Loading...
1979 08 01 e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Roman Roos called the meeting to order. The following members were present: Pat Swenson, Walter Thompson, Clark Horn. Absent: Gordon Freeburg and Tom Droegemueller. The City Planner recapped what has been done, stating that staff had presented three alternative, future 1990 sketch plan land use alternatives for Chanhassen. These were discussed at the last meeting, bringing out a number of points relating to that. There are a lot of similarities between all of the alternatives, and there are some differences between each of the individual concepts. The industrial park and the commercial area are essentially the same throughout, there is some commercial expansion shown on A and C. Some of the alternatives advocate a position of placing either medium or higher density land uses, residential uses, directly abutting lake front property. There are some different placements of the estate type density. The same general greenway pattern is shown throughout. He stated he would like to hear the individual comments and thoughts of the Planning Commission before Dunn & Curry make their presentation. e Pat Swenson - I was trying to work at a "core city" to start with. I left some of this open because I remember we discussed that Dunn & Curry on their original plat had a little commercial unit there. I left this as options not knowing what other plans might come up, but either one of these perhaps being for a high density unit. With the transportation situation obviously becoming an either/or situation if something doesntt come up to replace gasoline, it looks like we are going to have to be pretty well condensed which would give working people a closer proximity to where they would be working. According to the proposed plans, we should have about 309 acres of medium density. I have come up with 311 of the existing ones and the ones that are proposed. Putting medium density where I did, it was a question of getting close to the industrial area. I am using the industrial park and the commercial area as a "core" or center city. I would like to see a little bit more greenway around the commercial area of the workers. Roman Roos - That might occur also under the Chanhassen Business Plan, the HRA Plan, to contain that greenway. The City Planner stated that the industrial park as it is shown is very general. There are green spaces within that and the same is true for the commercial area. We are not at that degree of specificity yet. I I e Pat Swenson - The City Plannerts plan had medium density here, rather than here. His industrial went over here, and I just reversed these two. I was still able to keep what we project as being necessary, although you said we would probably need more. On the high density, this does give us considerably more high density than we originally project. The original projection was 31 acres. Without A or B we would have 92 acres. In essence we really already have satisfied that without this!.' With A we would have 175, and with B we would have 230. These are only projections. I do think with the degree of BOO or more acres of industrial area that we have planned at this point, that we are going to need a little more high density closer to that area. e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 2 Roman Roos - That's one of the comments I had also along that same line. The east end of the industrial park as we know, there is medium density there ,Pat. Why did you pick that area of the industrial park as being changed over to residential, as opposed to industrial? Pat Swenson - Basically because I thought it would give a buffer between the low density and the industrial. I think it is easier to go for a single dwelling unit to a medium density to an industrial than to have your industrial on one side of the road and the homes on the other. Roman Roos - Do you think then the about 30 acres on the east side of 101 going over to Chanhassen Estates, that you can accomplish the same thing on that part without remodifying the industrial plans? Pat Swenson - Very possibly so. I think one of the reasons I put this here was also because this gives the medium density property owners a little bit closer tag into the lake. Mark Koegler - The industrial park where Pat has it shown terminating by the medium density residential is approximately the line it is at now. What was shown on all of those three maps was an expansion of industrial area over to 101. e Pat Swe~son _ There was one other thing which Roman brought up which I noted also. The connection of the trailway sy,stem from north to south across 5 and then continuing down here. I was thinking about the possible foot traffic across 5 which would be most unacceptable, would be a potential foot bridge, over 5. Roman Roos _ Do you think if we were to restrict the high density more to the south side, that we would accomplish the same goal? Pat Swenson - I couldn't see any place to put it, Roman'. Roman Roos _ I only changed one area of density, and that would be the south end which Mark had down as medium density. I went into high density which would be that portion which you included into the industrial area. I made that high density trying to accomplish the same thing. Pat Swenson _ Then I think we are putting an awful lot of high density south of 5. I think high density ought to be interspersed throughout the city. - Walter Thompson _ You people discussed high density around the lakes at a meeting I wasn't at. I object to that. I'm not so sure all the high density people are going to be working in the industrial area. While I think Pat's idea of sort of a stage buffer into the industrial area is sound, but with all the area there for the industrial situation and with the type of buildings that are now being made in the industrial part, I am not so sure that we actually need that kind of a buffer. e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 3 Mark Koegler - What I would ultimately like to see is an agreement on as a group, what your philosophy is on medium density, one being high density, is a real close proximity to a lake an appropriate usage for those categories. There were comments last time both ways. When we get into Dunn & Curry's proposal, we are going to get into the issue of estate developments without services. We need to resolve some questions about bufferitlg, we have always buffered industrial uses or whatever uses with high densities, and I would like to see your reasoning for that, being either that it is located adjacent to an amenity that can serve those people or that it is perhaps located next to a major employment base, rather than to say that we are going to separate the low density from the industrial with the higher density because that is an inferior type of housing. Pat Swanson - That was not my basic intent. The basic intent was try to get a diversification of zoning around the commercial and industrial area. Mark Koegler - Another thing that you talked about is the access to the industrial park or anything else to the south from anything north of 5, and I think that is a good point and we will be considering that through trail network. Our obviou s goal is to connect as many areas as possible, and in doing so we will be looking at the total span of the neighborhoods. e Roman Roos - I think the planning oommission's position has been all along to intersperse the duplexes in amongst the residential development. So to classify an area as just strictly medium density, I don't know if that is the correct way to do it. I would like to see that be the worst case, medium density, and of course down to single family, and I think that is probably what you meant. The only other area that I had some concern with is the Marshall area, along 7Bth street I can see this section being commercial. Those properties that are fronting on 7Bth street across to the junction of 101 and 5. In like manner I truly believe that lake shore should be multi-use, it should be single family, medium density and high density. I would like to see someplace in Chanhassen the availability of high class apart- ments or condominiums, near lakeshore or on lakeshore. I think it is a necessary requirement in any growing city, I think you have to have a multitude of housing, and a multitude of locations, and we are totally negating the high density housing on lake shore , and Ii'think that is wrong. One of our primary concerns was the surface usage of the lake, and I think that can be controlled under the subcommittee and ordinances down stream, but I think at this early stage, we can not preclude putting some high density on lake shore. I like medium densities because it is kind of a catch all, and it covers the quads down to single families, so medium density, of course, can be classified as single family also. The other comment as I reiterated to Pat, was the trailway system going across. That was one of my primary concerns. I also think that we have to look at the industrial core now instead of going this route. I could envision this small segment being brought into the industrial park also,but in like manner this topography in this area is ideally suited to apartments which accomplishes what I think we need in that area. I think it is far enough away from the Chan Estates area, the plans that we have looked at in this area really are an ideal shot where they have broken open to singles, doubles and quads and then apartments. e e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 4 Roman Roos - So I guess my feeling is someplace in here we should have some high density, the only thing we've got down here is Lakeview. I don't think we need much more than your idea of 30 some acres of high density I think is very real. I will be very much interested to see what the Ed Dunn people have to say about their own developments, and how they dovetail into what you are thinking, Pat, and what I am thinking and what Walter is thinking. Some have made the point about estate type developments related to the core area, commercial and industrial. I think that is very important. I think we are going to have to have some estate type or green acres type homesteads, and we are going to have to without a doubt'have those wi thin the MUSA line. Maybe there wont be water there, but we will have one of the primary services anyhow. Walter Thompson - Mark, is there any requirement for low cost housing? Mark Koegler - Yes, we are required under the mandate to consider modest cost housing and subsidized forms of housing as a way to achieve housing goals. We are classified as a 3rd priority city, we are far enough out from the core area that our housing requirements are less specific than those closer in, but we will definitely be talking about tqat very soon. e Walter Thompson - Our comments and information so far has all tended to be the other way, estate developments, condominiums, etc. If we have to think about low cost housing it seems to me we have got to be thinking about some of these areas that we have overlooked on that basis. Mark Koegler - That is true to a point. The reason I haven't brought that in at this time is because I think most of those kinds of installations will be placed somewhat randomly throughout the community. As long as we can first of all decide in a general context what we are look- ing at in terms of land use in a very sketch form, then that is one of the refinements we are going to be doing along with the park. Clark Horn - The comments I have heard have been protecting the rights of people who own thi s type of housing. My comments lie more on lets think about the people who are already here too, I think that is why it is necessary to plan these types of things, and I agree you can intersperse the235 type houses in the area, but I don't think they should be interspersed in existing areas, and I think they should be well planned in advance, so that people who are abutting these will know t~at they are going to be there and wont be surprised. e Mark Koegler - I am sure that is the intent of the commission as a whole, and I know it is my intent. We are going to have to be very sensitive to the existing developments in the community already, and I hope we were taking that into account now, and now just looking at the placement of higher density, but determining how it all fits as a package. ~ ~"' .~ e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 5 Clark Horn - I think we are doing that by not including them in this overall plan, the 235 type houses. Mark Koegler - Again, we will be. However, those are going to fall within one of the density classifications that have been defined, and I think in each case we are giving ourselves a lot of latitude with the amount of land that is programmed in each category, that I have no problem that we wont have enough flexibility when we reach that stage next time to be able to plug those in without an impact such as you are worried about. Roman Roos - Right now I think we are talking about general definition, and I think we have to bear that in mind. We are looking at what type of housing in terms of densities do we want in this area, and where they are going to be located. Once we determine that then we step down to the next level, and that will be definition. I think now would be a good time to have Mr. Dunn make a presentation in terms of his land with respect to the three maps. e Mark Koegler - Staff met with the people from Dunn & Curry and they had indicated some of the plans that you see on the board tonight as being what their current thought is. This is not intended to be a preliminary sketch plan review of the proposal as it sits, but rather to allow them to give us their thoughts on what their land use pattern is in the area, and from scanning it I think you will see a lot of the uses are very similar to what we have been talking about, but perhaps the allocations aren't exactly the same. e Mr. Ed Dunn made a presentation, stating there are areas that they have identified as green areas, the natural ones that follow the creek, and possibly, the trunk sewer easement is a real possibility for a trail, and throughout its entirety it doesn't follow the creek, but it is an alternative. There are 326 acres in the industrial park, this does not include the Victor Schmieg property nor the Martin Ward-. property. Altogether there is something like 50 acres that is west of Highway 101. With the advent of the Schmieg property and their own, it is their feeling that they probably have enough land zoned industrial in the forseeable future. It is a more probable future that this land to the south and west will become single family, low density residential. The land on the north is commonly called the Highpath and the Kerber farms. It was 3BO acres total, and approximately 160 acres of that is the land east of the road which is under development by New Horizon Homes now. This is approximately 220 acres then. He stated they have tried to respond to the staff's input and tried to fuse those into the ideas. Their approach is they own this land, they continue to be interested in developing it, and these do constitute their very best guess at this point in time. Notably, there is a considerable decrease in the amount of commercial land. This is in keeping with staff's suggestions. In order for them to come in and give a description of what their intentions are, they have to say how they expect to make this work, and he stated they ask the commission to bear with them, they realize that what you are doing here is not to get down to that kind of detail, but he feit it was very important in order that you have confidence that these displays shown have integrity. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 6 e e Mike Wood followed up what Mr. Dunn discussed, he described the reasoning behind the land use plan. They had done great detail in looking at the soil, the slopes, vegetation, drainage areas etc" that being the basic considerations. More for land use location, that gave the developable areas. They looked at two things, access corridors (main road system), and the sewer serviceability area (how far can we serve from our Lake Ann interceptor, and the sewer trunk that goes south of the lake) and the extension that we are going to be putting from the business park up to this Highpath Farm area and possibly connecting into the existing sanitary. Looking at that along with the arterial streets etc. and trying to get high density near the amenities which is an important factor just in trying to sell quads, townhouses, condominiums, working in the southern area, we tried to get our higher density in an area again close to the industrial and close to the main collector going up to Highway 5, and then tapering off in density to single family, and then finally to estate. Again, the high density in a court area around the lake, allowing to pull back enough that there is some green area on the lake frontage which probably would not be accomplished if it were single family. We have two commercial areas, showing 11 acres in one, and five in the other one. Overall density, they have approximately 760 acres of residential development. This does not include the two commercial areas, and the industrial park being a separate item. The overall growth density, they are talking 2000 units, or 2.6B units per acre. EverYthing shown here works with their system, and they are satisfied with it as far as sewer and water. The road system can work with the topography and existing conditions being preserved, Ponding areas in all cases controlling all runoff that will satisfy Riley Purgator,y Watershed District. Clark Horn - One thing that is different on your plan than on any of the others presented is the area just to the east edge of Lake Ann, where you have shown single family. All of the others show a green space around the outside. I guess I don't see that as a problem, I generally feel that the lake area will support good quality single family housing, and that is a good use. I don't think all lakes have to be preserved green spaces. Mark Koegler - The reason it did appear that way on each of those is that represents what has always been stated if not documented, as the philosophy of the park and recreation commission. Staff whole heartedly agrees with that. Lake Ann is the only lake in Chanhassen that there is any possibilj~y of ever getting a green space, corridor, pedestrian movement, whatever you want to call it, access encompassing the lake. All of the others do provide residential development, lakefront development. That is the fundamental reason that it is shown there. Mr. Bill Price of Suburban Engineering gave a presentation on th(jdrainage. He stated they are actually providing more storage than is actually required to hold the total runoff within the limits set up by the Watershed District. He commented about the trunk watermain, and the trunk sanitary sewer, stating they have been laid out with Chanhassen's master plan in mind. e e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 7 Roman Roos stated that the commission should take the Ed Dunn property, look at the negatives on his property, relate those to Plan C, and start on the North end, the area around Lake Ann - state any feelings you have on their presentation, the high density, the commercial on the corner Pat Swenson - Do we need the commercial on the corner, from a long range? Do we have enough commercial Mark Koegler - It is my personal opinion that within the time frame we are talking about, somewhere early in the 90's, yes it is adequate as shown. We were concentrating there simply on a core type of commercial use. We had given very limited discussion last time to a neighborhood type of commercial. The one on the south I view as neighborhood, the one to the north not quite so much since it immediately abuts the down- town development. There are no references in any past plans that I have seen to commercial development on that parcel, so this is some- what a change in{what was shown at least on the 6B guide plan. They brought up some good points on it being an isolated tract, which does present some problems from a development standpoint. It is obviously not a major shopping center complex, it wont be competing with the downtown in any way. e Roman Roos - Then the planning commission has no problem with the commercial area? Okay, lets move into green space - Is there a way that we can tie that gneenway area into our trail system? Mark Koegler - It is difficult to relate that to what our overall trail network is going to be at this time, since we obviously haven't taken it down to that degree. I am sure it could be tied in through a trail network that would be part of th e street right of way. Clark Horn - When you speak of trail networks, are you referring to bicycle, walking, hiking, a bicycle path? Mark Koegler - In some cases, yes, but in some cases simply a movement through for pedestrians. Primarily, I assume bike and pedestrian generally. Pat Swenson - From the Park & Rec Meetings, the subject of combining the two met with considerable distaste. Mark Koegler - Clark and I are talking about the accommodation of uses. Roman Roos - In essence, the land topography itself will really dictate its use. Clark Horn - If you are trying to get a bicycle trail through the whole area from north to south, then topography becomes a critical issue, as to whether it is even feasible or not. e Roman Roos - My comment is that the land will really didate the use, there will not be housing, there will not be some kind of commercial building. So the land is going to remain as is, and park and rec would pick it up in their overall guide plan. e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page B Clark Horn - I am talking about ty:f.:hg./ the areas together, and the only need I can see to do that is if you are going to have some kind of a bicycle trail or whatever. Walter Thompson - You might recall also that on the east side of the road there is a big ravine. The road has intersected it or crossed over it. Roman Roos _ The two critical questions we have here really are, do we want high density in this area around Lake Ann. Again the medium density can be configured down into single family I think in some situations. raking the high density, do you feel that is aPropos in that location. We talked about high density interspersed throughout the city, and about 31 or 32 acres totally. That is totally a judgment call. Clark Horn - The thing I like here is that you are more closely aligned to the commercial facility and you also have excellent access to the highway. The access is an important factor if it is to be high density or commercial. Roman Roos - In all three cases we talked about single family surrounding Lake Ann. I think the ring path around Lake Ann is an important consid- eration and I think it is something that could be worked out. e Mark Koegler - I think you should probably concentrate on land uses rather than parks and open spaces. Roman Roos - Does anyone have any problems with medium density.in that area? We've called it out as single family all the way across the board in all three situations. Pat Swenson _ What do you estimate the work force in the industrial area will be? Mr. Dunn _ Probably in the vicinity of 3,000 people for the first phase. Some- where in the area of 5 or 6,000 people would be a very rough guess. Pat Swenson - That seems to me to dictate the need for high density, whether we like it or not. Roman Roos - I think that Dunn & Curry have done a tremendous amount of ground work, and I have no problems in that area at all in terms of the land use. I think we should look at the total acreage and the overall MUSA line area, and make sure we somewhat hit our target area there. If I read the planning commission right, you are all fairly comfortable with the layout of the situation as it is shown on this map. e Moving south, the industrial park is fairly cut and dried. The green- ways of course are self determined. I like the high density in that area as I said before. I think it has to be related to the industrial park or someplace in that south area. The total acrea~e is one of the factors I would have some concern with. Maybe the high density is going to be higher than what is anticipated. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 9 e Pat Swenson - It already is. Mark Koegler - Which in conjunction with my comments of last time and this time, I think that is perfectly acceptable. A ~ot of the projections that I put together on land use was based on past development patters in Chanhassen and neighboring similar communities over recent years, and there haven't been a lot of apartments built in recent years, so it doesn't serve as a very optimum base. Roman Roos - They in essence have interspersed medium density on both sides of County 17. I guess I have no qualms with that myself. Clark Horn - My only comment is I think we need more single family lakeshore development somewhere in the area, and I feel that can be accomplished along Lake Susan and we should look into that, since we apparently have good reason not to allow the lake shore type of property along Lake Ann. Walter Thompson - I think I changed my mind somewhat since the presentation tonight. From the economic viewpoint I think that Dunn & Curry proposition which eliminates lakefront lots, I think I accept that concept on Lake Susan. e Pat Swenson - To me it just keeps going back to the lake use, which I don't really think we can divorce from the subject. I have to think of it not only from the standpoint of the fact that we are blessed with these lakes, and I think certainly the intent is not to deprive any- one who does not have lakeshore from enjoying the lake. I think that ready accessability to a smaller piece of water for a great number of people creates a hazzard, and this is my only concern. Walter Thompson - These lakes are not large in relationship to activities on them. Roman Roos - Talking about a higher level of investigation on these PUD's coming in, that is where we have the controlling factor, and I don't care if we are talking about a pun single family, or multiple density. It is at that level that we readdress that question that you are talking about, how we are going to control that development in terms of its lake shore usage and lake usage. e Clark Horn - The thing I keep thinking of is getting the best property you can out of the areas that will warrant that type of property. I think that if a piece of property is pleasant enough to justify, ~ou could put a 2 acre lot along a lake and have an estate if you could justify it wi th the economics. I think that would be the proper way to go. I don't think we will have that kind ,of economy, but I think you could get single family in that and have very desirable types of properties. That type of property is very hard to come by, and we still have some of that. e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 10 Clark, do you think that because Lake Ann has the park adjacent to it that you might look more at a greenway going all the way around the lake and using Lake Susan for abutting land use? Clark Horn - Yes Pat Swenson - The only thing that makes it palatable to me is the fact that the entire northern section of the lake is going to be unoccupied by residents. If that were going to be developed, I would object. However, since it is an industrial area and will not be inhabited by people who are likely to use the facilities of the lake, I can find some excuse for it, on that particular lake. Clark Horn - I don't find a problem with lake use with medium density in that area. Walter Thompson - Really, we are going to have to wait for the recommendations of the park commission, so lets put in abeyance anything further until we get some recommendations from them. e Roman Roos - What about the high density off of new 17? Any problems with that? Clark Horn - I think that is a good place for it. Whether it is on that side of the road or the other would be immaterial, but it is the right place. Roman Roos - We should address this section right here, including that into the MUSA package. That really could dovetail in with an alignment of the MUSA line for the new 212 and the intersection. Those two items could be covered at the same time. Then it is the consensus that overall, with the exception of this area which we will discuss after we get park and rec's recommendations about trailways etc., the overall general concept is that is is agreeable. Mark Koegler - I would like to see you address some comments to the estate develop- ment without sewer. I think it is not proposed to have either water or sewer where it lies due to the topography. Staff's position is that we have come out in the past and I think we will continue to do so. We are advocating development in an urban area should have urban services, primarily at least sewer. We are not quite as concerned about water as with sewer. We are particularly concerned that this is somewhat precedent setting throughout the community if this was enacted. If we have area wi thin the MUSA line and we do develop without full urban services, what is to stop anything from going in a similar mode and what grounds do we have to mfute that. e Clark Horn - If we put an area restriction on that type of development we don't really care. You have to have a certain amount of acreage to put that type of development in without services. In other words, minimum lot size of 3 acres or ~ acres or whatever. Mark Koegler _ So you are advocating that we would create a zoning category and actually plug that in and say this is where the estates would be and no where else? ~ e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 11 Clark Horn _ I don't think we are doing that either. We are putting in a lot size restriction. If someone puts them in somewhere else with the same lot sizes, I don't see any problem with that. Unless there is a legal problem. Mark Koegler _ I dont know of a legal problem other than what has been coming down in recent years through the Sewer Board and WPC 49,as far as the city's responsibility for the performance of on sight system. It has been increasing and the city is becoming more responsible for the maintenance of the thing down to almost that level to the construction, the inspection and the actual functioning of the system. The costs are not assessed back to the property owner, there is still some debate on how it is going to be handled, whether we are going to cooperate with the county on an overall inspection or whatever. e Bob Waibel _ I think we would seriously tamper with the preamble of R-IA section of Ordinance 47 and the other zoning categories. All the other zoning categories are contingent on sewer and water. I think we could be setting a precedent for the county in the fact that they are acquiring Chesmar Farms right now for a park. If we say that estates can go arbitrarily in an area without sewer and water without any market, I would say the parties involved in Chesmar have a good argument to say that this estate area has now been created in the MUSA line, my property should be eligible for the same type of treatment. Clark Horn _ My concern is not so much with the intent of that ordinance, but with city liability. To me, the MUSA line changes that, that is my big concern in that type of area. I don't see anything wrong with having a septic system on a large acreage, except for the liability aspect. Roman Roos _ This is an issue we know is going to be coming up before the planning commission. In essence then, in looking over the over- all plan with the exception of the Lake Susan west boundaries and the estates, in concept we are in agreement that Ed Dunn's plans fits into our scheme of things, or we will marry it into our scheme of things. Clark Horn _ With respect to the Lake Ann area, assuming that we would have a green space around the area, what impact do you see it have on the property or potential property values in that area? e Mr. Dunn _ A developer would"tell you that he would like to have the lakeshore. In my opinion it is a tradeoff - what is most important to us we think is whether there is an identifiable legitimate publi~ 1.:~f'~ for that land, whether in the nature of a trail, trail easement, whatever. If there is, then it is a community benefit. ~" e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 12 Clark Horn - But from a developers point of view, would you justify the price or the quality of the homes that go in there if that is going to be a ringed area around the l~ce vs. if you had access to the lake. Mr. Dunn - The total economic value would be greater in the second case provided that it is a city easement, that it serves a function, that it is policed, that it is maintained, etc. These are issues that your park department has to address itself to. Clark Horn - That answers my question, but it also brought out some good points. Roman Roos - This area south of 5, looking to the East of the Ed Dunn property, We have high density in this area of course, which is just short of the MTS property. It is part of the MTS property. I guess I would still like to see medium density in this area. We've got high density over here which again will suffice for what I thought it was necessary for. Perhaps this low density could be reconsidered medium density to cover both ends of the spectrum, medium and single family. Pat Swenson - There is a lot of medium density on the west section and directly north of 5. e Clark Horn - The thing I like about that is I think you should have the higher and medium densities somewhat closer to the access points and also to the commercial. Walter Thompson - When we looked at that proposed development on the northeast corner of the industrial situation just west of 101 six months ago or so, what was the density of that area? Bob Waibel - I have just received a new plan. Roman Roos - This area here is low density and I think in all three cases, with the exception of this area. I guess I can live with that. If that is so then we can pretty much assume with the exception of this area that we can live with this as it is. You notice there is a piece of commercial property behind the Texaco station towards 101. I feel it should be commercial property along Highway 5, in fact I can see that extending along here, as again, it is the Highway 5 corridor. Since we have the Texaco station there and it is zoned commercial, it would seem fit to extend it out to the western end of the Chan Estate area. Bob Waibel - It says here 45 units phase I and phase 2, over 45 acres, one unit per acre. I don't know where they get that 45 acres from. They must be counting in part of these lands around here. Single family and some duplex. The densities would go up considerably when phases 3 and 4 are proposed. In no way are we approving concept at all on that. e ,c e PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 13 Roman Roos - Moving to the north side, the commercial property, as it stands right now it pretty much is the overall HRA plan, if I understand it correctly, with the exception of the commercial along this road. You've got high density again. I don't know if we need high density all in that area. Mark Koegler - The reason that was shown here is this is shown as commercial here and it does create kind of a remnant parcel because right here is what Bob was talking about. Pedestrian access right in that area so ultimately we've got a drainage area through there and we have some pedestrian movement of some sort. Roman Roos - We also now have a high density area on Dunn & Curry's project right here, so if that is so that negates this area. I don't know if I would want commercial back that far. Mark Koegler - Another reason that was put there is the HRA concept plan shows all of this as housing. Roman Roos- You've got that thing backing onto the school ground also. e Clark Horn - I like the commercial the way it is drawn on that and instead of having that whole area high density, why not keep it single family, or maybe a small section of medium density in that area and then single family above. Mark Koegler - Really then you are keeping basically this concept except you are changing this to medium density. Roman Roos - I brought up the point about this being commercial along this north side of 7Bth street. How do you people feel about that? There are 5 houses along the north side of 7Bth street as you go towards 101, beyond st. Huberts. I would like to hold everything along 7Bth street as commercial on both sides. Clark Horn - Wipe out what is in there now? That's too small a section in there on the north side. Walter Thompson - I am inclined to think so too unless you want to take out the whole block there. e Mark Koegler - It might be at same point in time, there is another isolated tract here, might come under pressure for a higher type of use in terms of residential, elderly housing or whatever. It might possibly be that the property on the north side of the street eventually would be purchased for a higher density classification as well, but I think as far as expanding commercial goes, there are 4 houses on 7Bth, but are you only going to take commercial one lot deep or are you going to go the whole block. You're not talking about very much land if you are only acquiring the houses on 7Bth. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 14 e Walter Thompson - I think you would probably have a lot of residents complaining if you just wanted to take the frontage. Roman Roos - Again, this is a concept plan to give us some guidance. Pat Swenson - I think we are going to find that there may be a market for not necessarily senior citizens housing, but something of that nature, within walking distance. We really almost have to start thinking in terms and making housing available particularly for elderly people, close to commercial areas. But that would have to be on high density again wouldn't it? Of course there is that apartment complex on the other side of the street there. Roman Roos - That's the reason this is going to high density right now. Pat Swenson - That's that little sliver, right. It would be just a continuation of that that would make it accessable without having to cross a major highway. Roman Roos - Again, I have no problems with this small section. Mark Koegler - It also I think is hinging on whatever happens with the downtown plan. Obviously not much is going to locate there with Ready Mix right behind them, depending on how that comes out. e Clark Horn - Maybe we could accomplish what Pat is talking about if we would leave this section in here the way we had it, as high density. This would give you that area for senior citizens, high rises, etc. Isn't this part of the ring area where the hotel, so you would have tall buildings in thi s area anyway. Roman Roos - I think this is the wrong area for elderly housing because you have all the amenities for children, the park, the playground, the school. Mark Koegler- A lot of subsidized projects now are strictly elderly or strictly large family, they are an integration of all. I think we could expand that or contract that accordingly to permit more than one age category to reside there. Roman Roos _ Why don't we,;'hold this in abeyance again with respect to elderly. This is Near Mountain now, we in essence prior to the East/West corridor, approved in concept the Near Mountain project. In essence we said this is indeed what we feel it should be. I think we have to live with this here, and we have to live with that. e Moving to the west, medium density, this is the quad area of New Horizons, and that is going in, the second phase. Again we have to live with those boundaries. I think all along we have talked about dispersing the densities throughout the community. We are talking about about an interchange of low and medium densities, PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING SESSION MINUTES - August 1, 1979 Page 15 e Walter Thompson - Mark, the one that you just put in, that was town houses? Mark Koegler - Medium density category, as we have it laid out, would cover quads and most town houses unless you get a large number of attached units. Walter 'l'hompson - Didn't we have someone come in with 5 acres of quads in that area? Wasn't that what he was trying to subdivide it into, estate types? Bob Waibel - Yes, Oakmont, we told him it was outside the ordinance. They kind of dropped that plan. It was not sewered area. Pat Swenson - Isn't this the area that the water discussion is going on~.about? The pumping and all that? Mark Koegler-Yes. The water main would be right in here. Roman Roos - The only multiples we have in that area would be New Horizon at this point in time. Isn't that right? Bob Waibel - Medium density? We've got a few on paper with Near Mountain. e e