Loading...
1979 06 27 e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Chanhassen Elementary School, with the following members ~esent: Walter Thompson, Gordon Freeburg, Pat Swenson, Clark Horn and Gerald Neher. INTERVIEW OF CANDIDATES: Two candidates were scheduled to come in, but they were not able to attend. The ranking of the candidates as of the last opening on the planning commission was discussed. It was decided to table the action on the candidate until the planning commission meeting on July 11, 1979. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Gordon Freeburg moved to accept the minutes of the May 9, 1979, planning commission meeting. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson. Approved by Gordon Freeburg, Pat Swenson, Clark Horn, Gerald Neher and Roman Roos. Abstain: Walter Thompson. Walter Thompson moved to approve the minutes of the June 6, 1979, Special Planning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson. Approved by Walter Thompson, Pat Swenson and Roman Roos. Abstain: Clark Horn, Jerry Neher and Gordon Freeburg. Pat Swenson moved to amend the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of June 13, 1979 on page 6, third paragraph, to delete "if possible" in the second line. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. e Walter Thompson moved to amend the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of June 13, 1979, on page 8, second paragraph, it should read "public informational meeting" instead of public hearing. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. Clark Horn moved to approve the minutes of the June 13, 1979, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson. Approved by Walter Thompson, Pat Swenson, Clark Horn and Jerry Neher. Abstain: Gordon Freeburg and Roman Roos. Walter Thompson moved to note the June 4, 1979 City Council minutes. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. Clark Horn stated in the City Council minutes of June 11, 1979, on page 3, regarding the South Lotus Lake Drainage ImpIOvement Project, all of the people who were in attendance were not recorded, and all of the statements were not recorded in the minutes. Walter Thompson moved to note the June 11, 1979 Ci ty Council minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Gordon Freeburg moved to note the Special Chanhassen City Council Meeting and Board of Review Meeting minutes of June 13, 1979. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. e Pat Swenson moved to amend the agenda for the Cannon Ball Restaurant Preliminary Development Plan Review to come up at approximately 10:30'p.m., and for Item 8, Flood Plain Ordinance, Discussion, to be at the very end of the meeting. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. .)':-~ e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 2 DISCUSSION OF NORTH CHANHASSEN EAST !WEST TRANSPORTION STUDY e Roman Roos called the discussion to order at 8 p.m. with the following interested persons present: Tom Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Sue Seifert, 600 Pleasant View John Enockson, 510 Pleasant View Road Harry W. Robideau, 540 Pleasant View Road Bill Goran, 489 Pleasant View Road Bruce Pankonin Mayer, Ridge Road Jane Mayer, Ridge Road Joni Wetzel, 6260 Ridge Road Dorothy G. Reynolds, Powers Boulevard Shanon Graef, 509 Pleasant View Hank Graef, 509 Pleasant View W. Pat Cunningham, 825 Pleasant View Rd. Harold Rojina, 480 Iroquois Ave. Mary Rojina, 480 Iroquois Ave. Frances O'Brien, 450 Pleasant View Road Gerald C. O'Brien, 450 Pleasant View Road Marilyn Beddor, 910 Pleasant View Road Barbara Gullickson, 830 Pleasant View Road J. Smith, 550 Pleasant View Road Jan Thielen, 665 Pl~aaant View Road Pete Thielen, 665 Pleasant View Road Mike Thompson, 695 Pleasant View Road Gerry W. Naher, 1410 Greenwood Dr. James J. Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road Mark Parker, 790 Pleasant View Road Peg Parker, 790 Pleasant View Road Audrey M. Leavenworth, 915 Pleasant View Road Joyce Bennett, 975 Pleasant View Karen Peterson, 1180 Pleasant View Road Peter Pflaum, 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Herb Baldwin, Land Arch. Consultant Todd Heglund, Traffic Planning Consultant Philip W. Getts, Dayton, Herman, Graham & Getts Sandra Cunningham, 6665 HorseahoeCurve,Exc. John Cunningham, 6665 Horseshoe Curve,Exc. Ella Kask, 115 Pleasant View Rd., Exc. Herbert Kask, ll5 Pleasant View Rd., Exc. Vicki Palmer, 521 Iroquois Ave., Exc. Dale Palmer, 521 Iroquois Ave., Exc. Julius Smith, 7101 York Ave. So., Mpls. James Bohn, 410 Highland Dr., Chanhassen Dean E. Watzel, 6260 Ridge Rd., Excelsior e e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 3 Roman Roos stated that they would try to recap everything from the last two or three meetings. The Assistant City Manager/Planner stated there were portions of the presentation from the June 13, 1979 meeting, by the representations of Near Mountain that need elaboration on, specifically the points in the letter of June 13, 1979 from Mr. Philip Getts, and the illustrated cross sections of the proposed road around Near Mountain as presented by Mr. Pflaum. These will be responded to by the Assistant City Attorney and the City Engineers. He said the remainder of his report is a cap su lization of the concerns of this office regarding this issue. e For the reasons brought forth in the individual analysis of the Near Mountain, Thompson and Quady properties. and for the prevention of the foreclosure on the ability to an alternative east/west access between Powers Blvd., and MTH 101, he recommended that the street plans for the three aforementioned properties include and respond to the preferred collector street alignments in the Schoell and Madson feasibility study of May 2, 1979. Specifically, on the Near Mountain properties, he recommended that the initial construction of the street, after talking with various residents along Pleasant View Road, be built at this time for safety reasons rather than wait for personal injury or the overloading of the road to occur. He also recommended that the planning commission recommend to the City Council that they amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the feasibility study preferred alignment and that the right of ways be dedicated as part of the platting of the involved properties. Should the Planning Commission still have reservations as to the quantification of need for the collector street, he recommended that the City contract with a firm specializing in traffic engineering in order to establish a third opinion regarding the issue. Such a study should be financed by the Pflaumwel1 Development Partnership, and the Derrick Land Company. The Assistant City Manager/Planner also stated that they had received a letter from the City of Minnetonka dated May 2, 1979, regarding the Near Mountain Property. Generally, it expressed concern about the transportation in the general area. They wanted to be assured that there is a balance between where the traffic from the Near Mountain Property enters onto MTH 101. As stated in his report, the Highway Department is somewhat concerned about an access between Pleasant View Road and Town Line Road onto 101. They believe that this should be augmented by the North/South collector as shown in the Near Mountain Plat to go onto Pleasant View and then onto MTHI01. This would more or less balance the load onto 101 or Town Line. e Mr. Rodney Gordon of 3choell & Madson, Inc. recapped his letter dated June 27, 1979, to the City of Chanhassen. Mr. Todd Heglund gave his reply to the Schoel1 & Madson, Inc. report regarding the capacity of traffic that Pleasant View Road can handle. He stated his study indicates that if this area does develop to the intensity that has been indicate~ that Pleasant View will be able to traffic along with County Road 17 and Highway 101, Highway 7 and Highway 5. He said they just do not believe that there is a need for this road based on traffic plans. He stated that Pleasant View probably would be able to support somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 vehicles per hour during the morning or evening period. e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page L. Pat Swenson asked if there were a collector street there, would it appear to be a conducement to people to use it. Mr. Heglund stated that yes, it would probably divert traffic off of Highway 5 and Highway 7 into this project. It is the continuity that does it. Roman Roos stated that one of the things from a planning point of view that was talked about several months ago was the thorough street 01' collector, that we wanted to have an east/west and we called it an east/west corridor. We were cognizant of Near Mountain, the Quady property, the Thompson property, and that land which would be developed which would promote traffic onto that road, and Pleasant View or the upgrading of Pleasant View or the east/west collector. Where I am really concerned is that it is an east/west road. This is what we are looking at, we are just not looking for a way of getting those people on the north and east side, the Near Mountain project people out of that area, but really the total area, to get people in and out of that area. I think we always were looking at it from a collector or an east/west corridor standpoint. Pat Swenson disagreed, saying that it was mentioned that it should be stressed that it should be used for "local" use. The Assistant City Manager/Planner responded to this pointing out the definitions of "arterial" vs. "collector". e Mr. Heglund stated we can call a roadway what we want, but what is really important is how it is used, and when people drive a roadway they don't care what it is called, if it has continuity it is an arterial by usage because people will be drawn to it because they can make quick time by taking this through road. Clark Horn asked lfr.. Heglund if he felt Highway 5 could take more volume than what it presently has. Mr. Heglund stated it would have to be improved to 4 lane and that is part of the Highway Department's plan, long range plans. Gordon Freeburg stated that it is not a part of the Highway Department's plan. The proposed is a new Highway l69/212 to pick up that traffic that is currently going on Highway 5. The Minnesota Department of Transportation I think is very much opposed to upgrading Highway 5. It seems that Hennepin County 62 is in the back of everyone's mind, and this is making us run scared. We feel that we must accommodate the junction or the termination of Hennepin County 62 and continue to carry it west, and I can not see why we have to accommodate Hennepin County by building a road through Carver County. Clark Horn asked Mr. Heglund what happens t16 current Pleasant View Road if Highway 62 extension does come through. Mr. Heglund stated the traffic volume we are looking at do not anticipate that there is that heavy of a demand to come through the area. e I e REGULAR PLANNING CO~1ISSION MEETING - JUNE 27, 1979 Page 5 Mr. Herb Baldwin stated that refinement of the planning sketches have taken the collector juncture and moved it away from Pleasant View, bringing the collector out essentially just north of the Lutheran Church site. Roman Roos said he still had a hang up, relating back to staff, talking from the very beginning about a way of getting traffic through the Lotus Lake area. We were looking in terms of trip generation for those developments on either side of Lotus - to the East and to the West of the junction of the two lakes. We looked at it from several points of view, and one of the most relevant points of view is that we could get traffic out of that area ('~lest of the lakes) and get it eastbound and it could funnel out, it would tend to alleviate some of the traffic generation on Highway 5, that it is an east/west corridor to get the western people eastbound. At the same time in Chanhassen, it would be a way of getting the people on the east side of Lotus across into the downtown Chanhassen area. I realize that is a small consequence at this point in time, but we are talking about planning principles twenty years from now. As I see it, there is no reason to have two terminating streets. To my knowledge and the way I have been looking at it I would like to see an east/west corridor going through. I think there is a need in terms of trip generations but I guess I am somewhat confused because you were talking about termination of a road. e Bob Waibel stated that termination was based upon an allignment that was not ever proposed as a possible way of making that connection. Pat Swenson stated in regard to Roman's question as to it always having been considered an east/west alignment road, I would like to point out Schoell & Madson's letter of May 22 on the third page, saying flit is very important to provide an alternate road to keep this traffic off of Pleasant View while not allowing the alternate road to become anything more than a local collector street". This, plus other comments using the word "local" has had a considerable point in my decision on this matter. The Assistant City Attorney made a respqnse, directed to the planning commission, concerning a letter received from Philip Getts dated June 13, 1979. In concluding his remarks, he suggested that the planning commission should attempt to identify whether or not there is a need for a collector street, and if they decide there is such a need, then the commission should proceed with the selection of the most feasible and prudent route, and should take steps to incorporate that route into the official map of the city. - Mr. Philip Getts commented on his letter to the planning commission and responded to the Assistant City Attorney's comments. He stated the implications of the Planning Act, copies of which were attached to his letter. That statute gives +not only the power, but the duty to describe by some sort of plan what public facility you deem necessary for Chanhassen. The implication of that statute is important. The decision tonight because of that statute will have clear consequences for anyone who is interested in building so much as one house in the Near Mountain area, let alone PflaUMWel1 Development Partnership, who contemplates building substantially more than one house in that area. Once you have designated this corridor, that then b.ecomes part of the official plan of the City of Chanhassen for the development of future public uses. Anybody who wants to develop the Near Mountain area must take into account that road and your decision that that road might be built in the future. Once you draw that line, anyone who is going to put a development in there is going e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 6 to have to assume unless he is an economic idiot, that it will be built someday. That is going to affect the choices that that developer makes as to the type of housing, the density, the arrangement, the amount of open spaces, the prices at which the houses will be sold, and any number of other things. Your action tonight, assuming it is approved by the City Council, will have real consequences for Pflaumwell, for Derrick, and for any other developer interested in this area. He commented regarding the Environmental Rights Act. If there is environmental damage, you must look for alternatives. If there are no alternatives, and the road is not needed, you can't build it. Roman Roos stated we have heard a lot of talk about trip generation on that road. Mr. Heglund said that Pleasant View can support 500 cars per hour. We know, from a planning point of view, that developments, if it occurs in that area, are going to create trip generation, traffic through that area. Mr. Heglund disagreed, he stated the trips that will be generated will not be through trips. That is the falacy that Schoell & Madson has been presenting. That is the mis-step that has confused all of the talk about need. They are not through trips, they are trips one way or the other, but they do not satisfy the definition of through trips in any way. e Roman Roos stated from a planning point of view, we are looking at a way of getting out of the area, not talking trip generation, for those three develop- ments. That is what the planning commission is really concerned with, ten or fifteen years from now, after those developments are complete. That is the issue, how do we get this traffic out. Walter Thompson stated he would like to know why there never was an alternative to the one shown. The Assistant City Manager/Planner said there are actually five different alternatives on this study, and explained the same. Walter Thompson questioned going around the south of Near Mountain, following Pleasant View but upgrading it and eliminating curves etc. through that way. The Assistant City Manager/Planner stated that would require the relocation of certain existing residences in that area. e Joe Smith _ 550 Pleasant View Road, right in the area indicated by Bob. I was one of the people who was not contacted, and I resent that you are making implication that the people along there - I am speaking for myself, and there is another alternative though that no one has mentioned. There are very clear indications here tonight that as far as the new developments are concerned, there must be access for them to the east or access for them to the west, there is no need for them to go through the area, desire perhaps, but not need. There is a need for the people who live along Pleasant View Road to get in and out of that area, but there is not a need for the people who live on Pleasant View Road to go through the area, they can go also to the east and they also can go to the west, just the same as the people in the developments would do. The obvious e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 7 e conclusion is if you are worried about the traffic on Pleasant View Road, instead of building an extra road that encourages more traffic even, is self serving in its own construction, blockade Pleasant View Road. Traffic goes to zero, and the problem is gone. There is already a precedent for that, Ridge Road is blockaded, you can not drive through there in a convenient manner. As far as I know certainly a blockade could be built in a manner that under emergency circumstances such as fire, ambulance, police, could go through there. The situation that hasntt been considered, we are not supposed to consider costs. Certainly the maintenance of that new road is going to be borne by the city. The maintenance of a blockade would be essentially zero. If once you plan that road and you affect people like Pflaumwell, you can't go back on that plan, but if you build a blockade and you later on decide that you wa.nt to remove it, you take a bulldozer out there and the blockade is gone. You have allowed yourself to change your mind. I certainly hope that you would consider a very simple situation like that. I saw on these diagrams retaining walls. You didntt indicate the length of the retaining wall, but there are supposed to be driveways in that area. How do you put a driveway through a retaining wall? I would like to point out that those driveways would be very steep. If you have things like retaining walls where the driveways have to go through the walls, that makes the driveway even that much steeper. Tha.t is very dangerous. The middle third of the road is not needed for local access at all, so we have roads going to the west and roads going to the east, and all you need to do to prevent the build up of traffic on Pleasant View Road is to prevent the build up of traffic on f!leasant View Road. You are the planning commission, you can do that. Tom Seifert _ I had a point I wanted to make, but actually I think Joe's comments are even a better solution to our problem. The main issues for us are the area of the safety, and needing to reach some sort of compromise as far as, Joe Smith's idea seems fairly good. The most prominent fear for the whole area from Highway 41 to the proposed Crosstown being connected in one flowing continuous roadway. This, according to the city and Bob, would be to the pleasure of snow plow drivers and the dream of near sighted planners, but would have a devastating affect. This over simplification is the main reason the majority of the neighbors are against the proposed road. I have presented a letter to you about the safety aspect. You can read it through and you can see if the point is taken or not. I do hope you reach some sort of a compromise in the situation because there are 9 families now, 16 potentially, that are going to be caught right in the middle of road vs. no road with maybe the solution by Joe Smith being the most appropriate one for the whole area. - e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 8 Jim Meyer - Mr. Horn pointed out before that re thought that people that lived on the western portion of Pleasant View and who worked on the east side are going to drive west, and then io to 5 or 7 and then go back east. I live there and I can point out to you my neighbors, those of us that do commute into town, that every day I go down to Pleasant. View (I work at. Sout.hdale), I go west to 17, south to 5, 5 to the Crosstown, and into my job. My neighbor Mr. Watzel, Mr. Beddor and several of us who work in that area all go the same way. We don't go east on Pleasant View and we have lived there for some time, so that road, the Smith compromise as it may be called, is not a bad idea because it wouldn't hurt us a bit. I heard Mr. Freeburg mention at previous meetings, which nobody has mentioned, and I would like to mention it very quickly, what does this do for Chanhassen. Does it take it away from the village business people or does it help them? I have spoken to men on the Chamber of Commerce, and they are opposed to this road, they think it is taking stuff away from Chanhassen. The other thing I would like to mention quickly is what Mr. Heglund mentioned, getting back to Near Mountain itself. It is called Near Mountain, what is it worth, the beauty and so on. Sometimes you do make exceptions. In this instance maybe we should try to preserve it and if preserving it means making some compromises, without compromising safety, it would be great. e Mayor Hobbs - I tried to keep a very open mind on this, I talked to a lot of you and told you I hadn't formulated any opinion. I haven't. I have not yet. I think I have as much interest in the proposed alignment on this road as any of you, because as you mayor may not know, this is my property. We talked about the possibility of the Crosstown being extended, whether this is a collector street, all of these terms are being kicked around. I think the one thing that the City Council is going to want to know and they are going to ask the planning commission they are going to listen very carefully to what is happening here, are the realistic things that could happen in the future, notwithstanding whether or not you are going to build a road for Near Mountain, whether or not you are going to plan a road at all in this area. In listening to the conversation tonight two things come to mind. First of all, I think we have gotten a lot of conjecture from a lot of parties, but that is our right, we are a free country. In talking about movement on this road, whether it is going to go east or west, the city right now is spending 3.3 million dollars on an industrial park going in south of 5. That is going to generate business, it is going to generate jobs. I don't know whether any of those people will elect to live here, and if they do whether they will go down 101 or go across this road, but I think it is a fact, on 17 south you have 392 homes going up. They mayor may not in their trips elect to come down Pleasant View or go into Excelsior, we don't know. It is some- thing that is going to happen. If Hennepin County finishes the Crosstown I agree with the comments here, I don't know if they will ever get the money. We thought the state was going to build a sewer interceptor for us in 1971, that is the one we are building in 1979, so I haven't gotten too upset about that,but if they do build it notwithstanding why you are looking at the possibility of planning for a road here, the people coming off of it are not automatically all going to go north or go south. I am not saying that this road e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 9 e should be bui1t,because of this road. I am saying if you dead end it and you don't, you may have traffic flow through there. If the decision tonight by the planning commission and if it is agreed to by the Council, is not to plan, and I think that that was brought out very well, I am sure some people, in fact some people I had phone calls from thought that the bulldozers and the surveyors would be in this swnmer. If we don't plan for it Near Mountain develops, this property develops, I will guaranty you there will never be a road through there. If this traffic starts to flow through here you have eliminated an alternative, and the council ten years down the road is going to have people in here saying what can you do. Notwi th- standing the proposal I heard, I don't believe this councilor any future council will blockade Pleasant View Road. If they do, they will cut off the aid from here to here because when you spend public funds you have to spend them for the public. We can't come down and plow streets, maintain streets for only an individual segment of the city population. As I said, I am still very open on it. If it doesn'tg> in,you are stuck with this in perpetuity. If you are happy, if I am still on the council and I don't think I will be, I wouldn't want anybody coming back up to me complaining about traffic problems on Pleasant View. e Roman Roos _ Extending on that a bit, the word "need" has cropped up many times this evening and the Mayor alluded to it also, and I think that this evening is the issue we have to address, the "need" for that road. If that need indeed is real, and if we indeed make that recommendation to the city council, at that point we have got to look at some secondary facts on that, the impact, the environmental impact, routing, the cost of it, timbering, but I think the first thing we've got to answer from a planning point of view, for the future as well as now is the "need". We've heard a lot of discussion on this, some emotional, some factual, some quantitative, and I think it is just getting to the point that I want to poll the commission members, some general comments on what they have heard at the last three planning commission meetings, and at that point I would like to entertain a motion as to how they feel. e Pat Swenson _ I have prepared a statement that I would like to read. I have spent a considerable amount of time and study on this problem, and I have listened and read, and I left this open thinking that I would perhaps hear something tonight which would give me cause to change my opinion. All I have heard increases my feelings. Pat read a prepared statement that will be made a part of the records of this meeting. In concluding her statement she said "In view of all this and since I feel that my obligation as a member of this commission is as much to plan for preservation as it is for progre.ss, and that it goes beyond traffic now, driving convenience, and even systems of roadways for developments, I can not in my own heart justify a recommendation which I feel will not only be environmentally unconscionable, but monumentally expensive, both monetarily and aesthetically." e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 10 e Gordon Freeburg - Last week I wrote a short statement out figuring this was going to come to a decision last week and I left it with Walt. This is before I heard any of the testimony, it is just from my own research, what I have go"bten from the letters and comments, and my own observations, and this is what I wrote to Walt last week: (1) The first senD.ence of the Schoel1 & Madson study says that we will have an eventual transportation crisis unless certain precautions are taken - I don't believe this. I do believe however, that Hennepin County residents will have a problem when their crosstown is completed more or less in mid air. They will end it just like they ended that east end Hennepin County crosstown is still in mid air, it is hanging there. I don't think it is our problem, I think it is their's. (2) The traffic patterns for the east and west side of Lotus Lake/Christmas Lake have been established over the years. People that live on the east side generate their traffic to the 7-Hi area or down to Highway 5. People that live on the west side I would say the major share would shop in Excelsior or come down County Road 17 into Chanhassen. I think that the traffic patterns that are there now will be the traffic patterns that will be there in the future, whether we put the road through there or not. The businesses that we have proposed in the industrial park is going to be served very well by County Road 17. I can see no traffic change in the traffic patterns and I think that Pleasant View Road as a local collector now serves the area very well. I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't think there is a crisis, I can't see where there has been any need established, and I think that the first thing that the planning commission has to do or anwwer is, is there a need? I don't see that there is, and I agree with everything that Pat said, there is no need to, now or in the future, run a major road through that area, and I think the whole thing Should be dropped. Walter Thompson _ The first point that comes to mind is the environmental studies and the fact that we have to give them an environmental statement for a road, but I can't believe that that road is going to disrupt the countryside as much as putting 500 houses in there is going to do, so I think that the environmental impact business just ought to be dropped, because both are going to have an adverse affect. You aren't going to maintain this as a park or a museum when you put 500 houses in there. The other point that concerns me is not today or tomorrow it is 10 years from now. Frankly from what we have here we have kind of a take it or leave it situation and it just seems to me that not all the options have been explored. At the moment 1. don't know which way I am going to vote. e Clark Horn _ I share a lot of the frustration that Walt expressed, I am torn between our goal and long range planning against what I value very highly, and that is preserving areas that ought to be preserved, as far as be it that area or whether it be in our city, and I think that we as a general chorus tend to generate patch work type of streets just for the purpose of thats what looks like ought to happeh for a street, without regard to what is really nice, what people like to live in, and I guess at this point I think I am leaning more REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 11 e e towards leaving it out for the reasons of just preserving an area that should be preserved, and I think that people will put up with inconveniences to preserve an area, and I think that that is one of the inconveniences to people who are going to live there are going to have to accept, and I would hope that they would accept that and not come back to the council in 10 years, aSFt Mayor Hobbs alluded to, and say, "we need a better road through here". If we set this up a.s a designated area like that now, that is something that they should be made aware of, and that they should live with, and I think the people are willing to do that. Jerry Neher - I think it is obvious that as far back as 1968 already the then planning commission, of which none of us were members, felt that there was a need for an east/west corridor through that area as it shows on our comprehensive plan map now in existence. In 1964 and 65 I was already aware of the need for a better road through there. I drove school bus through there. On two occasions I was sent out on Pleasant View with an additional bus to rescue kids who had their school buses crowded off the road on the sharp corners on that street. In 1965 I also was crowded off that road with a schoo1bus full of kids. I felt that Pleasant View Road has been inadequate practically since it was built. I don't believe that all the swamps in that area or all the trees in that area are worth the life of one child that some day is going to be killed on Pleasant View Road if the traffic is thrown onto that area. I am in favor of the extension. e Roman Roos _ I have been in Chanhassen almost 4 years and I have, in just that period of time, seen a staggering growth in Chanha~sen, petter yet a staggering potential of what can happen in Chanhassen, given an amount of 1uc~, some major developers, Peter Pflaum and people like him. We need these kind of people. From a novice point of view in the planning area, I truly believe that there is going to be a substantial growth in the city of Chanhassen, when I look at New Horizons, I see what they have now, 106 acres; I look at potential growth south of that yet, the Quady property, the Thompson property, the Near Mountain project if it goes, and we hope it does. I believe there is going to be tremendous growth in that area. One thing we have tried to do in the City of Chanhassen from a planning and staff point of view, is to funnel, to channel, to put the development that we have that we can channel, into the north area, for the purpose of lowering our bond indebtedness. This is very important. That is an indirect charge, but based on what we are trying to do I know that area is going to be a growth area. When people tell me, experts or whoever, that a road that I drove an hour ago will support that kind of traffic, and I don't care if it is half that volume, my logic comes alive and says, no way is this going to be possible. So we come down to the question of need. From a planning point of view, I think the need is there for a road. We talked about the environmental impact. Yes, I am vitally concerned about this. I would like to have four acres in that area, but I think with sound design that a road could be put through that area. I have no questions about that with technology today. The second question we have got to answer is how can we get the road through there. We are not ready for that answer REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 12 e at this point in time. I have not received enough engineering data from either firm to give me any feeling as to what kind of cost we are looking at. At this point I couldn't tell you how we could possibly a.ssess that. That is one thing we would have to look at. Then the routing - is there a routing through there? I think there is a possibility. One of the people that made a presentation thil3 evening mentioned compromise - I truly believe we are in a world of compromise, and we better learn how to compromise. The term compromise applies to the developers, it applies to the people living in that area, and until this compromise occurs we could have some very poor planning or some disastrous results down stream. I am going to say that I am in favor of a road going through there. I am not convinced on the alignment, I am not convinced about the cost and assessments, and I would like to see some future studies in that area, if it is going to cost the city for those studies or if it can be kicked back to"the developers" I don't know the answer. I am not an expert in that area, but I want to see more data and at that point in time then I can make a very sound decision from a planning point of view. e Mr. Getts commented that the choice made tonight is to draw a line on a map, you can't evade that by saying you need more information. Once that line is drawn it is going to affect the developers and their choices are going to have to be made based on the decision to draw the line, even if two years are spent getting the necessary technical information. He stated a responsibility was owed to the developers to face up to the choice, make a decision, and that decision is going to have an impact. Mr Dean Wetzel stated the contour of the road precludes getting traffic on it. He stated that the neighborhood has the posture of very low density, high acreage, the people that live on it now are not about to develop this land. Roman Roos stated it was his belief that that road could support the traffic they stated. Based on that, and with the growth anticipated for Chanhassen, and with the city trying to funnel all the development that we can to that north area, there is going to be growth in that area. I am saying based on that growth he feels there is going to be a need for a road across that area, that was my statement. Mr. Wetzel commented that this is a gray area, 3 members one way and 3 partially the other way, we would like to see some support from the taxpayers and the voters in this area. If you are going to rule against the people that are paying the taxes that have been living there and that are the voters, we will be very disappointed. He stated it is time to consider them. Pat Swenson commented that the road in itself is a deterrent to people going through there. If it is upgraded to the two lane road with a parking area, I think that the flow of traffic is going to be increased to the extent that that in itself beCOMes a traffiz hazzard and a safety hazzard. e e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 13 Pat Swenson moved to recommend to the City Council that sufficient need has not been established, and therefore this East/West corridor should not be incorporated into the overall official map of the City of Chanhassen. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg. Voting in favor: Pat Swenson, Walter Thompson, Gordon Freeburg and C1ark.Horn. Opposed: Jerry Neher and Roman Roos. VARIANCE REQUEST, DWIGHT IMKER, 6710 MANDAN, CARVER BEACH This request, as stated by the Assistant City Manager/Planner, came up in 1977 for a variance request. This property is located about 40 ft. from the inter- section of Mandan Road and Hawthorne Road in the Carver Beach area. Mr. Imker has purchased various properties to create a 10,000 sq. ft. parcel on which he wants to get a variance to build a single family structure on the property. Traditionally this sort of request is handled by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals with recommendation to City Council which had been done in the past, in 1977. However there were planning questions which arose from this case which needed planning commission review. Based upon information that Mr. Waibel presented, he recommended that the planning commission deemc;the property unbui1dable. Mr. Imker answered various questions that the planning commission asked him regarding the property. - Clark Horn moved that the Carver Beach Plan be left as is. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. This will now go back to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. It was stated by the Assistant City Manager/Planner that the fee can be waived, it will probably be scheduled for the next meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on July 11. SUBDIVISION REQUEST, LOT C, BARDWELL ACRES, ROBERT SOMMER Mr. Sommer is requesting to subdivide the northerly three lots adjoining Ches Mar Drive. Mr. Sommer stated that he would like to just subdivide two lots, not three. As far as the public hearing on water is concerned, he stated, he has a sale pending of one lot and the person indicates he would prefer public water, but he would build regardless. It was the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager/Planner, that the planning commission order a public hearing on the subject request with the full realization that any approvals be based upon the availability of municipal water, and assessments paid as per the project assessment roml. . e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 14 Walter Thompson - I don't have any problem with setting off those two lots. Jerry Neher - I would want to see I'm not in favor of subdividing regardless of whether water is there or not. Roman Roos - If we grant the recommendation for dividing off the two lots, irrespective of public water, and the July 2 hearing says there will be public water, he will have to attach to it. If the hearing says there will not be water then what is the hang up there? Jerry Neher - Partial subdividing Walter Thompson - This man has some property and he wants to sell it off, on your wording you are making it impossible for him. Clark Horn - I don't know that we should force smaller property owners to go into a whole development effort. I think that is the question we are asking at this point, are we going to make them go about doing things like a large development, or are we going to treat this as a subdivision by a single property owner. I guess I don't see any problem with it. Gordon Freeburg - I don't see any problem with or without water. e The Assistant City Attorney stated that the state law on subdivisions requires a public hearing, but doesn't say anything about what happens if there is a long time delay between the hearing and the ultimate approval. What it comes down to is if you feel that there has been no substantial change in the plat shown at the public hearing last November, then you are free to go ahead and process the application. If, however, you feel what you are voting on is quite a bit differ- ent fran what you showed the public, I think you have an'>obligation to schedule a new public hearing. Walter Thompson moved to grant the Subdivision Request on Lots Band C of Bardwell Acres as marked on the topographic map, Sommer First Addition dated August 2, 1978. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg. Approved: Roman Roos, Pat Swenson, Walter Thompson, Gordon Freeburg, Clark Horn. Opposed: Jerry Neher. Motion approved. The Assistant City Manager/Planner recommended that the area surrounding it be incorporated into a plat as outlots, that these two lots be platted off, and the remainder become outlots. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, BEACH LOT FOR MINNEWASHTA CREEK ADDITION \e The Assistant City Manager/Planner stated Ramarco, Inc. is proposing to establish Outlot B of the Minnewashta Creek Addition as a beach lot for the residents of the homes to be constructed in the Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition plat. It was his recommendation that the planning commission order a public hearing to be held for the consideration of establishing a private beach lot at outlot B of Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 15 e Mr. Robert Ritter s~ated that at this time they are entertaining no thoughts of constructing any beach house or anything else. If that is ever to be done it will be done by the home owners that will be living in there at that time. The developer will have no part of it. The Assistant City Attorney stated that would require an amendment to the permit that was issued. As he says, he is applYing for a permit to run a beaph lot not including a beach house, and if the homeowners association in the future decides they want a beach house, they would have to apply for a permit amendment. He described certain alterations that he is going to do and one is the sand blanket, he therefore would have to get the approvals from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Jerry Neher moved to hold a public hearing on July 11, 1979 at a time scheduled by staff. Motion seconded by Gordon Freeburg, and unanimously approved. CANNON BALL RESTAURANT, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW The Assistant City Manager/Planner stated that any further review of this proposal would be premature until the applicant can demonstrate that sanitary sewer is available to or imminent to the subject property. e He recommended that the planning commission take no action on the proposal except to advise the applicant that he must demonstrate not only how the property will be served with sanitary sewer, but how the improvements will be assessed. That would involve petition for the sewer, feasibility study, guarantees of cost for the feasibility study, guarantees of cost for putting in the sewer, through the public hearing process. Mr. Jim Burdick stated he owns 27 acres of land starting a bit west of Animal Fair and going down to the point. He has a party who would like to put a restaurant, have me build a restaurant and lease it to them. I would remain the owner on a long tenn lease. The plans are to put it on the point of Powers Blvd., Arboretum Boulevard and the main street of Chanhassen. He discussed the sewer situation and how this would be handled. He stated there is one Cannon Ball Kitchen at the present time at Glenwood, Minn. It is quite similar to a Country Kitchen. Roman Roos stated that we would like to see you exert the most influence you can to give us the greenways area for the entrance to Chanhassen. If that is possible then I think we would be very amenable to looking at this overall development. The Assi,stant City Manager/Planner stated that he can at his own option go out and incur the expense and do a feasibility study of his own that meets approval of the city engineers for sewe~age, or you can petition the City Council to consider ordering a feasibility study to get the sewer down there, and then maybe go into site plan consideration. -- REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - June 27, 1979 Page 16 e Walter Thompson - To me this entrance is a lot more predominant than the one down on 101, so that anything that goes in that corner certainly has got to be impressive. Pat Swenson - I am having a little problem with three franchised restaurants, one end of Chanhassen on 5 to:.,the other. I think we need diversification, we need another restaurant. I am just not sure that is another franchised restaurant. The Assistant City Manager/Planner talked about a restaurant study, and the possibility of a "restaurant district" where we would have ones that more or less that take the highway traffic. As soon as the sewer is there the feasibility of considering a "restaurant district" could be put in and managed. Clark Horn - As far as restaurants, one of the big things we should consider is the industrial park, people who are employed there are going to need a place to eat and I think that is going to provide a major portion of the business for that area. DISCUSSION, FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE e The Assistant City Attorney gave a report on this subject. He said State Law indicates that the city has to adopt a flood plain ordinance as soon as the DNR Commissioner notifies the city that the DNR has sufficient data to qe1ineate the flood plain. After the city receives that notice we have six months to adopt a Flood Plain Ordinance. If we fail to act within that deadline, the DNR can impose their own ordinance upon the city. Any ordinance that Chanhassen adopts has to be approved by the DNR prior to final approval. If we fail to get that approval, anything that the city would do would be invalid and unenforceable. The Ordinance that Bob is suggesting is really an amendment to our zoning ordinance and as such the usual public hearing and notice that we use for amending the ordinance would be required. Bob Waibel stated he would have to rewrite the Ordinance with the changes, send it to the DNR, and get their letter of approval back before the public hearing. Clark Horn moved to schedule a public hearing subject to the final draft and the DNR approval. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson, and unanimously approved. Pat Swenson moved that the discussion be tabled and moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 12:05 A.M. - Don Ashworth Ci ty Manager