Loading...
1987 02 11 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1987 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner. PUBLIC HEARING: Wetland Alteration Permit to create an open water habitat for waterfowl and private access for one canoe on Lake~ucy on property zoned R-R, Rural --- Residence and located:on Lot 2L BlOCk 2, Lake Lucy Highlands~ic Rivkin, Applicant. Public Present: - Torn Kraker Mark and Kathy Sanda 5597 Timber Lane, Excelsior 14343 Fairway Drive, Eden prairie Olsen: The property is located in Lake Lucy Highlands, Lot 5 and it is adjacent to Lake LUcy. The applicant is proposing a pond and channel to provide access for his canoe to Lake Lucy. The wetland is a Class A wetland and the Ordinance requires a Wetland Alteration Permit for any dredging or channels or docks or any alteration to the wetlands. A permit is also required from the DNR and the Watershed District. The channel will serve as access to the lake and the pond will serve as a wildlife habitat. The City regulations require minimal impact to the wetland, that no spoils will be located within the wetland and that erosion control will be provided. The DNR and Staff visited the site with the applicant and after review, we found that the pond and the channel connected can promote rough fish entering up into the pond. The size of the pond is so that it will have summer and winter kill, the lack of oxygen, that it could possibly be a maintenance problem with stagnation due to the high volume of vegetation around it. The DNR has stated that they want the pond and channel to be separated. We keep working on this day to day and their most updated reponse is to have the pond and the channel separated. That would prevent the fishery problem with the fish coming up into the pond and promoting these rough fish. They had stated that an aerator could be used. The applicant has, as far as the stagnation and the summer and winter kills, on this new plan has provided an aerator. A DNR permit is not required if an aerator is not used during the winter. The DNR wanted it to - ,... ,. ~~"" Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 2 e be mad e c 1 ear t hat i f the c h ann e 1 i s pu tin 0 r the c h ann e 1 wit hap 0 n d, t hat that becomes public and anyone using the lake can go up into that pond area. They also pointed out that the site has loosestrife right now and it has been documented that if a site is altered it promotes more loosestrife to expand in that area which can be a real problem. It kills off the rest of the wetland. The Watershed acted on this last Wednesday and they tabled any action until they hear back from the DNR on their recommendation. They have stated that they want erosion control throughout and that no spoils will be permitted within the wetland area. As far as the City is concerned, we want minimum impact to the wetland. In our review, the main purpose of this pond and channel is for access to the lake so Staff is recommending that the pond and channel be divided because of the potential problem to the wetland. We are recommending instead that a dock or boardwalk be installed. The reasons for this are the problems that can occur from the pond and the channel being connected to Lake Lucy. There are two lots on either side. One already has a house being built on it and the other one is a potential home site and they could also want to come in and have another channel and a ponding area. We are recommending that if a channel or a pond is approved, that they look at the possibility of putting the pond and channel on the lot lines. Also, if it is approved, we are recommending that he provide a performance security. If the permit is approved, we have a list of conditions that I can go through but we are also recommending, as the DNR, that the pond and channel be separated so the fishery concern would be eliminated. Would you like me to go through the conditions? e Conrad: No. Eric Rivkin: (The applicant handed out pictures of the site to the Planning Commissioners) The responses that I have here, included with that new map, are revised after I reviewed the Staff Report so this is a second major reiteration process. I'm going to read along and comment on the hand-out that you have and I'll start out with why the proposed design has minimum impact. First of all, placement on the lot minimizes the length required. This is the outland area, started by herons is all marsh from here down. They found to put a pond on the other side would go much longer so this is the shortest distance from the place where I could enter a boat and go to the open water. The pond depth, you can see a cross section here, I revised it here to 9 feet preventing problems to full depth freezing. The pond also does not remove the wetland or aquatic vegetation thus destroying any additional foot or habitat for wildlife that would benefit from that. The marsh grass starts right here. This vegetation here is primarily terrestrial and not aquatic. The pond, as you can see, is not what is located in the terrestrial area. The pond and channel square foot surface area is less than the typical design the DNR fisheries would have permitted with a simple boat turnaround. My proposal has a total of 10,813 square feet which is 8 1/2% less what DNR recommended. I talked to Steve Oie in the Fisheries and he said typically they permitted a 20 foot square channel with a turnaround for a boat. In my last conversation with him he said that was something they can live with and it's less than that. The surface area of the channel itself removes e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 3 e e only 2/l0th of 1%. This is the lot right here in the green. The slashed area is wetland area on Lake Lucy. This outline was taken directly from the Wetland's Map given to me by Jo Ann. This pond and channel is to scale so it gives you an idea of what kind of impact it has. We've got over 2 million square feet of marsh on Lake Lucy and the channel is a little over 5,000 square feet. Is every remaining lot owner or potential owner had a boat channel, that is all these lot owners here already have lake access. All the lot owners here except this one, Mark Sanda, has lake access. The island is owned by someone who doesn't live there and that could potentially go to development and this is a government outlot. That can not be developed. This could be potentially developed and Prince's property could possibly be developed. If I added in a total of 5,000 lineal feet of channel, the same as my width, and it came out to approximately 2% of the entire wetland area to date. The pond is brought to the edge of the upland terrain to eliminate the need for artificial structures such as docks and also to keep it within my needs to work to put my lake access in. The profile of the pond is perceived to be minimal because of the efforts made by steep slope. The slopes are 2 to 1 and 5 to 1. Typical as possible with a minimum disruption to the land may not be conducive to further cattail growth. If you design a pond to be much more shallower grade to it, you further enhance the ability for cattail to grow back so we made it as deep as possible. The curved pond design avoids the established deciduous shrubs and trees such as dogwoods and ash as well as provide a natural wood. The crooked design of the channel avoids an artificial appearance with minimum length. If we went straight out it would not look like it was a part of the park. With minimum intrusion into the upland clay soils which maximizes the chance for rapid revegetation surrounding the pond but also the fact that it is in terrestrial vegetation area also maximizes the chances for it revegetating too. Why the construction methods have minimal impact? Dredging the channel versus using herbacide, which is an alternative that the DNR has approved before. Dredging is non-polluting to the environment. Siltation created by dredging will totally disappear. The long term health effects of herbacides have not been 100% safe and may contain carccinogens. To minimize silt entering into the lake, we have followed pretty much the recommendations given to us by Bob Obermeyer of the Watershed District. To minimize silt entering into the lake, construction is to take place during the winter months when ice can support the equipment. I would like to say that I think they are making a somewhat unfair in this proposal by the Staff that we only restrict this to winter of 1987. If delays are made, I do ha ve the r i gh t to ha ve one yea r to use any perm i t tha t may be issued to me so I think that should be extended to 1988. The pond should be constructed first and the channel dug last from the pond to the lake leaving a barrier at the end of the channel until sediment permits removal of the barrier. Siltage here, minimum two foot dock is excavated in the area and all exposed spoils from the pond will be located right here. The exposed soil will be temporarily seeded with broadgrass mixture and mulched with straw for erosion control. For nutrient control, no bluegrass will be planted and no fertilizers will be permitted. Spoils from the channel are being disposed of behind this 12 foot berm. The 12 berm meaning there is a clear area from the edge of the channel to where we can disperse the spoils e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 4 e e from the channel. This is not spoils from the pond. This is the channel only. This is cattails and it's 80% water or ice in this case and the amount of silt, as indicated on here, could possible get into the wetland area is less than 1/4 inch of slit over the area being dispersed. The Carver Soil and Water District Manager visited the site and said that dispersement of cattail spoils is the way it is normally done and it disappears with no detrimental effects. Almost every municipality in the local area permits this practice with no detrimental effects and since this isn't a very big project, this isn't going to even scratch, it will probably disappear within a year. Also the fact that the channel isn't dug in a typical fashion. It's not squared off. It's angled down for access and it also minimizes the amount of silt that we're taking out. Typically most channel designs that the DNR permits is one with a square bottom so I've also submitted a license for that design. Black dirt and clay spoils from the pond can be placed separately upland and spread to the proposed topography as soon as the moisture content of the soil permits. Final seeding of the upland area, up around here, will consist of short prairie grass mixtures. Also, the excavator says that carrying channel spoils away is pretty needless and also is very cost prohibited. There will be worse damage to the environment because he's going to have to remove these dogwoods due to the truck traffic because the pond has to be dug first. This is all going to have to be tracked over, he has to haul in two dumptrucks going back and forth constantly to keep the crane operating and it will take another additional four days of construction, $3,000.00 more and it will also contain large chunks of ice that you would have to deposit here which make the spoils impossible to level out the same year because of the moisture content so you can't dry it out. That prevents spreading it out and reseeding it right away and that adds to potential silt run-off in this area. I also wanted to respond to the dock. It really can't work because it is house prohibited which in effect denies me the right to lake access. Since my conversations with Jo Ann, I've gotten three more quotes from Bridgeco. I called three more sources and they are all more than what I quoted here so this is very conservative. We're talking about $17,000.00 to put in 600 lineal feet of dock with minimal three foot width. This is the least expensive design and comparatively the cost to excavate the proposed plan with an aerator is $2,700.00. If I did the custom deck or floating deck, it would be more expensive and I had quotes upwards of $30,000.00 to $39,000.00 to do floating docks and to do the kind of docks you see in parks where there are docks going in the reeds and that kind of dock is $ 3 5,000.00. Posts need to be dr i ven to sol id ground and are very difficult to install. It is a serious liability and it's a safety hazard to snowmobilers. 6 to 7 foot tall cattails up higher than docks and snowmobilers do frequent the area all the time. There was a snowmobile trail there when we visited the site this morning and it is a serious liability. The dock would be hidden in the reeds and someone traveling at a great speeds is going to run into it. This is the kind of thing that invites lawsuits. Also, the neighbors and I thing a dock is an eyesore. It doesn't blend in at all to the environment. Product life for docks is typically 15 years. Maintenance costs are very high especially if made to remove the docks. The posts in the winter, if it becomes a liability, it turns my lei sure acti vi ty into a voca ti on which is somethi ng... I al so e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 5 e e would like to say in response to the fact that it's not detrimental, I would like to say why it's beneficial to the wildlife fish and lakes surrounded by the community. The addition of more open water would counter balance the gradual disappearance of open lake waters due to natural eutrophication process. There is also a clay base to the pond which will maximize in it's depth and also maximize it's ability to continue to hold water. The addition of pump at the bottom surface will encourage initial growth of a better class necessary for natural oxygenation and support fish and water fowl habitat. The DNR, John Parker, from the Water Conservation District Manual which he came me those specifications for the pond. When I proposed this plan to him and he initially said that there wouldn't be any problem due to the wildlife benefits to this and he did recommendations on how to design the pond from this book. In a smaller positive way, the pond also increases the storage capacity of the lake by more than 14 gallons. The 10 to 1 slope going up in here is preferred for water fowl entry in the Water Conservation District Manual. It states that that's not a good slope. The pond is located to existing shrubs and dry grasses providing desirable cover for mammals and possibly nesting water fowl and is far enough away from the houses to provide. The fish manned to the area will consumme mosquito larvae. The map shows here the size of the pond now. The DNR recommended a 40 by 40 foot version of this pond which is a little less than half this size. If I don't have any pond at all, rough fish are still going to get in. They prefer shallow water. My pond is more than twice the depth that the DNR recommends. They recommended 4 foot deep, 40 x 40 foot boat turnaround and if you have someplace for rough fish to spawn, that's going to be the place to do it. I've proposed an aerator system which will keep the water oxygenated to encourage good fish to come in because they prefer water with high oxygen levels. The pond and channel are large enough to provide additional landing area for water fowl. That is another benefit. Even though ducks and geese have been thriving in much shallower ponds in the Lake Lucy area, you can drive by any little pond and they are covered with green duck weed and it's croontail in them. I have taken a canoe out into these ponds and looked at them with Bob Lange to investigate what is the nature of these ponds and there is croontail, about 2 or 3 feet of muck and the ducks and geese are thriving so algae does not create the severe stagnation conditions where there is a high degree of decomposing orgranic material in the bottom does not discourage wild fowl at all and the evidence is there. Just drive by and you find animals all the time living there. I plan to prevent stagnation and fillament this algea to a minimum by putting in a microenforcer used with a remote pump described in the attached literature. I gave Jo Ann a copy of it. You probably didn't get a chance to see all of them. I think there is one sheet where they describe the system there. Basically, what it does is it causes microscopic air bubbles to rise in the water from the lowest part of the pond and the surface tension of the air water interface causes them to pull a maximum quantity of water from the bottom of the lake causing a purging process and that's the kind of thing that occurs naturally in clear lakes up north twice a year when cold waves come in. The pump will be turned off in the winter to prevent open water hazards. This can benefit the community too. The process being demonstrated on the pond can provide a good example for studying, controlling or reversing the eutrophication e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 6 e e process that is occuring now on Lake Lucy. Every lake goes through it and some people refer to it as a dying lake process when you lose the resource. Lake Lucy is a very shallow lake and anything that you can do to create more open water will enhance it and reverse this process 180 degrees so I was kind of surprised the DNR didn't come back and actually want more taken out because they permit this on a grand scale on other lakes. The city of Richfield right now is breaking up cattails and they're not even putting in aeration systems. They are just simply going in and digging out the mess and the muck and putting in ponds and cattails that were already there. That will disappear and they will have more open water for the rest of this area to enjoy and wildlife and encourage better fish, not rough fish. This will also benefit the other lakes and prevent fish kills. Improving clarity, reduce weeds and algae and help eliminate the sulphorous odors that are associated with decomposing matter. I will maintain larger and healthier fish and wildlife populations, eliminate stagnant bottom waters to prolong the life of the lake. ... to local i ze the proposed pond. It is 430 feet from Lake Lucy and is the most effects of this area. Let's say I didn't have the aerator. Let's say the artificial oxygenation was not used at all. Build-up of decomposing matter, this is what you need to encourage rough fish. To have an understanding of this would eliminate any fears that anybody might have with a 9 foot deep pond encouraging rough fish for a very long period of time. You need several conditions in order for rough fish to want to live there. One is that you have decaying algae on the top. That may occur, probably will occur because there is duck weed there now but that's not going to cause light to enter the water but what causes the fish not to want to come in in the first place is black anterobic sludge that is down in the bottom and causing a separate type water which prevent the fish from going down and doing bottom feeding. This permits beneficial aerobic organisms. The build-up of decomposing organic matter on the bottom of the pond would be very insignificant for some time because there is little organic matter to begin with and build-up in the surrounding vegetation would be minimal. Usually it builds up very fast when you have agricultural run-off going in when it rains and have open soils and we have lots of forested areas. Ponds in forested areas tend to fill up much faster because the organic matter tends to build-up over time and there aren't any big trees around here to cause that condition. There is little organic matter to begin with and build-up from surrounding vegetation. Beneficial aerobic organisms to consume and keep up with a minimum influx of organic matter so so-called stagnation or oxygen depletion probably won't occur for some time. Continuous oxygenation or removal of carbon dioxide will maintain a favorable environment to any good or bad that go into the pond as well as prevent build-up of manaerobic decomposing organic matter. By having a shallow channel and a shallow pond, boat turnaround, the rough fish would thrive more. By giving the good fish a place to come in, it would cut down on the rough fish population by having deep water there. The design of the pond is meant to support large populations of spawning game fish. That's not my primary purpose but at least it won't be a detriment to any fish or any wildlife that would wander in. However, I will mention that this artificial oxygenation process has in many ponds been a great success. To explain the oxygenation part of this thing a little better than I can, I have asked Bob Lange who is an expert in this e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 7 e area to talk and answer any questions about this process. e Bob Lange: I've known Mr. Rivkin since 1985 and I would like to say that he has called me on many occasions and asked my advice about environmental matters. He has looked at other land and has constantly worked to improve the land for the environment and wildlife and I think he is a credit to your community. I didn't come here to promote my company but I would like to tell you that I'm the President of Clean Flo Laboratories in Hopkins and we started business in 19713 so we're 16 years old and we have restored over 1,131313 lakes and ponds worldwide during that period. One of the things that I would like to address is the loosestrife problem. Loosestrife prefers water that is shallower than water that cattails live in and by digging the pond deeper than the cattails, Mr. Rivkin's project certainly will not encourage any loosestrife growth. The other thing I would like to address is mosquitoes. In 1982 I wrote a report for the Department of Environmental Protection in the State of New Jersey on mosquitoes and the results of that report caused the state to allow storm water settling basins to be built in housing communities provided aeration was applied to these basins and I would like to read you some exerpts from this report. Ponds will be conducive to mosquito growth if permitted to become stagnant of it the ponds became full of aquatic vegetation. Mosquitoes and stabilization ponds have usually been associated with growth of aquatic vegetation. Shallow ponds with abundant vegetation often produce mosquito problems. I would like to say here that Mr. Rivkin's pond will be so deep that it won't encourage submerged aquatic vegetation. According to researchers, ponds free from vegetation have presented no problem and I give several references here. Waters that contain fish, seldom are sources of mosquitoes because their larvae are preferred fish food and are relatively available to fishes because the larvae and pupae come to the surface to survive. While collecting material for his publication the mosquitoes in Illinois, H.H. Ross in 1947 found no mosquito larvae or nymphs in farm ponds except in parts containing dense stands of submersed aquartic vegetation which prevented the fish from reaching the larvae or pupae. What I've just given is three major reasons why mosquitoes have not been found in ponds treated by the clean flo process. The moving surface water due to multiple inversion of the water, the lack of aquatic vegetation and the exceptional abundance of fish. Water quality is greatly improved in all the ponds that we treat, especially in higher oxygen, lower phospherous and nitrogen levels. This gives much better water quality then would be found in ponds partially recharged... I would also like to say that in the ponds that we have aerated, there has been an increase in water fowl using those ponds. In fact, in the State of Kentucky, we have several ponds that we are aerating there and this has been responsible for water fowl now beginning to winter over in the State of Kentucky where they haven't in the past. Are there any questions that I could answer? Conrad: Maybe later on. e Mark Sanda: I'm the neighbor to Eric's east side. The property line there mentioned in one of the diagrams and my wife and I are here, we just wanted to state that we've known Mr. Rivkin for about 6 months. It's becoming Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 8 e mutual future neighbors and have been very impressed with his knowledge of environmental factors. He has taught us a tremendous amount about the type of vegetation that exists up on our property and the care of some rather nice majestic red oaks that exist up on our property. The care in taking care of the trees during the construction process of our home and I've told Eric that as long as the pond did not become a mosquito nest or something like that, we can't imagine him doing anything to the property that would be environmentally damaging and that we have no objections to the building of the pond and the channel. Tom Kraker: I'm also an owner of one of the lots on Stellar Court, actually across the street from Mr. Rivkin and I have known Eric for a short period also but have been equally impressed with his knowledge and concern and care of the environment. I would like to state that it appears that the recommendation for the dock is really much less in keeping with the natural environment than his proposal and I would encourage the Commission to come in with a favorable recommendation because I do support it. I have personally lived on small lakes that have become victim to the eutrophication process and it's really a sad thing to see that proceed and anything such as this that can arrest that should be looked on very favorably and I believe Mr. Rivkin's proposal with the deep pond, aerator, etc. will indeed help arrest that process and again, should be looked upon favorably. e Eric Rivkin: I want to read a letter from another neighbor who was addressed on the list. His name is Bob Burish and he is owner of Lot 1, Block 2, Lake Lucy Highlands. He addressed the letter to Ms. Olsen. It says, in regards to the notification on the hearing for my request to dredge a channel and small pond on the shore of Lake Lucy, would like to go on record in support of the request. It is our opinion that the plan proposed would enhance the shoreline by creating a protected open water wetland area for migratory water fowl and shore birds. It would also create more habitat for fish and aquatic wildlife. It is also our opinion that the channel and pond area would be more appealling than a long wooden dock to the open water and less disruptive to upland game and visual aesthetics. I also want to say that since it has become or would become a public waterway that everybody on Lake Lucy, whether they come in from land or water, will come and enjoy the benefits of the increase in wildlife and possibly a place to fish. I also talked to some of the older residents of the area to find out what kind of the history of the eutrophication process has gone on Lake Lucy. There is a gentlemen there up on the hill who has been there since 1907 and I asked him how is the fishing on the lake? How has it been and he said it's gotten worse. All he catches now are bullheads. He used to catch walleye and many more northerns then there are now. He is so disappointed with the lake and it's ability to produce fish that he doesn't fish there anymore and he hasn't for about 30 years. Since 1907, that's less than half his life. He says that the amount of cattails that have been encroaching on the lake has been ever increasing so we can stop that process. e e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 9 Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried and public hearing was closed. Headla: Jo Ann do you have any comments on the presentation? Olsen: Yes, I have a few. Steve Oie from the Fishery Department of DNR does not approve of the channel and pond. As stated before, they want it separated to not promote any rough fish with the connection of the two. Also, they stated they want the pond separated 50 to 100 feet from the channel. The government lot to the west was an outlot but the City did not want it as a parkland so the developer went to the City and it has become a buildable lot now. As far as the construction extending into next year, that is fine as long as you only do it during the winter months. It states that you can not dredge during the water fowl breeding season. Again, the spoils, it was recommended that they be outside of the ordinary high water mark and the Watershed District has confirmed that they won't allow even the channel spoils to be placed within the wetland. All spoils have to be mulched and seeded and that will be difficult to do if they are just placed next to the channel. Again, we are stressing that the pond and channel should be separated. Headla: What do you mean that the pond and channel should be separated? e Olsen: The pond is an area where the fish will go up and can spawn, rough fish, so the DNR does not want that to be connected. They will allow the channel so he can have access for his canoe and they will allow the pond also if he wants to have an open wildlife habitat area but by connecting them, that provides an area fort h e fish to go up and possibly will promote the rough fish. If there is any stagnation of that water, that also has been found to be detrimental to the lake. Headla: So physically, they should not be connected? 01 sen: Right. feet minimum. They are saying that they should be separated at least 100 Headla: On the agenda here, the second line says a private access for one canoe on Lake Lucy. Where did this one canoe get started because we're talking about a tremendous amount of money and effort for one canoe? Olsen: It's just a private access. e Rivkin: I live there and I want to get out to the open water and I have a canoe today. The lake is not big enough or deep enough for water boat. I think there is a motor restriction on the lake so it doesn't appear to be in the best interest to have a watercraft so I would rather put it as a nice place to go to in the first place. I would like to add that the purpose for wildlife is one major benefit to having this. It kind of turned into a purpose after reviewing all this because it is a reversal or stoppage of the eutrophication process. I would put that down as the purpose for this project. Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 10 e Headla: I have two concerns. My first concern is I think you've covered a lot of the questions as of today. It scares the heck out of me, what's going to happen in 5 years? You may not be here. What happens if you lose power down there to your aeration system? What can we do to make sure that is maintained 5 to 10 years from now? Bob Lange: After it's run for 5 to 10 years, it would take a number of years for the lake to eutrofy again. The pond would be eating up the organic matter and it would be much better off than Lake Lucy. Rivkin: Because we're starting off with a fresh clean bottom. Lake Lucy has 3 to 4 feet of muck on the botton of it. We've actually gone out there and felt the bottom and stuck our paddles down and measured the muck. We know what it is. We're starting out clean now. It's a clay base at the bottom of this pond and it would take hundreds of years for muck to accumulate like it has on Lake Lucy so it will virtually always be better than Lake Lucy even with no aeration at all. There's algae there now. It's wetland and you go out there any time in the spring and you see algae. By making more of the water reachable, doesn't decrease the amount of algae. It's the bad kinds of algae that we worried about but the depth of this pond, even without artificial aeration. Headla: You're interested in just a canoe. Why wouldn't you be satisfied with just a simple channel corning up to two lot lines? e Rivkin: Coming up to two lot lines? Sharing with the neighbor? Headla: Yes. Rivkin: Mark Sanda has, do you want to address the two neighbors sharing? Mark Sanda: Yes, in speaking to an attorney, they said there were a tremendous number of legal issues about who would have responsibility or liability for something that came up a lot line. It's the same as having a driveway on two lot lines, recommended against something like that. Rivkin: It's also an aesthetic problem that the lot line is straight and I want to have something that will fit naturally. wildermuth: You've done your homework very well and your argument is certainly compelling. Do you know what is below the muck on Lake Lucy? What kind of soil? Rivkin: I asked a soils expert about that. I have not dredged out to find it but I own a lot on the north side of Lake Lucy and that's been sold and I looked at the soil reports there. It is very sandy on that side of the lake going down to the old clay and the area on the west and north side is gray clay and very mottled clay. The soils expert told me that that would penetrate down into the lake bottom so the lake bed is clay. It's not sand. e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 11 e wildermuth: So it would support the kind of slope you are contending? Rivkin: Yes. In other words, the clay has a very high ability to hold water first of all. It's the muck that's the problem sitting on top of it. Wildermuth: I'm really wondering what it's going to take for the sides of the pond to slope in. Rivkin: The pond edge now as proposed is the same, is only 6 inches to a foot above the lake level measured on a survey in 1985. The DNR has said that the low water mark and high water mark is an important. The elevation is going to be 6 1/2 when it was surveyed and the elevation before freeze over was 6 inches above that. Lake Lucy is at the head of a chain of lakes and there are a lot of springs in the area. There are water springs corning out of Mark's land that drains in. There is water corning out of the lot that I used to own next to Ted Hillary's place and there's water constantly filling the lake so the lake level doesn't flucuate very much except in severe droughts. Wildermuth: So you don't anticipate having to redredge very soon? e Rivkin: No, not at all. There's no reason to redredge. To cause redredging would mean that it would have to be so filled with muck that I would have to take it out and because the slopes are the way they are, it won't revegetate at all so it won't need to carve it out. The edge is already growing with vegetation right now so it won't erode into the pond and we're going to seed with natural prairie grass around there which is native to the area which will encourage wildlife habitat and also the soil. That's the best thing for that area to keep the soil intact. The short prairie grass mix number one. They have restored for large corporations and parks and cities and they said that the particular clay soils that we have would work. Siegel: Jo Ann, do you know the average depth of Lake Lucy? Olsen: We were talking about that today and the number the DNR has is fairly old and it's not accurate so I don't have a current depth. Siegel: Does the DNR regularly stock Lake Lucy with game fish? Olsen: I don't believe that there is a public access to Lake Lucy. Siegel: It seems like this would be sort of an improvement in this area rather than an unimprovement to the area. Olsen: From a wildlife aspect it could be either way. The Fisheries are saying that it will be detrimental to have a pond and channel together. Siegel: I guess I missed the reasoning or if there was any given for e reducing the area to 40 by 40 instead of the... Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 12 e Olsen: a pond Again, DNR says that that is area. the size that they normally allow for Siegel: That was their only consensus was that they don't allow larger than 40 by 40. Olsen: They have certain regulations. Rivkin: I happened to have a conversation with Steve Oie from the Fisheries about what you said about that. They changed their mind on the 40 by 40 and said just separate the pond completely. I asked Steve, how did you arrive at 40 by 40? He said it's arbitrary. That's about enough to turn around a small boat. Sometimes it's bigger when you have larger developments. They have boat marinas that are bigger but it's just arbitrary. It's a design problem. As far as the fish are concerned, the shallowness of the channel itself. Lake Lucy already has rough fish. It's a shallow lake. It has rough fish. If I put a channel in, rough fish are going to go into the channel. If I have a shallow channel, they'll live in the channels. If I have something deeper and better than what is already on Lake Lucy, then that doesn't encourage rough fish, that encourages any good fish that may be around whether I aerate or not. Siegel: I guess I understand what you're saying that's why I'm trying to get some reasoning of why the DNR feel so strongly as they do about their recommendation or if this is a recommendation. e Rivkin: I asked them back and forth for a number of days for a couple of weeks and they change. Today they are one way and tomorrow they are another way and you talk to somebody else and they're slaying him. I can find just as much evidence to support my proposal as theirs but they have allowed many projects larger than mine with more impact than mine for people who are profiting from carving out large areas of wetlands. People put in boa t mar i n a s for a g rea t pur po s e rig h t ? The y go i n and car v e 0 ut a big wetland but you get some serious million dollar marina there and they permit that sort of thing and it's a precedent. I wanted to make sure that my design that we don't be a detriment to anything, it will be a benefit so we meet that criteria. I talked to Bob here who knows fish and lakes and other ponds that have certains depths and character of ponds and lakes and I called the John Parker over at the DNR and he proposed certain criteria to me which I based my design. When I talked to him he said, well Fisheries is against it. I said, were you against him when you called Fisheries and he said no but their supervisor said he was against it so I guess I'm in too. That's the kind of responses I get when I call the DNR. Just because I'm relying on somebody elses opinion therefore that's what I recommend so what it boils down to, a lot of these decisions are arbitrary. Siegel: What is your reaction to the stipulation that the pond and channel not be connected? e Rivkin: That promotes rough fish and encourages stagnation. Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 13 e Siegel: Would you still be pushing for the project if a requirement was that you had to have the channel separate from the pond? Rivkin: I think it would be a detriment. I wouldn't put the pond in. Siegel: You would just use the channel? Rivkin: I would put the channel in and request for some kind of large turnaround but then that's about half the size of the pond anyway so why not put something in that's really going to benefit fish instead of just doing a halfway attempt at it because if I put in something shallow like a channel, it's encouraging rough fish. If I put in something deep, it doesn't encourage rough fish, it encourages good fish. e Bob Lange: I have a report from Dwayne Shodean from the Department of Natural Resources and in his report he states that two of the aerated lakes that we did in the Minneapolis area became the two top game fish lakes in the seven county metropolitan area and these were lakes that were trash fish lakes primarily. They would get winter kill before that and we produced trophy size game fish in all the projects we do nationwide. On the contrary, our process is not desirable to the trash fish. I have a letter in my file from Dave Hanson who is president of Fab-Con and he is on a swimming lake in Golden Valley and they put our system in there and the northerns came back and other game fish. They had a number of carp in the lake before we put our system in and these carp were constantly seen with their backs sticking out of the water and after our system was in for a few years, the carp left the lake. It was connected downstream to Wirth Park so they left the lake. They left the area. I don't believe that the rough fish will come into Mr. Rivkin's pond and I believe that it will be a place where game fish will thrive. Conrad: Why would they thrive there and not in the lake? There apparently aren't any fish in the lake right now. Bob Lange: Right, because we have an abundance of oxygen which fish need. We have a much lower toxic gas level. Fish become sluggish and lythargic when there is high hydrogen sulfide, amonia, carbon dioxide in the water and this process gets rid of those gases. Conrad: But if the rest of the lake doesn't sustain life, then what are we doing? Bob Lange: If there are any game fish around, it would be able to multiply and thrive. Rivkin: DNR has gone on record as saying they encourage projects as those recommended by the federal government to create wetlands out of agricultural land and also to reverse the eutrophication process by dredging out areas and creating more open water for wildlife. They have gone on record as saying, the head of the DNR has gone on record as saying this is one of the best policies that was ever to come along and is one of the best e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 14 e benefits to Minnesota. He said that in last Sunday's paper. There is a project going through our Congress right now about...project, reinvest in Minnesota which has a section in there about creating more wetlands and included in wetlands open waterways so the DNR has gone on record in supporting this sort of activity. Conrad: They've been on record as supporting what kind of activity? Rivkin: Creating new areas for fish and wildlife and for the development of pockets. People have to take a vote of the representatives. Siegel: What is the timing of approval from the DNR and the Watershed subject to this request? Where does it stand, do you know? Olsen: DNR has 30 day comment period and they're pretty close to making their recommendation. Watershed District only meets once a month so they'll be meeting on March 4th. Rivkin: If I want to get this in this winter, as warm as it's been, I've got to get in by March. The Council meeting meets and approves it, I can get a permit within a few days. Siegel: That was the point of my question because one of Staff's recommendations is that it be contingent on approval from DNR and Watershed and if watershed isn't going to meet until March 4th, you won't be able to get approval from them until March 4th. e Rivkin: The DNR said they could work around that. As long as I meet the criteria, she doesn't need them to meet and I do meet their criteria of erosion and soil control as far as I can tell from the recommendations. Siegel: But the Watershed District is separate from the DNR. Rivkin: I know but J~dy Monroe from the DNR said that she could issue a permit or something and could work around their not having to meet. I don't know. You would have to ask the DNR. My impression was that she could give permits without having the Watershed District actually meet. Things have gone through faster. If it doesn't come down to it and I miss this year, I'll have to wait until next winter. Olsen: We really must get Watershed District approval. Emmings: I've got an awful lot here but I'll try to keep it short somehow. I'm wondering what your training and occupation is because we're getting an awful lot of scientific type of information here and if I'm going to evaluate what you're saying, I have to know who you are a little bit? Rivkin: My background is industrial design. I'm an architect for products and I had influence on as far as the aesthetic and care taken to make sure that it conformed aesthetically with the environment so aesthetics are my business. Throughout my entire life I've always been an e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 15 e environmentalist. I'm against the use of herbicide control and pesticide control and stuff like that. By owning this land and other people owning land on Lake Lucy will benefit from the things that I can do. Emmings: I guess I would have the same question for you Mr. Lange. I don't know what your background or training is in. Bob Lange: I'm an engineer by training from the University of Michigan. Emmings: What kind of engineering? Civil engineering? Bob Lange: Electronic. Emmings: When I look at the plan, I'm really torn over this thing. I think the pond would add a lot to the property. It looks real nice and I see a guy who has a lot on the lake and in a lot of ways it seems crazy to me that he doesn't have some sort of reasonable access to that lake but I think in a way you've done such a good job of doing your homework that you've raised more questions then you've answered by a longshot and I have no way to evaluate this flood of information that has come in front of me. I don't know about the rest of you and there is an awful lot of disputes here that are basically scientific in nature and I have no way to resolve them. e Rivkin: Why does that discount the ability for me or somebody else to come up. . . Emmings: I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I don't know if you're right or not but I know that you disagree with the DNR on several points and I don't have anyway to resolve that dispute. Rivkin: I can site several sources here. They're in your thing there. Emmings: I've read everything. Rivkin: What seems to be the major concern. Emmings: Let's get into it a little bit here. First of all, the plan we've got in front of us shows a pond that is 4 or 5 feet deep and the DNR said it would freeze out and now the pond is 9 feet deep so the plan seems to be changing as we're looking at it and that concerns me a little bit and I hope that the DNR, I don't know what version of the plan they have in front of them when they're issuing their pronouncements. You say it's beneficial to the fish and wildlife in your materials and the DNR says it isn't beneficial to fish and they don't want the channel connected to the lake. Mr. Lange says that oxygenation is very important to this thing and I'm sitting here wondering what if you decide to turn off the aerator six months after you start it up? We don't have any way to control what you do and I have no reason to think that you would do anything like that. It's just a question that comes to mind. You've got opinions about it being good and what it would add to the wildlife and to the use of the lake and e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 16 e everything else and your neighbors have got opinions and the DNR has opinions and a lot of them are in conflict. Mr. Lange says that Blue Stripe likes it shallow so that's not going to be any problem in the pond and I think right away, okay, well the channel isn't so shallow. Is it going to be a problem in the channel? Somebody put an article on my desk here when I came in tonight, it's from the New York Fish and Game Journal and it says that the most loosestrife weed problems have occurred at marshes in which the natural vegetation has been disturbed or eliminated and in a lot of ways it sounds to me from what I read here that it's the disturbance of the environment that is as much a problem as anything else. Rivkin: They have to root somewhere and they don't say in that study that they say how shallow the water has to be for loosestrife to take root. Emmings: No, and I don't know that but if the 9 feet of depth is enough to eliminate loosestrife from growing in the pond, do we have to worry about whether the channel is 4 feet deep? Rivkin: You said you were worried about the channel freezing over. Emmings: No, I didn't. Rivkin: The DNR didn't say anything about the channel freezes at 4 feet. I've seen articles that have sighted literature about freezing. It never completely freezes over. Ponds wouldn't freeze all the way to the bottom. They never even came out to look at the site. e Emmings: That's not an issue. My question is do we have to worry about loosestrife growing in the channel? Bob Lange: Mr. Emmings, if you look at the natural areas around this area where there is loosestrife growing, you will see them around the perimeter with the cattails on the inside. You won't find loosestrife growing in water deeper than the cattails themselves will root in. The channel is going to be deeper than the cattail roots so there would be no loosestrife in the channel. Emmings: And we don't have to worry about cattails encroaching in the channel either? Ever? Bob Lange: Right. Rivkin: If the channel were dug with straight walls, that would almost guarantee for many generations that cattails or anything else would vegetate in there. There would be some gradual coming in but only to about 1 foot or so would you say they like to root in but the steep slope is what the DNR told me. John Parker told me that that slope is ideal for not encouraging cattail growth so I'm not in conflict with the DNR there as far as cattails are concerned. e Emmings: So you would not think that you would ever have to redredge that Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 17 e channel. Once dredged it will stay clear forever of loosestrife, cattails, whatever else might grow? Rivkin: I feel that quite strong, yes. Emmings: On the lake I live on, Lake Minnewashta, we've got cattails at several places on that lake and clumps of cattails grow around on the lake and lodge against my shore and why wouldn't that happen here? Rivkin: Those kind of cattails are on bogs. Bob Lange: What they're doing is growing on top of dead plants. They have to have their roots in less than a foot or two of water in order to grow. Emmings: I wrote down a comment here that too bad your system isn't being used on the whole lake instead of just on his pond because I think the possibility of producing trophy size fish for the whole lake is not realistic. I was wondering Mr. Sanda, you have lakeshore property here too. What are you planning to do for lake access if anything? Mark Sanda: Nothing at this time. No plans. Emmings: If the DNR gets it's way and has you disconnect the channel from the pond, did I hear you right that you just wouldn't do the pond? e Rivkin: I don't know. I hadn't thought about it. I think what would happen is I probably would do it because digging the pond was supposed to clean out the detriments to the channeling and also add to the positive condition of the lake. By separating it, why have it. The purpose doesn't exist anymore of benefitting the lake or benefitting the environment so I probably wouldn't. Emmings: You've just underlined another area where you and the DNR disagree. So that makes it very hard for me to make a decision on this thing. That is the problem here. Because this stuff really should be resolved by people who understand it. We're people who come from all different kinds of backgrounds and I don't know half of what you know about this stuff and it makes it just real difficult. Rivkin: I asked a question to the DNR this afternoon and they didn't state a reason why they just referred me to somebody else. I couldn't get a straight answer. I get the impression that this is just an arbitrary decision. It's like throw our power around and you can't have this and you can't have that and we'll look smart here and I didn't get an answer to that question that you're asking. Why do I have to separate? Why is there no benefit to what I'm doing? If by separating this, aren't you creating a rough fish spawning area in the channel by not having it connected to a beneficial something that will negaify rough fish. e Emmings: We've had a recent example here where the DNR made a comment on a proposal that was before us and then the person who was superior to that Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 18 e person wrote us a letter and said just ignore what they said and we're going to do it another way so I'm familiar with what you're talking about. Rivkin: Why wait then? The same thing is probably going to happen in this project. You're going to wait a month and go investigate it and they're going to give you 10 different answers if you ask 10 different people. Emmings: Just as a personal matter, I have a hard time seeing as any kind of goal for this project that would either stop the encroachment of cattails or stop the process of eutrophication. Particularly since, as you underlined, you're really affecting such a very tiny portion of the whole thing. That process is not going to be stopped. It's going to be stopped right in that area but the natural process that is bringing that lake to dry land isn't going to be stopped by this project. I think there is so much evidence on both sides of the thing, I don't think we have any choice but to table it until some of the issues can be resolved and I guess, to me, I would almost be willing to go along with what the DNR decides to do and the Watershed because I think they have more expertise than you do to make a decision and I think we ought to table it until we see what they have to say. e Erhart: I think Steve was getting to where I was getting in listening to his questions is that I think we've wasted a lot of time here. You're asking the Planning Commission to make judgments on a lot of issues that has nothing to do with planning. I guess my responses to you is why are we looking at this on February 11th and you're trying to get this thing in this winter? You're trying to push a process along here too fast. Have you actually gone to the DNR, to their offices and shown them this plan and everything? Rivkin: Yes, I sent it to them in the mail and I they helped to design it in the first place. Like I said before, John Parker was the one who advised me. I used his advice throughout the process to come up with the first proposal. Erhart: Okay, but is there a formal DNR approval process? Rivkin: Yes. Erhart: In the sequence of this thing, I might be entirely wrong but in the sequence of this thing, you should have had all that done before we saw this proposal. That's just my opinion. The chairman may want to address that a little bit later and I just don't feel that we can answer these questions. We shouldn't be asked to. Moving along to what I consider planning questions, what was the notification process of this regarding other land owners? Was it all the people around the lake or was it just people within 300 feet? I thought we had a change in that. I'm all in favor of everything you're arguing about. I've got plenty of swampland myself that I'm thinking of coming in here with a proposal within the next year but... e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 19 e Rivkin: What don't you believe? Erhart: Like I say, I agree with everything that you're arguing for but there is a process to this so that it gets done right. I think all the people around that lake ought to be notified about this thing because from a planning process, it effects them all and that's what our Ordinance calls for if I remember right. Rivkin: Why weren't they invited this time? If the Ordinance calls for it, why weren't they invited? Conrad: The old Ordinance did not call for it. The old Ordinance said to notify landowners within 300 feet. We have changed that within the last month or two. Rivkin: Before I applied? Erhart: I sort of agree with Steve. The thing ought to be tabled and let's get the homework done and you can get it in next winter. Get the approvals in favor of that. So you have an understanding of where we're at with this thing, I would like to see us take sort of a poll to give the planning staff direction on whether we agree or disagree with the concept in total or if you would like, you can have us go to a vote on it. e Rivkin: I was encouraged by Jo Ann and people of the DNR that this would go through rather quickly. Judy's first reaction when I said this was this is wonderful. That we should do this and the fisheries and wildlife will kiss me for doing this and it was a wonder I didn't ask for more land to be cut away. I sent a letter to the DNR and said what do you think and they didn't have any problem with it so I was encouraged that it might go through this year but I'm not rushing it through. It's my fault for giving it you this late in the first place so I'm still not hooked on the idea of this year which gives plenty of time for plenty of bargaining to go on but why would it change your opinion? I don't think it would probably change anyone's opinion. Erhart: I don't think we want to pass it. Somehow this thing is going to be tied to the DNR and Watershed approval whether we pass it here tonight is the way I understand the recommendation. Rivkin: I thought the City could overridge the DNR. Conrad: No. Olsen: If our recommendations are more restrictive, it overrides DNR. Rivkin: So it just becomes an argument contest. Conrad: No, we need their input and that's what we're looking for. e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 20 - Erhart: Since we've spent so much time, just in favor of the project, if we get to the point to where we're going to give the Staff an idea of what we would like to see. I'm in favor of the project overall. I would like to see, because of these things have a tendency to affect a lot of people, I would like to see it shared. Regardless, that's my opinion. I think lawyers will always find a million reasons why you can't do something and I think Steve will agree with me on this one that I would like to see it shared if it is possible. On the other hand, if it's not, it shouldn't be a criteria for going ahead. I would like to see the pond actually as big as poss ible. I thi nk it prov ides more opportuni ty for wi ldl i fe. I don't understand the connections and without getting into another question, is there real fishing on this lake? I guess if we bat this around, I don't know if there is any fishing on this lake so I don't know whether, you're going to have to get DNR approval on that so that completes my questions. Rivkin: If you take a vote now and let's say it passes. The DNR sees that, that would be a positive thing for them. A cue for them... Emmings: If they're as arbitrary as you think they are. Rivkin: Then again, it will go on for a year this way and everybody will be more confused then they are right now. Just try to involve more people and involve more arguments. e Emmings: If the plan you're proposing for the pond is as good as you say it is and you have Mr. Lange to present the mechanics of it and his experience and background, I can't see any reason you can't convince the DNR that you should have it. Rivkin: The problem is, this has happened a lot. When you have to go head to head with the DNR you're going to lose because that's their power. No, I can not bring in expert witnesses that will counter their arguments because they still would not issue a permit even though everybody and his brother could be convinced that the expert I bring in is right. They'll still be a stick in the mud. They'll still not approve it just because they are ashamed to go back on their own opinions and this is just past history. This is their behavior. Emmings: build it. But if they won't issue you a permit then you're not going to See, that's the problem. Youlre going to have to convince them. Conrad: That's the truth. Rivkin: I would like you to take a vote and send a signal... Conrad: You'll hear what welre going to do in a few seconds. Just a couple of thoughts. lIve been around for a few years longer than the other members on the commission and that puts me into the old historian role back when but let me give you some background to the wetlands protection ordinance. Basically it took 2 or 3 years to come up with and the community is real sensitive to wetland alteration, obviously. Welre one of e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 21 e the few who have a permit process like you're going through right now. You're one of the first that is really testing a few sections of it and the test really says, are you really providing an asset or are there potential negatives? The way I read it right now, I see more negatives than positives. The fish, I don't think there are any game fish in there so whatever you do, you're not doing anything, whether you aerate it or not so I'm not seeing any positives and therefore, if I were to test the Ordinance as to the philosphy and I don't know if Jo Ann gave you the wetland Ordinance, but there is a philosphy. There is a rationale for granting alteration permits and I think you should take a look at that. I think the Planning Commission should get those sections, which we don't have here, that sets us up for why we would grant a variance. You make a lot of good arguments for and I think if we see those good arguments, those are going to be the positives that will allow us granting that variance but right now, to echo what some members to my right say, the plan has changed and when I see a plan changing so many times, I don't know what I'm reacting to. I saw one. I saw some other specs and when I see varying specs, I can't make a motion because I don't know what we're making a motion to and when we do that, I'm not sure what other advisory agencies are really reacti ng to. It gets us all snar led up. I see confl ict i ng info. I see the specs changing. I don't see documentation from some folks that I would like to see documentation on. I guess I'm very worried about the precedent. It's not yours. Now, I'm worried about what are we saying to everybody else? That you can build ponds. There are other cases where dredging is not good and I can quote you several that I've been through where dredging can be very detrimental and the DNR says no and the lakes in Chanhassen they will say that too. I don't know, it's probably not the truth in your case but again, I can see that scenario as a potential negative. The loosestrife is an issue that I guess we should know about and we have some technical information that tells me we should be at ease about that. Again, I see enough issues that I'm unsettled with that I couldn't say that there are more positives confirmed then negatives, potential, and I'm really concerned about the precedent also. I think in the long run you probably have a pretty good project and I think we're going to be able to go along with it but again, I would like to see the technical information come together. One plan come together. The information coming back. I would like to see those things in one place. I'll stop there. Those are my concerns and I guess I would be in favor of tabling also until we get some of those things lined up. e Rivkin: One more response. I guess in the interest of trying to get something through, I know that if I try for a pond I might as well forget it. What I'll do is I'll pull back and I'll compromise. The DNR has already stated that they are willing to go with the channel as proposed and a small turnaround, 16 square feet. If that is agreeable with you and it's agreeable to them, would you consider passing something... Conrad: I guess my preference would be to see that come back. I don't know how quickly we can turn that around. I lose stuff that says I'll negotiate here with you rather than something on paper. Again, I get a little bit nervous with that and I don't want to speak for the Planning e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 22 e Commission but I guess my preference would be if that's what you would like to do is to come back in two weeks and I'm not sure where we'll go with that. Rivkin: I'll have plans and specs on her desk in two days so it can get into the City Council. I think the DNR will issue a permit fast enough to get it in this winter yet because they have approved a 40 by 40 foot at the end of the channel. Emmings: Has the DNR approved anything? Erhart: I feel we're being roused to influence the DNR quite frankly. Conrad: I do too. Rivkin: They recommended it in their Staff report. Emmings: But I don't know what they're doing down there and frankly, I'm as concerned about them as I am about your project. I like your project and I wish you could just show us that everybody would go along with it and that there's not going to be any problems with it. I would approve it in a second but right now, I don't know what the DNR is looking at and I would like to see what they say before we act. e Rivkin: I don't have the time, money or energy to fight them so I'm going to compromise and go with whatever their recommendation is. It's in the Staff Report for a channel and 40 by 40 foot and I would like you to vote on it so I can get on with my life. Olsen: The DNR has to coordinate input from all different offices and it's a little tough. The DNR has been trying to negotiate with the applicant. As far as the most recent recommendation, the separation of the pond and the channel, they are saying now, even a 40 by 40 could really be detrimental and encourage rough fish. However, the DNR still does not have a definite recommendation. By approving what I have in the Staff Report is not necessarily what the DNR will approve. Headla: What does the Watershed want? What does the DNR? What are their comments? I hear second hand, third hand. I would like to see it in writing. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to table the Wetland Alteration Permit to create an open water habitat for waterfowl and private access for one canoe on Lake Lucy on property zoned R-R, Rural Residence and located on Lot 5, Block 2, Lake Lucy Highlands until the Planning Commission has a plan that has been approved by the DNR and the Watershed District and that the public hearing will be continued and notice will be given to all the landowners that the new Ordinance requires. All voted in favor of tabling the item e and motion carr ied. - Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 23 PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit for a landscape contractor's yard on property zoned A-2, Agriculbl:ral Estate and-located at the northwes~rner of County Road 117 and County Road 18, Gardeneer, InC:,~plicant. -- ---- Public Present: John Neveaux Mrs. Roger Schmidt Ruth Olson 6240 Elm Tree Avenue, Minnewashta Heights 8301 Galpin Blvd. 6441 Galpin Blvd. e Jo Ann Olsen: Technically, Merle Volk is the applicant. He owns the property. The applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit for a landscaping contractor's yard. Again, we're kind of working between the old Ordinance and the new Ordinance and the City Attorney has commented that we should review this under the new Ordinance which has some set conditions for a conditional use permit for contractor's yards. The site is located on the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.. It currently has two other contractor's yards at the site so this would be the third contractor's yard and again, the City Attorney says that it should be reviewed as a separate use. Right now there are 23 vehicles on the site. The hours are from 7:30 to 5:30, Monday through Saturday. Gardeneer will be increasing this to 40 vehicles and would have the same hours and the same days. As far as the site, Merle Volk's contractor's yard is to the west. R & W Sanitation is to the south. There is an existing bituminous drive, bituminous parking and some gravel parking. The bituminous area will be used for Gardeneer's employees and the gravel parking area will be used for the trucks. There is an existing barn here that they will be removed and use the bins for storage. There is an existing berm 12 to 15 feet high and Gardeneer is proposing to extend this berm to further screen parking activities. They are proposing to keep their plant material and they are proposing the larger evergreens and deciduous in the front so that it will further screen the property from Galpin Blvd.. Carver County has reviewed the proposal and has stated that no access approval will be necessary with the increase in traffic. The conditions for a contractor's yard are as follows: It must have a five acre minimum lot size. The total area of the site is over 165 acres so there is enough area. The site plan allows for the storage and yard areas set back from the public right-of-way and set back from the adjacent single family residence. The site is located on a collector and an arterial. The storage areas will be screened by the existing berm and the plant material. (E) is the one that affects this application where it states that no two contractor yards shall be located within one mile of each other. The reason for this was to not permit several contractor's yards along a collector or arterial or within a large lot subdivision. e Conrad: Because why? Olsen: Why not allow them? Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 24 e Conrad: Yes. Olsen: The condition restricts contractor yards from being located along a strip of road or creating an industrial neighborhood. The hours of operation that are proposed meet the conditions and no outside lights or outside speakers will be included. As far as (E), under the new Ordinance, you are requried to grant a variance. We've got a map that shows the area of the one mile radius around the existing contractor's yards and it shows that there are slight areas where another contractor's yard could be located and technically there is not a hardship to grant this variance. From a planning aspect, the site located is an additional contractor's yard on an existing contractor's site, is not actually banned. It is concentrated in one area that is already being used as a contractor's yard so actually the plantings and screening they would be providing will help clean up the site. According to the City Attorney, it must be considered as a separate use and it must be reviewed as a separate use. - Al Michals: I'm an attorney for Merle Volk. Mr. Volk is out of town or he would be here tonight. I think he is just enjoying the snow down in Arizona. I've been with this project since Merle acquired this property back in 1977 from the Hillyer family. I'm sure many of you that have been on this Planning Commission that Mr. Volk has been here on numerous occasions with reference to the two contractor's yards that are on the property at this time. The property consists of 165 acres and it has been used for the two contractor's yard and there is quite a bit of cattle in the area right now. As you know, there has been some discussion between the two cities of Chaska and your city of Chanhassen about annexing this property to the city of Chaska. The primary reason for it is the overall commercial plan and all of his property, other than the property to the north is surrounded by commercial and industrial development or proposed developments. One of the reasons that this matter came before this Planning Commission is that we felt when Gardeneer was going to be displaced from the Minnetonka School that it was just an automtic question of coming to your Planning department and obtaining a permit for the basic operation in another contractor's yard within the confines of what is out there right now. It is basically a wholesale type of nursery operation. There is no retail operation of any kind. We've talked to Barbara Dacy about it and she felt that because you have a new Ordinance in the process that maybe we should have the public hearing and the appearance before this Planning Commission. As one lawyer to another I have to disagree with your City Attorney. You may have a proposed Ordinance that is in the process of being adopted by this City but it has not been finalized because I understand your Ordinance hasn't even been published yet so the issue of the one mile separation is really a misnomer. I dislike arguing with a City Attorney but I think it's a factual matter that this planning commission should be aware of. With Gardeneer being displaced, they do have to find a place for their business and Tom Wartman who is involved with Gardeneer along with Mike Sobraske who is here tonight. We're really going to help volk in the development of this property for more than what it is at the present time and this really basically is going to be an e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 25 e e interim use. We feel it probably will be a 2 to 3 year use before the entire area will develop for some better commercial activity than what is out there at the present time. Actually, the land is too valuable to be sitting fallow as it is at the present time with what is being developed to the south, what is being developed to the west and some of the proposals along the Chaska border. We also feel that inasmuch as Gardeneer has been a good neighbor out here. They have employed some of the people in the area. They anticipate continuing to employ some people in the area. At the present time they do have 5 employees that live in the Chanhassen - Chaska area. They plan to probably add 5 to 10 more employees this summer and with all of the other matters that STaff has submitted in the report, there isn't much more that I can add to this because really we don't have an access problem. We're over 1,000 feet any neighbor. We have a commercial development to the west. We have probably another 40 to 50 acres to the west as a buffer. We have a commercial activity to the south. Merle Volk owns the land to the east. It doesn't create a burden. It's really a plus for the area as Jo Ann has indicated. with the shurbery and the trees that will be brought in here and it is basically used for storage purposes only. There will be traffic for anybody moving in or out except the employees of Gardeneer. That's a benefit to the property. It cleans it up. It gives it the buffer that I'm sure most of you are concerned about and as the Chariman indicated, he's been around and at least he's familiar with the area. It's really a plus and as your staff has indicated, it's a good use. If they would have just forgotten one of the sentences in their recommendation, it would have been a pleasure to come up here and just say, we'll just accept the Staff Report and if you have any questions we'll be more than happy to answer it and I do want to commend the Staff because I think they did an excellent job in laying out the background and setting forth the details and the data for this project. I will be more than happy to answer any questions. We have a board here that we can recite all of the data that I'm sure all of you are familiar with. I don't want to get into the technical aspects. You've heard enough technical data here in the preceeding hearing. Mrs. Roger Schmidt: I'm a resident and I'm not too keen on having so much additional pick-up traffic in and out of the area. We're talking about 40 vehicles going in and out which has contributed quite a bit to the traffic noise that we do have and they don't come in by 5:30 in the evening, the ones that are there right now which are Merle Volk's. They're coming in at much later hours than that. I don't know if the Gardeneer would be the same as them. I also question, to my knowledge this is the fourth location for Gardeneer, I would question his ability. I can understand them having to move from Minnetonka School because what's going to be happening there but it seems it's the fourth time for Gardeneer. A1 Michals: As I indicated to Barbara and in talking to Jo Ann for just a minute, we've agreed with Staff that all of the traffic leading to this property and so far as Gardeneer is concerned, will exit on CR 117 and go southbound to CR 18 and then pick up TH 41. The reason for it is that intersection, you have on CR 117 and TH 5, could be extremely crucial in the morning and in the evening and all of the truck traffic and all of the e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 26 e activities would go out the other way by reason of the fact that you have this signalized corner on TH 41 and TH 5 so with all due respect Mrs. Schmidt, you're not going to get any Gardeneer traffic going by your home because we've specifically advised everyone that the traffic would go the other way. Ruth Olson: I live on Galpin Road to the north of the property. Just a question about traffic problems that I'm not quite clear about what you just said. How would traffic go to the north? Would they be coming on Galpin Blvd. between 7:00 and 5:00? Al Michals: It's my understanding that all of the traffic coming from the north would go out on TH 41, go eastbound on CR 18 and then go northbound on CR 117 to the Volk yard as it now exists which is contiguous and adjacent to CR 18. The traffic corning from the south would intersect CR 18 on TH 41 and then go eastbound on CR 117 to the Volk yard and we don't anticipate any traffic, unless it's a stray to come up CR 117. The whole purpose is to keep it away from the homes. Ruth Olson: That would be important to me. Al Michals: I'm sure it would because it would be to me too if I lived there. e Ruth Olson: The reason I ask is I see an awful lot of Gardeneer trucks up and down the road already. Al Michals: I'll leave that to Mike Sobraske. going if he's going up CR 117. I don't know where he's Ruth Olson: I hear every vibration. Mike Sobraske: Most of our truck people, CR 117 is Galpin Blvd. I believe is the same, is a bad road because it's so windy anyway. Most of our trucks stay on TH 41, TH 5, TH 7. We really have no reason to be in that neighborhood unless we're doing someone's yardwork or something like that. All the traffic leaving the site would be going onto CR 117, hitting CR 18 and TH 41. To have trucks in the morning go north on CR 117 and sit at the stop sign, especially in the morning with all the traffic, I wouldn't have that at all, no. Mrs. Schmidt: What about the evening? Mike Sobraske: The same way because we're going to be coming in at the 5:00 traffic area again and it's much easier to go through the stop light there then it would be to sit and try and make a right hand turn or left hand turn onto CR 117 because I live pretty close to the area and travel that myself. As far as the comment about Gardeneer moving around. This will be our second move since 1970. Our first move was on TH 101 and TH 7. Our second move three years ago was to West Minnetonka Jr. High School. In it's inception it was started at TH 101 and TH 7 in Minnetonka. We were e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 27 e there for I believe 11 years with a retail operation that shut down and we still are in the landscaping contracting business. That property developed into what is now Cub Foods and the adjacent strip center, we moved into the West Minnetonka Jr. High School where we had a 3 year permit there and now they are going to be putting the school back in operation so consequently we have to move and those are the only reasons why. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: Jo Ann, if it needs to be recommen<Ed denial based on not meeting the new Ordinance, which I do believe you are correct in that it isn't officially in effect if it's not published but frankly, considering that, do you have any other problems with this proposal that you base your recommendation for denial on? Olsen: All the other conditions are met. Erhart: So I appreciate your reminding us of that. Al Michals: you're going I used to be on the Minnetonka Council and I know exactly what through. e Erhart: My comments are I don't really have any problem with the whole thing at all. It is a commercial area. There are already trucks there. Certainly, maybe you could respect the neighbors a little bit and try to encourage your people to use CR 18 rather than CR 117. The only thing, I would like to see and for the other commissioners here, we were doing some discussions about trail plans in the City as it relates to the new Comp Plan we're working on this year and involved in some of that is providing easements along these rural highways and streets for the potential use in the future of providing trails like they had in Eden Prairie. I guess if the applicant wouldn't mind, maybe it's unfair to ask this at this point. I would like to see, along with this is to provide the easements for trails along CR 117 and CR 18. Maybe I could just ask you, could you respond to that tonight? The trail being simply a strip of land directly adjacent to the highway which may not ever be used. Al Michals: I don't think I'm in a position Mr. Erhart to make any comment. Merle isn't here and I think the reason by reason of the fact that there is a petition filed with both the City of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska on the annexation issue and I'm sure at that particular time, when the area really is developed that if there is a trail system and I don't know whether you really need a trail or a modified sidewalk or an asphalt cartway or pathway and I think really somebody with more expertise than I would have to address that issue. I think we're really getting into an area of a professional planner whether on two highways that are active with commercial activities and will continue to be developed as a commercial area makes it really conducive for an trail. If it's part of a highway or whether it's going to be reassessed within the land itself as some of the trails in Eden Prairie. Sorry I can't give you an answer. e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 28 e Emmings: First of all I think it's a good plan and it seems to me that all of the requirements, even in the new Ordinance. I don't know if an anlysis was done of this as a contractor's yard under the old Ordinance or if it would come out any different. Olsen: Under the old Ordinance they wouldn't have any conditions. Emmings: Okay, and the only one it doesn't meet is the one that says they shouldn't be within a mile of each other but if I lived in that neighborhood I would much rather see two of them go up together than to have a couple of them a mile apart. You would be surrounded by that much more. That's kind of bizarre to me that we've got that in there. I'm not sure exactly what's going on with it. Since he's expressed his willingness to route the traffic a certain way, would you object to there being a condition on our approval of that? Mike Sobraske: No objection. Al Michals: Absolutely not. Emmings: If we looked at this as a wholesale nursery operation, which is what the County did. In their letter I noticed they said we reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a wholesale nursery rather than a contractor's yard. Would that make any difference? e Olsen: They have the same conditions. Headla: Has a study been made on how much more the traffic is going to be increased? Olsen: with Gardeneer? Headla: Yes. Olsen: We haven't done a specific study. Just our engineer and Carver County's engineer have reviewed and the increase wouldn't be detrimental. Headla: I was thinking about the sanitation trucks. I assume they leave in the morning and come back at night. Those Gardeneer trucks probably will be going in and out all day long. Don't they go out on a delivery basis? Mike Sobraske: We have two delivery trucks and usually those vehicles will come into the yard more frequently than the other trucks. The other trucks will go out with their crews during the day and stay out there all day. Al Michals: There was a letter from Carver County about traffic. e Conrad: I am concerned about the traffic and if there is a motion I would sure like to see some kind of stipulation that we route traffic away from Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 29 e the residential area as far as we can. Based on Steve, your comments that you would like to cluster, I think if you really would like to do that then I think Staff should bring this up at a future meeting and we have the rationale for the one mile radius versus clustering. My impression is that we're really not trying to intensify development in agricultural areas and the idea was to keep these spread out so there wasn't an impact but given that you don't like that aspect of the new Ordinance, I think I would ask the Staff to bring that back up to us so we can review it. An analysis of the one mile and see if we would recommend a change. Emmings: Some of the neighbors I've heard are concerned about hours of operation and not specifically with their operation but they come in and they've told you that they're going to operate from 7:30 to 5:30 and did they put that in writing somewhere on an application? Olsen: If this is approved, we'll set that as a condition. Emmings: You will? Without that being part of the motion that's made? Olsen: You should set these conditions. I didn't write it down because we didn't recommend approval but those conditions should become a part of the motion. e Headla: What does hours of operation mean? there after those hours or what? That they just can't work Olsen: Yes. Headla: So a truck could come in anytime, drop them off just to go home? Olsen: Truck traffic also. All operations must stop. Emmings: Is 7:30 to 5:30 reasonable in the summer time for you guys? Mike Brosake: I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that everyday we're going to be done at 5:30. We'll aboslutely try to adhere to it 100%. If a crew is say working in Burnsville or something and get caught in traffic, occasionally it might happen. It's not going to be the normal, it's going to be the exception all the time. Absolutely, and I can speak to the neighbors individually if they would like, that traffic will go from TH 41 to CR 18. Olsen: Also, with the snow removal in the winter time. Mike Brosake: Yes, we do do snow removal but here again, the traffic can routed out the same direction without any neighbor disruption. Headla: Steve, in here on (D) they talk about completly screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming. You said planting or berm. They are two different things. e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 30 e Ernmings: Dave, that's what our new Ordinance says and the Staff said that what they were planning to do with the plantings, is that what you want to add is plantings? Headla: You mentioned plantings and berming and in here they had 100% opaque fencing. Emmings: That statement is from our new Ordinance and doesn't apply here and it appears to me that Staff was satisfied that the berming and the planting was going to serve that function. They have to do either one under the new Ordinance and here Dave, they've done it by doing berming and planting is the way I understand it. Is that right? Olsen: Yes. what they're proposing now is not permanent planting. It's part of their plants in storage. Headla: That's what I thought so I was wondering if the planting was 80% of the cover and they decided to sell all those trees and then you've got 80% open. e Mike Sobraske: Actually what we're talking about here is plantings. The bigger trees or the storage will be in the front area here and our trucks or any equipment will be stored behind the berm so you're not going to be seeing a lot of equipment. There is an existing berm right now that goes to approximately here on the print and what our intention is that we continue the berm up here to cornpletly screen the additional area here where these is an existing barn here now. That would also be storage. Al Michals: There's a pasture on the north side. everything that's on the plan if it's approved. We're going to do Conrad: What is on the plan, does that meet the intent of our new Ordinance? Olsen: Again, as Dave pointed out the 100% opaque but the intent is to screen the trucks and storage and the berming will be doing that. Headla: But he meant the spirit of the Ordinance. Emmings: It says old. Conrad: It can be either. It doesn't have to be opaque. It can be berming but when you put something opaque up it means surrounding and I'm not sure that we surrounded. I think we've blocked from one and I don't know that we need to block from other directions. Emmings: The would add that all equipment be stored in buildings. That apparently was part of what you were proposing. e Mike Sobraske: We can't store every truck we have inside. We don't have a building large enough to do that. That's why we have the berming for the Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 31 e screening purposes. We only have four bobcats so we can certainly put those inside but like I say, we've got the vehicles, everyone would not fit in the building that is there right now. That's why we are suggesting moving the berm a little further over to screen the equipment. Emmings: I'm going to withdraw that condition because I don't think it's realistic. That last condition I added was that all equipment be stored in buildings and if he can't do it, I want to withdraw it. If he can't do it, it's just silly to make it a condition. Conrad: I'm concerned that we've created something here that Staff hasn't really looked at. How uncomfortable are you Jo Ann with the motion giving that we find this applying to our old Ordinance? I guess my concern is that I want the spirit of the new Ordinance carried out as much as possible and I'm not sure, because I haven't reviewed it, in fact because I haven't seen Staff's comments because you have not recommended approval, I'm not sure you're in agreement with other conditions like Steve has brought up. Olsen: Before in the old Ordinance we didn't have any conditions established. I think we did need to have some conditions set up. I'm comfortable with these. e Conrad: So when you looked at this, other than the one mile distance between contractor's yards, you found that the vehicle and storage recommendations and all that were acceptable? 01 sen: Yes. Conrad: My only other comment and I don't think it needs to be wound into the motion is I did hear neighbors complain about truck traffic on CR 117 which are related to other operations on the volk property. I would like to see Staff review what the conditions were on the other operations and if we're not meeting those conditions, I would have serious doubts whether we can continue to expand use on property if we're not maintaining the conditions that were set for other contractor's yards. Emmings: Were there hours of use imposed on Volk's use of the property? If there was, they ought to be enforced. Conrad: And that's what I'm bringing up. I don't know that there were. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve of a Conditional Use Permit #87-1 for a landscape contractor's yard with the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation will be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 2. All traffic entering the site shall be northbound on CR 117 and all traffic leaving the site shall be southbound on CR 117. e 3. No outdoor lighting or outside speakers. Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 32 e 4. Berming and plantings as shown on the site plan dated January 20, 1987 be completed as shown. 5. Any further expansion to the site shall require a Conditional Use Permit. All voted in favor and motion carried. This will go to City Council February 23rd. PUBLIC HEARING: Final Plan Amendment to Amend the Final Plan for Waldrip's 2nd Addition by SUbdivIdIng Outlot B into six single family lots on property zoned PUD-R, planned Unit Developm~ResTdential an~cated at the northeast corner of County Road 117 and Lake Lucy Road, Paul Palmer, APplICant. Public Present: Wayne Poppe Barb Peshek Ruth Olson Bill Worth Rick Klingelhutz Mark pidal 1950 Crestview Circle 6480 White Dove Drive 6441 Galpin Blvd. 6440 White Dove Drive e 6410 White Dove Drive Olsen: As stated, the applicant is applying to amend the final plat of Waldrip's 2nd Addition. The proposal is for 6 single family lots. The plan was originally approved for 5 single family lots and then that was amended as an outlot. The applicant previously proposed townhomes on this site and it was denied by the City Council. He is now back again, as stated with 6 single family lots. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential. It is residential low density which means 1 to 3.4 units per acre. The overall density meets this requirement. As far as the street, the City Council had approved the plan to improve Lake Lucy Road and it will dip down into Lake Lucy Highlands and out to Galpin Blvd.. Along with approval of the realignment Lake Lucy Road, they took the option to vacate all of Lake Lucy Road in front of Outlot B. with that in mind, the applicant submitted this alternative with a short cul-de-sac coming off of Galpin Blvd.. Two of the lots would be accessed from private drives from the cul-de-sac and two other lots would be accessed from a private easement to the north. Staff has recommended that an ideal alternative would be to have all 6 lots have street frontage. There is now sewer extension to Crestview and West 65th Street and along with that proposal they are going to be maintaining a 16 foot bituminous drive along Lake Lucy Road. To go along with that, the most recent plan, the applicant has proposed another alternative. This alternative extends the cul-de-sac and provides each lot with street frontage and minimizes the number of access points onto CR 117, Galpin Blvd.. This plan does show the two flag lots to the north and Staff is recommending that these be removed and the lot -- Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 33 e e lines should be brought straight up so that each lot maintains a service off of Lake Lucy or what we now call Palmer Court. The applicant wanted the flag lots with one driveway easement to the north because of the slope of the property but again, to minimize access onto Galpin Blvd., we are recommending that all lots be serviced off of Palmer Court. Also, Staff has recommended that this be improved to a rural section instead of an urban section to reduce the cost that will be assessed back to the property owners. The surrounding streets are also rural streets so it will be in keeping with those streets. He lives on the edge of the rural district. As far as sewer and water, sewer is available to the property from Pheasant Hills and will be a part of the 65th Street and Crestview extension and will corne from Pheasant Hills along the existing Lake Lucy Road. Water will be serviced from Galpin Blvd.. The City is recommending that both the water and the sewer be improved by the City and the applicant petition the City to put those services in to guarantee that they are built at the same time as the other extensions. As far as drainage, originally Lot 6 was going to be used as a drainage area for this overall area. There is a large holding pond to the north with a berm in between the lot lines. Staff is recommending that the site can be used as a building site if a discharge pipe is placed along the side of the lot to discharge water onto the south of the house pad and that any grading of the site would not prevent drainage from going over land past the house. We're also requiring that an easement be placed over the discharge pipe and overland drainage. In summary, the lots meet the required lot area. With the 2nd alternative the lots will have the street frontage required. It is still within the residential low density standards and it meets the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. Palmer Court cul-de-sac shall be extended to Lots 5 and 6 and shall be constructed to a rural section. 2. There shall only be one access from the site onto Galpin Blvd.. 3. The applicant shall be assessed the difference in cost between a 16 foot wide bituminous drive and a rural street section. 4. Provide for piping of the discharge from Waldrip's Pond across Lot 6 to Lake Lucy Road. 5. Grading of Lot 6 to accommodate surface overflow from Waldrip's Pond and provision of a drainage easement consistent with this overland flow. 6. The developer be requied to petition the City for the inclusion of watermain and roadway improvements as a part of the existing West 65th Street/Crestview Drive sewer project. 7. The developer enter into a developer's agreement with the City to guarantee the completion of these improvements and acknowledges - Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 34 e acceptance of the special assessments. 8. Submittal of a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan, especially as it relates to fill and storm sewer construction on Lot 6. e Paul Palmer: My only comments to follow up on Jo Ann's comments, basically my reasoning for the flag lots to the north were because of the condition of the land. In looking at the land, this slope is quite steep to the south there. Planning and Council's overall plan years ago was to try and make the best use of this land for some passive solar use and if you look in the Minutes from years ago, that was stated at that time and to make it the best use of passive solar means coming in from the north. The four lots, Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6 can easily corne in from the south. Lots 2 and 3 would be best accessed from the north and since there is an existing driveway that was in used at one time for the apartment building, that has since been closed off to them, it is no longer used by them, the thought was to turn that driveway into now the access for these two lots which then can be serviced from the north for the access and not disrupt that hillside which makes for just a better lay of the land, use of the land for passive solar. That's the reasoning behind that. I'm willing to compromise on that and make it not flag lots but turn them into easements across the back. Encouraging a builder to come in from the south but to have the option that if it carne down to it, he would have to petition the county for a permit for a driveway access. The easement would be there. That we not turn those into flag lots but have an easement instead so that's an alternative. The other thing with the discharge pipe, if any of you have been out there, you've probably driven by it and seen the dike that's out there and if you see the dike, it's immense. This thing from the bottom level of Lot 6 to the top of the dike is about 15 feet. It's just way out of proportion. When they put the dike in they just had some extra fill from pheasant Hill so they just kept pushing it over there and kept building it up. The idea that we would like to do is level the dike down a little bit from the top of the culver where the water drains into the culvert where the pond is to about the top of the dike is about 10 or 12 feet at that point so by leveling the dike down a little bit, it would give us some fill for that area, improve that area and the hope was to avoid overland pipe along the lot line and by leveling this berm, this earth, we could then get the water to flow better along the lot line with the pipe so that's another alternative. My only concern in working with Norex, who has the contract to put the sewer in is that we sit down with Norex and Barb and I have talked about this and we intend to do that from now until the Council meeting, to sit down with them and iron out just what their contract, what they've agreed to do in their sewer contract as far as the work that has already been allotted to them. My concern is that I don't get gouged and start paying for things that they've agreed to do in a previous contract and because they see me corning in and asking them to amend it and add some things and start digging and doing things and start adding the bill up and everything else so that's my only concern and we'll sit down with those people and try and iron that out. Those are some alternative thoughts. e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 35 e Bill Worth: I have a lot that backs up to this Lot 6 that he has here. I don't know what I can say about it but I know that my lot and this dike that he's talking about taking down, I would say that probably somewhere around 30 feet from my lot to the bottom of his lot is how much you would need for fill to bring it up in proportion with the rest of the land and the way it looks. I kind of disagree with it. My house is sitting right up in here and it drops pretty drastically right down to this area here then it comes up real drastically like he was saying. I just feel that the drain off to this land out here will probably be a problem to this person as far as wetness or whatever. It looks like it's all sloughgrass in there right now. I think all of these lots here are fine, these first five. This sixth lot is the only one I would have anything to say about but whether I can do anything about it or not, that's besides the point. Headla: Are you concerned about the water going on your land? Bi 11 Worth: No. The wa ter from my land wi 11 go right di rectly down to that land because I'm quite a bit, considerably higher. I guess I bought my lot assuming that you couldn't build down in that low land. It's kind of sloughgrass land, I don't know if there is a classification or what the case is for your different wetlands or whatever the case is but I just assumed that that would never be a buildable site and to reconstruct those hills and fill it in in there, I just don't think it would look right and I guess I was hoping that it probably wouldn't happen. e Conrad: Jo Ann this is a buildable site I assume? Olsen: It was originally planned as a low ponding area and it will require fill. The engineers have determined that the drainage of the overall area is being met by the pond to the north and that discharge pipe will be underground, will direct any of that drainage away. We also talked about the grading of this site so it directs drainage along that side so that there is alteration of the site that will be required also to hold the drainage. Conrad: But it's not catagorized as a wetland? Olsen: No. Bill Worth: So if it doesn't fall underneath your wetland? Conrad: Apparently not. Bill Worth: It just looks like it because it is all sloughgrass. When you look across the back of Lake Lucy Road it just kind of goes with the natural flow of land and the sloughgrass just looks like it would never be buildable I guess but I know the water from running off of my land would have to have a heck of a swale in here to keep the water from going down in into this homesite in here even though he does direct the water around, like he said, run a pipe around it, I would think that there still would be. There are like three lots, my lot and a couple other lots that the e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 36 e water does naturally flow that way and it is real steep. Wayne Poppe: I live at 19510 Crestview Circle which is a piece of property that would fall right into this vicinity. I've got a couple comments. One is I'm a little concerned for a couple different reasons. One of them is I'm a little taken by surprise. I think Barb was at one of the Council meetings when they were discussing Lake Lucy Road and it was my impression then that this land was going to be vacated, it seems as though those plans have changed since then. Now, I'm to~d we're going to go with a cul-de-sac where previously there was going to be some vacated land. That's one concern which I think has to be addressed as a plan and I have some notes from Minutes of Council meetings. The other concern I have is I think, is it 3.4 units per acre that you were quoting there? It seems like that's an awful lot of houses to put on that piece of land. If you've seen the piece of land, it's really not much larger, it's a 1 i ttle larger but not much larger than where my house sits now. That would be essentially like me subdividing and building two more homes on a vacant piece of land in my opinion. Like I say those are my two basic concerns and I wanted to make those concerns known. The other concern I have in particular, getting back to the cul-de-sac and it's pertaining to something that Mayor Hamilton had said at the May 19th meeting. I was under the impression that we were going to get rid of this corner and now I'm of the impression we're not and Mayor Hamilton's quote essentially is that "we want to get rid of that intersection. It's a dead corner where Lake Lucy now intersects CR 117". Now it is being called Palmer Court which I don't think is any improvement. e Conrad: Do you know if Hamilton's comments were directed at the road as currently is in effect? Was he specifically talking about the cul-de-sac? He was talking about where Lake Lucy dumped out with all the traffic that it brought in there. Any more comments? Ruth Olson: My concern is from the other direction. Just to kind of review what the other people have said that I really agree with is that when I view that land, I don't understand how 6 units can go on that land. It just doesn't seem adequate especially Lot 6. If I remember right Paul you had designated in your townhome design that that was going to be a pond and I think that's just what it looks like. The other thing about 6 lots versus 5 is that there is still a sign posted that this is for 5 lots. I didn't know that Paul was suggesting something different than that. I have concerns about the access that he talked about to the north which what the City has now closed off because it was a temporary access to be used by those apartments and they have closed it off because it's not an adequate access. I have real concerns about construction trucks coming in there and I think what that would do is take away a lot of the natural beauty that's in the north part of that property. There are some real beautiful trees and I don't see how that can have an access. My other question is in grading and I wonder how the land is going to be prepared for building in terms of the beauty in the north part of the property. I have concerns about what they are going to do with those trees and brush. So that's my questions and concerns but my main concerns about this are that the public and the people in that neighborhood think that 5 and here's 6 and Lot 6 e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 37 e doesn't seem very buildable and I have real concerns about that temporary access. I think that would be inappropriate. Conrad: Paul, do you want to respond to some of those comments? e Paul Palmer: In regards to Lot 6 being a building site. The whole reason Lot 6 never was considered as a building site was because sewer had to come along the back side of the apartment building, all the way over from pheasant Hill Drive where it comes in from the north. To service Lot 6 was impractical because sewer was above where the house would be and we had to put a lift station in to get the sewage up there. It just didn't make any sense and that was one of the major reasons for the initial townhouse project. Again, forming the townhouse project to fit the land. Lot 6 becomes useable now because sewage is coming in below grade and now can be serviced. It all comes down to Lot 6 being able to get a building permit. True, there has been water draining across this. It's the natural lay of the land. Water has to go to the lowest point and in the process it takes top soil and fills in so that's what's happened over the years. Top soil has filled into this area so it has become more a black dirt collection area. The bottom line is we have to get a permit to dig there. We have to get a build. It means we have to find soil in there. Soil tests have not been run but if I can't find buildable soil on there, I won't be able to build right? That's the bottom line but at the same time, I would like to have the option that there be that sixth lot there because it is servicable now and because we can shape the land. There's going to be a building pad on Lot 5 that's going to have to be shaped. That land is going to have to be moved. That can actually move to the east into Lot 6 and by shaping it and using the sewer that comes in, the contractor is already planning to use Lot 6 as an area to put his excess soil. Any time sewer comes in, any time road construction is done, you're going to have excess soil. He's already looking at Lot 6 as a place to put that excess soil. Again, a fill site so we should have plenty of soil from around the area to make Lot 6 fit into the natural conformity of the other land. with my neighbors to the east and all around. In regards to Lake Lucy Road being closed off when Highlands was approved. For some unknown reason, my notice was sent off to Timbuktoo someplace and I never heard one bit of the discussion on Lake Lucy Highlands and the discussion of it and the fact that Lake Lucy Road was planned to be closed off. I found out about it six months after it had become a fact. I'm sure you can understand that if I knew that Lake Lucy Road was going to be closed off, I would have been here talking to you about it but I never heard about it so I couldn't give you my input so this is just a natural plan for Lake Lucy Road. To turn it into a cul-de-sac, cut down the traffic and fit it in with the natural conformity of the other land around there. To the north, however we end up with accesses here, the whole idea is that we preserve what we have there. We have some very beautiful pine trees up there. Those will not be cut down by a long shot. We have some very beautiful maples up there. They will be avoided. We're going to be on top of the contractor to make sure that he doesn't disturb the roots too much so we don't lose those trees. We have some very nice trees up there. If anything we're going to try and improve the grading and to the north we intend to put a little berm along there to close off the e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 38 e apartment people and to section off our lot line from theirs. By putting in a little berm in there we'll be able to do that. That was the original plan years ago and I will continue to do that. Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: I didn't understand the rural assessment. Olsen: The site borders the urban and the rural area. It is in the urban area. Normally whenever there is a street improvement it would be improved to an urban section which includes paving, curb and gutter. Since it is going to be a cul-de-sac servicing 6 lots, Staff felt that it could be improved to only a rural section to lower the cost that we assess back to the property owners. It really carne down to the cost. We wanted as much as we could get and the urban would be a little cost prohibitive. Headla: When they do that, what happens to all the water running down there? It dumps into the street and does the person to the south get all that water then now? Olsen: Along with that there are drainage ways draining along the ditch. e Headla: Are we creating a problem for someone else by doing this? I don't understand where all the water will go. If it's just a natural flow for all the water right now and Lot 6 is lower than the road and it's like a minute holding area. Olsen: That's where their ditch is and grading ditches along the road in the rural section. Headla: Where would the ditch go then east? Olsen: It wouldn't go east because the cul-de-sac ends. It would go off and enter Galpin Blvd.. Healda: Galpin Blvd. is considerably higher. Olsen: I guess I don't know. It was Gary's position that the section between the cul-de-sac and Lake Lucy Road was being realigned to maybe vacate it... Headla: Paul, do you know? Paul Palmer: Yes, in fact I was just looking at the map. Basically, this area will be vacated from Palmer Court down to where Whitedove Drive comes in from Pheasant Hills. The rest of Lake Lucy Road will be vacated so when they vacate this I imagine what they'll probably do is, will they do some road grading there and probably push the road and say eliminate one ditch there to the north so that you now just have a ditch on the south side. e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 39 e Now the natural flow would be on the south side of Lake Lucy Road which has a natural drainage. That drainage is already planned for I'm sure for Lake Lucy Highlands when they approved that, that drainage is going to stay there. Wherever that's going from there. Wayne Poppe: That rolls to me and goes across, it goes east, eventually south and it goes down to Rivkin to be a wetland. Paul Palmer: This area here from the road will drain south and then come this way out, this is a natural ditch here. That's right there right now. It would keep draining out this way then. This area, we would probably have to put culverts in here where the driveways would go across and around here. I'm not sure how this would drain around here, again with culverts. Then naturally come out to the south here so that it all ends up in probably in the same ditch is the end result on the south side of Lake Lucy, the vacated Lake Lucy Road. Headla: The reason I was addressing that is you've got six lots there plus a pipe or ditch and by building on it you're going to accelerate the run- off and maybe your neighbor to the south is the one who is going to catch all of it. I'm wondering are we going to create a problem for him or someone else in this immediate area? e Paul Palmer: The main reasoning behind the dike again was to hold back the water so we that we didn't have a major run-off. So we always had that natural fill and it could build up to the level of the pipe and then it would drain out so the pond is kind of a collection area and that collects to the north. This, all it will be is just the natural run-offs again going out the south the same way. Headla: But you're accelerating them once you build. Paul Palmer: Somewhat. Headla: You've got your driveways, you've got your lawns. Jo Ann, did anybody look at that? Olsen: Right. I forgot we had this transparency so what is happening is ~ this is the Waldrip's Pond that we're talking about. The large holding pond to the north. The drainage will be going south and will be going from the pheasant Hill development to the south. There is a large wetland in Lake Lucy Highlands and drainage will be directed to this wetland. Headla: Okay, so that isn't going to create a problem for another house? Olsen: No. The drainage is never allowed to run-off onto somebody elses property. e Headla: The pond where you have that dike, are they going to let it stay what a maximum of 9 or 10 feet? Is that it or how much water is going to Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 40 e be in that pond up above Lot 6? Olsen: I don't know on how much water is going to be held up there. I do not know of any grading for the berm and that would have to be looked at with the engineer. Headla: I guess I have no feel for how much water is in there? Olsen: It is a drainage area for a large area but I'm sure there is no danger there. Headla: Do you have a solution if you should use a ditch or a pipe? I thought Paul wanted some type of ditch along the east side of Lot 6. Paul Palmer: I would prefer that. It's less costly. Headla: Is there a problemt here Jo Ann? You suggested a pipe and Paul thought maybe a ditch could be put in there. Olsen: Again, the engineer felt that an underground discharge pipe would be best. They also will be requiring an overland drainage in addition to that to prevent it from gathering the natural drainageway on Lot 6. Headla: Is it a major problem putting in the pipe? e Paul Palmer: It just digs in the old pocket. Headla: The on the north. all the way. top isn't it? other one then is I guess I really don't care for the driveway I would like to see those houses coming on the cul-de-sac Putting a driveway out on Galpin Blvd., it's almost at the Paul Palmer: It's approximately 115 feet from the crest of the hill to the center of the driveway. Headla: Does that create a real hardship for you if that was blocked off? Paul Palmer: The hardship that I see there is the entrances. Those are going to be some very steep driveways. That's the hardship. What I would be willing to do is cut it down to one access and we can bring the other one in from the south. Lot 3 can come in, there's a milder slope there and that could come in from the south. Lot 4 is fairly steep so it was hoped that that could come in from the north. wildermuth: variances. I guess I have no problems with this. It doesn't require any If the conditions are met and approval is recommended by Staff. Emmings: I take it that restriction 2 that says there shall be only one access from the site onto to Galpin Blvd. means what's down here as Lake Lucy Road, that's it. There isn't going to be any driveway up there to the north or if they want to have one, they're going to have to go to the e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 41 e County and get another permit and the County doesn't want anymore accesses than necessary. Olsen: When the townhome proposal came up, they looked at that, the access from the north and they did approve it but they would prefer the one access. Emmings: The pipe that runs down the east side of the lot, I have no idea what that pipe is doing. Maybe I just missed it. Olsen: It's just for the overflow of the... Emmings: Of the pond up there to the north so is that going to maintain the level of that pond to the north? Is the intake to that pipe going to determine the maximum holding capacity of that pond to the north? Paul Palmer: The other side of the dike it does. Emmings: So there is already water that runs over there and you're just going to stick in a pipe and put it down to the road? Oh, okay. e Paul Palmer: That's why a ditch could, the only time that the pipe or the ditch is used is when the pond fills up to that level and it has to drain out. Right now if you went out there, there is maybe 3 to 4 inches of water in the pond. There just isn't any. Of course, you know what kind of year we've had too. Emmings: The north line on this parcel that we see, the dark line that's on the north end of your lots, is that where your property ends? Paul Palmer: Yes. Emmings: Okay, that looks to be right in the middle of the dike. Who does that dike belong to? Paul Palmer: The dike is mutually owned by myself and Properties Three which owns the apartment building and I know them and we've talked and the dike doesn't mean anything to them nor does the pond. It's an apartment building up there and they own it for one reason, profit. It's nothing really to them. Emmings: Does the City have any interest in that, especially if a house is going to be built underneath it in making sure that that dike is sufficient to hold back whatever maximum water can be in that pond? Olsen: It's met all the specifications for the drainage pipe for the area so I'm sure... e Emmings: But has someone from the City actually looked at that and said, yes, that's sufficient to hold back that water? Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 42 e Olsen: I'm sure they have. Conrad: How do we know that? It really is an intriguing thought. We've got a pond up there and this dike is just earth to my knowledge and a little bit of water can move earth. Paul Palmer: It's huge. This dike is huge. Erhart: I've seen it. It looks real professionally done. The question I think it's leading to is, I don't see how you can go in and change it to be honest with you without having the engineer approve changes to it. Paul Palmer: Yes, we would have to work with Gary and make sure that he's comfortable with it and the contractor and everybody else. I'm not going to go in there and just send the bulldozers in there. This is going to be done in conjunction with the contractor and with Gary. It's just the idea that there is some natural earth there that could be used to fill in sorre of the area here if we need it. Wayne Poppe: Along that same line of questioning, I wonder if there has been contact made with Jeff of McCombs-Knutson who is in charge of the whole Lake Lucy Road project? When I talked to him 4 weeks ago, I don't think he had any knowledge of this. e Olsen: If this is approved, we will be talking with him. Wayne Poppe: The drainage is crucial to the Lake Lucy project and I can't imagine that it can be approved prior to Jeff knowing about this project and about this road which to his knowledge didn't exist. Olsen: He will be aware of it and will be involved. Wayne Poppe: Will he be aware of it before or after is my question? Paul Palmer: But the bottom line comes down to him, he doesn't have to do as much work anymore. Wayne Poppe: He has to worry about this dike now. Paul Palmer: He isn't handling the dike. The dike thing is nothing. We probably don't need the land from the dike. I'm just saying that that is a source of potential fill that we have. When Norex does the contract, they will have excess fill and they are looking at Lot 6 for that excess fill. We have some dirt from the place where we put the house from Lot 5 also so we'll have earth to fill in Lot 6. Dacy: To answer your question about Mr. Rouse's involvement in the Lake Lucy Road project, the City Engineer is responsible for reviewing all development applications such as this one and is responsible for coordinating all improvement projects. McCombs-Knutson is the city's consulting engineer on the Lake Lucy Road project. However, with the sewer e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 43 e extension in front of Mr. palmer's property, that is being contracted to Bill Engelhardt and Associates. Mr. Warren has coordinated efforts between those two consulting engineers. He is responsible for reviewing those and coordinating those two plans. There are specific questions about engineering items that unfortunately the Planning Staff can't specifically address but you have the engineer's report in your packet. They have stipulated specific sets of recommendations to accomplish a sound storm water management program. Mr. Palmer has suggested some items tonight about the dike and so on, that can be further investigated between the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting. The City is taking every action to coordinate all of these projects at once. Erhart: What's a rural street? In here we're proposing ditches and asphalt pavement? When you say you're proposing a rural street here instead of an urban street, that means it's still going to be asphalt on the cul-de-sac? Olsen: Yes. Erhart: What are we being asked to approve here? Is it Alternative #1 or Alternative #2 or both or neither? Olsen: Alternative #2 but not with the flag lots. e Erhart: We're basically being asked to approve without any flags whatsoever? Okay. Conrad: houses. Paul, you said you were encouraging contractors to develop solar How were you doing that? Paul Palmer: I'm a real estate broker. Conrad: And what would you ask them to do? Paul Palmer: Just in the design. We are going to have Covenants and Restrictions on these lots. We want to make sure that we don't end up with some cheaper homes in there. We're looking at a minimum of 1,500 square feet, minimum square footage per floor, minimum $139,000.00 for the house in value without the lot so we're going to end up with some very nice homes and the hope is that we'll end up with some architectural designs and passive solar design homes that fit into the land use. Conrad: When this land was originally thought to hold five houses, as part of the overall Waldrip's 2nd Addition, right now the request is for six. Back in time, I know the Planning Commission went up to eight because we did like the clustered which was different than the neighbors. Did we allow more development on the other part of Waldrip's than we might have? I guess what I'm asking is what was the rationale for the five lots and are we required to go from the five to six as the applicant is asking? 4It Olsen: The rationale is just single family throughout that development... ,Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 44 e Conrad: Sometimes you'll allow 20 units in one part of the development and assuming that when the outlot gets developed that you're going to restrict it so the overi'\ll density of the whole addition will be such and such and you make concessions here and there. Later on, when somebody starts to develop that property, all of you have forgotten what kind of negotiations you did on the balance of the property and I was just bringing up a point, were there any concerns when we put whatever the number of units were for the balance of the property? Olsen: We looked at the overall density and the addition is minimal to the overall densi ty. Paul Palmer: I can answer a little bit of that. The overall project was originally approved for four lots along Galpin Blvd. as double home lots, double density. Off of Melody Hill Circle and off of Moline Circle. Conrad: That's where we got the eight townhouses. Paul Palmer: When I took over the project and I took it over and got the thing going, I decided that double homes was not the best use of the land and went in and started the single family homes and that has carried through for the whole project. We have since signed Covenants and Restrictions on those lots. The double lots can no longer be built as double home lots and will be built as single family residences. What we've done to the north is downgrade the actual density of those lots so they fit with the quality of the neighborhood. e Conrad: I do like the Staff recommendation that's in our packet with the Lake Lucy cul-de-sac. I don't like the flag accesses. I think that goes against a lot of things the neighbors have been talking about for a while. I would hope we could structure access from Lake Lucy Road even though there are steep inclines for access to housing. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the final plan amendment and preliminary plat for six single family lots on Outlot B of Waldrip's Second Addition (Alternate #2) with the following conditions: 1. Palmer Court cul-de-sac shall be extended to Lots 5 and 6 and shall be constructed to a rural section. 2. There shall only be one access from the site onto Galpin Blvd.. 3. The applicant shall be assessed the difference in cost between a 16 foot wide bituminous drive and a rural street section. 4. Provide for piping of the discharge from Waldrip's Pond across Lot 6 to Lake Lucy Road. e 5. Grading of Lot 6 to accommodate surface overflow from Waldrip's Pond and provision of a drainage easement consistent with this Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 45 e overland flow. 6. The developer be required to petition the City for the inclusion of watermain and roadway improvements as a part of the existing West 65th Street/Crestview Drive sewer project. 7. The developer enter into a developer's agreement with the City to guarantee the completion of these improvements and acknowledges acceptance of the special assessments. 8. Submittal of a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan, especially as it relates to fill and storm sewer construction on Lot 6. All voted in favor and motion carried. Review Transportation Section of Comprehensive Plan. e Mark Koegler: I'm hesitant to say this but I think I genuinely have a very brief item for your agenda. What we kind of have is an appetizer, if you will, with the main course being two weeks from now. It is our intent at that time to come back with a substantial amount of material on the transportation section of the plan and hope at that time we will have adequate time for a review session but as a part of the course for getting to that point, what we want to do tonight is just take a few minutes of your time and ask for a couple things. One is essentialy kind of a reiteration if you will of the work that was done as a part of the broaden study area that was done by Benshoof and Associates along with Fred and Brower. Take a look at the functional classifications specifically that were called out of that report and just for my benefit, make sure you are in concurence with those and then take a very brief look at the areas outside of the broaden study area and the direction we seem to be heading as of today. Erhart: We don't have your map. Koegler: Correct. This is a work kind of copy for right now. Let me talk my way through that one. You do have hopefully the broaden study area portion. I think you are generally familiar with that anyway. There are actually two geographic areas. The one area the report did not cover was the Lake Minnewashta area and specifically the west side of that. In the past Comprehensive Plan and most of the jurisdictional plans that have really come along in the last 10 years or so, Lake Minnewashta Parkway has consistently been shown as a collector. Our thinking right now is that it will continue to contain that classification. I'm going to run through these and stop me at any point or interject any comments that you like. Moving then down into the southern part of the community, TH 212 essentially became the dividing line last time. Where the broaden study area stops and where something else continues. We're not to the point of continuing. Looking at, I trust you're generally familiar from the broaden - Planning Commission Meeting February II, 1987 - Page 46 e study area with what Eden prairie is doing. East in Eden prairie off of Th 169, TH 212 area there, Anderson Lakes Parkway begins to meander it's way westward. That hooks up with Scenic Heights Drive. The City's ultimate plan is to continue to Scenic Heights Drive over to Dell Road. Beyond Dell Road, which you know comes over essentially in the border area between the two cities, they are proposing it's connection to Scenic Heights Drive into Lake Riley Blvd.. Their classification on that facility is a collector. The classification as you can see on the map you have in front of you that came out of the broaden study area for Lyman Blvd., then it goes on over into Lake Riley Blvd. is also a collector. It makes sense for that piece obviously to tie in with both of those designations. That's the direction that one is headed. There has been considerable discussion on TH 101 and the classification of that. Jurisdictional concerns that are there. Again, consistent with that report, our thinking right now is that TH 101 would be designated as a minor arterial. The one thing that perhaps will enter into that and hopefully we'll have more information on even by the next time we meet, there was an amendment to the broaden study area contract which took a look at the impact of removing the TH 212 and Dell Road intersection and possibly including TH 101 in the assessments. Specifically what that would do to CR 4 in Eden Prairie. That report has been pulled together. I believe it has been submitted, at least in preliminary form to the City of Eden prairie for review. By and large the findings in the report are that there is no major significant impact on CR 4. That means that Eden prairie is willing to step back and say we would like to argue that Dell Road needs a long term interchange with TH 212 but maybe that doesn't have to occur in the first planning phase. That remains to be seen. The concern is, I think it was brought out in that report, under Metropolitan Council criteria, intersection points basically have to line up with minor arterials or higher designations of roadways. If there is no intersection point there on TH 101, we may look over to an extensin of CR 17 to see what that would have in terms of impacting the southern part of the city. Right now, our argument is that it's reasonable to consider TH 101 as a minor arterial. e Conrad: May I interrupt you for a moment? Briefly educate me. Why do I care if something is a collector, minor, major? What change will that bring about by designating it one way or another? Koegler: I think you're generally aware that we're talking a heirarchy essentially and as you continue to move up the scale, you have continually tigher demand criteria for design. You have different speed limits. You have different capacities for roadways that essentially go on up. I think probably what's the most important element is that there are jurisdictional concerns that go with each of those. A minor arterial typically is maintained or controlled by either the County or the State. Anything that is a collector is likely to be controlled by the City and some cases possibly by the County so we're talking about who builds the road and maintains the road. Which entity is it a component of their system? I think that's probably the major factor. Particularly in light that in the future, we're talking south TH 212 and improving circulation in a north/south configuration, we're talking about road improvements regardless - Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 47 e of what it is. Whether it's TH 101 or CR 17 or something else. You'll note that this particular scheme, I hope you can see on the monitors, does not show the southerly extension of CR 17. We've taken a fairly close look at that and there are so many obstacles there right not that we're arguing that TH 101 is probably the better route. Given the golf course, the Hesse Farm and particularly the grades corning down through Bluff Creek itself, it just simply is very, very expensive to do. Other components that we're looking at right now, pioneer Trail as it meanders across, which is Carver County Road 14, that is being designated as well as a minor arterial. That's consistent with the classifications of both the City of Chaska and the City of Eden prairie have place dupon that roadway. That makes sense for a variety of reasons. Old TH 169, TH 212 down along the south and this southerly leg down in Shakopee, hopefully in time, after the construction of TH 212 will become minor arterial status with the major arterial shifting to the new roadway. Primary movement shifting to the new roadway. Bluff Creek Drive, corning down through in previous plans within this City, has been shown as a collector. Certainly it would seem that that is a logical function for that route to continue and fill. Finally, dashed on here is perhaps one of MnDot's wish lists at best and that's the future extension of TH 41 as it begins to corne south. That is not a component of their long range plans anymore. That is so far out at this point in time that it's not even really being discussed. I think you're familiar probably with the updates on the timing on TH 212. Their hope right now is that by 1992 they will be letting the first contract, which will be the segment from prairie Center Drive to CR 4 in Eden Prairie. Approximately 2 years later they anticipate letting a contract from CR 4 over to TH 41 so that would be the Chanhassen leg so we're into about the mid 90's. e Erhart: The dotted line, you said that was TH 41? Koegler: Yes, the Carver County plan, these two boards are the Carver County transportation plan. One was their 1990 plan. One was their 2,000 plan. This is still in effect. There has been for some time a proposal for a study for a new alignment of TH 41 in a new river crossing. As a part of an earlier review along the entire Minnesota River Corridor, there was a prioritization that occurred and CR 18 seems to have corne out the winner, if you want to call it a winner. CR 18 is probably the place where the next major river crossing will occur. What happens specifically with TH 41 on really both sides of the river here, there are some natural obstacles. There are some grade situations and the bridge crossing was extremely expensive. I think that was probably one of the reasons that it has fallen out of the program for right now. MnDot's taking a more reasonable look at what they can accomplish. Erhart: You use the word we are. We are doing this and we're doing that. Who is we again? Koegler: We is the generic we of the effort that we're going through right now with the Comprehensive Plan so it would be our firm specifically in terms of the recommendations that we're putting together. e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 48 e Erhart: Isn't there two groups though? Isn't there a group that is sort of dealing with this freeway and sort of representing Chanhassen to MnDot? Is that a different we? Koegler: That's a different we. Dacy: is... There's a coalition on TH 212 Corridor and TH 5 but your concern Erhart: I was up here at a meeting a week ago and saw some plans that showed TH 1131 had access and I saw another one that had CR 17 with access and it showed CR 17 going all the way down and now all of a sudden I'm hearing we're not going to do that and I'm wondering if this is the same we that I heard two weeks ago? Dacy: The TH 1131 interchange and TH 212 interchange at CR 17 came on the broaden study area. Fred coordinated that effort and went through the whole presentation and so on based on the data from that study. We're working with Mark also to incorporate this with the Comp Plan. Erhart: Who is going to make the decision on what gets into this Comp Plan? Koegler: The Planning Commission will make the recommendation to the 4It Council as to what goes into the Comprehensive Plan. Dacy: You'll have public hearings on the chapters of the Comp Plan. Erhart: Even ones we've already gone through. Dacy: Yes. This is all going to be coming back. Erhart: You're getting into some pretty good questions. What are we going to do with TH l!3l? You're talking about issues that I don't even fully understand yet and that is who is responsible for TH l!31? Every time I ask what we do on TH 1131 and I hear we're not sure who controls TH 1131. Dacy: ~nd that's part of the review session two weeks from now. Koegler: We're going to get into that more definitively as we get into that topic deeper. Tonight we just simply wanted to give you some idea of the direction we're headed so if you had any problems. Your point though is well taken. There are lots of players when it comes to the transportation issue. We are not duplicating the work that Fred and Jim Benshoof and everybody else did. We're taking that and plugging that into a component of the Comprehensive Plan. It's you though that sorts that out and decides what you ultimately want to recommend to the Council. e Erhart: Okay so at some point in this process you will sort of give us a little background on who owns TH l!3l? Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 49 - Koegler: Sure. I can try to. We will include that in the next session. Erhart: They had a meeting here on TH 212, did we cover on basically what, you covered TH 5. Would you give the other commission members a little background on what was discussed? Dacy: I was going to do that at the end of the meeting. Review Downtown Redevelopment/TIF Plan. Dacy: As the cover memo explains, the HRA has undertaken a fresh look at the downtown redevelopment project and there have been a number of concepts that have changed in the last two year period. The intent of this amendment to the original plan is to update the original plan and list the new concepts that the HRA is considering. Maintaining the existing West 78th Street, authorizing intrastructure improvements, working with CHADDA on potential redevelopment efforts. The other part of that, the second portion is the tax increment plan which updates information that was originally done with the original plan so Fred is our project manager for the Downtown Redevelopment Project under contract with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. He worked in conjunction with Ron Beatty from LeFevere, Lefler and Kennedy and State law requires that the Planning Commission has to review the redevelopment plan portion so Fred is here to 4It review that and to answer any questions. Conrad: I take it what we have here is the plan in total? Not just the amended sections. This is the total plan? Dacy: Right. We still adopt the original goal and objective statements in some of the original plans but in essence this updates everything. Conrad: So Fred tonight, is our purpose to go through all of it or to tell us what has changed? Fred Hoisington: As little as I can. For the most part, what we tried to do was to create a paper trail. The City of Chanhassen is pre 1979 tax increment district and you're one of the most favored tax increment districts in the State of Minnesota. We have one of the best the legislature knows very well, you have one of the most lucrative tax increment districts and you are referred to frequently as a city that is an example of what they don't want to see happen anymore in the tax increment districts in the State. The reason is that it is very large and you are generating increments from the entire district to use freely throughout that district and had you not been created prior to 1979, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing today. Emmings: Which is what? This is really going right past me. e Erhart: The word district you're referring to what? The geographies? Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 50 e Fred Hoisington: Yes. Tax increment district is everything within this boundary. It was created in two separate actions of the City of Chanhassen. The first part of the district was created here and that was done in 1977 or 1978. The second part of the district was added here a year later. What happens in a tax increment district is that you generate, you have frozen the values on properties back at the time the district was created and the increase in taxes that has occurred since that time, you can take and use for redevelopment purposes within this geographic area. Conrad: If you freeze the value, how do you increase the tax? Fred Hoisington: What you're doing is freezing the tax or what you take off the district at a certain level. I shouldn't say that. That's a term that is commonly used but you're really not doing that. It continues to grow and you're generating more and more taxes off that district over time but the amount of take by the City, by the School District, by the County and any other tax organization is frozen. Anything that occurs over and above that level as of that date can be plugged back in and used for redevelopment purposes for development improvements. Erhart: Who gets that cream? Fred Hoisington: The City. The City as a matter of fact gets to use even the school districts portion and the County's portion of that money and that's one of the reasons that the school districts and counties don't care a whole lot for tax increment districts. e Emmings: Dispite the fact that it was created in two pieces, I take it tha t money tha tis genera ted down in the 2nd phase of it can be used in the 1st phase? Fred Hoisington: Absolutely. Anywhere. It can be used anyplace within the project area and one of the reasons that this area was added was because obvious it can generate a lot of increments from this area and you're doing that and that's one of the reasons that it is so important that this district remain intact as it existed prior to 1979. Headla: What would change it? You say it's important for it to remain intact. Fred HOlsington: If we threw all of the documentation that occurred or has been prepared in the past and started over with a new plan, you kiss the district good-bye. It doesn't exist anymore and you can't generate the increments off of this district. Headla: We can't do anything right now to change it. Fred Hoisington: You don't want to do anything to change it. In essence, what we've done is tried to protect the integrity of the district by keeping all the stuff that was originally created in 1977 and 1978 intact and refer to it. So the first part of the document deals a great deal with - Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 51 e history. what it says is you have a redevelopment plan and tax increment plan th~t was adopted at that point. You have had six modifications of that plan and we refer to all of those in the front part of this thing so what you're looking at in this document is an amended or a plan amendment so it still has to refer back to all of that paper that has been created in the past but this one, the one you're looking at now, will take the place of the orange one. Ladd knows what that is. The orange one is the March, 1980 amendment. That's going to be gone when this plan is adopted. Parts of everything else that were adopted over time will remain intact. Parts of those will be repealed because they will be in conflict and that's why we refer to that in this document so that gives you a little bit of history of what we're trying to achieve here and what we're trying to maintain the integrity of here as well. One thing that is changing is that we're going to add some area to the empowering district or to the project area. If you can remember that the tax increment can only be generated within the tax increment district itself. In other words, that frozen level of any excess taxes that the City can use, can only come from within the tax increment district but you can spend them anyplace within the empowering district so up until recently, the empowering district and the tax increment district were one and the same. Now we're suggesting that there be an addition to that empowering district for the project area so you can spend some of the dollars that are taken off this district within that area. The reason is because TH 101 is a project that the broaden study area and so forth and that you're dealing with currently may need some dollars at some point in time for improvements. As we can talk for a long time about the problems with TH 101. Temporary State Trunk Highway which means that while the State technically has jurisdiction, it can't spend any money without going to legislature on that highway other than for very minimal improvements. So we'r~ going to slightly expand the district or recommending that it slightly be expanded so that some of the dollars from within the tax increment district can be spent in that additional part of the project area. The plan itself is not a great deal different than anything you've seen in the past. Ladd has seen it many times as a matter of fact. Bob has seen it many times. All of the plan that exists south of TH 5 is almost exactly as it exists in the current Comprehensive Plan. There are some changes. Things that have occurred in the platting process in the past couple of years like Lake Drive which has a slightly different alignment but the idea for Lake Drive is to provide a parallel local route to TH 5 so that local traffic doesn't have to use TH 5 anymore than necessary. Everything else remains pretty much intact. All the industrial with the contiguation of the Park and Recreation open space linkage through that area. On the north side, the multi-family, the browns are multi-family, are what you already have in the Comp Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. These are supposed to be pink, these are all commercial areas that are shown here in your Comp Plan and the city's Zoning Ordinance and the Central Business District is of course the area that we've been spending most of our time in this redevelopment process because that's where all the redevelopment occurs is within that district. The only things that are probably different but that you have seen before will be the new alignment for Great Plains Blvd. with West 78th Street "T"ing into tha t and then a new connect i on to TH 5 and tha t would i nc 1 ude a ra i 1 road e e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 52 e crossing. So rather minimal changes. Certainly nothing surprising. It's all stuff that you've seen before. What we try to do is incorporate with this document the objectives that were established in 1985 when we went through the process of relooking at a redevelopment plan for the downtown area and we have simply included those. Some new descriptions of what's happening there. The one part of the document that you now have that proably represents the most significant changes is taken from the plan itself. The redevelopment plan isn't surprisingly different than anything you've seen with the tax increment plan. It's a very technical kind of document that deals really with the use of tax increments for several different purposes. One is to build the intrastructure necessary to support redevelopment downtown. Another is to use some of the tax increments for special assessment reductions which already is being done by the City of Chanhassen and that's what makes this district such a good one. what it does is it generates, stimulates it's own development and the things that you have been seeing in this business park as such, have occurred in part substantially because of the special assessment reduction program which will now be extended not only within this area but also within the downtown area. With that Ladd I guess we can just open to questions. Conrad: This is really just for our information. We are not here to make recommendations. What is it? e Fred Hoisington: Let me say that this document and the land use and transportation systems that are in it, they should reflect the policy of the City but they do not establish or set the policy of the City with regard to either transportation or land use. You do that and you do that with the Comprehensive Plan. What this document does is to establish the context and so forth for redevelopment and how you make things happen to stimulate and make redevelopment occur. To the extent that the Planning Commission wishes to be consistent, which we hope you are when it comes to adopting the Comprehensive Plan, this is probably going to have to live with inconsistency that comes back to you to disagree with but it's more for informational purposes at this point and we would like you to tell us if you think there are some things that you don't believe will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when it's drafted. Headla: Can you go over again why you need the road running parallel to TH 5? Fred Hoisington: Yes. Whenever you have a highway such as TH 5 and TH 5 as we all know is disastrous today, carrying 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day, 24,000, 25,000... Conrad: Both ways? Fred Hoisington: Both ways. You can't really afford to put local traffic on that although some local traffic uses it in any case so what you try to do is create parallel routes so that local traffic doesn't have to use it when it's simply going from someplace over here to somplace over here, we e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 53 e don't want it out here. What the City has done for a long time is proposed Lake Drive East on the south side of TH 5 would be the connection between TH un and CR 17 and the most part of West 78th Street serves that same function on the north side so what you have is sort of a loop system that goes all the way around and allows people to maneuver within the area without having to go out to TH 5. Headla: Would the tax funds be used for that improvement? Fred Hoisington: Tax increment dollars can be used for public improvements of that nature, yes. Headla: In just that area? Fred Hoisington: Well, they can be used within the entire tax increment district but only within that district is correct. Siegel: Fred, does that apply also to municipal improvements like the storm sewer and sanitary sewer? What is the repercussion now that we've had with this proposed storm sewer assessment for the downtown area? Fred Hoisington: The storm sewer improvement has been very well received by the downtown business people. It has not been received well by the residents to the north and the City Council at it's last meeting dropped, as I understand it, are dropping that from the assessment roll so the residents will not be assessed. e Siegel: Then does the businesses that will developed in the downtown are they going to be picking up a share of the costs for the storm sewer and sanitary sewer or is it going to come from the tax increment? Fred Hoisington: In the last part of the document, in essence what it does, the improvement will be made. The costs of the improvements, a portion of them will be covered by tax increment up front and the other portion will be by special assessment so there is some split initially in that case for repayment of that amount. On the other hand, tax increment will be used to provide people who are adding value to their properties downtown. Let's say the Dinner Theater which has added a lot of value over the years to their property. Will that be able to get some compensation for improvements that they have already made and will make in the future towards paying those special assessments? So there will be people that can conceivably go into downtown, do a redevelopment kind of thing that would pay none of the special assessments because their own properties are generating enough increments to pay those special assessments off. On first impression about 50-50. It's not quite that. It would be tax increment of special assessments. In the longer haul, more of it would be paid by tax increment. Siegel: Does that vary from property owner to property owner? e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 55 e Fred Hoisington: Depending on how much they can get? amount of value they put into their property. Sure. Based on the Siegel: But I mean their rate, not the amount. Fred Hoisington: Are you talking about the rate of the specials? Siegel: The rate they would end up paying or not paying would be based on a formula? Fred Hoisington: The specials are based on a formula initially then yes, there is a formula in that document that talks about the special assessment reduction program as well. Everyone will be treated equitably. It will be clearly a questions of how much value they add to the district by making improvements to their property. It is complicated. There's no question about that. The only person that I know of that knows just about everything there is to know about this district is sitting right back here behind me. If you have a real tough question, he'll help me answer that. Conrad: Just for the heck of it can you explain Table 1 on page 36 to me so I know what that means. The tax increments attributable to various taxing jurisdictions. Just for my own information as to what it means. Fred Hoisington: The first column are the mils that are accountable to 4It each level of government. Percentages obviously. Conrad: taxes? It's a mil rate in general? It's a general mil rate for all Fred Hoisington: That's correct. 128 is the total levied and that is simply divided using school district gets the biggest share of that. To say that there is an estimated tax loss, we're really only saying that because the law requires that to be said. If the improvements were not made, if the additional development was not stimulated by what's being proposed downtown, supposedly that development would not occur and therefore there would be no loss but in essence what it's saying is that you have that amount that would normally be attributable from let's sayan office building we build downtown and each of the jurisdictions would get x amount of money and the only way you can get that is to use tax increments to get it, that's what this is saying, that there would be a loss. If it didn't require tax increments to make it happen but it does. You won't get some of things to occur unless you provide some incentives. Conrad: So this on a tax year, this loss? Fred Hoisington: That's correct. Siegel: end? e Fred Hoisington: No, it terminates in the year 210109. Is this tax increment district on-going forever or when does it Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 56 e Siegel: And that's when all the taxes will go up in Chanhassen. Fred Hoisington: No, they'll go down before that Bob because this says in essence, legally that's when the district ends. It doesn't mean that it can't end before that and it will most likely end before that. Siegel: What ends it? Fred Hoisington: When the debt is retired in it's entirity and when there appears to be no more reason to retain the district and generate increments for public improvements from the district. It could end in 10 years. It just depends on the amount of development that occurs over the next several years. Siegel: That would be pretty fast compared to what we've seen so far. e Fred Hoisington: If you look at what's happening in some of the tax increment districts. Eden prairie is one of the ones that has been given the worse name over the years because they used tax increments to build roads. Originally they were going to build a redevelopment district in 22 years, or tax increments in 22 years. Because of Bob Cooley, which you may remember sued the City because they didn't think cornfield redevelopment was an appropriate use of tax increment dollars and he was exactly right. They pulled it back to an economic development district and generated increments for 8 years instead of 22 and they will pay the district off probably in 6 or 7 total years from the time the district first began generating dollars. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the same thing happen here. You have some really good things going for you so it won't go to the year 2009 unless there is a very good reason and additional public improvements are required. Conrad: about. I don't see any inconsistencies with what we've been talking You've got what we've been saying. Staff agrees right? Dacy: You bet. Conrad: No surprises. You combed through all the numbers and you're our security. Erhart: Fred, basically your document here says that you expect this whole thing to be done in two years? Fred Hoisington: All the construction will occur within two years. Erhart: Is the probability of that really happening is high? Fred Hoisington: The first projects this year are well underway and we expect to start construction the first of June. The second stage for improvements are much smaller and if everything goes well, and we expect they will, they will occur in 1989 so I would say there is a very high probability that all those will be done. e Planniog Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 57 e Erhart: What could stop them? Don Ashworth: Legislature significantly changing tax increment law. Fred Hoisington: Which we were afraid would happen in this session and it doesn't appear is going to happen. Don Ashworth: The monies to make this occur really are already there when development has already begun. This district can cash itself out in 1993 and 1994. All improvements that are proposed, the project area will be totally debt free by 1993, 1994. I would hope that the district would cease at that time. Erhart: This has nothing to do with attracting businesses to respond at this point. If all of a sudden you can't get a hotel for that one intersection, that's not going to blow the plan? Fred Hoisington: No. Conrad: Okay, thanks Fred. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: e Siegel moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 14, 1987 as amended on pages 6 and 14. All voted in favor except Erhart who abstained and motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION: Dacy: The weather is really nice obviously and we continue to get a number of development applications. The next meeting on the 25th we have at least five items and we really anticipate that this is going to continue through this spring and into this summer. We have one instance that I talked to Ladd about earlier late last week. It's a preliminary plat across from Chan Vista. It's called the Saddlebrook Development between Powers and Kerber Blvd.. We had them on tonight's agenda but we wanted some more information so we postponed them until the 25th. However, the developer is out of state and can't make it to that meeting. Then we were going to push it up to the regular March meeting of March 11th but that would delay the developer into April Council approval and Staff honestly feels that that is pushing the development off too far. We don't like to come here anymore than you guys do I guess on a special meeting but would the commission be open to scheduling a special meeting on March 4th so that you would have the 25th, the 4th and 11th. Conrad: That would be the only item? Dacy: We really need to get going on that transportation chapter and I hate to be talking about something like that at 11:00 at night so we could schedule Mark on that evening and really devote some time to it because of all th~ chapters that he does, that is the most important. You're going to e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 58 e get the most comments on the elements of that chapter. It's three weeks in a row and the 25th and the 11th are going to be crowded. Conrad: I guess what I feel, and we should just see if we have that night open, typically I don't like to do that. At special meetings you find you feel like when you've come here every week, you really do think you've been here like Staff has been here and therefore, when we have a special meeting I would rather make it brief so it doesn't seem like we've really been here that much. Come in, react to one issue, the special one. That's what my preference would be unless you guys want to spend some time. I think Barbara's got a point. To move some other things here that would give us more time to react to some issues but generally, I don't mind having a special meeting if we can open it up for everybody's calendar but keep it brief. Erhart: I don't mind special meetings but I'm in Portland that day and I really want to be here on the transportation issue so any other day. Conrad: So you can't make it on the 4th? Erhart: I'm out that week. Emmings: I'm okay. e Siegel: I would just as soon try to kill more than one bird with one stone as long as we're taking an evening here out. As long as we don't have to wait until 11:00 to get Mark on the agenda and if we can get through, say set a closing time of 10:00 for whatever you schedule instead of letting things run on and on and on to get out of here at a specified time and set it before hand so that when 10:00 comes, Mark is off the podium or whatever, we close discussion and leave. Conrad: Tim is saying he would like to be here for that one and he can't make it. Erhart: Can you move something else to that week as opposed to that? Conrad: Okay, ...,;0 Let's consider that. Let's talk and see what we come up with. the 4th we'll meet and react to the special deal. Dacy: Jo Ann presented the Planning Commission goals issue to the City Council on Monday night and came back with three things. The first one is to involve the Planning Commission in the TH 212 Corridor process which will be going on again during the spring and summer because you're heading toward adopting an official map. The second comment was for the Planning Commission to evaluate the need for additional industrial land after our existing stock is developed. We did look at that during the Zoning Ord i nance process bu t we can go back when we br i ng back the Land Use Chapter to the Comp Plan. The third idea, as far as the publicity was to have to have the Commission use the Chamber Post as another vehicle to do articles. Supposedly they've gotten a good reaction from the Post as it e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 59 e goes to 3,900 households and businesses. Conrad: That was their recommendation? That we do what? I guess I throw it back in the Staff's lap and ask how are we going to use it? Dacy: Stuff like to announce special meetings when we meet on the TH 212 Corridor. Conrad: The problem with the Post, it's great to get communication out, you just don't know when it's going to go out. There is no guarantee that it ever gets out on time and it can be off by 3 or 4 weeks so we have to be 3 months in advance with notification to really get that kind of stuff out. I think it's a good way to get information out but it's not predictable. Erhart: Are they saying to use it in addition to South Shore News right? Emmings: We don't put notices anywhere. Who decides where notices go? You guys do that so there's nothing for us to do on that. Dacy: I think it's every other week or something that South Shore Weekly News has a Chanhassen page and we can easily submit Planning Commission to review major transportation study. e Emmings: Instead of just sending it to the South Shore News, you'll also send it to the Post. Conrad. Do we have a City newsletter anymore? Dacy: That's part of the vehicle for the South Shore Weekly News is that we get our own page or two pages. Conrad: So we don't have a direct mail newsletter anymore? Dacy: No, the Council thought that was a little expensive. The third thing was Council's action on Monday. Conrad: Did they approve our nominations for Planning Commission. President, Vice President, etc.. Dacy: They don't review that. The fourth thing is Ladd and I met earlier this week with Tim about some of the rural policy issues that are coming up and Ladd asked for a little bit more information about the Park. The Park and Rec Commission will be creating a park in the rural area based on all the applications we've had for rural subdivisions. They met last night and decided to accept fees on some of these applications until they get a better feel for how the phasing occurs on some of those developments. The Halla property, which you haven't seen yet, is supposed to be phased over a number of years. Some of the land prices that they're asking are tremendous so we really don't have the financial resources at this time to go in and start talking about park... e Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 60 e Conrad: We should put this on an agenda sometime so that we can bring the rest of the folks up as to what we're looking at. Is there anything that we need to react to right now for direction other than putting it on the agenda? We do need to know what the Park and Rec is going to do in terms of that and you've kind of updated us but I think we need to get everybody else up to speed when we've got some time. Why don't we talk about this when Tim's out of town on the 4th? How is our next meeting? That's booked. Dacy: Yes, it's going to continue. Olsen: The Gagne property is coming back. Emmings: Will that be coming in under the old Ordinance? When will we have a new Ordinance? Dacy: It should be, not next week but the week after that. Emmings: And any application received after that date, it will still be a couple weeks. e Dacy: I heard Mr. Michals say that we have to publish that Ordinance. The rural lot applications are the only ones that are going to be affected. Because of the specific requirements made for the rural lots on the subdivisions. Our City Attorney has said that nobody has infested rights until they get those permits and by that time, the new Ordinance will be in effect so his contention is walk them througti. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e