., Larry Kerber, applicant Public Present Larry Kerber 6420 Powers Blvd. e Olsen stated that the City Council recently approved the appli- cant's conditional use permit for contractor's yard activities with the approved addition to the existing garage to measure 26' x 36'. She stated that the applicant is now requesting to expand the addition to 28' x 40'. She stated that the expansion will be on the rear and side of the existing garage and will conform to the required setbacks. She stated that staff believes this expansion will not result in an increase in the impact of the contractor's yard to surrounding properties. Ryan asked if this was an expansion of his contractor's yard activities? Larry Kerber stated that in the original conditional use permit request, he knew he wanted to add onto the garage. He stated that 26 feet is not deep enough to get his truck in. He can get it in but only has 6 inches of head room. He would like to expand it to 28 feet and wants to go 40 feet on the length to give it a better proportion, so it looks better. Noziska moved, seconded by Albee to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee, to recommend the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #84-15 for an incrase to the previously approved garage addition to measure 28' x 40', e e - Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 2 located at 6420 Powers Boulevard subject to the following con- dition: 1. Expansion of the existing operation must be approved by Conditional Use Permit. J. Thompson, Albee, Ryan, Conrad and Noziska voted in favor. M. Thompson abstained. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING preliminary Plan Review for PUD #85-1 for the development of single family detached residences on 80 acres of property zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence and located at the southeast corner of Hwy. 5 and 101, New American Homes, applicant. Public Present (? ) 8037 Erie Ave. 8044 Erie Ave. 8048 Erie Spur 8040 Erie Ave. 8031 Erie Ave. 8032 Erie Ave. 1050 Pontiac Lane victoria 8007 Dakota Circle 510 Laredo Lane 8110 Dakota Lane 8108 Dakota Lane 8155 Grandview Road 8038 Erie Ave. 8028 Erie Ave. 8003 Dakota Ave. 8104 Dakota Lane 8046 Erie Spur 8103 Dakota Lane 8012 Erie 17090 Creekridge Trail, Mtka 8030 Erie Ave. 8210 Grandview Road 8034 Erie Ave. 8114 Erie Circle 8201 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8017 Dakota Circle John and Carolyn Turnacliff Richard Perkins Harold Lundby John & Barb Dobson Steve Masterson Mark Ringdahl Kurt Papke Muriel Marrino Ray Knight craig Mertz Mr. & Mrs. Chris Chinander Ken Groen Tim & Mary Bernier Gary & Rosalie Olson Denny & Sharie Loechler Sue pottery Don & Marsha White Chuck Dav is Mel Lelander Don Smith John McAllseth Jane Loos Lori Skrober W. & Marie Weber J.A. Essen Phil Bird Al Sinnen Dennis [ltfli;"i1 '.1 Dacy stated that the site is located at the southeast corner of the Hwy. 5 and 101 intersection. She stated that presently the e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 3 property is zoned R-la. She stated that in 1972 this property was zoned p-2, Planned unit Development, and has had three pre- vious proposals with one in 1978 being the last one submitted. She stated that it was apparent that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982 it was anticipated that High Density Residential Development would occur between the Legion site and Chanhassen Estates immediately adjacent to Highway 5 and the remainder of the subject parcel would be designated as Residential Low Density. She stated that the preliminary plan has changed from the sketch plan previously submitted in the following manner: 1. Single family detached lots have been reduced from 132 to 110. 2. Although the applicant has indicated potential for high density residential development of 100 units, previously pro- posed as 90, the applicant has submitted an application to change the land use designation from High Density Residential to Commercial and a rezoning application to C-2, General Commercial (this will be considered at the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 1985). e 3. The gross density has been reduced from 2.78 units per acre to 2.62 units per acre; however, it should be noted that the gross density for just the single family detached portion is 2.3 units per acre (110 unitsj46.87 acres). 4. The net density has been reduced from 4.82 units per acre to 4.74 units per acre. The net density for just the single family detached portion would be 2.97 units per acre. 5. The applicant is proposing Outlot B as a potential church site. 6. The applicant has moved Drive A (Lake Drive East) to the south out of the American Legion property (as recommended by the City Council at the sketch plan review). This movement to the south has created what is being proposed as Outlot D and has been proposed by the applicant to be a 1.9 acre potential commercial site. 7. Because of the shift of Drive A to the south, the street and lot pattern has therefore been adjusted to create double frontage lots for Block 1. The applicant has indicated a 50 foot buffer along Drive A to provide for screening. e 8. The average lot size has increased from 12,443 square feet to 14,793 square feet. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 4 9. The smallest lot size has increased from 6,050 square feet to 7,700 square feet. There are now only 4 lot sizes that total 7,700 square feet and are located in Block 2 (Lots 31, 33, 36 and 39). 10. The lots immediately adjacent to Chanhassen Estates have increased in width from 80 feet to 90 feet. Lot widths have increased from a minimum of 55 feet to a minimum of 65 feet. There is one lot that measures 60 feet in width (Lot 33, Block 4). There are two lots that measure 65 feet in width (Lots 5 and 6, Block 2) the remaining lot widths measure at least 70 feet. Cul-de-sac lot widths have increased from a minimum of 35 feet to a minimum of 40 feet. Three cul-de-sac lots measure 40 feet in width (Lots 19, 20, and 21, Block 2). The remaining 26 cul-de-sac lots measure 50 feet in width at the right-of-way line. e 11. During sketch plan review a 25 foot front setback was discussed as well as an alternating 5 foot side setback on one side and 10 feet on the remaining side. The applicant is now proposing a minimum front setback of 30 feet on cul- de-sac lots and 25 feet on the remaining lots. The appli- cant is still requesting consideration of a 5 and 10 foot side yard setbacks; however, he has indicated to staff that a 15 foot separation between structures would be guaranteed. This would be accomplished when a building permit application is filed, the application would not only indicate the proposed structure on the subject lot but it would also show its relationship to the adjoining lots. 12. The applicant has met with the Chanhassen Estates Homeowners Association and has submitted deed restrictions similar to those of the Chanhassen Estates on the lots which directly abut the Chanhassen Estates boundary. She stated that the applicant has worked with the DNR to deter- mine the permissible number of lots within 1000 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark of Rice Marsh Lake. She stated that as noted in the letter from DNR, the proposed number of lots is con- sistent with their regulations for the Shoreland District. She stated that DNR has recommended a no cut, no mow easement below the bluff of the first tier of lots. She noted that DNR requires a 150 foot building setback from the ordinary high water mark and the plan indicates the required setback. e Dacy stated that the applicant also needs a wetland alteration permit because the development is within 200 feet of a class A wetland. She stated that because of the required 150 foot set- back and because of the significant change in topography, there will be little impact of the first tier of lots on the wetland area. However, building permits for Lots 8 and 9 should include e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 P ag e 5 certification by a professional engineer to address the slope and drainage considerations. Dacy explained that because of the reduction in number of single family detached lots, the gross development density has been reduced to 2.3 units per acre which is consistent with the Compo Plan. She noted that the net density of this area has been reduced to approximately 2.97 units per acre. She also stated that the average lot size has increased from 12,443 sq. ft. to 14,793 sq. ft. She stated that the average lot size and the range of smallest to largest is consistent with approved lot sizes in other PUD's. She also stated that the lot widths along cul-de-sacs measure 40 which is also consistent with other approved PUD's. She noted that the majority of the proposed cul- de-sac lots measure 50 feet and non-cul-de-sac lots measure 70 feet in width. Dacy stated that the applicant has changed the street pattern, from the previously reviewed sketch plan, creating double fron- tage lots with a 50 foot buffer for screening. e Dacy stated that the applicant has submitted a proposed planting plan indicating one 3! to 4 inch caliper shade tree per lot. She noted that staff is also recommending two trees per lot facing Chanhassen Estates also be incorporated. She stated that the plan indicates a buffer area of the reverse frontage lots, however, it does not provide details as to the type of screening proposed. She stated that staff recommends that this easement from Lot 35, Block 4 through Lots 1-13, Block 1, contain a five foot berm complimented with appropriate vegetation. She stated that a detailed planting plan must be submitted in that area. Dacy stated that the applicant is requesting 25 foot setbacks on non-cul-de-sac lots and a 30 foot front setback on cul-de-sac lots. She noted that the applicant intends to maintain at least 15 feet between all structures. She stated that this is proposed to be enforced by the developer submitting a "staking plan" for each individual building permit. She noted that this would speed city staff review of the setbacks. She explained that the bene- fit to an alternating setback is primarily one of breaking the monotony of a house after house effect. She also noted that the house placement would primarily be in the center of each lot. She also stated that the applicant has submitted deed restric- tions. e Dacy also noted that the applicant was now making application to satisfy Environmental Quality Board rules. She stated that the rules require completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for subdivisions over 100 dwelling units. She stated that the City Council cannot formally act on the proposal until the required 30 day review period expires but noted that Planning Commission review is acceptable and recommended. e e e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 6 Donald Smith: I don't think anyone has taken into account that Hwy. 5 is going to be made into a four lane highway. This access off of Dakota cuts off and eliminates the need for these proper- ties here to maintain the covenants that are already in existence, for example garages and things of this nature. So as far as this access is concerned, I am asking why. It is a major consideration particularly if Hwy. 5 is going to be developed into a four lane highway. Bill Ryan: There is not an access onto the highway there. Donald Smith: No, but you only come down a half block and we take this access way in between these homes and the Sinclair sta- tion which is already vacant and you are making a road out of it, why? What are you going to put there? Barbara Dacy: What is being proposed is . . . Dakota Avenue is here, and Erie Avenue here. The proposed roadway will not enfringe on those lots. The rear lot line is right here and the edge of the Sinclair property is right there. We have a strip there which is reserved for future connection. This street will not affect the access of these lots. Donald Smith: What happens if this becomes a four lane highway it will eliminate that road. We ask that you give some con- sideration to that. Secondly, they are talking about slabs. I hope they meet all specifications and go 42 inches below the frost line so that there is no floating houses. I would like to add, that if the church does not pick this site, this happens to be the highest site in the particular area, and it creates a ridge on all of this property here. So excavation and how it's done will be a premium. If any of you have watched the projects on 101 where that snake turn is. There is one house that if you ever miss that turn, you are going to be through his roof. In this particular case, I don't know how they would work out. A church would be fine but there is a ridge line and that should be considered. What about the sewers, where will they be leading? I suggest that those minimum lots be kept at 80 feet instead of a 70 foot. John Turnacliff: I live in Chan Estates also. As an asso- ciation, we did meet with the proposed developers of the property and we put together a letter that I don't think was included in the staff report, or maybe it was. We have had two meetings with the developers. We took a look at the first plan that was pro- posed and expressed some of our concerns, then we later met a second time with a fairly large group, alot of the people that are here tonight were there. At that time the revised plan was shown to us. A good many of the concerns that we had from the first plan and also the concerns of the City Council were addressed with this revised plan. We tried to summarize at the e e e Planning commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 7 bottom of this letter four at least three major concerns of vir- tually all of the people in Chanhassen Estates. Those concerns are the sizes of the houses that are being put in, not being com- patible with those that already exist in Chanhassen Estates. There is a very, very strong feeling by the people in Chan Estates that the houses should have basements and double garages to try to insure as much as possible that there will be enough storage. We have problems ourselves in our area and I'm sure other neighborhoods do to where even with double garages and basements it's sometimes hard to keep everything inside, including my house. The other major thing is that the commercial areas were undefined, weren't really nailed down and it kind of sounded like they could change at any time and we are a little concerned about that. I know that there are alot of other people that want to maybe bring up some other things, but I guess that we would like you to consider those three major concerns. In light of the statements that the City Council made at the last meeting, and that is that we want to have a development that the City of Chanhassen can be proud of and that has home areas that are going to be attractive and make it a long term project for the entrance of Chanhassen. Craig Mertz: First a disclaimer. I am not here as President of the Chamber of Commerce nor am I here as an attorney for the developer. I have looked at the plans. It looks dandy to me. This is just the type of thing that the city needs. It has been a good five years since we have had anyone proposing a housing development along Highway 5 corridor. We need housing oppor- tunities to support the downtown project. I ran some numbers treating the most inexpensive house that this developer is pro- posing. A typical real estate transaction, where a young couple is applying for an FHA loan, zero down payment, they are absorbing all of the closing costs, that couple would have to have an income of over $40,000 to qualify for mortgage. I didn't say $14,000, I said $40,000. We are not talking about the Dregs Society moving into Chanhassen as a result of this particular development. I have only one criticism and that is I think the site is being underdeveloped. I would like to see more of this type of activity in the city. Chuck Davis: You identified four 7,700 square foot lots, could you show me where they are located. Are they on the cul-de-sac? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Chuck Davis: What other PUD's are there around here that would be living examples of what that type of development is? Craig Mertz: development. square feet. Laredo Lane is an example exactly of this type of Where the average lot size is around 7,000-8,000 Some lots are around 15,000 square feet. I feel e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 8 that it is one of the best done developments in the city at least from a standpoint of a sense of community, it is one of the most successful neighborhoods in the community. Chuck Davis: One other thing, was a copy of the covenants and restrictions supplied so that you could review it. You did get that. Is the agreement that all the covenants and restrictions shown in there are the ones highlighted? Jerry Martin: I copied most of them that were relevant. One was that there was suppose to be at a $17,000 house built, I excluded that. Chuck Davis: I would like to go on record, a couple of things we talked about like the garages and slabs. Are you aware of any developments here or any housing on a slab per say in any kind of single family stretches of more than 5 or 6 houses? Howard Noziska: I think that most of them have basements. Chuck Davis: So then maybe what we are saying is, in so many words, that really the accepted building practice in this part of the world maybe would be anything but a slab. e Bill Ryan: It is generally, when you have to go down to a foun- dation wall you might as well have some space. Rick Sathre: I am the engineer. The building codes do require that 42 inches would be the bottom of the footing below the finished grass grade or yard grade. That is the code in Minnesota, which would typically be a five course basement, typi- cal to a split entry type home. Chuck Davis: Just one other thing. The double garage follow through there. I think the realities what Jerry explained is a reality. Most people would take a double garage, if that's a fact, then I really think his package, the way he goes to market, and I am not trying to tell you how to market it, because I think you have given alot to the surrounding community and we appre- ciate that. We are getting so close we might as well talk about a few of these other things. The real world says that if you don't have a basement and a double garage, you are going to live outside with half your goods, there is just no space. e Lori Skrober: I live on Grandview. First of all I would like to express my disappointment that I wasn't contacted. I know some of the residents were contacted. I was not contacted at all. My concern is for that area and the houses that are going to be bordering ours. I would like to suggest that the lot sizes in that area be near our size that are on Grandview Road area. We are talking about alot of real dense area. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 9 Barbara Dacy: This area up here is substantially higher in grades and topo. The lot sizes along this first tier are 20,000 to 30,000 square feet because they go back to the ordinary high water mark. The buildable areas are going to be restricted. You are going to be looking down on this subdivision. There is going to be a grade change. Lori Skrober: I don't really have a question. I am just con- cerned that the subdivision that is going in is very unlike the room and privacy that we have. Barbara Dacy: Yes, your lot has at least an acre. Lori Skrober: And my concern is that it would substantially lower our value and take away alot of our privacy. I am not objecting to new housing, but I would like to suggest it be more like what is already there. I am also concerned that we face the back of all these homes. e Michael Thompson: Why wouldn't she know about the hearing. Barbara Dacy: There were 81 people on the public hearing list. The property owners list is prepared by the Carver County Abstract and Title Company and either it was a human error or if the actual fee title of the property was in someone else's name, if there was a contract for deed. Michael Thompson: Were the other people up there notified? Barbara Dacy: I will check on that. Jerry Martin: As far as double facing, you mean the street back against the property, that is not the case. There is lots back against lots. Barbara Dacy: I do have on the property owners list a Charles & L. Skrober, 8210 Grandview Road, Chanhassen. It is on our list and to the best of my knowledge the notice was sent out. Kathy Frickman: I came a little late. I have a question about where the church property is. I want to know what kind of guarantee we have that if that, say the church deal falls through and they don't want to build there, that they can't come in a put up some kind of commercial development. What guarantee do we have? Jerry Martin: If it isn't a church site, I believe we have to come back and go through another public hearing. e Susan Albee: It is not zoned right at this point in time for a church. Jerry Martin: So we have to come back in for the church? e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 10 Barbara Dacy: What our recommendation was is that the area south of Drive A be zoned P-l. A church would have to be processed as a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow a church as a use in that district. If a church is not located on that site, the P-l uses would include single family homes, townhomes and multiple family dwellings. So the developer would have to submit a site plan showing what is proposed for that particular outlot. Bill Ryan: What happens Kathy, is again because it is a PUD, there is a negotiated arrangement, there is a development contract that takes place between the city and the developer and all of the land use is permitted in that development. Barbara Dacy: As a condition of approval, the Commission would have the power to, if the church is not going to be located there, you can certainly require an additional site plan review and public hearing. e Bill Ryan: If they change the land use they have to come in and modify their development agreement. So the city gets another shot at saying no you can't do that. That is one of the benefits of a PUD. But they would be allowed by zoning to change it to anything that fits within that category, that does not include commercial. Phil Bird: I was interested in the tot lot and softball diamond, there was no reaction on the part of the developers as far as what was going to be done. The other is because of the differen- ces in the lot sizes and density, I have heard this figure that most of them would be sold for $60,000 with land and home and if that is false, I would like to have the range and median and the average values. Jerry Martin: As far as the house costs are concerned, the least expensive home would be around $60,000. Because of topography, that would be a crawl space house. Because of topography at least 37% will have to have basements whether people want them or not it will have to be a necessity because there will be a grade differential and right now our best guess, most people buy $5,000 worth of options and if that were the case, the most expensive unit would be about $85,000. It would put the average sale price at around $79,000. Phil Bird; What is your reaction to the tot lot and softball diamond idea? e Jerry Martin: Since we were just made aware of that, that had taken place at a meeting last evening, we will work with the staff to go over with what is best suited for staff as well as for ourselves. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 11 Harold Lundby: Have you built these homes before? Do you have a subdivision anywhere similar to what you are proposing here? Jerry Martin: New American Homes is a brand new company. I have personally have built these houses before working for another company. I can take some photograhs and bring them to the next meeting. Harold Lundby: Maybe for me and others perhaps because architec- tural drawings are deceiving. The actual construction and how the development would be put together as planned out will look a great deal different than an architect's plan. Has a traffic impact study been done, or is that necessary? Do we know how that is going to impact Hwy. 5? You can't escape Chan Estates now. e Rick Sathre: We have been working with the City Engineer and the City Engineer has been working with a consultant on traffic volu- mes on the roadways in the area. All we know is that we believe the city needs Lake Drive East, the frontage road system to take some of the residential traffic off of Highway 5 for the long term. If that road was not built, Highway 5 would be over crowded in the future. The roadway system, Lake Drive East is envisioned to be a 36 foot wide roadway that would accommodate this traffic coming out of the residential area and funnel it through either 101 or Dakota Avenue and then to Hwy. 5. Harold Lundby: It's Highway 5 that I am the most concerned about. It all funnels out to 101 and 5, that is my main concern. Rick Sathre: We have had meetings with MnDOT, they are looking at upgrading Highway 5 to four lanes soon. Barbara Dacy: That has been approved. It will four lanes up to County Road 4 and to Chanhassen by 1990. The intent of Lake Drive East link is that it will eventually connect Audobon Road to the west and provide access as Mr. Sathre noted, beyond into Eden Prairie. The intent of Lake Drive East is to relieve the pressure that is on Highway 5, we all know it's bad, but it is part of the traffic improvement plans by MnDOT and it is going to take five years to have it. But in the meantime the city is anticipating another roadway to relieve some of the traffic congestion on 5. Donald Smith: That P-4 lane, that is supposed to relieve the pressure off of Hwy. 5. Barbara Dacy: Yes, it will be designated as a major collector. ~ Donald Smith: Another spagetti bend. Bill Ryan: Highway 5 is a limited access highway. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 12 Rick Sathre: I think the intent of collector roadways like that is to try to provide a way for the residents in the community to move back and forth within the community without having to go out on the highway and then come back off. So that the shorter trips that you might take to go shopping or work in Chanhassen you could make those trips without going on the highway. It cer- tainly not intended to be a funnel so that the highway traffic can get off. Dennis Loechler: I need to go back to that church lot again. If I understand what you said, the way it is zoned right now, the only thing that can be built there if the plan is approved as stands, is single family, condominiums, or apartments. Is that true? Bill Ryan: Yes, it is residential. Dennis Loechler: So a church cannot be built right now? Barbara Dacy: It is not allowed at this time, but a zoning ordi- nance amendment can be processed so that church can locate at that site. e John Turnacliff: I just want to ask one last question before we close the questions. I would like to ask if you would tell us what the next steps are through this process. Bill Ryan: Certainly. We will have Barb do that before we finish up. Tim Bernier: I live on the Grandview hill there. I's wondering, we have a view of the marsh and lake. Is there anything that is going to be built there that is going to affect my view. Rick Sathre: I believe that you are located at the north end of your lot. The elevation of the ground there is something between 960 and 965. The cul-de-sac that would be just to the east the elevation that we see happening for the pavement would be around 955 or a little below that so the street would be about 10 feet lower probably than your first floor. Tim Bernier: Are any of those multiple dwellings going to be built in there? Rick Sathre: The current plan does not show any multi-family housing. e Gary Olson: Bordering my back yard, there is an existing pond that collects the water from the area. Most of the summer it is wet. How are you going to take care of that. North of me, when we have a decent rain, there is rivers running between the houses out to Erie Avenue. I was just wondering if this was going to happen to my yard. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 13 Rick Sathre: You live on the south side of 80th stub street. You do have a low area back there. It had worried me initially when we looked at the site. What I am proposing now on the pre- liminary basis is bringing storm sewer up this Drive D or cul-de- sac D street and then bringing storm sewer back into that low area so that we could drain the water out of there all the time. Because it could initially plug the new houses to, but I am showing a pipe coming back in there to pick that water up. That is not the final plan, but that is what I think is necessary. Bill Ryan: The City Engineer would be responsible to validate that necessity. As long as we are addressing the storm sewer. The houses up behind the church, there is a runoff problem there too. There is alot of water we all get and I am concerned about having a parking lot there and having it all run down. It is bad now. e Rick Sathre: What we have shown on that plan is an earthen berm that would keep the water from running across onto your lots and after the church is there. Additionally, we are contemplating building a storm sewer that would come up that same cul-de-sac street and there is a stub shown out into that church site. My thought is that when the church comes in and asked for site plan approval they would be building storm sewer pick ups in their parking lot and taking that water down through that pipe. Don White: Since there is no multi-family planned, I was curious why we are talking P-l instead of R-l for the zoning on the south. Bill Ryan: The ordinances require that any development this size be processed as PUD. Barbara Dacy: Any development proposing more than 25 lots requires that it be processed through a Planned Residential Development application. Therefore, that is where the P-l comes from. Its intent is residential. Bill Ryan: The planned unit process does not override the underlying zoning that is intended for the area to match the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Albee moved, seconded by Noziska to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e J. Thompson stated that he has concerns about the low spots and drainage. He stated that this plan was a much improved plan from what they had previously seen. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 14 e S. Albee stated that she did not see a landscape plan other than one tree per household. She wants to see a plan to coincide the berming with foundation landscaping. She also asked the appli- cant if he submitted any data as to your intent of alteration of the wetland. Barbara Dacy stated that the City Engineer in his memo has addressed that concern. She stated that there is going to be no grading or alterations below that bluff area, just drainage improvements through the creek. S. Albee also stated that the applicant, by addressing open space, by adding a tot lot is not adequate for this size of a development. She also stated that there is not enough open space or any dedicated space. She also stated that she is concerned that with only one car garages or slabs and no basements it is going to be messy. She felt that 3.2 acres was not alot of space for a church, parking lot and expansion. Jerry Martin stated that the church site has become 3.5 acres. They are working with their architects on that. e Albee also stated that 15 foot setbacks between structures is pretty tight construction. L. Conrad asked staff about the density calculations. Dacy stated that the two forms of calculating density is gross and net. She stated that the gross density of the single family portion, not including the wetlands, and not the commercial outlots, the gross is 46 acres. 110 units divided by 46 acres is a gross density of 2.3 units per acre. She stated that the net density is calculated by subtracting the streets. That figure comes up to 2.9 units per acre. She stated that the density will go down if you calculate the whole 80 acres. Conrad asked staff if we were setting a precedent in any area with this particular proposal. Dacy stated no. Conrad asked if when the four lane highway comes in, if that would impact that frontage road. Dacy stated that to her knowledge that MnDOT did not need addi- tional right-of-way acquisition. e Rick Sathre stated that MnDOT did a quick study, because we asked them if we should set aside more right-of-way and they said they thought what they had there was adequate. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 15 Conrad stated that it appears the developer has met most if not all of the comments made at the City Council meeting. He asked staff if there were any that have not been met. Dacy stated that the one potential issue would be the side set- backs. She stated that the Council indicated that they preferred a 20 foot separation between buildings and the applicant is pro- posing a guaranteed 15 feet. Conrad felt that only three types of homes were not enough and that there needed to be a variety in a development like this. Jerry Martin stated that they will be bringing in a couple more types of homes like a split level and a split basement. He stated that he has looked around Chanhassen at the different types of homes getting ideas. Noziska stated that in Block 2 it looks like half a dozens houses are getting close to the drainage way and maybe we should not have basements in that area. M. Thompson what the difference between an EAW and EIS and what determines if we do an EIS instead of an EAW. He wanted to know why we were looking at this if the EAW was is not included. e Dacy stated that an EAW is an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It is a document done to determine if an environmental impact statement is necessary. The finding from an EAW would be one either there is a potential impact that has to be met or that the plan has addressed all environmental concerns and there will be little if any impact on the environment. She stated that as far as the process is concerned, it is like a Comprehensive Land Use plan Amendment process where we have to submit a request after Planning Commission review to the Met Council. She stated that it has to be submitted before City Council review and the Compo Plan is not effective until the Met Council approves. She stated that it is similar, in an EAW there is a 30 day comment period for any type of public comment. She stated that once that has expired then the application can be formally acted upon by the City Council. She stated that it was anticipated with this number of units and preliminary work that has been done, it is anticipated that a finding of no impact on this. M. Thompson asked what triggers it to go to EIS. e Dacy stated that if the EAW finds the that it is needed. She stated that by Minnesota Statute a city population under 10,000 is a Fourth Class City. She stated that anything over 100 units has to go through this process. Rick Sathre stated that it takes either 500 or 1000 detached units to trigger the EIS process. e Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1985 Page 16 M. Thompson asked why we were looking at this case if the EAW has not been done. Dacy stated so that we can begin the review process. M. Thompson asked if we normally have a public hearing prior to EAW. Dacy stated that she checked with the EQB as far as the process is concerned they would even recommend Planning Commission con- sideration because during the public hearing process is when you get alot of issues raised. She stated that to the best of her knowledge the process is being handled correctly. M. Thompson felt that the people attending the public hearing would not be able to address the issues brought up in the worksheet before the Council acts on it. e Rick Sathre stated that the reason they stopped on the EAW was we were in the chicken and egg situation. He stated that until we have a plan that is generally worked out, you can't really do a good job on the EAW, you don't know what the impacts will be until you have something to focus on. He stated that until they had a plan that was otherwise livable, they wanted to wait. He stated that in his past experiences it has been possible for the Council to approve it on a preliminary basis but conditional on the satisfactory completion of the worksheet. B. Ryan stated that he has an objection to the long cul-de-sacs. He stated that from a life protection, public service aspect, it is very difficult to maintain the long deadend cul-de-sacs. He stated that if there is any kind of a minor diaster on the cul- de-sac, it blocks off the only access to some 30-40 houses. He also stated that houses with only one garage usually end up with people parking the second car in the street and felt this might be a real problem. He stated that he would like to recommend double garages for all housing, at least to encourage off-street parking. Jerry Martin stated that they could put in double driveways and place the house so that a second car garage could be built at a later date, if the customer so chose to do. He felt that would give two off-street parking spots without building a two car garage. Ryan asked staff if there was a requirement that stated at least one garage and one additional off-street parking. e Dacy stated that the ordinance read that enough area should be reserved so that at least two off-street parking spaces can be accommodated. e Planning commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 17 Ryan also stated to the applicant that he felt that once the church membership starts to grow they should think where the people will be parking. J. Thompson moved, seconded by M. Thompson to table the item to continue the public hearing until the EAW worksheet is complete and to find out specifics on traffic, storm flow, water flow and long cul-de-sacs. Also, address the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation of possibly using Lot 8, Block 4 for the park area. Also, the applicant should change the side yard setbacks to at least 20 feet, add more styles of housing, and a detailed landscaping plan should be submitted with the berming and for individual landscaping as well. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit Review for the Reuse of the Existing HRA Building 571-581 West 78th Street, City of Chanhassen, Gary Kirt-David C. Bell Investment Co. and ~ Dorek/Baden, applicants. Public Present Bill Baden John Dorek Jack Henning 6116 Park Ave. S., Mpls, 55417 4749 Beard Ave. S., Mpls, 55410 Barbara Dacy: Mr. Fred Hoisington is our Project Manager for the Downtown Redevelopment planning process and the reason why we had Fred and Brauer and Associates analyze the subdivision and the site plan is the City Manager and members of the staff have been intimately involved in the negotiations of the sale of the building. We felt that it would prudent to have Mr. Hoisington provide an analysis of the plan and subdivision based on our ordinances as done for any other development. e Fred Hoisington: All of you have a copy of the site plan and floor plans for the building. What we are going to be doing this evening is showing you a different plan but in order for me to be able to do that, I have to explain where we have been and why you have the plan you have currently. What we were asked to do by the city was to take a good look at the Instant Web building and to determine a couple of things, one of the most important is obviously parking. Whether the demand that would be there for parking could be met on site and secondly how we could make it all work so that the lot circulation could work and the parking would be reasonably well distributed and so forth and considering e e e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 18 the aesthetics as best we could. We prepared this plan very hurriedly because the deadlines have been hurried all the way through this process. Our first charge was to do the best job we could at putting together a site plan that would make sense for this development. I would like to just highlight some of the things we found. If you are familiar with the site the way it currently exists and the way the site plan was originally put together for the plan where the arrangement of uses was bit dif- ferent within a building. What was intended, the first effort, was the parking lots be used in as much as they could be used with the present surfaces, everything, including the present accesses to the parking lot. We do have some concerns about those kinds of things. For example in the northwest corner of the site there is really two accesses. Originally those accesses, one was for trucks and the other was for automobiles. It was intended that those two types of vehicles be separated and for very good reason. Obviously with the bowling center and retail and that sort of thing, we don't have the demand for separating those different types of vehicles. It would be very confusing to have two different accesses. Some of the other things that were proposed with the original plan was the use of the alley between the two buildings, the Frontier building and the Instant Web building, for circulation purposes and we had some real concerns about that because sight lines are very poor in that location. So the parking for the Instant Web building depended on the use of other people's properties which in essence means that they are not legitimate. There were a number of things needing to be resolved with regards to the site and secondly one of the biggest concerns we had was the lack of internalizing the uses so the uses themselves would be intercon- nected and we strongly emphasize the need for that and still do as you can see by the recommendations. We put this plan together then, in response to some of the problems with the prior site plan, and this plan works very well except in a couple of instan- ces. The one that is of primary concern to us as indicated in the staff report is that of parking distribution. We have a restaurant or what we think will likely be a restaurant in the northeast corner of the building that will require about 50 parking spaces and only about half that many spaces are available without using someone else's property to satisfy that need. The bowling center itself has a demand for even more parking spaces then we felt was necessary. We can not satisfy that entire demand on the lot. So while the overall supply is sufficient, we felt at that time was sufficient, to accommodate the demand for parking was not very well distributed, even with this parking plan. It suggests to us that joint parking agreements, in other words, various owners using other owners' property for parking purposes and we found that is not likely to happen here because some of the uses require very independent parking. After we completed this and sent it out, we continued to look at the e e - Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 19 information. Having actually sat with the would be owners of the property since we submitted this plan, we have been trying to work out some of those problems, with the joint use of parking, trying to get distribution better and we developed another plan. In fact we have developed two different plans and I would like show these to you this evening. As you can see, there have been a number of changes made from the plan you have been reviewing over the weekend. In order to be able to accommodate the parking demands that are put on this site by the bowling center espe- cially, we have had to do some gerrymandered boundaries and that is one of the recommendations we suggested in the staff report. What has happened is that we have moved this north line of Lot 2 in order to get better distribution of parking on the site. The supply of parking initially would be 338 spaces and the demand as we calculated it is 301 spaces if the community center space was not used. We recommend to you that at least until some addi- tional study can be completed, that you not use the recreation space because there are a number of things that need to be resolved some of those being parking and drainage and until those are satisfactorily resolved, I simply recommend that you hold the space. What we learned today was that there is really a great deal more going on in the bowling center than we had expected. What happens is we can just about satisfy the demands for that parking lot on Lots 2 and 3. It comes extremely close to what the bowling folks feel they need and what the actual computation of parking would be there (238 spaces there and 240 spaces required). By moving the lot line to the north, we have slightly diminished the number of parking spaces on the north portion of the site and at the same time attempted to respond to the space or parking areas that currently exist so that a great deal of new construction would not have to occur immediately and then looked at a second option. A second plan that would simply, I guess what we could say is a future plan for the total utilization of the site which then provides all of the parking that we see as needed for the bowling center and for the Kirt portion of the building. It would be extremely close at that point. In order to be able to accomplish that; however, you sacrifice some of the green spaces and some of the vegetation. I guess all I can say is having been involved with this kind of thing in a number of occasions in the past, when you get down to the real world situation where you have to deal with developers and the developers have real needs, sometimes the grand plan concepts don't work as well as they need and all of a sudden you don't have developers looking or willing to put uses in the building. So we have made some compromises in this plan in an effort to satisfy those parking needs. One of the things we would encourage the city to do however, would be to continue to look for additional parking opportunities, either to the west or south of the site in an effort to continue to keep tabs on how you are going to satisfy the overall future parking demands for the building and we are confident that the space and the land that is available where you can do that. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 20 Bill Ryan: Is the traffic pattern still all the way around the building, the trucks that service the back of the building? Fred Hoisington: There are a couple things happening. The city is retaining an easement south of the property in question and ultimately what we try to do is relate this to the overall plan as well. Eventually there will be some sort of an access here and we know at least based on the way the downtown plan is evolving currently, there will be road someplace over here. So in the long run we will be able to bypass this site. Susan Albee: Your comment #13 about the city negotiating an agreement with Carver County for the right-of-way. Has this been accomplished yet? Don Ashworth: The City Engineer is working with Carver County to effectuate that. In my discussions with Murphy, he feels as though a forty foot distance is necessary. e Bill Ryan: What sort of development agreement as far as some kind of certainty that something is going to be done with the landscaping and the architecture of the building is there? Or are we just looking at plans and they are going to do the bowling alley but do nothing with the front half? - Don Ashworth: The agreements are completed and have been approved by the Council and HRA. The building has two separate owners, and the timing for each of the two varies. For the bowling center people, it is very critical to be in this building as soon as possible. The Brunswick people who put in the lanes are scheduled for May 15. If they miss that two week period of time to get in, they literally will have missed this bowling season. There are two separate agreements, the agreement with Kirt calls that he must develop this space within a three year period of time or basically loses all interest in the building. He must submit plans and have those plans approved by the Planning Commission both for facia, building, site plan as we would require for any other developer. That is basically his restriction. For the bowling center, the city is actually par- ticipating as part of the inducement of getting them into the community. As a part of that they also have to submit all plans, have them approved by Planning Commission and City Council. The monies that we will be putting into this project literally are the last dollars in, it is a loan. Those dollars will assure that this work is in fact completed. If it is not the monies basically are used either for completion or not at all. Whatever is approved through this process will be their responsibility to complete. As part of that loan agreement they do not get any of the loan dollars until they have received an occupancy permit. They will not receive an occupancy permit if improvements have not been completed. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 21 Bill Ryan: We all want to see the bowling center, but are we going to see two-thirds of the building developed and all of the parking in the back is developed and there is not going to be any street to get back. Nothing in the front is going to be dif- ferent than it is now? e Don Ashworth: I am assured that the individual who would be purchasing this, Gary Kirt of David C. Bell Co. has purchased the materials that would be used for interior walls. He is simply saying he is not ready to commit to improvements at this time. He came to agreement with the HRA in terms of the price. We have yet to carry out that closing. So therefore, although he has tenant agreements for about 50% of the retailers who would go into this facility, he has not finalized any of those nego- tiations until he in fact knows that he does own the structure. He is looking very much for a grocery store being in this loca- tion. The grocery store may place additional demands as far as what they want for access or the structure itself. For him to make committments to sidewalks or curbing may be premature. It may not be in accordance with the tenant needs. Again, I am con- fident that within the next few months that he will be completing his plans. He is not going to allow his cash payment to the city plus the supplies/materials that he has purchased simply sit there. Bill Ryan: Is the city going to make that access road for 300 cars a day or whatever has to go back there? Don Ashworth: It is not feasible to accomplish that this year. Both the Council and HRA have made a priority of the construction of this north-south road that would link 78th Street and 79th Street and hopefully, make a connection to Hwy. 5. Mr. Bloomberg would like to see a road that would come through this way to serve the back portion of his property. He wants to put smaller shops along this backside and provide adequate parking for those buildings. He is very interested in doing that but such could not occur until the spring 1986. Bill Ryan: By putting in the bowling center back there, the city is committing at some point to put that street in. e Don Ashworth: The HRA and City Council understand that. They understand that the road in here is necessary and that the only way I see we can take care of a portion of the parking problem, will be in the construction of this road. Instead of acquiring the typical 50 or 60 foot right-of-way, we would literally be looking at the acquisition of a 100 foot would be looking at the acquisition of a 100 foot right-of-way with the placement of the road in the westerly portion and using the eastern portion of for additional parking. We can not accomplish that this year. e e e Planning commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 22 Fred Hoisington: Don brought up the facia treatment. We have been meeting with Dorek, Baden and Henning to try to resolve this. The first plan is an indication of what exists there currently. For the most part you have a wooden front part of the building or least it is covered with wooden siding, followed on the west side by cement block walls which is the worst part of that building in appearance and probably in terms of construction the wall itself has been deteriorating for some time. Then the back portion is fabcon which is not at all unattractive but it not the most appropriate kind of material used for a center of this type. What Don asked us to do was to look at something that would somehow unify that west elevation of the building. I have got just a couple of alternatives that we would like you to look at and then we will take which is you feel is most appropriate. The first one is an effort to extend the western theme along the north face of the future grocery store and along the west side of the grocery store with a canopy and wood posts. It would then breakway to some type of stucco that would cover the existing cement block wall. That stucco treatment would continue back over the fadcon portion of the building only on the west facing. It would include an overhang over that portion of the bowling alley where the walkways and so forth would exist. Then we did a second one. The second one is kind of a scale back version of using the same materials. I think the important thing about materials is the real contrast of the front and back of the building, in an effort to tie things in with the front of the building using wood and still contrasting the both in terms of color and texture as we move toward the back of the building with very light colors as opposed to the front being considerably darker. It rather remarks two different uses but at the same time we think provides good continuity between the various uses. What we found when we got them all done was that we liked the second one better than the first one, primarily because it's cleaner and really cost has little to do with it. It seems to be a better treatment then the one with the canopy and so forth along the west wall of the grocery store. We talked with the developers of the bowling center and they are very agreeable with the materials we are proposing. They might wish to do a little bit more with wood, kind of interlaced with the stucco on the block wall, both in terms of vertical dropping wood down between some of the We see no problem with that, we are thinking more in terms of general pattern and the use of materials that would be compatible with one another. Ladd Conrad: The grocery store is locked into 10,000 square feet. So based on this, what are we saying about grocery stores in Chanhassen? Based on the plan, there really is not room for expansion. e e e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 23 Fred Hoisington: I am not sure we are talking about the same grocery store. We understand this to be more of a convenience type of grocery store not the full service kind of grocery store you might expect near downtown. This site would not accommodate that. There is some expansion capabilities, but it would be very limited. Ladd Conrad: What is the size of our current grocery store? Don Ashworth: About 4,000 square feet. Jack Henning: I have had 7 or 8 different grocery chains out in Chanhassen over the last year and a half and they all come to the same conclusion. Because of the Cub Foods and SuperValue down the road, Chanhassen would support a 10,000 square foot store. They are saying that it would probably be 10 to 15 years before they could expand to something larger. We do have some people interested in coming out here but they are looking more for an upgraded Kenny's type, where they specialize in meats and the stuff that people buy everyday but not to do their weekly shopping. Ladd Conrad: My concern is looking 10 to 15 years from now that grocery store cannot expand. Ten thousand is a big convenience store. Convenience is what we have got already and a convenience store is not much bigger than that. We are talking about more than a quick stop. That will satisfy a need for a while but then there is going to be another need. My concern is the expansion. We are eliminating all the green space already. We are dealing with property that was intended for something else. I feel it is unfortunate that we are getting rid of the green space. We are forcing this thing to work. I am having real difficulty following alot of the stuff presented tonight. Mike Thompson: Can you answer some of Ladd's question about green space? Are we eliminating all of those things? Fred Hoisington: I have alot of the same feelings as Ladd does. I am always torn with how to accomplish economic development and at the same time aesthetics. I think what we have done is to shift the open space, it isn't as nicely distributed as I would like it to be but there is quite a bit of open space still there. I think the capability exists to do a reasonably good job. On the other hand you could make it a very attractive building and a very attractive site and do everything possible and you won't have those users. I guess you really have to struggle with that. It is not everything we like to achieve. Bill Ryan: What we are really looking at here is a situation where we are relaxing a standard in a central business area that's the heart of our community that we don't relax in e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 24 industrial areas. We make The Press, the mail handling outfit, when they put a parking lot in, we make them berm, landscaping, they can't start their parking 25 feet off of the right-of-way line. But when it comes to us, the standards are gone. It doesn't make alot of sense. If I were a developer, I would say the city has a two very distinct separate standards. Don Ashworth: I don't agree. The 25' boulevard is a part of the street improvements project. This is exactly the same construc- tion standards as exist at the dinner theater, or the Press. You have maintained green around this entire area here. Yes there is a relaxation in terms of one plan shows green in this section. The only way I can reasonably respond to that is say that the Council and HRA have made a committment to the construction of this road and the improvement of the boulevard area to provide those same standards that exist somewhere else. I believe that the green area in this plan is no different then the amount or percent of green area for Instant Web. e Bill Ryan: Didn't I here you say though that you were talking about a 100 foot right-of-way from the road and you were going to shove the road to the west side of it and use the east part of the right-of-way for additional parking. Don Ashworth: Yes. An additional forty feet will provide an additional 4 to 5 parking spaces for the lane in here and ultima- tely provide 40-50 additional spaces. Ladd Conrad: Don't we have a standard of 30% green space for commercial. Barbara Dacy: The building coverage in commercial and industrial can cover 70%. Ladd Conrad: Parking in front of the restaurant doesn't look like alot of spaces for retail access and restaurant parking. Are there problems parking in front of the hardware store, is that unacceptable? Fred Hoisington: Parking on the adjoining property is an accep- table place to park. It would require as far as I can tell should be a mutual agreement there and I think that would cer- tainly satisfy the needs. The only conflict would be probably on Friday or Saturday nights between 6:30 or 7:30 where there would be a conflict with adjoining parking. But the commercial peaks usually during the day time, where the restaurant peaks at noon and the evening dinner hours. e Susan Albee: What would one do, lease the space? e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 25 Don Ashworth: From Bloomberg, there would have to be some sort of an agreement. So that you aware, the sales agreement between the HRA and Mr. Kirt simply states that he cannot put any use into this portion of the building unless it meets the parking standards under the ordinance or he has to demonstrate that he has come to an agreement with Bloomberg and that Bloomberg would then also meet the parking standards. He cannot simply put a restaurant in here and expect to park on someone else's property. Jim Thompson: I think the greenery next to the building is more appropriate than in the parking area. Maybe there could be some trees on the west end of the lot there depending it may make a whole lot of difference. Don Ashworth: It would have to be done as part of the street improvement and if the Planning Commission has concerns in that area please put them in your motion as a condition. Jim Thompson: Even if you had to dig them up and replant them you could put some in there in the meantime. e Don Ashworth: They would be going outside of land that they own. For the construction of a road you would have to go through a typical 429 procedure, where we would carryout a feasibility study. Then the acquisition and then the actual construction.What I am saying is that there has to be a recogni- tion that the green area along here has been given up temporarily. If I am hearing what you are saying, you want to re-emphasize that the green area does occur on the west side of the property. Bill Ryan: Who owns that property? Don Ashworth; Herb Bloomberg. He owns the property on all three sides; west, east and south. Bill Ryan: Once we put a street in, we open up a fair size of business/commercial property. Jim Thompson moved, seconded by Mike Thompson to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit request subject to the following: e 1. That consideration be given to gerrymandering the north line of Lot 1 to provide 20 to 30 additional parking spaces for the bowling center and lounge. We understand that this is currently under consideration by the City Staff and may have already been accomplished by the time the Planning Com- misssion reviews the plat. e Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 26 2. That the City hold off on the development of Lot 3, except for proposed parking improvements, until a number of issues related to access, drainage and parking can be studied. 3. That the developer of the northeast corner of the building (restaurant) either balance usage of the space against available parking or acquire a reciprocal agreement with Mr. Bloomberg to allow for share parking. 4. That an enclosed pedestrian connection be considered to line the new mall with the Frontier and Dinner Theater buildings. 5. That alternative ways of providing additional parking for the Community Center be studied including the use of a portion of Outlot A. 6. That a drainage study be initiated for the downtown area in conjunction with a study of the feasibility of a new street just west of the subject site. Whitel runoff from the Instant Web site can probably accommodated now, this is the time to assess area-wide drainage and ponding needs. e 7. That a new location be found for the restaurant's dumpster. The proposed location is extremely poor from both an access and visiability standpoint. These should be completely screened or enclosed within a building. 8. That every effort be made to internalize the mall by teh estalishment of interconnecting corridors and the creation of a centrally located unifying hub or focal point. 9. That the lot be curbed and guttered and at least limited storm sewer system be installed to control surface drainage, minimize water damage and maximize parking. The drainage plan should be approved by the City Engineer. 10. That a landscaping plan be submitted for approval by the City Planner. 11. That parking spaces be striped (9' x 20'). 12. That a variance be approved to permit Lot 3 without street frontage. e 13. That the City negotiate an agreement with or purchase the land from Carver County which is shown as access right-of- way for County Road 16. We understand that this may already have been accomplished by the staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting. - e - Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 27 14. That an appropriate amount of signage be allowed including one (1) area identification sign and one (1) directory sign plus the allowable wall signage for individual tenants. A signage plan should be prepared by the developer. No roof signs shall be permitted. J. Thompson, Susan Albee, Howard Noziska and M. Thompson voted in favor. Conrad opposed. Ryan abstained. Motion carried. Conrad stated that he does not feel some issues were given alot of thought and he believes that the standards for other commer- cial developments should be applied. He stated that this par- ticular parcel may even meet the standards but doesn't know that. Ryan stated that he abstained for the same reason because he felt he did not have sufficient information to really consider this good planning. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ryan moved, seconed by Noziska, to approve the March 27, 1985 minutes as written. J. Thompson, Ryan, Noziska and Conrad voted in favor. Albee and M. Thompson abstained. Ryan moved, seconded by Noziska to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.