1978 03 22
~
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 22, 1978
Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following
members present: Les Bridger, Mal MacAlpine, Hud Hollenback, and Walter
Thompson. Jerry Neher and Dick Matthews were absent, Pat Swenson was
p-resent.
MINUTES: The City received a letter from Lake Susan property owners.
This letter is included as part of the March 8, 1978, Planning Commission
minutes.
-
Amend the March 8, 1978, public hearing minutes on Carver's pointe
by adding the following: The Park and Recreation Commission has requested
that when Dunn and Curry present their total development plans for
the area south of Carver's pointe that they be notified so they can
make recommendations regarding open space.
Bud Hollenback moved to approve the March 8, 1978, Planning Commission
minutes as amended and note the letter dated March 13, 1978, to the
City Council/Planning Commission signed by Lake Susan property owners.
Motion seconded by Les Bridger. The following voted in favor: Hud
Hollenback, Roman Roos, and Les Bridger. Mal MacAlpine and Walter
Thompson abstained. Motion carried.
Jim Hill and Stelios Aslanidis were
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK:
present.
Bruce Pankonin -
e
-
The Planning Commission, after the conclusion of a
public hearing on the proposed planned unit development,
whether industrial or residential, shall make a
recommendation to the City Council which may include
approval or disapproval of the rezoning petition,
approval of the preliminary development plan,
disapproval of the preliminary development plan stating
reasons for disapproval or approval of the preliminary
development plan subject to specified modifications
and conditions. I recommend the Planning Commission
find Dunn and Curry's request to rezone and subdivide
the subject property from R-lA to P-4 to be consistent
with the city's plan for land use, transportation,
open space, utilities, zoning and subdivision provided
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District approves the
drainage plan for the development. The City Engineer
determines during planned development stage, the
final alignment and construction standards for all
roads. The developer be bound to the time phasing
plan as submitted for consideration by the Planning
Commission. The developer agrees to establish a no
build line on the lake shore lots including Lots 3, 4,
5, 6, and 7. The permitted uses within the PUD
district be governed by Section 17.02 of Ordinance 47.
The building design and construction shall be governed
by the provisions of Section 9.06 of Ordinance 47.
Height, yard, area and lot width and development
regulations for the planned unit development shall
be governed by Section 12.05, Ordinance 47. Parking
and loading areas shall be governed by Section 9.07,
Ordinance 47. The developer should be aware of all
state, local and federal regulations regarding smoke
and particulate matter, noise, vibration, lights, etc.
The developer agrees to these conditions in writing
pursuant to a development contract.
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-2-
Roman Roos - What's the procedure for the drainage plan approval from
Riley-Purgatory Creek?
Bill Brezinsky - The plans have been submitted in preliminary form for
phase I. The Engineer has written a letter. In this
letter they have set some broad guidelines for design
and outlined their regulations. The developer is
submitting an overall drainage plan for the entire
industrial park which will be considered at the
next meeting on AprilS. They will have some more
recommendations and they will have to review the
final plans.
Roman Roos - Bill, there is no problems with item 2, final alignment
and construction standards for roads?
Bill Brezinsky - No.
Roman Roos - The time phasing plan is what you proposed before.
Why don't you go ahead with your comments on the no ,build
line.
Stelios Aslanidis -
It
We met with the homeowners association and what we
said we would be amenable to was a no build line
on the 945 elevation which would be limited to Lots
3 - 7.
Roman Roos - The homeowners agreed to that 945?
Stelios Aslanidis - I felt that they were amenable to that. I takes
generally half of those lots. It is way beyond
where the trees are.
Roman Roos - Does that hinder you as far as those lots being good
usable buildable lots with setback?
Stelios Aslanidis - In my opinion, yes. It severely
Hud Hollenback - Is that where the field is plowed?
Bruce pankonin - This is beyond that.
Stelios Aslanidis - It takes actually more than half of the lot. I
think for their concerns,which was the screening,
we could have done it with 935 elevation as easily.
Roman Roos - The thing that's interesting is if you have a 45 foot
minimum buildings and the buildings are going on the top
of the hill they (Homeowners) are really defeating their
purpose by having you that far up.
Stelios Aslanidis - In my opinion there is no way that they would see
the buildings. There is so much foilage and trees
along the slopes. Some of the trees are 30, 40, to
50 feet. Their homes are located at 910 to 920
elevation. They are really low. They are not on
the same height. There is 30 to 40 feet difference.
Hud Hollenback - Does that mean you might consider moving that road up?
Stelios Aslanidis - We might have to do something like that for the
final plat. We still have to meet the Zoning
Ordinance for front setbacks, side yard setbacks.
In the homeowners letter they were talking about
some setback in distance of 200 feet. It would be
placing it on the 930 elevation.
Bruce Pankonin - It looks like that looped street will have to be
moved northward and those interior lots will have to
be constricted because you are not going to be able
to have an adequate front yard and then building and ...
then parking area within the buildable area of those ..,
lots along the lakeshore.
Hud Hollenback - That's what I am concerned about.
Roman Roos - I don't think the Lake Susan Association is really aware
handicaps the lots4lt
e
.
e
Planning Commission Meeting March, 22, 1978
of what they really thin~ they have got.
Hud Hollenback - Not only that, we are going to end up cheating on
parking space where everybody backs into each others
car.
Stelios Aslanidis - I think a 935 elevation is more reasonable. When
we screen, there is no way I can address there
request for screening. The people that are going
to be moving there like to have visual access to
that lake as everybody else has. When you start
screening them then you are depriving them of the
thing you are trying to sell them. I think the
distance of 1200 to 1500 feet across the lake
in itself takes pretty good care of it plus the
fact that we have all the trees that are already
screening. I hate to see us deprived of the
opportunity of some office being built to utilize
energy conservation measures.
Bruce Pankonin - In viewing the resource you are going to have the
parking lot in front of the building off of the street
and then the building and then the no build line so
you are not going to have cars and parking lots within
the back yard of those lots. The structure is going
to be very similar to Gelco's building in Eden Prairie.
Hud Hollenback - It's the same concept as a lakeshore home, the back
yard is really the front yard.
Bruce Pankonin - Exactly. I would say don't build beyond the plowed
field.
Hud Hollenback - What kind of trees do we have?
Bruce Pankonin - Oak primarily. They are very mature trees.
Roman Roos - I think that putting it at 945 is really detrimental
to both the developer as well as the Lake Susan Association.
I would like to see them gain another ten or fifteen feet
in height over the maximum height of a typical building
in that project by ordinance of 45 foot. I would much
rather see them capitalize on that extra ten or fifteen
feet by moving that no build line down still maintaining
the 200 feet that they areadament about requesting.
Stelios Aslanidis - The 935 elevation is still way beyond what they
had asked for 200 feet setback.
Bruce Pankonin - I do have problems with the 945 elevation. I think
it's a waste of land.
can we be 'certain that 935 would fall outside the
foot'barrier they are looking for?
Let's keep it either/or. Two hundred feet of horizontal
distance or the 935 elevation whichever is greater.
I would like to suggest that change in my report.
The developer agrees to establish a no build line
on the Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 at an elevation of 935
or 200 feet of horizontal distance from the lake,
whichever is greater.
Roman Roos - When you say no build, we are talking about no build,
no grading, no cutting, no nothing.
Bruce Pankonin - Improving with new plant materials and things like
that. They may have a walkway down to the lake.
There will be a linear trail someday along the lake
and I can see somebody walking to work.
Hud Hollenback - I feel we should have the access around the lake at
this time. How is that done at this point?
-3-
Roman Roos - How
200
Bruce pankonin -
planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-4-
Stelios Aslanidis - We have done that through the fact that we have
called it an outlot.
Bruce Pankonin - That horizontal distance is 100 feet from the water
up the bank that they are not platting at this time.
Roman Roos - Does the staff have any overall comments on their
(homeowners) comment about the 1.5 minimum lot size.
Bruce Pankonin - Chanhassen is not going to be the typical industrial
park. We are not going to have large manufacturing
facilities. It's going to be the topography, the
views, the vistas, etc. are going to dictate a
different type industrial use. If there is a
large manufacturing facility they could buy three
or four lots. It doesn't preclude that.
Stelios Aslanidis - The point that was made in the homeowners letter
is they are concerned that when you have smaller
lots you end up with more hard surface. That's
not true because you take 10% of three acres,
let's say it's 20% buildable, it will all come
come out the same.
Bruce Pankonin - Actually you will have less coverage with these smaller
lots because you have side yard setbacks. If you
had larger lots you wouldn't have all those side yard
setbacks. You are going to have less lot coverage
this way.
Roman Roos - Their (homeowners) paragraph, we request that the maximum
building and parking lot coverage be defined in terms
of percent of gross area, what they don't understand
is Ordinance 47 does really cover that whole issue
as well as the next paragraph in terms of the usages
of industrial development.
Bruce pankonin - Ordinance 47 requires a front yard setback of 30 feet.
A side yard setback of 25 feet. A parking lot can't
be closer then 25 feet from the front yard so that's
going to be green space. There is a side yard
restriction also. Parking can't be closer than ten
feet from a building. When you go through all the
numbers, the use coupled with its parking ratios
that are demanded for the use there is maybe 60%
coverage.
Roman Roos - My concern right now is to make sure that we have touched
every issue that they (homeowners) raised in that letter.
Hud Hollenback - Would this be a good time to respond to the last
paragraph where everyone wants to be copied with
any action concerning this.
Roman Roos - That's unreasonable. This is on record and it is a
commission meeting and that record is here for their
review.
Bruce Pankonin - It was announced at the public hearing that it was
going to be considered tonight.
Hud Hollenback - I am just saying should we respond to that so that
they understand it that it's the cost. There is
no way that the city can mail notices to everybody
that is affected by a development. They say that
every resident in the neighborhood (see attached
list) be notified of Councilor Planning Commission
agenda items pertaining to actions affecting areas
adjacent to Lake Susan.
Roman Roos - We made a statement that we would identify one individual,
tit
.
e
.
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978 -5-
Bud Hollenback - I don't know if they came up wi,th that individual
that would be contacted.
Bruce PanKonin - Jim Murphy called me and wanted copies of these maps
and I accommodated him. I don't know if he was the
spokesman of that group. I talked to his wife and
reminded her of this meeting.
Roman Roos - I think we, as commission members, have done everything
that we should have.
Bruce pankonin - Dunn and Curry met with them (homeowners) last
Wednesday and again it was brought up that the
commission was going to make recommendation tonight.
Hud Hollenback - It is a fine letter.
Roman Roos - Are any of these people here?
Representatives from the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ were
present.
Roman Roos - Were you (Hud) satisfied on that last paragraph?
Hud Hollenback - I just think we ought to be on record as a commission
saying that it's not reasonable for the city to
have to do that.
Roman Roos - We covered the 200 foot setback. We covered the densities.
Bruce Pankonin - In my planning report of March 7, this is for the
public hearing, I said;"Under separate cover I
forwarded a copy of Dunn and Curry's proposed planned
industrial development to the Park and Recreation
Commission for their consideration and review. As
of this date no information has been returned to the
Planner's office. I do expect a member of the Park
and Recreation Commission to be in attendance and
voice any concerns the commission may have regarding
Dunn and Curry's proposed development." As the
record shows Park and Rec. was not at the public
hearing. I have their minutes of March 7 and there
was no mention of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park.
Roman Roos - There are two other paragraphs, one covering the storm
drainage which we have touched on. I am sure they are
well aware of with your meeting. The drainage will be
away from Lake Susan. The second thing was light
pollution. That would fall under Ordinance 47.
Item #5 in Bruce's report is uses permitted under the PUD.
These are governed by Section 17.02 of Ordinance 47.
Bruce pankonin - We are bound by certain discharge limits from the
Metropolitan Council for industrial sewage and these
are going to have to be low water users. We can't
generate more than .1 million gallons per day of
industrial sewage. The uses on that list lend
themselves for the most part to non-water users.
Roman Roos - Briefly recaping them, manufacturing, compounding,
processing, packaging, assenililing of products and
materials, but excluding uses engaging principally
processing of used products or materials and excluding
the processing of animals. Research, testing, experimentation
offices, wholesaling and warehousing, etc. The last
portion of that, permitted use does not establish said
use as a freight terminal operation. It is very clearly
defined in a p-4 area what those uses wil] be.
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-6-
Mal MacAlpine - One thing I would like to see more specific would be
the trailways. I know we have the land for that but
I would like to see that more specifically stated.
Bruce Pankonin - We have a problem here in that we cannot require 4It
park dedication at this time for commercial and
industrial uses. They have offered to preserve this
land and it's sufficient for a trail and the sewer
and that will be given as part of their residential
land which will come in towards the south.
Mal MacAlpine - Can't something be put in there to indicate that
the intent is to have this trailway?
Bruce Pankonin - Something like, we agree that the intent of the
outlot along the north shore of Lake Susan is to be
used for pUblic trail purposes at such time as
determined by the City of Chanhassen.
Stelios Aslanidis - Actually you can say not only the north you can
say all the outlots shown on the preliminary plat.
Bruce Pankonin - The outlots as shown on the preliminary plat are to
be used for public linear trails.
Hud Hollenback - I brought up at a meeting some time ago I observed
in places like Edina when this type of building occurs
there is a regular landscaping ordinance of some kind
whereby trees are planted, the ground is sodded before
the building really starts and I was questioning
whether the City of Chanhassen might want to consider
something along this line for this type of development.
I have all the confidence in Dunn and Curry as a
quality operation but if something should happen
after this thing starts I would like to see somebody ~
responsible or responsible to an ordinance. ..,
Bruce Pankonin - We have it in our zoning ordinance which is the
umbrella of all this and it's in Section 11.08 which
is part of the design review which says; All exposed
ground areas of a permitted use which are not devoted
to drives, sidewalks, patios or similar uses shall
be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees or other
ornamental landscape materials which shall be kept
neat, clean and uncluttered. No landscaped area
shall be used for parking of vehicles or storag~
or display of materials,supplies or merchandise.
Hud Hollenback - That's fairly general.
Stelios Aslanidis - I can't see how you can be more specific because
you have different building and a landscape
architect will have different design approach for
different buildings. I think the way the zoning
ordinance reads now is safe enough where you
are concerned because it's also specific that
you have to plant grass and have to do some
planting.
Hud Hollenback - We have had people out here plant dead bushes.
In Edina, I think, if the plant dies within a certain
length of time it has to be replaced.
Bob Waibel - They review landscape and plantings for two full growing
seasons.
Hud Hollenback - I am saying that maybe at this time when Bruce is e
making a list of suggestions of things that should
be adhered to, I am wondering if at some time we
should consider something a little more specific
toward landscaping.
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-7-
Bruce Pankonin - Possibly in terms of the building plans besides an
architect preparing the plans there should be a
registered landscape architect signing off on a
landscape plan. Maybe you want to put this in your
conditions that a landscape plan shall be prepared
bya landscape architect. Maybe what we want to do
in terms of our ordinance update is give this a
considered thought and apply it equally to all in
the performance standards.
Hud Hollenback - I really think we should consider it.
Roman Roos - When a building plan comes in for review, is that not
one of the steps anyhow? We do have an overall chance
to control the overall project.
Hud Hollenback - We don't have the expertise to do that.
Roman Roos - We no not but we do have a chance to control it.
Craig Mertz - When their first customer comes in for a building permit
the city would be making some sort of development contract
with that particular developer and you are going to
attack siting, grading, and landscaping in your development
contract with this third party who is not here yet.
Dave Appelhof - One of the problems I see as you look to what Edina
is doing with lawns and landscaping and whatnot, as
we get into our berming our building will basically be
bermed and therefore you can't really do anything,
any final grading until after the building is up.
Hud Hollenback - Right.
Les Bridger - Did we answer all the questions a.nd concerns ,about
lighting that they had at the public hearing?
Bruce Pankonin - These are called out in our performance standards.
It says, glare,whether direct or reflected, shall not
be visible beyond the limits of the site of the
permitted use. I guess that pretty well handles it.
That goes for everybody.
Roman Roos - Let me just touch on the last items of Bruce's report.
Building design and construction shall be governed by the
provisions of Section 9.06 of Ordinance 47. Height,
yard, area and lot width and development regulations
for the planned unit development shall be governed by
Section 15.02, Ordinance 47. Parking and loading areas
shall be governed by Section 9.07, Ordinance 47. I
think we have covered all of them.
Mal l-lacAlpine - I think the amendments as indicated satisfy my concerns.
Hud Hollenback moved to recommend the Council approve the preliminary
development plan for subdivision and rezoning subject to the following:
1. Riley Purgatory Creek trfatershed District approves the drainage
plan for development.
2. The city engineer shall determine the final alignment and
construction standards for all roads.
3. The developer be bound to the time phasing plan as submitted
for consideration by the Planning Commission.
4. The developer agrees to establish a no-build line on Lots 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7 at an elevation of 935 or 200 feet of horizontal distance
from the lake, whichever is greater.
5. The uses permitted within the Planned Unit Development shall be
governed by Section 17.02, Ordinance 47.
6. Building design and construction shall be governed by the provisions
of Section 9.06, Ordinance 47.
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-8-
7. Height, yard, area and lot width and development regulations for
the Planned Unit Development shall be governed by Section 12.05,
Ordinance 47.
8. Parking and loading areas shall be governed by Section 9.07,
Ordinance 47.
9. The outlots as shown on the preliminary development plan are to
be used for public linear trails.
10. The developer agrees to these conditions in writing.
Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved.
e
CARVER'S POINTE: Phyllis Pope and Pat Boyle, Park and Recreation
Commission, Stelios Aslanidis and Jim Hill were present. The Planner
recommended that the Planning Commission find Dunn and Curry's proposed
preliminary development plan for Carver's pointe to be positively
consistent with the city plan for land use, transportation, open
space, utilities, zoning and subdivision provided:
1. Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District approves surface water
drainage plan.
2. Construction traffic shall use MSAS 101 only.
3. The subdivision is shifted 30 feet eastward and the developer
is required to prepare a landscape plan which will screen the lots
abutting CSAH 17 and MSAS 101.
4. The developer work with the Building Inspector to develop a
street naming plan which will not be confusing.
5. The developer agrees to submit a final development plan
incorporating all the conditions as outlined in Ordinance 47, Section
14.05, subdivision 5.
6. The developer agrees to complete installation of all city streets,
curbs, gutters, utilities (sewer and water), underground electric
distribution lines by
7. The developer agrees not to request any variances from Ordinance
47, regarding the placement of structures.
8. Planning Commission resolve the vacation of 68th Street from
Nez Perce to CSAH 17, if in the best interest of the community.
9. Developer agrees to these conditions in writing.
e
Phyllis Pope stated that the Park and Recreation Commission had
requested the developer's total plan for the area to see if a park
is planned in phase 2 as they feel it is very necessary. The total
development plans have not been submitted to the city at this time.
Jim Hill - It just happens that Dunn and Curry owns the adjacent
lands. If we did not own the property. If five other people owned
that and I think it behooves the Park Commission to determine where
in this overall neighborhood they want a park, for what use and what
size. In the properties that Dunn and Curry do own adjacent to this
we are looking at higher densities so I imagine it to be that if
you are going to centrally locate a park with regard to not land but
mass of people it would be south of MSAS 101. I think it's more
practical to locate the park in the neighborhood and not just
necessarily the Dunn and Curry holdings but for the neighborhood and
I think it's more appropriate to be south of 101 and not in this
low density area. In the future if you wanted 10%, I think the
remaining holdings of Dunn and Curry are 100 acres, so we are talking e
in terms of a free ten acre park. With the single family area we are
talking about $21,000 that could go towards either the improvement
of the ten and/or the purchase and improvement of 15 acres more
centrally located in the mass of people. I think that is the kind
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-9-
of thing that I think the commission should be wanting from the
Parks Commission so that when they look at parks and the developer
looks at the future 100 acres that he just happens to own and you
and I and the Parks Commission have an opportunity to plan wisely
for parks because there is only one owner that if that kind of planning
can be done now we can incorporate those kinds of plans in our future
phasing.
Hud Hollenback - We should start considering over or under passes.
If we have 100 families here we are looking at roads that are going
to be highways, how are the children going to get back and forth.
I don't"see any way you coul~ tunnel unde~ the, road. How would you
get these people back and forth?
Jim Hill - I think that's reasqnable and not unfair. We are going to
have low density opposite the^:I:;ide where the eventual park will be
so that's a plus as far as pedestrians getting across. I look to it
as a grade crossing at a light. Eventually you are going to have a
sidewalk along MSAS 101 traversing the entire city and you may even
have a trail and that kind of pedestrians would be collected on that
and moved over to the designated crossing area and get across there
in conjunction with signaling of traffic.
Roman Roos - Is there some way that we can get a tentative date from
you Jim in terms of the time phasing.
Jim Hill - Yes but not tonight. I think we have got to coordinate
our work with approvals and then with the city engineer and depending
on what the schedule of utilities are' then we can give one. I think
we could do that by the time of a development contract.
Roman Roos - Item #7 says the develop~r agrees not to request any
variances from the city ordinance 47.
Jim Hill - I would say that is correct if you are looking at the
pages of the PUD that were submitted and on that particular page
are the setbacks requested and that~s 30 front yard, 5 side yard,
and 10 side yard.
Bruce pankonin - The garage being 5 feet from the property line.
Jim Hill - If you are saying, no variances from those, then that's
true.
Craig Mertz - If you make a motion On this you should clarify one
way or the other what evactly setbacks you are t,alking about.
Hud Hollenback moved to recommend the Council approve the preliminary
development plan for subdivis,i,on and rezoning subject to the following:
1. Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District approves surface water
drainage plan.
2. Construction traffic, shall use MSAS, 101 only.
3. The subdivision is shifted 30 feet eastward and the developer is
required to prepare a landscape plan which will screen the lots
abutting CSAH17 and MSAS 101.
4. The developers work with the Building Ihspector to develop a
street naming plan'which will not be confusing. '
5. The developer agrees to submit a final development plan
incorporating all the conditions as outlinedin'Ordinance 47, Section
14.05, subdivision 5.
6. The developer agrees to comple.te installation of all city streets,
curbs, gutters, utilities (sewer and water) ,'underground electric
distribution lines by
7. The developer agrees not to request any variances from the plans
as submitted on sheet 2 of 4 dated January 6, 1978, regarding the
placement of structures.
8. Planning Commission resolve the vacation of 68th Street from
Nez Perce to CSAH 17.
9. Developer agrees to these conditions in writing.
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-10-
Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved.
Les Bridger moved to recommend the Council proceed with the vacation ~
of West 68th Street. Motion seconded by Hud Hollenback and unanimously..,
approved.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION: Pat Boyle and Phyllis Pope were present,
to discuss the Park and Recreation Commission's relationship to the
Planning Commission.
Hud Hollenback - The other night I attended a Park and Rec. meeting and
I understand their frustrations and it's not staffs
fault, our fault or their fault, I just don't think
they are gett~ng the information that they should
in order to act. I don't think we are communicating
to well together and we have several suggestions on
how we might over come that. What I did was I briefly
went over that map showing the areas, the yellow,
brown and white. That's the first they had seen
that. Did the Council ever approve that?
Bruce pankonin - No. That was just a sketch plan thatTL am graphically
show all the thoughts to date.
Hud Hollenback - I pointed out that the brown area is the sewered area"
and is going to be the area that's going to have
intense development going on in the next few years.
That's the area that possibly Park and Rec. ought to
be looking at immediately.and sort of reserve the
rest for later on. That land is going to be going
fairly quickly. So if we are going to want
neighborhood parks now is the time to start placing. tit
They are looking in these areas but the problem I
think is what we were getting at in this one discussion,
Park and Rec.,for some reason,I don't think is getting
the information on when land is being pressured. In
other words when somebody comes to the city saying
we are thinking about building something here. It's
not until after the fact that they get involved. I
think what we have to do is maybe sit down sometime
at a joint meeting and just go over it but show them
the land is still available, you can indicate what's
being pressured, what isn't being pressured and they
can at that time start selecting a site within those
circles they drew. It was mentioned and I agree,
they don't just want to take ten acres here or ten
acres there depending on the kind of park they want
something where the topography is right, either it's
flat or it's marshy or it's rolling or whatever.
Bruce Pankonin - I think those are valid points. parks,by there very
nature,are positive shaping elements for the
neighborhood. Park and Rec. should know from the
Planning Commission what the Planning Commission
envisions a neighborhood to look like, densities
primarily, road locations, commercial, whatever.
The Park .and Rec. Commission should also tell the
Planning Commission what level of service do they want~
to provide, generally, for the city. What parameters ..
for development do they want to develop. Given the
Planning Commission's feeling on location and density
of the neighborhood and traffic circulation, given
Planning Commission ~eeting March 22, 1978
-11-
e
Park and Rec's desire to deliver a certain level of
service, putting those together the parks will logically
pop out because you are not going to put ball diamonds
on steep slopes and in swamps. You are not going to
put ball diamonds and parks away from where the
Planning, Commission invisions the neighborhood to be.
Hud Hollenback - I think we all agree on this. The problem is how do
we do this? How do we communicate better?
Roman Roos - Roughly about four meetings ago we were talking about Park
and Rec. and Ecological Committee and the coordination
and the communications between these three commissions.
At that point in time I said, why don't we try to get
one of the Planning Commission members to be at each Park
and Rec. meeting, each Ecological meeting, each Council
meeting. This is what we are doing right now. Each
individual here has a responsibility to be at those
respective meetings. I guess intercommunication is the
biggest problem. The paper work would be astronomical
to try to feed Park and Rec. everything that comes
through staff but what might be a very, very easy way
to implement, this thing would be to have one of your
people at each Planning Commission meeting 0 so that,you
are aware of what's happening at each commission meeting.
The Park and Rec. has seven members. You divide seven
members out by the number of meetings a month, it works
out very, very easy. It's not a heavy burden on each
ipdividual but what it does, we have a Planning Commission
member at,your,meetings'and,vice versa, you have a member
at our meetings~ That individual can relay this information
back and forth so there is, a total interplay. The
information is here, ", it's just a matter is dissemiLnating
it at the right ,time and I think that would be one way of
doing it.
Phyllis Pope - I would like to make a comment that I have wanted to
make for a long time' and I hope I won't embarrass
anybody but I would like to attend these meetings if
there were no smoking in, the room.
Roman Roos - It wouldn't burden each of the members of the Park and Rec.
by spacing'it out, in other words one member at each
Planning Commission meeting. T think this might give us
some of this coordination we are, looking for.
Patl Boyle - If we were to come and sit here and find something that we
should have known two weeks ago', that's not going to help
us solve our problem.
Roman Roos - If there isa continuaL involvement then you should be
as knowledgeable as we, are.
Hud Hollenback- I think they should, be involved before we see it and
I don't know,how that can happen. One of them did
make that point that any new developments they would
appreciate if they would: < be run by them before we even
got them. < Bruce' is,under a tremendous amount of
pressure to get everything on the agenda immediately.
Bruce Pankonin - This development :i-n,particular; ;:Carver' s Pointe. The
sketch plan was submitted ,to them prior to the public
hearing, and, we got their input at the public hearing.
It boils down to,\when should it go to the commission
and what should staff do? ,What ,I do when a sketch
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-12-
plan comes in, I touch base with all the staff
members and I say, what are your feelings, put them
in writing. From those comments we can start commenti~
on a sketch plan and at that point, I feel, it should ...
go.to the commission which is prior to a public hearing
so the imput of the Park and Rec. can be dovetailed
into the process any modifications made before it
goes to the Council with their impute .
Hud Hollenback - What would happen if their imput were submitted at
the same time that Bill submits his?
Bruce Pankonin - That's when it should be. Carver's Pointe plans were
submitted to the Park and Rec. sometime in the middle
of January. The first time that we' saw them was
in February. February is the first time the Planning
Commisston saw this. . We got imput from the Park and
Rec. on February 8th.
Roman Roos - At the last two hearings on Dunn and Curry Developments
we asked for a representative to be at the public hearings.
Was there a reason this did not happen?
Pat Boyle - We didn't know about it.
Phyllis Pope - I did know about it. I was notified because of being
a resident and I was away.
Mal MacAlpine - Bruce was talking about Park and Rec. coming up with
a plan as to what type of parks are needed, how many
baseball diamonds, tennis. I am sure there is a
projection on how many families are going to be moving
into Chanhassen short term, long term. The projected
number of children, ages, etc. I know the City of
Chanhassen has a map which shows the various zones ~
and the open spaces that are presently not developed ..,
and I would think as a starting point that you would
just basically take that type of data, which Bruce
has available, look at that map, pick out areas because
you have to start somewhere and then stay in tune
with what development projects are coming up in those
areas. At least you have some sort of plan and
when we are looking at the various plans that are
coming in here we can say Park and Rec. had plans
for a park here. I would think there has to be a
starting p'oint'1like that so that we will be looking
at a map too and Bruce can incorporate it into the
plan.
Bruce Pankonin - Given the financial resources of the community, what
type of services do you want to deliver? Given that,
we can fit them into the neighborhoods. You have to
look at parks as a shaping element of the neighborhood.
They should determine what type of services they
want to deliver. We know about the neighborhood,
,the circulation, then come to an agreement as to
where the specific location is. When that's agreed,
put it on the map.
Les Bridger - We have discussed comprehensive guide plan for a long
time and we still haven't got anything concrete. How
does Park and Rec. arrive at where the parks going to a
be. I know you have got to go by density in areas. ..,
I think these are things that we don't understand also.
I guess there is going to have to be some interchange
here so we know what's happening and they know what s
happening.
Planning COlmnission Meetj.,ng March 22:,1978
-13-
e
Bruce Pankonin - That's the whole pointois Park and Rec. determining
the level of service, not where it's going to be,
but what type of recreational experience they want
people to have in Chanhassen. The Planning Connnission
will know where the people are living. Given their
level of service that they want to provide we can
work. together and put a green dot on the map so that
it fits into the neighborhood.
Roman Roos - Do you think that one of your people being at our meetings
would help?
Pat Boyle - I don't think it would solve the problem. I think you are
asking them to sit through a long, something that maybe
they really aren't' interested in totally what you are
d0ing here.
Hud Hollenback - I think you still are going to have the problem even
with somebody sitting here. On February 8th the first
thing we saw on this Carver's Point was a map with
100 lots sketched in. That's the first thing they
would see. That's to late for them.
Walter Thompson -,How'are you going to get it any earlier?
Hud Hollenback - You look at it with a broader stroke. We know that
Dunn and Curry has got x number of acres there and
there is some'action and Bruce and Fran get together
and Bruce says, we are getting pressured here a
little bit ,thi:s land s0mething is going to happen.
'Ybu have got to react' awfully fast. You are going
to have to decide'if this is'an area we want to
preserve for' a park and:,we have the imput right away.
We,: say, we don't want 100 lots', on this piece of land
because Park and Rec. : This is'. not happening that way
and time' has a lot to do with it. Somewhere: in there
there' has ,to' be time for Park and Rec. to be aware
of-it and have ,them ,as a group react.
~hy11is Pope... I think that's very good because we are looking at the
idea of a trail through part of that Dunn and Curry
property right'now- and it'would be nice for them to
, know that that: 's' what we want.
Craig Mertz -, One source of confusion here is:, that you have got to
recognize ,that under state law"your funct(ion is. to'
synthesize all ,the- information that's being collected
from: the different sources. The park people are supposed
to. be the specialists on their topic and they are
supposed to' focus: on their topic'. ' Fireman, when he
makes his report for the fire department is speaking
as a specialist so' you'are the 'synthesizers. You should
not expect the Pa~k and Rec. to be examining all of the
information that>youha:ve:received from the fireman,
soil and conservation people, etc'. There seems to be
confusion'about at what point in time Park and Rec. is
supposed to make their report, . ,theiril formalized connnents.
I get the feeling thateverybody:is assuming that they
are to have their report formalized,at the time of public
hea:ring and I don,'t think, that's the case. What should
be occurring- is- tha.t the Park and Rec. people come to
the public hearing" look- at the information, then go
to their 'own meeting and make up,their reconnnendations
and when the Planning- C:onnnission considers the merits
of the preliminary proposal they should make their
thoughts felt. These preliminary plats are not carved
in stone. They are subject to change and everybody
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting March' 22~ 1978
(.,u
-14-
has' got' to' recognize tthat'.:
Hud Hollenback - Sometimes'we' talk about the merits right after the
public hearing' is closed.
Bruce Pankonin - If the Park and Rea. Commission has the information ~
prior to'Planning'Commission scheduling a public
hearing there will be at (least a month between that
'date' and the' pubtic'hearing. "That would certainly
be, enoughtime'for', the Park and Rec. to formulate
an opinion for the public'hearing.
Phyllis Pope - It seems to me at that point everyone here on this
commission will' have: put 'in so much time looking at
this preliminary plan that by the time Park and Rec.
says perhaps we don't' like it~ we are going to feel
like we are throwing a monkey ,wrench in the whole
process. "
Roman Roos - Nothin9 is 'really finaled'until after the public hearing.
Craig Mertz - I don t think you'are running up the developer's costs
, ' "by telling him. that there is' a possibility that his
,plan i'sgoing to be changed"after"the public hearing.
If we tell him ,to' g6 to the Park'ICommission first
and then he comes 'to you'and draws some more maps
for you, he has got the'same amount of time invested.
Hud Hollenback - On' this Ordinance! l4A where"it"s either money or
, land, at what point does ,that happen. Getting back
to' Garver' sPointe', what we did tonight is in
essenc:e, 'go ahead~and build and 'then when the
, building permit'S ,are issued they come across lot by
lot. Park ' and Rec.h21ven'tmade the decision that
, they want the money. By approving it we are saying ~
that's what. you get and that's not right. ~
Bruce Pankonin - The Park and Rec. Commission is going to have to
dove'tail' it into the process, either we want land
or money. 'Do we wanta park in this area or not?
Hud Hollenback - What do'we do to change this procedure? Do you copy
Fran immediat'ely and then it" s up to him to present
it to them at 'the very next meeting and we expect
a response' at that meeting? That's the only way
, it's go'ing to' fit our time schedule.
Bruce Pankonin - A dev'eloper comes into me and' the first thing I
go looka't 'is the Gity Plan~''.E'$.y, the city plan
says you. have to have 'a road here, we are going to
have a 'trail here, it's this density, utilities
are there,' prepare a sketchpl'an. Then the sketch
. plan is p'repared' and' given to the various groups.
Everybody gets together with "all the imput and says,
we like, it, however, do this, 'do this, do this.
Then h:echanges his plan maybe 'and comes to public
he'aring . ' '
Roman Roos - You ,do have the Planning' Commission agenda and of course
those items that are:appropr:i::at'e ,you"could have somebody
in attendance at 'that point in time "
Phyllis Pope - We have not been getting theag'endas'.
Bruce Pankonin - T give theag'endas to Fran. The Planning Commission
should. kn'ow wha'tits. role is'. in. terms of park planning.
The Park and Recreat~on Comm~ss~on should know what ..,
its role is in terms of park planning. When we
understand our various roles then we can dovetail
our concerns together and come up with a park plan.
I , ,.
e
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978
-15-
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: The City Planner presented a tiJne schedule
for completion of the survey and analysis portion of the comprehensive
plan.
Hud Hollenback moved to adopt the time schedule as presented this
evening. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved.
COUNCIL MINUTES: ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS: The Council has agreed with the
Planning Commission that the city should control the rural growth and
channel development into the urban areas but would like the Planning
Commission to develop standards for estate type developments in Chanhassen
at a scale that the Metropolitan Council will approve. Harold and Pat
Hesse were present.
Members will discuss estate type developments at a special meeting
March 29 at 7:00 p.m.
ECOLOGICAL COMMITTEE'S GOALS FOR LAKE RILEY: Members reviewed the goals
for Lake Riley and will use them in the comprehensive plan. Pat Swenson
requested a copy of these goals.
COUNCIL MINUTES: .DON HANUS: At the March 6 Council meeting the Council
directed Don Hanus to work with the Planning Commission to amend his
conditional use permit as they are concerned about the screening and
landscaping. Members commented on the Council directive.
Mal MacAlpine - The Council should not hand that back to the Planning
Commission and I go on record, they should take care
of it. The Council knows what is expected of the
Hanus Development.
Roman Roos - I am with you, Mal. I would like to go on record right
now with a statement in the minutes. They created the
situation, they can solve it.
Les Bridger - We did our job as a Planning Commission and if we are
going to have nonenforceable ordinances then we might
as well take them off the books; contracts, whatever.
If they are going to make a commitment to the city
then they better adhere to it otherwise we are wasting
our time.
Mal MacAlpine - The ready mix, they completely ignored what they had
agreed to do then they come in here and they want
some consideration for expansion. Then they completely
ignored what the Planning Commission recommended which
was reasonable from a time and investment standpoint
so I say, let it go right back to the Council.They
have to have the guts to enforce it.
Hud Hollenback - That's bad but it's not uncommon out here.
Roman Roos - Well, it's got to stop.
Les Bridger - I think we have been doing a good job in our recommending
and if thi:Iigs are not: . going .tobE;. ,done on the upper echelon
then we are just really batting iu/a breeze. We have
got to have support. If he doesn't comply they should
have gone right down there and said look, get this stuff
off of here, we are going to court, you're going to be
sued, period. I don't care if it's Hanus or anybody.
Mal MacAlpine moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson
and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 12:00.
Don Ashworth
Ci,ty Nap.age;:t;