Loading...
1980 04 23 I . PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR SESSION CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission held its meeting at the Chanhassen Elementary School, Laredo Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota on April 23, 1980. Present were: Mike Thompson Jim Thompson Art Partridge Walter Thompson Clark Horn Tom Hamilton William Johnson Craig Mertz Bob Waibel Also present were: e Janet Lask Laureen Kurimchak Marcy Kurimchak Carol Watson Jim Murphy Gene Quinn Therese Quinn Gail Murphy Diane Riegert Karen Blosberg O. Blosberg 'Pat Swenson Mark Koegler Bruce Arnold Walter Hobbs Don Slathar Wayne Holtmeier Kathy Holtmeier Walter E. Paulson Marion Paulson Betty Clark Terril C. Clark Richard M. Nieland R. C. Potz Janis L. R.W. Armstrong Greenwood Shores 7130 Utica Lane 7130 Utica Lane 7131 Utica Lane 8500 Great Plains Boulevard 532 Lyman 532 Lyman 8500 Great Plains Boulevard 520 Lyman 530 Lyman 530 Lyman 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Staff 6850 Utica Circle 6671 Powers Boulevard 8508 Great Plains Boulevard 8524 Great Plains Boulevard 8524 Great Plains Boulevard 8528 Great Plains Boulevard 8528 Great Plains Boulevard 8522 Great Plains Boulevard 8522 Great Plains Boulevard 8510 Great Plains Boulevard 6991 Tecumseh Lane 6901 Utica Lane 8400 Great Plains Boulevard . ~..._~;-.. ,. Don Gale Dan Herbst Gloria Cox John Cox Chas. Tester Ellen Chilvers Jim W ole t ski \ \ '\ Greg Ingraham Rodd Hardy Stelio Aslanidis Julius C. Smith Bruce A. Paterson 8402 Great Plains Boulevard 3890 Lone Cedar 6990 Shawnee Lane 6990 Shawnee Lane 1155 Willow Creek 6271 Hummingbird Road 7334 Frontier Trail 2614 Nicol1et-Mp1s. - Urbanscope, Inc. Chaska - Dunn and Curry Urbanscope Atty, Dunn and Curry Consult. Engr. for Dunn and Curry . . ---...... r. LAKE SUSAN SOUTH "We'll get into Lake Susan South and a little bit of the layout and philosophis as to where things are located where." "I am Ed Dunn, one of the owners/applicants in this development. Specifically, we're talking about Lake Susan South planned development. That's the third of the three. This is the third one we've discussed at a public hearing. This line would circumscribe on a SW OR NW side to the green area, Lake Susan on the north. These are the Lake Susan homes along here. This is existing 101 that comes down thru here and on this display it follows the course of 101 as now is laid out, comes down here and then turns. We've got some large numbers on this. Again, it represents the phases, with the phasing running generally fvom thec'north to the southand we described roughly three phases. Now, these are estimates. We will try to attempt to focus on what our intentions are timewise.. Those will vary, of course, with the economy, the money situation, the whole general building situation at the rate it's been going the first six months of this year, you might expect them to go lower. On the other hand, if it speeds up for any number of reasons then it could change faster. It had been our estimate that the first phase would startin 1981 or 1982 keeping in mind that's the beginning of the implementation of it and generally speaking that's at least a year lead time before we actually start construction, meaning construction of homes. So, if it indicates there that 1982 would be the date we would take, it would be 1983 before you could expect construction of homes. These are estimates of time. That's what we're asked to do. Second phase would cover '82 to '82 and the third phase would be '83 to '84. The colors light brown is of the townhouse type of density, the dark brown would be apartment construction and the yellow is single family detached residential and the red is proposed commercial. As to the acreage, these numbers you all have in the original hand out. I'll just give you a summary on this. There is a total 124 acres planned for residential construction in all forms and there is 65 acres, (I'm giving it to you in even acreage) that would be road right of way that would include the commercial center which is about 5 acres of that and the green areas which are a little over 37 acreas. Now the green area in this case would be that line thr,ough a heavily green area. It's a natural area to be preserved. In addition, we have green area all along the lake which is indicating it is our intention to lie consistent with all the other plans we've presented to keep all the lakeshore .cf -2- - open for public use. That would be an ownership in the Cityis hands and would give the city enough room to get a trail around there. We think that's from 40 to 80 feet, something like that around the lake. Now I'll give you a quick rundown. It's proposed that about 102 acres that we build 267 single family detached units with a minimum lost size of 11,700 sq. ft. Now that's minimum lot size, doesn't say average. That's the minimum lot size that's al10wab Ie unde r your de ve lopment ord inance . The aver age lot size would be considerably larger than that and I haven't worked that out. There are duplexes provided for. There would be 10 units of those, that's five buildings and they of course, by code, require a minimum lot size apprently of 15,000 sq. ft. They would involve a couple of acres. e The townhomes involve 13.14 acres, 92 units of townhomes and the apartment building site as described here would be 6.39 acres for a total of 64 units and then as I said road right of way, and commercial is 5 , so there's about 60 acres that goes into roads and that's a chair roads and green space. The bulk of that is green area that would be 37 acres. So the totals are 189 acres in the planned unit development, 433 total units. 2.3 units per acre overall, gross density. Incidentally, I worked out another number that might have some significance to the discussion when we get into that area. The apartments constitute about 15% being 64 out of 433 or 15% of the total units involved in this. The nature of the terrain is from gentle rolling has natural drainage gradients roughly down the middle, some lying to the west and some going to the east and north and then of course right along here we have ridges that drain in various directions depending upon what side of the slope you are talking about. In general though, they go in this area and then to the lake, except right on the north face. " Unidentified: "Will these be subsidized apartments?" Ed Dunn: '~e don't build any buildings, we will do the subdivision and the development of the lots. The precise nature of what the apartments would be, we are not able to say. There is no reason to expect they should be and there is no assurance that they won't be. I think that ends up being, basically it's the prerogative and it depends on the needs of the community. " U.ntified: "Well, I think people should take that up allover. No subsidized apartments. I think the state should build them and they should - Clark Horn: Ed Dunn: e - -3- get their money back from the state. The taxpayers can't . " "Why don't we hold the public comments until after the presentation." '~e have taken trips into the field with interested people including Planning Commission members. I think most have seen the terrain. A good size contingent of the Lake Susan homeowners walked it with me on previous occasion and some joined us yesterday with the Planning Commission. As a result of these discussions, it's been made clear to me and I have indicated to the group and I just want to touch on this that we have talked quite abit about the town houses and where they are located. Our answer is, of course it's a beautiful site, there's no question about that. It has very steep slopes and it's difficult to drain. It's going to take some special treatment in order to build it. We think it would be very difficult to come in there with either high density or for that matter single family detaached dwelling. So, we feel that the terrain pretty much dictates that that be a townhouse type of construction. The darker brown, the apartment units are identified in here. It's quite close then to the residences located along Lake Susan. They have expressed, I should say in all candor, I don't think we have a high degree of enthusiasm of the Lake Susan homeowners who may speak. However, in the case of the apartment buildings, with the first meeting we had with the group that we would find another site within the development for the apartment development and we haven't tried to locate that and there no real good reason why it has to be there. We thought, the reason it's there now is that phasing density, that is from higher density, it's our thinking now that that really isn't criticalin this situation because we can direct traffic to other roads that are available and if need, go through single family detached dwellings. That's one of the principles we try to go by. Probably then I could come over to this larger display. It's a blow up of what you're looking at here. It merely gives you an idea of what we think we might be able to do with the road. This is not an engineered drawing with any preciseness. It's not the kind of a drawing you measure lots and angles from. It's in order to give you who have worked with it an idea of what we think the terrain dictates. The principle features of it are a drainage swale that runs roughly through the center of the single family area and actually has a break that occurs about here. It's just about central to the yellow area. In the one case, the drainage goes west and the other case it flows to the north and east. That would be principally surface drainage, but it could be necessary ponds to hook up. These are detention ponds to deccelerate the rate of run off. Piping would of course be done where necessary in order to make it functional. -4- e The question was asked what about those areas on an easement which in effect the person who buys that home on which they cannot build, they cannot construct. generally it's open for the water to flow when it must. Those lots typically, are alot deeper so maybe they have 20 ft subject to easement they can use it except they cannot build on it. It's a kind of trade off. They get a larger lot, but they get subject to the easement. That's a common procedure, by the way. Another significant thing that we schematically display here is that we would propose to relocate what we now call state Hwy 101. It's a temporary highway. You've heard my comments on that before. It's in the hands of the state, but it's not really owned by the state. They call it a temporary trunk highway. That gives us problems in terms of getting anything done on that because they are authorized under the law to do any kind of heavy construction. e We have indicated that we would provide the necessary right of way There are 3% turns in it now. Our proposal would be take all those turns out and run it straight through. We have the right of way down to the point of its intersection approx with 101 now. It has swung more to the east and it may take some additional right of way property to the north of 86th Street. It'd be necessary in that case to work out appropriate accommodations for the dwellings that are along Lake Susan to gain access to the road. We think that the safety factor could be improved considerably under this kind of treatment from what exists now. I believe mostly separate driveways entering the road. The sighting distances would be improved so curves would be taken out and so on. Our offer has been to donate the right of way, make for this purpose, if the state would build a road. have been, it has not been indicated that there is of doing that. I just want to make that clear. it available So far, we any intention We could do it on our own. The economics would be difficult. If some kind of a cooperative program would not be worked out, that would be difficult. It's kind of a gray area today of what we can do in the future. This is based on that happening and showing that the existing right of way would be cut off so that you contain a traffic interior wise to this development secondary direct flow through. The other display of significance is that we have to hook all this up and that gets us into utilitize. I have three boards here. 1) The sewer. The orange on this board is existing trunk sewer that's in place. The red is the proposed extension of the sewers. e -5- - The other thing we need is water and water would come from the well field that is proposed to be installed where this dot is up here. It is in the city's present plan to install such a well and this is a continuation then of what hasbeen existing the city's plan with water. It would then come down here and come across the proposed project and would come around this fashion. Drainage - By the way, in each instance these are based on existing plans that the City Engineer has. I think it appropriate to refer to them as sketch plans. You see quite a few blue lines on here. They are generally described as drainage channels. There are some heavy red lines on here and they describe the breaks or the water shed area that we're involved with. In the case of Lake Susan South, we've already described the existing natural channels that runs and splits approximately the middle. These become ponds. Some of those are natural ponds. Now, when it's dry, they're plowed, when it's not, they're not, but they would be reinforced to accommodate the contain more water out of sight rather than to accelerate the rate of run-off. They take the natural flow and they go from the east to the west. e I think with that introduction, unless you have some specific questions, I'll just turn it back to you." Clark Horn::" In addition to the activities of the touring sites, a week ago Saturday, the Planning Commission took a tour of some of the localities. There has been a hubbub of activity:' I would like to have you come up and state your name and address. We'd like to stick to comments that have to do with this particular development, if we could." Kathy Boltmeier & Jim Murphy: "The Lake Susan Homeowner's Association again asks the City Council and Planning Commission to reject Dunn & Curry's development as proposed. We have outlined our concerns and a petition statement presented at the first public hearing March 26. Our concerns remain unchanged. We do not feel Dun & Curry have adequately responded to the problems of high density development. We have listened to Mr. Dunn at these hearings. We have toured the property with him. We still oppose the development and we would like to review our concerns. We stated the density of each part of this development was actually higher than the developer claims. Because they did not take into account land use. We stand by that statement. We did not include outlines because the developer does plan to build there - -6- e We did not include commercial areas and we did not include road right of ways. Our net density figure which we feel is more accurate does however, include the green areas donated to the city. Therefore there are too many units planned in too small an area. Our first objective is to lessen the density of this development to a more responsible level. According to the Metro Council's population projection, Chanhassen will have a population of 11,000 in 1990 and 17,000 by the year 2000. However, the city projects a population of 15,000 by 1990 and 25,000 by the year 2000. The Metro Council's projection deflects quarterly growth with minimum effort impact. Our City's projection does not. e During the tour with the developer, Lake Susan residents repeatedly explained that our concerns are with the multiple dwellings proposed next to an existing residential area and with multiple dwellings adjacent to the lake. According to the map, we know provided. Townhomes are proposed approximately 25 feet from the nearest neighbor's property line. The developers justification for townhomes is the best use of land because of the topography. When we toured the rest of the property, much of the land is there for single family homes and Lake Susan residents feel a similiar topography. A second justification for building multiple dwellings on the lake is that it will be easier for residents to get to the lake. If single family homes on the lake, Mr. Dunn stated during the tour, the people living in the multiple dwellings would have trouble getting to the lake. There are too many discrepancies in this argument. First, the trail system donated to the city by the development is supposed to enable all residents to use the lake. Secondly, on Lake Ann single families are proposed adjacent to the lake with multiple dwellings near Co. Rd. 17. Lake Susan residents would favor this plan for Lake Susan. Since we've prepared this statement, three residents accompanied Mr. Dunn and members of the Planning Commission on a tour of the property yesterday. At this time, as Mr. Dunn stated, he was willing to omit the apartments on Lake Susan South and also stated that he would be willing to substitute single family homes on one tier of Lake Susan West. We appreciate the developer's compromises, however, it is not alleviate our concern about the townhomes that are situated right in e e -7- Thirdly, Dunn & Curry has not adequately addressed the impact of the density of this development on their community grow system. Specifically, trunk Highway 5 and 101 cannot handle the a~ditional traffic which would be generated from this development. The Lake Susan South Development will be using trunk Hwy 101, not #17 as their main entry and exit road to Hwy 5 or to Z12. Mr. Dunn has conceded that the department plans no improvement for 101. Therefore, his solution for 101 is to eventually construct a new highway, something he explained earlier. However, density of the development will make the existing 101 dangerous for all residents who live there and will increase traffic for all our highways to unnatural proportions. Although the developer recognizes the problems Chanhassen will face with increased traffic congestion, he states that the pollution lies with our legislators. Our elected representatives must provide funds to construct a new highway to 2i12, however, if 212 is ever built and there is no funding available, it will not be built for at least 10 years. Meanwhile, all of us will suffer in the interim because of this development. e Fourth, an environmental assessment worksheet should be completed by an independent party before any development is improved. In the April 9 Public Hearing, Mr. Waibel stated the Planning Commission could request an environmental assessment worksheet before the development is approved, although it is not standard procedure. In view of the impact,this development has had on the entire community because in a sense it was drastically altered, the character of Chanhassen, we asked the Planning Commission to request an eaw before any decisions are made. We feel any is the developers rebuttal to the Lake Susan Homeowners the developer's stated that any pollution be caused by increased roads, and would be the responsibility of the City. on the lake caused by the development responsibility. As an and Association statement, of the lake that would -- Finally, we address the individual cause of this development on the taxpayers. It has been pointed out that the recently bonded public works building will not be adequate to absorb the increased personnel needed by such a development and another bond issue would be needed to enlarge this facility. Chanhassen Elementary cannot absorb large numbers of students. The present capacity in the school year 1979 is 76.5% of 572 students. An additional 175 students would bring it to approximately 100% capacity. Thus, Chanhassen would be faced with building a new elementary school or busing some students to other districts with declining enrollment. that the e -8- land owned by Dunn & Curry will be developed. Dunn & Curry's intention is to urbanize the area. We firmly believe the Council, the Planning Commission carl approve a development that will maintain the rural character of the land. They can keep Chanhassen an unusual and pleasant community for those of us who enjoy it now and for potential residents. The Planning Commission and City Council have the opportunity and the responsibility with the increased growth in Chanhassen that is inevitable. In order to insure reasonable orders of growth and preserve the land in the best possible manner, the density of this development must be reduced greatly. Lake Susan residents feel the density can be reduced to more acceptable levels by reducing the number of multiple dwellings proposed and by zoning the adjacent property of the entire lake to single family. We also feel that there is no need for commercial area only 1% miles from the downtown business district. This commercial area should be rezoned low density. Finally, the public irrigation would include all these wooded areas. Once the developer sells the land, he would lose control. Thus his verbal promises and assurances about the quality of housing, the indirect cost of development to the taxpayers, the impact on the ~ roads, the effect on the lake would be meaningless. Those of us who live here would be forced to accept any problems people have created. We must alter our definition of progress. It should not mean because bigger is better. Progress should be defined as slow growth that will not alter the life style of residents, but enhance it. The kind of progress represented by this mass development will only detract offers. It will not enhance. This district will be in effect for approximately the first eight or ten years of the development. The tax increment financing procedures requires from the district must be entirely reinvested to capital improvements within the district. Therefore, other taxing institutions such as the schools, the City also has a district and the county will not try to get revenue from the increased valuation within the tax increment district. In fact, the district will certainly be a burden for the community. the tax increment period since required maintainence operations must be required from the general tax revenue. This means that existing residents will be directly snow plowing and other operations and maintenance within the district. The situation may improve slightly after the district is dissolved, however, the seven county statute will act to reduce the e - -9- potential open cash revenue. This statute provides that local juris- dictions unlimited taxing 60% of the total valuation of industrial and commercial properties. The remaining 40% that local mayor may not return to the formula that is primarily based on population. Some consider the 60% of local share to be insufficient share of revenue to provide the services needed by the development, especially commercial. We doubt the tax continually expounded by the developer and request that the city conduct an in depth financial assessment of all the proposed residential, commercial and industrial developments. We wish also to mention that with increased residential densities, reduction in lot size and exterior performed by others that the potentially new residents will demand will increase recreational services for their leisure time. This may be in order to and operate expenditures for city and etc. e The next point is traffic. personnel state that trunk Hwy 5 and 169 are the most congested two lane facilities in the district. This statement somewhat contradicts the statement from the last public hearing. In their opinion, one of the most areas is the Mitchell Road and trunk Hwy 5 intersection. Recent traffic counts at the intersection are already indicating 20,000. The wetlands on both sides of Hwy 5 west of Mitchell Road prevent intersection improvements. Federal requirements require an before the wetlands could be consumed for improvements. Contrary to statements by the developer's traffic engineer, the district is designed to Level C service or better in peak hours. I'm glad they haven't given up on us during peak hours. The wetlands on Mitchell Road prevent the designing of this criteria as previously mentioned. According to the district, 10-15,000 average daily traffic warrants a four lane and divided facility. Lanes can be dropped depending on intersection spacing. we are getting so many intersections now that it will be difficult to drop lanes. We feel that old fashioned mentality of the improvements of the developments causing severe congestion and forcing new roadways to be constructed and applied to Hwy 5 and 212. Again, under this approach, the old or existing Chanhassen residents will be required to endure the suffering until future facilities can be constructed. e Another point is understand this. that shows where possibly roadway the MUSA Line. The MUSA Line is, a lot of people don't It's the Metropolitan Urban Service. It's the line you have urban services, meaning sewer and water, improvements and there would be much higher density . e e ~\ -10- in that line than outside of it. In previous meetings, it has been discussed since members of the Planning Commission sat suggested that the MUSA Line near the boundary line of Lake Susan and Lake Riley have been fixed or stationary for the last several years and the boundary is based on Illustrated maps showing wooded area. (1972 comprehensive plan). The reason I am pointing this out is there are several inconsistencies. Do you expect to build apartment buildings for children? Apartment buildings are no place for children!" "Gene Quinn. 532 Lyman. When we bought 10 acres three years ago, I went to City Hall. I don't want water and sewer." "Mary Cheswal1. this whole idea of building the whole city out in the country. I don't think it's a good idea. Apartments allover the whole country are an eye sore." "Diane Riegert. 520 Lyman. Mr. Dunn, what are the reasons for putting commercial on Lyman Boulevard?" Ed Dunn: "Our logic is that there should be a limited amount of commercial areas serving the local residential areas. We're aware that the central business district is and will remain as principal business area within the city, however, those convenience trips can be serviced by those small neighborhood type facilities. This is five acres, not a shopping center, principally for the people living in the area." Walter Thompson: "There seems to be a lot of misinformation behind the MUSA Line. I wish somebody would get up and simply state where the MUSA Line is and then let's forget about it." Bob Waibel: "The City Engineer could better explain." Ed Dunn: "It was a series of purchases. We bought the first piece of land on the west end of Lake Susan in September 1968. We then made subsequent purchases.We've owned all of this land for at least 7 years. " "Bud Paulson - 8528 Great Plains Boulevard. My problem is jealousy. Ed Dunn is six months younger than me. He talks in millions and I still talk in nickels and dimes." e e Mike Thompson: Unident: - -11- "Edna Lawrence - Lake Susan. I have a comment to make on this wonderful Industrial Park Chanhassen is supposed to be getting in the future. I can no longer say I'm excited about getting an Industrial Park for Chanhassen. We have been told this would provide a wholesome plan for our residents. All you have to do is read our local weekly paper and you will find full page ads continually advertising for help, but at about $4.00 an hour. I just feel the major wage earner of a family cannot afford employment at these places." "Don Slather - 8508 Great Plains Boulevard. Let's look at Minneapolis and see how they plan their lakeshore. Take a look at the open space. The way Minneapolis has developed their lakes has to be the best way in the world. " "Dan Herbst - 3890 Lone Cedar. Talked on our concerns as to why people live in Chanhassen. Chanhassen has had a good mix of housing. That type of mix should be encouraged. If "Walt Hobbs - Mayor of Chanhassen. I commend you on the work you have done. We're glad you're here. That's why we have these Public Hearings. The Council and Planning Commission were extremely concerned about the size of the development and how we could get out to you people what was going on. We tried to make you aware of what was going on." "I'd like to ask one question. How many people here in the audience have lived in your house over ten years?" "We can guide and direct the manner in which we want our city to grow." "Carol Watson - 7131 Utica Lane. I don't know if the Mayor meant it as a threat if Mr. Dunn doesn't get his development, but I'll help pay his attorney's fees. The Mayor talks about compromise. We have not seen once compromise. The first compromise is Mr. Dunn's, not the residents~' Ed Dunn: "We have tried from the ve ry be ginning to do our thinking and planning along the lines of what constitutes I do get a little excited, Carol, when it is said I've compromised nothing. Lake Susan Hills residents have objected to the close proximity of the apartments indicated in our Lake Susan SouthPUD. I think I made the statement that we would move that to another location. This may not be everything, but when I have an overall density of 2.3 units to the acre on a gross basis, and I insist on talking about that, it is correct planning, that's a very low density. I am not in here asking to develop this land with a density of 6, 8 to 10 units per acre. e -12- I did agree to move the apartment to the site. I did not agree to remove it from the project. I'm concerned with integrity. 100 most recent closings in 1980 from New Horizon Homes - Income profile: less than $24,000 per year 41%; $24,000-30,000 per year 34%; and greater than $30,000 per year 25% of the buyers. This is available for anyone who wants copies. Marital status: 42% single, 58% married. Number of adults in household: 1 in 29% of the cases and 2 in 71% of the cases. I have indicated that we are negotiating with Orrin Thompson on Lake Susan West. e In the case of Lake Ann, we are working with New Horizon.," "Wayne Holtmeier - 8524 Great Plains Boulevard. We're really not arguing that some type of development is going to occur. It's a normal feeling and reaction to be afraid of some sort of change. The purpose of the Public Hearing process is to address our concerns as we relate to a particular development. It's the denisty and where it's being placed. " Unidentified : "Why are Mr. Dunn and Mr. Hobbs so anxious to get approval of these three projects before the comprehensive plan is officially approved by the Metro council." ~1a:yor. Hobbs: "I was speaking in generalities. I would seriously question whether any of these three areas will have preliminary plan approval before the comprehensive plan is submitted. I do think the comprehensive plan will include thffis type of development in Chanhassen." Ed Dunn: "I'm not talking about developing the 770 acres immediately. I have consistently said this looks like anrj8-10 year plan. The fact that is coincidently with your city's comprehensive plan happened at the legislature in 1976. The comprehensive plan has been in formu- lation in one stage or another since that time, but actively in the last two years. I am not trying to raise the comprehensive plan, I am not tryingto preceed it nor either am I inclined to wait for it. We have a viable project here that can and should be done. I don't relate to approval or disapproval of the comprehensive plan. I relate to a plan that seem s consistent with the utilities that we have in place with the system that has been given by the Metro Council and there is nothing, to the best of my knowledge, that says there is a moratorium that says that an owner must wait until these comprehensive plans are all approved. " e - e e. -13- "John Cox - 6990 Shawnee,) Lane. Could we take a vote of the people here who are against the Dunn & Curry plan? How many people feel that it is appropriate what the City of Chanhassen should do? " Walter Thompson. '~e are not in agreement on anything, so how can we vote on it? " John Cox: II Can we vote on the pre sen t de nsi ty? Everybody in favor of Dunn & Curry's present density plan, raise their hand. Everybody against it, raise their hand." Gene Quinn: I~oing by the mayor's comments, we have about 78% single family right now. If we could get something of what we have right now, percentage overall." Clark Horn:" We're really talking about two different issues. One is housing and the other is densities." Gene Quinn: "They both go together. Where you have more single family, you have less density. I get upset about the MUSA Line." Clark Horn: "The MUSA Line has been established since 1977." Jim Murphy: "If these developments are improved as they are shown, what are the impacts going to be regarding water and sewer? Is there any plan or program now? " Jim Orr: "Much of the planning was done earlier. Generally, the sewer won't have to be expanded to include additional areas. Whether water \!Iill be required now, I don't have the answer to that." Claa1k Horn.:. "If no other comments, I would like to indicate where we are headed. We will try to digest all of the things that have been put together in the next couple of meetings and try to make a checklist of the various issues that are presented and we're going to try to see how we can come up with a consensus of what we do recommend. I believe the 28th of May is when we have tried to set a final decision on the first two phases of the developments." - le . -14- Walter Thompson moved, Mike Thompson second, to close the public hearing and allow for written comments regarding Lake Susan South until May 9th. Approval vote: 7 - yes 0 - no. Motion carried. Mike Thompson moved, Walter Thompson second, to adjourn at 10:40 P.M. Motion carried. ~