1987 05 27
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
e MAY 27, 1987
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska,
James Wildermuth and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Siegel
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TENNIS COURT FENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2,
AGRICULTURAL~TATE AND LOCATED AT 10360 HEIDI LANE, PATRICK PRENDERGAST.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the Conditional Use Permit.
Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Noziska moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
~approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the 10 foot high tennis court
fence as shown on the site plan dated May 14, 1987. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERM!! FOR A PRIVATE STABLE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 3530 HIGHWAY LL DAVID OBEE.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Bill Schmid
3670 Highway 7, Excelsior
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
David Obee: What I've proposed is the entrance to the grounds here off of
TH 7. You can see the secluded area along the east side here. Here's
another view of it. Here's an entrance of another farm that's very close
tot his one. Some improvements would be made along these lines here. This
...is the back side of that same view. You can see that it's very secluded.
..,This is an old nursery. These grounds are what was called Nature's Way and
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 2
_
there are a lot of mature evergreens on the property that will be used to
fill in whatever areas are not secluded as shown on this picture here. The
clump of evergreens right here. This is a view of the entrance to the
stables that you can see if very, very secluded. You have to get right on
top of it before you can see the entrance even. This is the garage that I'm
talking about that Jo Ann had mentioned in the background. The very far
back of the lot. It does need some drastic improvement. If I decide to
hang onto it, I'm still getting estimates on that so I won't know for now.
The manure that would be accumulated in the stables would be hauled out by
one of three guys that I know. Rich Arso, Kenny Bicek or Lauren Bicek, all
of whom are farmers in Watertown. I own three pick-up trucks. It would be
no problem hauling it out as readily as it can be. These are the two pole
barns I'm thinking of putting up. This is the smaller one in the inset
here. This is the larger one in the outside area here. This is taken from
the southwest corner across TH 7 looking down from this corner here on the
survey where this part here on the aerial photo, standing here and looking
into here. It shows the very, very heavily dense evergreens that line the
south side and the west side that would not only prevent the view of the
pasture and the horses but also the smell from leaving that area when the
winds blow. This is the area along the home area in here. The fence that I
would be recommending would look somewhat like this or this. And the fence
I recommend along the heavy foliage area along the east/west and north side
would look more similar to the barbwire fence. One thing I do want to
mention, the farm that is just two doors down from me, merely about 200
_yards, he's got 3 horses and 2 1/2 acres. I'm proposing 2 horses on about 4
1/2 acres. It's quite a bit less than what the Ordinance recommends which is
10 as Jo Ann mentioned. There's nothing that I want to do that would be a
negative to the aesthetic or economic value of the property. That's about
all I've got to say I guess.
Bill Schmid: I own the property directly west of the piece Dave was talking
about. We have 10 acres there. A few years ago we were in here when the
gentleman on our west side wanted a stable and he has three horse now. I
realize there have been no negative letters sent to the Council yet or
anyone else, or Mr. Headla. I know one of his neighbors had talked to the
past council members on occasions and regardless of how nice those
evergreens are, we have the same evergreens on our border between ourself
and the gentleman on the west. It doens't stop odors. We get a lot of
odors from horses. I'm not against horses. We used to have horses when we
own the piece that Dave is looking at. I helped plant the evergreens around
it when I was about that high but I am 100% against it. Period. There's no
sense in getting in a big argument about Mr. Frizzell on the west side of
me. I've got them there, I don't want them on the east side. This 72
houses going in directly north of that, there is no evergreen hedge north of
that property. There is brush and oddball trees but there is no evergreen
hedge there. I don't know if that gentleman is here tonight but I'm sure
that would be some concern to him. My feeling is I don't want them and
I'll fight it all the way. If it comes down to he does get it, then maybe
I'm going to have to start thinking about, if he can put 10 horses on 4 1/2
~acres, we've got over 10, I sure as hell can put in a lot more than that and
_ I will do it. If we're going to stink up the neighborhood. That's the way
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 3
_
it is. It's becoming more and more people living there and less of a rural
area and I just don't need them on both sides of me.
Conrad: Primary concern is the smell?
Bill Schmid: That's mostly it, yes. Mr. Frizzell made a lot of promises.
One was to move the fence he's got 9 feet on my property. He never did
that. I've yet to see him haul any manure out. He was going to put it in
bunkers and treat it and everything. In talking to Mr. Wanous,his
neighbor, nobody has ever seen that happen and it doesn't stink everyday but
I don't care how much you put in a bunker, we had work horses, I know all
about it. If you have a pasture you have manure and I'm just against it
period.
David Obee: If I could mention one other thing, the three parties that I've
had interested in the manure want to buy it. I don't have to touch it. If
they're willing to buy it, pay me for it, fine, it's theirs. I don't think
the odor problem has a thing to do with it. Bill is much closer to the
other stable. He is a good 300 yards away from my stables. The only
neighbor that really could give up any doubts would be the one that's only
100 yards away. I happened to talk to Jim Frizzell last night and he said
he has not had a complaint from either of the immediate neighbors on either
side of him and they are a lot closer to him. They are 100 feet away from
Bill, back from the stables.
-Bill Schmid: When we came originally for Mr. Frizzell, there were five
neighbors there and three out of the five were dead set against it and it
passed anyway so why bother to send a letter. It went through the Planning
Commission. It went through the City Council. Forget it. What good did it
do? It didn't do any good to start with but you will be seeing a letter
shortly now. Mr. Frizzell is up for renewal and I know you will be getting
a letter this next week.
Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Headla: I was thinking maybe I should pass on this. I've been watching the
one property very closely. I couldn't pinpoint the exact house. Could you
show me the house you're talking about with the old garage. I think I saw
it.
Bill Schmid: Dan Nichols used to live there years ago.
David Obee: It's the old Nature's Way property. Here's the garage. The
entrance is right here and we're talking about coming right down here. It's
directly across from Minnewashta. This is vacant over here. This is vacant
over here and this is the 10 acres.
Headla: I know the place you're talking about now. I wasn't really sure
A that that was it. How far away is the barn going to be from adjoinging
..,properties? It looks like the north is the closest one.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 4
e
David Obee: The closest neighbor to me is right here. This is an old
aerial photo. The stable is right here.
Headla: You're talking about what distance?
David Obee: This is 100 yards and this is 300 yards. This is the building
you're referring to now. The dotted line is the boundaries of Jim
Frizzell's farm down here which by the way is a very clean looking farm. He
doesn't have any evergreens surrounding his property. I'm not trying to put
Jim in hot water. I'm just trying to say that for as few complaints as he
has had, mine with less horses and more acreage and evergreens around it.
Headla: What is the ground like? Is the water level pretty high?
David Obee: Yes. It's a flat land. Jo Ann, you can vouch for that can't
you?
Olsen: Yes.
David Obee: It's a very high, there are no low wetlands. I wouldn't have
bought the property if there were low wetlands. I turned down three or four
other horse farms because of the fact that it was low, wetlands.
Head1a: Have you read the Horse Ordinance?
e David Obee: Yes.
Headla: Do you understand it?
David Obee: Yes.
Headla: What was that you mentioned about barbwire?
David Obee: Barbwire was the fence that I was proposing which is similar to
this horse farms fence line. I wanted a fence that would aesthetically
enhance the property and that's what I proposed along this area where it
stands out. Where you've got evergreens along here and here, I'm proposing
the wire fence mainly because you've got the aesthetic value from 25 to 30
foot extremely mature arvevites. As this property gets developed in back of
me, I'm sure that this split rail would probably be extended right in here.
By the way, there are enough evergreens on this property that I could easily
block that area off. I've already subcontracted the Swenson Nursery out of
St. Bonifacius to come in and remove all of those evergreens and put them in
the designated areas primarily along my neighbor to the east's property line
where the populars are dying off and along that back lot area.
Headla:
I'm in favor myself but I will recommend no barbwire.
David Obee: Split rail all the way around?
4ItHeadla: Whatever. Not barbwire. The people who put the ordinance
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 5
e
together, they thought it was in there and they looked through it. I've got
another situation where they did put in barbwire and that doesn't meet any
need that you've got to get rid of it. The ordinance doesn't exp1icited1y
say you can't use it but we would recommend that no barbwire. That's all I
have.
Olsen: On the fence ordinance under construction and maintenance. Under
the fence section. It says fences shall be constructed in such a manner
that no barbed edge shall be exposed so essentially barbwire is not allowed.
In Section 12, Page 9 of the zoning Ordinance.
Emmings:
Isn't that talking about chain linked fences?
Olsen: When we discussed it we also said that the agricultural fences would
be regulated by this Ordinance. So agricultural uses could have barbwire.
Erhart: In the first place, you can't even interpret... but I agree wi th
you, the intention of the Ordinance was that the fence ordinance did not
apply to the agricultural areas.
Olsen: Also, we wanted so chain or barbwire fence would not be permitted in
the residential area.
Erhart:
e Olsen:
Could we ask the Staff to review this?
Sure. We could make that a condition of tonight's action.
Conrad: When we talk conditional use, the Ordinance, at least what I've
read, doesn't really tell us what conditions we're looking for.
Headla: For a stable?
Conrad: Yes.
Headla: There are two.
Conrad: What are they?
Emmings: That they comply with the Horse Ordinance and they must be located
a minimum of 200 feet from a wetland and that's it.
Conrad: So really, based on those conditions, that's all we can look at.
Olsen: We can always set additional conditions.
Headla: I don't understand what you're saying.
Conrad: If it's a conditional use, I'm wondering what are we measuring this
against? Obviously it was set up for us to review it against something and
a the assumption is the Ordinance wasn't wise enough or we couldn't be wise
..,enough to outguess all the different situations that a stable may go in.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 6
e
There are two conditions listed there. I guess we can make up new ones but
I get concerned when I don't know what I'm looking for. I don't know how I
handle the gentleman who doesn't want it in regards to what conditions are
we looking for to see if this is a satisfactory use.
Headla: When I look at it, I'm inclined to look at what impact does it have
on the neighborhood and what do the surrounding people have to say.
David Obee: In another 10 years I plan to subdivide this area.
most of that area will be subdivided anyway.
I think
Wildermuth: It sounds like the proposal easily meets the requirements of
the Ordinance.
Noziska: Other than to clarify the question of barbwire fence or not, I
don't have any further questions.
Emmings: Do we get complaints of odors from any other private stables that
are presently located in single family? I guess I should ask first do we
have any stables located in single family residential districts now?
Olsen: Yes.
Emmings: Do we ever get any complaints from those? Do we allow them?
-Olsen: They are publicized every year for renewal and that's when people
make complaints. Recently, there is a private stable just west of Yosemite
and they had complaints and it was just more or less because the people
didn't want the horses there and it was adjacent to pheasant Hills so people
moving in had problems with it.
Emmings: So that's an area that's becoming more built up and people are
starting to complain because they are building more houses? The property
that's directly to the north is in Shorewood. Has Shorewood looked at this
and the reason I'm asking is I think there is a housing development going in
right next to this and I think the gentleman over here mentioned that there
are 70 some houses being built in there.
David Obee: There are some lots.
I wouldn't say houses.
Emmings: They are lots, you're right. It is being subdivided and
prevailing winds up there and of course they are from the south all summer
and are going to be going right that way.
Olsen: We did receive just one letter.
Emmings: I'm curious on why, the building looks to be really rather large
and I'm wondering why you would build such a large building for two horses
number one. Number two, why you would build such a large building if you're
e planning to take it down in 10 years?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 7
e
David Obee: There are two buildings there. One is smaller than the other.
I've got five vehicles that I have. Right now I'm renting this building
right here out in Watertown to store personal belongings. Canoes, boat,
cars, I've got a number of things.
Emmings: Trucks?
David Obee: The trucks in the summertime yes. I've got a porsche that I
store in the wintertime.
Emmings: Okay, so that's a different use of this. Do you use trucks in
your business? Is that why you have so many?
David Obee: Does that make this a contractor's yard?
Olsen: When Mr. Obee first came in that was my first question and he
assured that that was not going to be his own trucks. It was going to be
his personal cars.
David Obee: Those are listed under my personal name. I've got several
different rental properties under my personal name. They are listed for
that personal use. I use them to move furniture. I've used them to move
shurbs and I use them for various things.
~Emmings: How does that fit under the statute for a private stables?
Olsen: If he stores the vehicles he uses in his business, that's a
contractor's yard and he would have to receive a conditional use permit.
Emmings: Is it alright in a stable to be using it? It seems to me it's
going to be used more as a garage than it is as a place to keep horses.
David Obee: I wouldn't say that.
Emmings: I would. Does it fit together?
Olsen: I was of the understanding that it was going to be an arena.
David Obee: There is an arena in mind. That's the larger one. That is if
I can't use that garage for any reason, then yes I would have to use that as
a stable and I've considered putting an arena in there with it. It's a
variation. I don't know what size I want for the arena at this point. The
building that I've proposed which is 54 by 110 would include an arena. The
other building, the smaller one is half the size, would just be there for
storage of my boat. I feel I'm entitled to one truck stored there since I
use one for personal use. I still plan on storing my equipment out here on
this farm anyway. I don't want to pay anymore than I have to to store my
equipment is what I'm saying.
a Emmings: What is a private stable?
~horses there that are owned by him?
Does it mean that he can only have
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 8
_
Olsen: Yes.
Emmings: And absolutely can't board anybody elses horses?
Olsen: That would be commercial.
Emm i ng s: Do the en trances on TH 7 need to ha ve any perm i ts from, I know the
one is already serving the house but on the other end of the property, does
that need to have any? This is an incredibly dangerous piece of road as
everybody knows and with horse trailers slowing down and so forth, if there
are only 2 or 4 horses that's no big deal, but for example on that other end
it's back to two lanes. Is there anything special to get in and out of
there in terms of getting a permit from the Highway Department?
Olsen: I checked with the Highway Department and since they are in, they
can remain but as the applicant stated, they will be using the primary
entrance to the east. I was hoping, from what I understand that you weren't
going to be using this other entrance.
David Obee: No, I won't be using that west entrance at all.
Emmings:
it?
So you wouldn't object to a condition that said you couldn't use
_David Obee: That's fine with me. Unless it was developed in 10 years.
Emmings: That's a totally different issue. My feeling on this is you've
got a neighbor to the south who objects. You've got a neighbor to the west
who objects and you've got a subdivision going in to the north and there is
no one there to object now but I think it's pretty safe to assume that
anybody who buys lots back there is going to object. I just don't think,
even though it's in our statute as a conditional use permit, I just don't
think it's appropriate in this area. That is building up very fast right
now.
David Obee: I already said that I will be hauling the manure out and I
would be happy to use lime or anything else. If nothing else, on a trial
basis I feel I'm well within the Ordinance. The Ordinance states that I'm
entitled to 10 horses.
Emmings: The Ordinance doesn't state that you're entitled to any horses.
The Ordinance says that you can have it as a conditional use if it's
approved by the City Council. It doesn't give you the right to anything.
Erhart: Specifically, what business are you in Dave?
David Obee: I'm a manufacturer's rep for construction equipment.
Construction equipment comes in from Toronto and I deliver it to the
contractors.
_Erhart: What equipment are you going to be storing in there?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 9
e
David Obee: I won't be storing any equipment there. That all stays out
there in Watertown.
Erhart: I thought you said you were going to store...
David Obee: Boats, canoes, lawn furniture, picnic tables. Odds and ends
that I can't store in my home in Deephaven I would like to store there.
Erhart:
I thought I heard there was a house already on this property.
David Obee: Yes.
Erhart: What is the house being used for if you're not living there?
David Obee:
might add.
It probably will be a rental.
It's a rental right now I
Erhart: You own the property currently?
David Obee: The Purchase Order is in.
June 22nd I close on it.
Erhart: The number of trucks that you personally own?
David Obee: I own three.
~Erhart: What kind of trucks are they?
David Obee: Two S-10's and a Dodge Dakota.
Erhart: Okay, so they are all pick-ups. My concern is the same as Steve.
You understand that what we're talking about here tonight is a stable and
not a contractor's yard.
David Obee:
I'm well aware of that.
Erhart: That somehow this doesn't get cleverly turned into a contractor's
yard. Certainly the building would support a very good sized contractor's
business. You are proposing to put a lot of money to be invested in the
buildings. On the other hand, can I ask Jo Ann or Barb, in residential
single family district, how many stables do we currently have in the City?
Dacy: I don't have an exact number. There are some in what I would call
the old areas of Chanhassen that are now urbanizing such as this area. The
area by pheasant Hills. On the west side of Minnewashta Parkway and along
King's Road there is a couple.
Erhart: But it's not 30 or 50? It would be less than 20? I guess I'm
under the impression that there is a lot of private stables in the RSF
district.
e Headla: Yes, there is.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 10
e
Erhart: And to pick this one out and say that gee whiz, we're not going to
allow that I think would be unfair. I'm just concerned that somehow we
should add some wording to make sure that the buildings don't get used as a
contractor's yard. Secondly, I think we have every right here to add in the
recommendation to add a condition that he not use barbwire fencing. I'm not
against barbwire fences in the rural area but I think we can throw that in
here without any problems. That's all I had.
Headla: What kind of buildings were you thinking about?
building I would call? What's going to be your height?
A lesser type
David Obee:
I'm not sure yet. 12 to 14 feet I guess.
Headla: Have you gentlemen seen my barn? It's just a little bit bigger
than this and a building that size, something just doesn't seem to fit in
there. A building that size, that's a big building. You're talking a lot
of bucks. I don't know what he's told you but I think he's talking over 20
K's to begin with.
David Obee: 14 was what I was quoted. 14 for the bigger one. I haven't
gone into the shopping of a building yet either.
Headla: My point is it's a lot of money. It's a rental unit. He's going
to use it for an arena but you don't live there.
-David Obee: It's only 7 miles from my home.
Headla: You have to get up in the morning and go out there. That's a 7
mile trek day in and day out and at night again. Then using it for an
arena, I feel uncomfortable in that aspect and then with a huge building
like that which could be used for many things once it's in. I don't know if
this gentleman is even aware of the size of the building. I've got a 12
foot entrance in that building probably sticks up twice that amount. It's
really visible. I've got trees planted all the way and it does work for the
trees to hide it but as that area grows.
David Obee: All I'm doing is drawing from what I have right now for what
I'm storing my personal belongings in out there and I just used two
buildings that, those are the size of buildings to build and that's the only
reason I proposed that.
Headla: Who reviews the building permit for this? Is it just Staff?
Olsen: Yes.
Conrad: We are not approving the buildings at this time. We are looking at
the conditional use permit. How much does the building have to do with what
we're approving?
e Erhart:
If we approve it, we'll never see the building will we?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 11
e
Conrad: We won't because it's a building permit.
Dacy: Yes, you are determining whether or not a private stable is an
appropriate use at that location.
Emmings: Does he automatically get to build buildings once he has that use?
Dacy: Everyone has a right to file an application for an accessory
building. I hear the concern from the Commission being what is the use of
the accessory building exactly going to be. I guess what I would like to
suggest to the Commission is that we would like to review with the applicant
his intentions on that. Some of the information that he's mentioned tonight
is new to Staff also.
David Obee: What's that Barb?
Olsen: Just mentioning of the vehicles that you have. Now you're saying
that you're not going to be storing any of your employee trucks there and
you won't have any employees coming onto the site.
David Obee: No. It's not going to be used for that. I have no intentions
of that. That business is dormant for six months out of the year. You
don't have any heaters going right now. It's totally dormant. It's the
vehicles that I'm storing besides this that I want above and beyond storage
e area out in Watertown for.
Conrad: If we grant this by chance, how often is this reviewed? Once we
all the conditional use, it's there?
Olsen: He has to apply for a stable permit. That's when people can object.
Conrad: And who reviews that? If there are people objecting.
Olsen: That's Karen Engelhardt, the City Clerk. She reviews the
applications and if there are any complaints. That's how the other stables
that I brought up. We did get complaints and objections.
Dacy: Karen receives applications and if there are major objections then
they will be scheduled by the Council.
Conrad: This is an interesting case because on the surface it looks real
acceptable yet we have an objection from the south. We have an objection
from the west and we have a development going in on the north. I think if
I lived there I wouldn't mind the stable but on the other hand we're hearing
some negatives from the surrounding property owners.
David Obee: Could I suggest that you visit Jim Frizzell's horse farm. I
was out there last night and I saw nothing objectionable to that. It's a
very clean operation. Everything from the fence post all the way to he's
~ got asphalt right down to the stables. I see absolutely nothing wrong with
~ his display out there. A lot of the ideas that he's got I plan to adopt.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 12
e
Olsen: If I may, I guess I believe with Jim Frizzell's conditional use
permit, you did set a time. You gave him six months to see if there were
objections. Kind of a trial time.
Conrad: My general feeling, as I try to balance this is probaby to allow it
on a condition for a time period along with some of the restrictions that
we're talking about. Eliminate the barbwire. Cutting down the access so we
gain something and maybe putting it on a trial basis but I think it's a real
close balancing act here. I'm looking for conditions that this should meet
and the Ordinance is not helping me a great deal with that. The only thing
I know is that the neighbors don't like the smell and I think they have a
right to object to that yet I have a hard time measuring it when I hear that
we may have a good means of taking care of that smell. I'm hearing the
applicant say some things that he's going to control and if he does that,
this may be an acceptable low intensity use of the property.
wildermuth: Barbara, why don't we have something in the ordinance about the
accumulation of manure?
Olsen: That's all in the Horse Ordinance.
Erhart: In thinking about this, I really question our ordinance. We have an
ordinance that allows someone to build a 100 foot building in a residential
single family area. In this case, it will allow that from what I have
~concluded. If that is the case, I think we ought to table this until we
~have reviewed private stable ordinance in a single family residential area.
I just can not see how we can allow someone to build a 100 foot, it's a
commercial building in a residential area. Either that or we shouldn't have
zoned it residential. That's what I'm hearing. A conflict.
David Obee: There are two buildings here too Tim.
Erhart: I understand that.
David Obee: I have not spent any time in looking for pole barns at this
point. I have not because I felt this is the first hurdle in the race. Why
spend time looking at it. All I've done is drawn from two buddies' places
out in Watertown who have these two commercial buildings and I've just used
the outline for that. It might be a lot smaller. I haven't put any
concentration into that area.
Erhart: I don't think we have either. I guess what I'm saying is I think
we should sit down and think about it. We have an RSF area, what kind of
things are we going to allow in there as far as structures? Right now it's
all open.
Headla:
building.
you mean.
They came in with a horse barn and come in talking about a
That's the part that bothers me. When you don't know which one
If we table it, what are we going to accomplish?
e Erhart:
I guess what I'm relating to is that we attach to the Ordinance
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 13
e private stables in the residential RSF area, we limit the size of the
building associated with the stable so we don't end up having commercial
size buildings in a residential area. That's what I want to look at.
David Obee: What's defined as a commercial sized building?
Erhart: That's what we need to figure out.
David Obee: I did call for the permit and I just said is it alright to
build 100 foot building, only drawing from this building here, the
dimensions of that building there and that's the only reason. I called
before and said I better state in two buildings because I don't know what
size I want so I put half the size of the larger one that I did propose and
I even have a picture of it here.
Erhart:
I don't have any problem with this stable at all.
David Obee: How about a riding arena? Would that be out of the picture?
That's what the larger building was proposed as.
Headla: That's reasonable.
Conrad: You're talking an enclosed ring so you get into a big structure
again.
4Itwildermuth: I don't see where we really should be concerned about the size
building that you have with over 4 acres of land. He's the one who is going
to have to pay the taxes. He's going to construct the building. I really
don't see that that is our concern especially as well buffered as his
property is.
Conrad: Tim, if you wanted to table this for more information on buildings
secondary use. What would we do Barbara? Are you concerned that we have a
building that's potentially relatively large on RSF property?
Dacy: Currently the accessory structure section of the Ordinance regulates
the size of an accessory building by saying that it can not exceed, if it's
located within the rearyard, meaning the rearyard setback, it can not exceed
30% of the rearyard setback. As was pointed out, when you have 4 to 5 acres
of property, he's not going to be encroaching into any setbacks. There is a
principle use of the land being the existing single family home.
Technically, by the existing ordinance we have no means to limit the size.
We limit it by making sure that he meets the setbacks, etc.. This is a
situation where you have a large parcel in a single family zoned area. As
we discussed before, the site of the stable according to the Horse
Ordinance, has to be of such a size that it will house the animal safely and
keep it healthy, etc.. Does that answer your question?
Conrad: Yes, it does.
e Headla: Maybe we ought to take what Tim says and table it and ask Dave to
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 14
~ come in with his specific building plan. Then at least we aren't prejudging
what's going in. We know exactly what we're talking about.
Conrad: I don't know that he would want to do that if we were concerned
with the use in general. If he comes in with a nice building plan, we could
just say this is a noxious use based on neighbors and we're forcing him to
go through some hoops that may be not important.
Headla: On the other hand, if we don't question it and he puts it up and
the neighbors really find it objectionable.
Conrad: But the building meets our ordinance right now. We're not going to
be able to change that ordinance in time to really impact this particular
application.
Erhart: I guess I agree with that. If the other commissioners don't feel a
100 foot building, that he's wrong to put it in an RSF area, then I think we
ought to vote for this thing and get Dave on his way. I just think we need
to question whether we should allow 100 foot, these things can end up being
permanent structures. You guys can answer that better than I can. I live
out in the country. We've got 100 foot buildings allover the place.
Conrad: I do have a problem with the large building in the area because
it's not in concert with the balance of what's going in.
ttDaCy: Those types of findings are certainly within your purvue and if you
feel that the location is not appropriate, you should cite instances like
character of the neighborhood, surrounding lot sizes.
Wildermuth: It's difficult to do that though with other stables in the
immediate area.
Emmings: If we approve the use as a stable, how, under the ordinance, just
tracking it through the Ordinance, how is it that he has a right to build a
building?
Dacy: If we assume that the stable request never existed and he wanted to
build this building to store his personal items, his canoes, boats, etc., he
would apply for a building permit application for an accessory structure.
Emmings: Okay, and under 3.3.5 there he could have number 1 as a garage and
number 2 as a storage building and that would fit in one of those two slots?
Dacy: Right.
Emmings: So you're looking at it as an accessory use to the residential.
The fact that there is a house there as opposed to it being used as a place
to keep horses?
~ Dacy: Yes. You could almost say, with the stable request there may be two
.., principle uses of land. Let's say the house didn't exist and he came in for
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 15
e
a stable request. By granting the conditional use, the principle use of the
land would be the stable but there is an existing house there. Itls an
interesting question.
Headla: Whoever is going to recommend approval of this, word it that the
building must fit in with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Would that
allow you then to use some judgment on what does go in there?
Dacy: Your question was what?
Headla: If we worded approval of the conditional use permit, would any
building that goes in there, the size and height must conform with the
aesthetics of the neighborhood?
Olsen:
It would be hard to define right now.
David Obee: The building thatls on there now is 97 by 35. The garage
that's there is 97 by 35 right now.
Headla: How tall is it?
David Obee:
Itls got at least 10 foot doors according to the picture here.
Headla: I think you'll see that pole barn double the height.
~David Obee: That I have to check into. The clearance of my boat. The
arena was merely for the year round activity. Here in this state we have
only six months of riding.
Conrad: What did the other riding stable close by, what did we do for that?
Did we grant that stable permission?
Dacy:
Council
tha t he
get the
The original request was for three horses and it ended up that the
only granted one for six months and then if there were no complaints
could apply for a stable permit application and he would be able to
second one.
Conrad: So in that case, they set a condition on the conditional use which
means in a certain time period we can bring it back and review it and see if
the neighbors had some concerns with how it was handled? I think thatls an
appropriate thing here. This is one of those cases where we have a variety
of issues and I'm hearing that the applicant can solve some of the odor
problems. I feel that the ordinance allows these types of structures that
hels wanting to build yet I think we need to make sure that the intent of
the Ordinance, so it doesn't impact the neighboring community, I think we
need to make sure that there is a review at some period in time.
Erhart: We can vote to recommend this and take up the general subject of
building sizes in the RSF districts. If we decide to limit it, we would
still get another thing for Dave to do so we can go ahead and get Dave going
e here and ask Staff to come back at a future meeting and weill talk about the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 16
~ size of the garages and storage buildings in RSF, residential district and
he's going to have to comply.
Conrad: I think we brought up some issues and I'm not sure we got a clear
direction on the particular case here but I think it's probably worthwhile
to get it to City Council. They may have some perspectives on this.
Noziska: I would be in favor of throwing it in their court anyway.
Conrad: I think what it's done is surfaced a couple issues on fencing that
we can resolve and work with Staff on and building size. I think that's a
valid issue. I go back to the conditional use permit itself. I do not know
what those conditions really are that the ordinance was designed for us to
review. The two that are there it looks they have met and therefore I'm not
sure how to weigh the applicant versus the neighboring concerns.
Noziska: Let's discuss just one more minute this access. There appears to
be two accesses right now. What's the story on that? How come there are
two accesses on TH 7? There's no problems with MnDot or anybody?
Olsen: They've been there forever.
Noziska: So they're grandfathered in?
"Olsen: Once an access is there, you can maintain them. If all of a sudden
.you wanted 17 homes coming off of there then that would have to approve it
and make some improvements. Right now it can be used as is. Again, we
prefer that it not be used.
Noziska: Why?
Olsen: Because it's an additional access like Steve was saying on a poor
part of TH 7. It's in bad shape too. It just a narrow drive.
David Obee: The only reason I would like to maintain that, that west
entrance is for 10 years down the line when I plan to subdivide that.
Noziska: That's a different deal. Ten years down the line that mayor may
not be in the right location for your subdivision.
David Obee: I don't know but I don't want it knocked out of there in case
it is an appealing entrance to a small subdivision too.
Conrad: If you subdivide, more than likely you're going to change it
drastically. You're going to have one access period.
David Obee: That's a question for 1997. I don't know that. I don't know
whether TH 7 will be a four lane highway by then. I don't know. I'm just
saying that I'm not going to use it.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 17
- .
Nozlska: For the near term, limiting your access there does not upset your
appetite?
David Obee: No.
Conrad: Therefore you do not want to see this reviewed in a year as a
condition? You're comfortable with this.
Noziska: Isn't that an automatic review.
Conrad: It's a reviewal for Ordinance No. 56.
Olsen: You don't review it.
Conrad: Right. We don't review that.
Erhart: The other one was to review after what, six months?
Olsen: Yes.
Headla: You're doing something just to do something and not because you're
going to accomplish something. You're just turning the crank.
Erhart:
e Headla:
By adding that to the motion?
Right. How can you measure it?
Conrad:
I think the neighbors will measure it and they will be concerned.
Headla: If it's measured in six months, this is May, in six months it will
be December. How much smell do you think you get when 15 below.
Noziska: And covered with three feet of snow.
Erhart moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-9 for a private stable as shown on
the site plan dated May 13, 1987 with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall receive a stable permit and meet the
requirements of the Horse Ordinance No. 56.
2. The stabling of more than two horses shall require another
conditional use permit.
3. Use of barbwire fencing is prohibited.
4. Not to be used as a contractor's yard.
5. Limit access to one location on TH 7.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 18
e
6.
The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the
Conditional Use Permit six months after the stable permit is
issued.
All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and Headla abstained. The
motion carried.
Emmings: The reasons are I don't think we've got a handle on the building.
The building he's proposing may be appropriate for rural uses and not
appropriate to a single family area. Number two, the neighbors both to the
west who already have some experience with horses and now into the south are
opposed to it and there is a subdivision going into the north so not only is
the building not appropriate but I don't think the use is appropriate in
that spot. The use being proposed is very ambiguous. He's calling it a
stable. It sounds like it's going to be used primarily for storage of his
cars and boats and things and I think we should have a better handle on
that. I think it's out of character for the neighborhood.
Headla: Actual stable use, I'm very suspicious of the building.
doesn't fit into the neighborhood.
It just
David Obee: There hasn't been anything said as far as the building. Do you
want me to get back to you with a specific size building?
e,Conrad: At this point in time you don't need to. You may want to take that
to City Council when it gets there. They probably will be interested.
Emmings: If they have the same concerns I do, you would be well advised to
have a specific plan and say this is what I intend to do.
Erhart: Is there interest in looking at these building size issue?
Conrad:
I think it's a good item for discussion.
David Obee: That's the only reason I put it down to begin with is because I
called the inspector and said is there a limit on the inspection as to the
size building there is and a rural farmer said build the thing as big as you
can or put down as big as you can before they do put a variance on that.
That's the only reason I did it and I thought I'm not going to need a
building this big if I don't want an arena. That's why I put the smaller
building inside of it. It doesn't matter to me, I just want to know which
way to go. I don't want to be held up and have to work with winter
conditions to build the thing in either so when I close on the building on
June 22nd I would like to know when I can put it in and how fast I can
proceed with it.
Conrad: Can you put two items on for Staff review? The barbwire
and then building size in the RSF district and provide us with
recommendations as to whether the current ordinance is acceptable
there are other constraints that need to be incorporated into the
fencing
e
or if
Ordinance?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 19
e PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 1.06 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
SINGLE FAMILY RESfDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT LOT .!L. BLOCK ~ CEDAR CREST,
ROBERTA BUCHHEIT.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this subdivision item.
Roberta Buchheit: I just brought a copy of the rest of the plot in there
because I would like to have separate driveways or the option of separate
driveways. This is the property, the penciled in line here, Lot 1, Block 2
and the highway is down here off the road. This is the other property that
has been subdivided. There are three lots there and one here that already
have access onto that highway so this can't possibly be close to TH 5. This
is TH 5 back here but the entrance to the road is way down here. There are
three houses that enter into the road on this side. I just brought along a
picture of the house and it should have a tuck under garage so it will be
easier because of the elevation if you could go straight up rather than
having to go up in the middle and then make a turn to get into it if you
had to have a shared driveway.
Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Erhart:
tit Olsen:
Let me understand this access.
Do we have any maps?
Barb just went to get it.
Erhart: The right-of-way on the southern boundary of Lot 2, is this the
right-of-way for TH 5?
Olsen: Yes.
Erhart: How far is it, the right-of-way jogs right here. There's a real
big jog in the right-of-way. Is that what I'm seeing and TH 5 goes down
here?
Olsen: Yes.
Erhart: Approximately, can you tell me where the road and the ditch is?
Roberta Buchheit: Lot 5, over here on the other side, we had 190 foot right
on this area.
Olsen: A lot of this isn't improved either.
Lane and is not improved.
It's known now as Lone Cedar
Erhart: What I'm getting to, the secondary issue rather than a separate
driveway which obviously, I think we have to plan a pretty good reason to
require a driveway in this situation and I think the map will show it. Jo
~ Ann, what was the object of the shared driveway?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 20
e h' h' d .
Olsen: T e obJect was, t e EngIneer an myself went out, It's a steep
slope here and we just felt because of the topography, it's right on a
curve, we thought that the driveway should be shared.
Erhart: I guess I would rather see us recommend some minimum distances for
driveways rather than forcing these driveways if we're going to get into
that. The second issue is the trail. I'm all for trails. What's the lot
width on the front of Lot 2?
Olsen: It's 90.
Erhart: If you put a trail in you'll only have a 70 foot lot. Looking at
the photo here, I'm not sure we have to have that trail easement through at
least the front of the lot and I think I'll ask you to review that. Either
that or the lot line should change if we're going to pull 20 feet out of
there.
Olsen: That's not the ideal place for the trail either because it's on top
of the ridge.
Emmings: The only question I have is I remember sometimes when we look at
lots we look at the width to the length ratio. Is that here?
Olsen: No.
e Emmings: Why?
Dacy: It's no longer in the ordinance.
Emmings: Okay, that's the only question I had.
Headla: I didn't understand this to evaluate the water pressure?
Olsen: Because of the elevation to Lot 2, the Engineer wants to review more
detail plans on the water pressure to make sure that it will be adequate to
service that lot.
Headla:
pressure?
Do we have some type of real obligation to serve a minimum
Is that what you're driving at?
Olsen: Yes, there is a certain pressure in that watermain so what we want
to determ i ne is if it cou ld be enough to serv i ce tha t lot or if there has to
be an adjustment in the location of the extension.
Noziska: Normally you're looking at pressure reducers, you're looking at
something like a pump to increase the pressure?
Olsen: He just wants to see if the pressure...
Headla: I'm scared to death of what I think you're saying. Do we have an
~ obligation that he's going to make like 40 foot entrance to the home?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 21
~DaCy: I think the intent is to make sure that the house has adequate
pressure for normal everyday needs. The other option is to install a well.
The City's ultimate objective is that everybody hook up to sewer and water.
It really is for the benefit of the homeowner to have adequate pressure.
Headla: So they find it doesn't meet minimum standards, then what are you
going to do?
Olsen: There are certain adjustments they can be made to provide the
adequate pressure. Whether it's a different placement of a water pipe.
Noziska: But as a city don't we know what the pressure is? Don't we know
what the pressure is in that main?
Olsen: I'm sure we do. It's just because of the elevation the Engineer is
planning for the elevation up to Lot 2 where it will be serviced.
Noziska:
It's kind of easy to figure that out. Water weighs so much.
Dacy: I think the intent of the Engineer is certainly appropriate for the
Planning Commission and Council to act on. If they end up putting the house
a t the rear of the lot, then we just want to make sure tha tit gets adequa te
pressure. It's nothing more than that.
~Headla: Then we probe it and it doesn't have adequate pressure,
~really approving another pump installation to get the pressure.
we're
Dacy: The worse case would be they would have to install a well for water.
Noziska: You put in a pump to get the city water and get it up to pressure
but then you would have to put in a tank and then a pump so you could still
get city water there but you would sort of have a half well system and a
half city system but I can't imagine for the life of me, it may mean that
you may need a little bigger pipe or something but if you don't have enough
pressure in that watermain to squirt water out of the top of that hill, I
would be tremendously surprised.
Headla: Roberta, are you in agreement with the conditions that Staff has?
Roberta Buchheit: The driveway is the one that I have and I would think
that the watermain would have enough water pressure.
Olsen: In the Engineer's memo, he says there's roughly a 313 foot elevation
difference between the watermain elevation and potential pad. Water
pressure should be checked to evaluate to be sure that a minimum 313 foot PSI
is available to the building site. If not, larger diameter service lines
or a booster tank may be required.
Noziska: So if you get a little larger water line so you get less drag on
the water, then that's all that's required so that can be figured out quite
~simPlY. So you might have to service the houses with a little larger pipe.
Planning Commission
May 27, 1987 - Page
e
Conrad:
Meeting
22
Tim, what was your comment on the trail easement?
Erhart: I think we should change the wording on that. The reason is we
don't need a 20 foot easement along the southern boundary of Lot 2 to get a
20 foot trail along TH 5 there because the right-of-way is so wide in that
particular location. And if you demand a 20 foot easement, you're only
going to have a lot width, a useable lot width of 73 feet. Although the
other end isn't so bad because I'm assuming the Council would pass it up
front so I'm suggesting that the wording is such that Staff reviews the
actual requirement for that trail easement on the front of the lot so it
doesn't have to lie on this lot.
Noziska: On the east end you've got 75 foot and back over on the west end
of that lot it's 140 foot. There is a tremendous difference in the setback
from the center line of TH 5 to the lot line so your point is well taken.
Why mess with that at all? Borrow some land from the State.
Erhart: Right.
It may not have to be on this lot at all.
Noziska: You could still have a 20 foot path or whatever you want but sure
not on the property because it's narrow enough as it is.
Conrad: My only other comment is that maybe wording should be made as to
the driveway on Lot 2 that it be placed to the northerly part, the top half
~ of the lot so that we don't get the driveway access that close to Th 5. I
~don't think we need to have a shared driveway but on the other hand, I would
like to encourage the driveway to be a little bit north of the southerly
boundary.
Noziska: Why should we worry about that? First of all we've got a
collector street anyway and we've got several other houses down the road a
ways don't we that comes into that so I'm wondering why we would even
address that question.
Conrad: The only reason I do is because Staff was concerned about the
access and the safety.
Noziska: That I understand but I also understand with several other houses
accessing closer to Th 5, why we worry about it.
Conrad: I just don't want to compound a problem if there is one and Staff
apparently thinks there is. I can't tell. I honestly can't tell and I
don't have any standards to compare it to so the only thing I suggest is
that we may want to encourage the driveway to be located to the north as far
as possible.
Emmings moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #87-23 as shown on the preliminary plat dated May 7,
1987 with the following conditions:
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 23
e
1.
The Park and Recreation Commission review the need for a trail
easement along the southern boundary of Lot 2 because it appears to
the Planning Commission that there would be adequate room in the
highway right-of-way and that in fact would be a preferable
location for the trail easement.
2. Water pressure service to the proposed building pad sites shall be
evaluated and adjustments made by the property owner if necessary.
3. A ten foot utility easement shall be provided along the east side
of Lots 1 and 2 and along the south side of Lot 2.
4. A private sanitary sewer manhole shall be constructed by the
applicant on the proposed site which will provide connection to
Lots 1 and 2. The cost of the extension and manhole will be the
applicant's responsibility.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for running a separate water
service from the existing watermain into Lot 2 at the applicant's
expense.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Headla:
e have it
Erhart:
What happens if the Park and Recreation Commission say they have to
and that likely will cut the 90 feet?
City Council would have to evaluate that.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 8.5 ACRES INTO FIFTEEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED
RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE~L AND LOCATED AT~~CHASKA~OAD, ROBERT
SOMMER.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Mr./Mrs. Edgar Graupmann
Joyce McFarland
Eleanor Johnson
Linda Nicoli
Wayne Fransdal
Allen Putnam
Richard G. Nicoli
Nancy & Bill Swearengin
6330 Murray Hill Road
6341 Murray Hill Road
6340 Hummingbird Road
2280 Melody Hill Road
6200 Murray Hill Road
6285 Chaska Road
2280 Melody Hill Road
6250 Chaska Road
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this subdivision item.
ttchairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Planning Commissin Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 24
~ Robert Sommer deferred to his associate Eric Canton for comments.
Eric Canton: I live at 2495 willow Drive in Medina and I am joined in a
partnership with Robert Sommer for the purpose of developing this project
which is called the Eight Acre Wood Partnership. We have worked together in
a prior development called Covington Vine Ridge in the City of Shorewood so
have had some modest experience in understanding the regulations of that
city specifically and recognize that we're limited in what we can do without
professional assistance. As a consequence, we have employed the firm of
pioneer Engineering. One of the partners in that organization who worked
with us on the final plat development of the Covington Vine Ridge
development had come to us well recommended by some mortgage companies and
by some builders and developers. Their credentials are good and we have to
answer any technical questions Joel Cooper from that firm with us tonight.
In addition to technical questions that may arise from you or neighbors or
members of the community, we recognize that maybe there should be some
explanation for our intentions here. First of all, we have attempted and
will continue to proceed with as much professionalism as we can in the
development of this project. We recognize the need to have sensitivity to
neighbors. To have sensitivity to the aesthetic requirements that the City
has and we expect to comply with those. My own background is associated
with the building industry for about 21 years. My family's involvment goes
back to 1930. We've worked with a number of architects, builders and
developers over the course of my professional career and particularly the
~aesthetics that are achieved in various developments. Names that might come
~to mind that you would recognize would be people like Lundgren Bros., the
Rottlund Company, that particular price ranges on up to people like Jim
Jensen Homes who have bui 1 t on the very high end of the market. In many of
those cases, I've been involved and have played a part in aesthetic
decisions. As a consequence, we looked at this as a project that is
developed as a whole. Not specifically as an individual lot sale, helter
skelter to individual builders or homeowners. We have in mind to establish
an architectural review committee. We did that successfully with Covington
vine Ridge. The reason for that is to review plans prior to their
submission to view to see that they comply with the aesthetics that we feel
are appropriate to the neighborhood. Secondly, we have been assessing a
combination a market factors and price ranges suited to the neighborhood as
it is evolving. We believe that the kinds of houses that will be built on
this property will begin in the range of $150,000.00 and may very likely go
into the neighborhood of $225,000.00 and up. We are watching the evolution
of these price ranges in many communities around the metropolitan area and
find that the kind of structure that would be suited to this size of lot
will fall into that price range. Kinds of material that would be specified
would also be subject to review so that there would be a general compliance
with a higher grade of materials and quality suited again to the
neighborhood. Mr. Cooper as I mentioned is present with us tonight to
answer any technical questions. I might first comment on the 12 provisions
as outlined by your Staff and indicate to you that we are in agreement with
provision 1. Point 2 pursuant to the Outlot A and B, if possible we would
like to discuss with Staff and with the City the avoidance of a homeowners
4Itassociation since it is a very modest size development overall and we would
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 25
~prefer to consider the possibility of incorporating the two outlots into the
adjacent lots which you will see here as Lots 3 and 15 respectively. We are
familiar however with the homeowners association provisions and certainly
can proceed if that is a persistent requirement of the city. Point 3
provides no problems for us and we are perfectly willing to comply with
that. Again, that's true with number 4, 5. Number 6 we are told this
evening is being subject to further review by the Park Commission. We are
basically willing to listen to any proposals that they have and to comply as
is reasonable. Number 7 certainly. Number 8, no difficulty with any of the
remaining additional points on this as far as we are concerned. So that
really concludes what I have to say. I would be happy to answer any
questions or defer to Mr. Cooper.
Allen Putnam: I live at 6285 Chaska Road which is this lot right here which
borders on the southwest. A couple of concerns I have. I'm not exactly
familiar with what lot sizes are required by the City but it seems like
that's a fairly tight squeeze for 15 lots in that number of acres. That's
one of my concerns that perhaps a review to reduce the number of lots to
about 10 or 12 range. The other concern I have concerns the accesses on
Chaska Road. That road has no street lights. It has no sidewalks and it's
relatively narrow and I guess I'm concerned with those accesses, that that
could create some traffic hazards and also some pedestrian traffic along
there that could be a problem. I know on the opposite side of Chaska Road
in this area there is a separate road that comes off and along that the
~houses over here are located along that road rather than immediate access to
~Chaska Road and I think that something like that might be considered so that
we limit the accesses to Chaska Road. Those are my basic concerns. The
other question I had aesthetically, this is a very wooded area and I think
most of the people there like that and I would hope that whether it be 15
lots or 5 lots that it would remain a very wooded area so I would like some
limitations on leaving as much of the woods as possible on those lots if
that's something that the Commission can do.
Wayne Fransdal: A couple
think it was 6, with the
going with the walkway?
between the two.
of questions. Number one, on the conditions I
walkway to the City's school property, where is he
There is private property all the way around and
Olsen: That's why the Park and Rec Commission wants to look at it closer.
Wayne Fransdal: The second concern is the use of cul-de-sacs. I don't know
what the policy is on cul-de-sacs in terms of length. Egress and ingress
for emergency vehicles. Alternate ways to get in in terms of an emergency.
Considering the size of Murray Hill Road presently is in terms of not it's
plotted width at 80 foot but it's actual top at somewhere around mid 20's I
would guess as well as the "T" when it comes to Murray Hill Road. We're
obviously corning to a road that in the wintertime offers some obstacle
corning up the hill and then making the turn in through the cul-de-sac which
deserves some consideration as well. I guess my general concern is that we
~ don't have a through street which may be for safety reasons a consideration
~ in that development.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 26
e
Conrad: Your concerned on access. What are you worried about in terms of
access to the cul-de-sac?
Wayne Fransdal: We're dealing with a road that is on a hill that is not
very wide. In a sense a safety consideration as well as how much drive you
can physically carry and obviously a second route into the property would
alleviate some of the problem. It may add to the problem too because now
you have a through street coming through so but just from an overall
development, I think there should be some limitations on cul-de-sacs.
Joyce McFarland: I live at 6341 Murray Hill Road and have for my whole
lifetime practically and also represent my mother's estate which is right
across at 6370. I feel real strongly that 15 lots in that part of the
territory is far too dense. We have just seen another 8 homes go down at
the end of Murray Hill and so the traffic has certainly felt it. The
Fransdal's live and have a daycare. Barbara takes care of children. I have
a lot of concern about where that access goes out. I can see you're
reasoning for doing it but having driven that hill, makes me real nervous.
So adding 10 more homes...I feel real strongly, that's too dense.
Eleanor Johnson: I live at 6340 Hummingbird Road which is just across the
way from there. Murray Hill is on this side and Hummingbird is over here
and they were talking about maybe some day opening up Melody Hill which is
at the end of the street like an H. Then not too long ago they were talking
~about closing off Galpin Lake Road to TH 7 so some of their planning doesn't
"'quite make any sense. If they are going to open that up eventually and
close Galpin Lake Road and not have access to TH 7, what is that going to do
to our territory up there? This road that is coming out, they're going to
tear a house out of a residential area that's been there for years and
years and put it right in people's property. In other words, they take out
a house and put a road right down between two houses. I feel sorry for the
people that live on either side and this comes right out in the middle of a
hill and there is a driveway right across the street from this that goes up
into somebody elses yard so it would be a very dangerous spot. I just can't
quite understand the planning on this at all.
Olsen: I didn't mean to give the impression that Melody Road is going to be
connected. That was just a question the Park and Recreation Commission was
asked if that was a possibility and it's not.
Ed Graupmann: 6340 Murray Hill Road. I don't grudge anybody wanting to do
something with their land that they own but I think that is just too many.
I live right next door to where that roadway is going to be coming in so
I'll be along that whole driveway. A couple years ago we wanted to build a
road on the back of my property and that would have cost me $8,000.00. I
don't know what this is going to cost me. Then the water level there. I
think that should be looked at. There's water not far down from the
surface. I think that's just too many houses.
~ Mrs. Graupmann: We're right next to this outlot and street and when I try
.. to drive up the street in the wintertime, where I went in the ditch was
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 27
e right next door to where they are proposing. It is so slippery. In talking
to the people around us, if we put that many houses in that place, we will
more than double the number of houses on our side of the hill and we just
think that's, we always thought we kind of lived in a little bit of country.
I know when we moved there my husband said I want to live somewhere where I
don't know what my neighbors are eating for breakfast. We moved there
because we liked a little bit of country. with the trees there and
everything, it's a beautiful spot. There's wildlife in there and we just
think that's too many. We don't blame people for wanting to use their
property but it's too many to double the number of houses on Murray Hill.
We think that's out of character of our Murray Hill. I also have some
requests from some of the neighbors who couldn't be here and would like to
address this.
Linda Nicoli: I live at 2280 Melody Hill which our property will back up on
one of the proposed lots and I would just like to reiterate what Al Putnam
was saying before about the treed area. What really distresses me is we
have this nice, densely wooded area behind us and over just across the field
from us is the whole of pheasant Hill which is building extensively on open
land where they're not having to cut down any trees. If anybody wanted to
move into that area, there are plenty of lots available over there where
they wouldn't have to destroy the aesthetics of the area to find a suitable
home for them. I just agree with what everybody else has said. I don't
think any of us objects to putting some houses in there. We just object to
~the density and what that's going to do to that hill. It is a very steeply
~pitched area and heavily treed and we just don't want to see that part of it
destroyed.
Conrad: What's the size of your lot do you know?
Linda Nicoli: No I don't. We have split a lot with our neighbors. We have
a pie shaped lot. It's 300 feet wide at the front and 25 feet wide at the
back.
Eleanor Johnson: Most of the properties in that area are quite large. Like
we've got an acre and I think you have 7 acres and you have an acre so they
are all big acres and to take and cut right in the middle of this piece of
property and add a whole bunch of little development. It's a development
and you're dropping it right in the middle of homes that have been there for
years. We've probaby got the oldest home in the whole place outside of
maybe yours.
Robert Sommer: The house that goes is the oldest in the area.
Eleanor Johnson: That one can go. I can understand that but to run a road
right through the middle of the houses, that doesn't make any sense to me at
all. I think you almost have to come up and take a look at it to see what
we're talking about.
A Bill Swearengin: 6250 Chaska Road. My concern is who will benefit from the
~ water going down the street and who is going to pay for it? I understand
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 28
4It that the procedure is that the property owners share equally for the
frontage but what you're doing is forcing us into development and I
represent myself and Frank Grieson at this time who is in Phoenix. With
potential development of those lots, I'm faced with the prospect of doing
something with my four acres at that point half of which is in Shorewood and
I would just like it to be a matter of record that we may petition for
single family homes or we may petition for multiple to change the guildeplan
of your zoning or we may petition for commercial which would change the
guideplans and the zoning. Barring approval, we may petition Shorewood for
annexation. I would just like to say that.
Conrad: Bill you're concerned with the water on the street. Say it a
different way to me. Are you concerned about assessments on the water
drainage or what?
Eleanor Johnson: When there was water and sewer put in there, they ran into
water all the time and the last time that he proposed this we suggested that
they make a topographical study of the hill. Whether there are springs
under there or what. We don't think that that hill can take all of that
digging and building because all the equipment got stuck when they were
putting in water and sewer in the road.
Bill Swearengin: Did you have a question for me Ladd?
.a Conrad: Yes, I did.
- and assessments.
I'm curious about your concern on the water run-off
Bill Swearengin: The water run-off? There are two problems. The
sewer and culvert it to get it down to Shorewood which eventually drains
down into a lake area down by TH 7. The other area I'm concerned about is
my 307 feet of frontage and Frank Greison's approximately 200 feet of
frontage which will bear a fairly heavy cost and fairly heavy share of the
water running down the road. My only appeal would be to allow the property
owner the benefits to pay for the bulk of that and then allow us, if and
when we develop later on to share in the cost and to buy back from him.
Noziska: He doesn't want to be forced into development of his property is
what he's saying.
Eric Canton: Maybe I can answer a couple of your questions. I brought
along and I didn't show it earlier because I guess I didn't know how much
detail you wanted. We're very highly sensitive to the unique nature of the
woods on the property. Robert Sommer has routinely removed dead trees which
has allowed for a little healthier state of the natural area as it stands
today. This is a little painting that we did to try to conceptualize how we
envision preserving the trees that are on the property and allowing them to
grow and be healthy. I'm very familiar with the provisions that are
necessary to maintain that kind of thing. It's more costly to build on
lots where you keep your trees intact. When you try to work in and around
A existing healthy trees but we feel that that is a very critical part of the
_ character of this and a part of what makes this an extension of the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 29
- neighborhood we're all in now so we're sympathetic to that question that was
raised. Pursuant to the old home that is here, I guess frankly because of
it's age and it's condition, we felt that removing it was an upgrade under
the circumstances and that is the reason for the decision that we make early
on to tear it down and replace it. Our thought on the roadway coming in
here was to take and make it as aesthetically pleasing as we could also.
I've been watching a number of developments where this kind of thing has
been handled with evergreens to create a nice look. A soft entrance to the
area and that was our intent to do. There is this one larger tree on the
north side that Staff is recommending we kind of skirt anyway so it can stay
there so our intent is to maintain character here. Also, the lot sizes vary
considerably. Our largest one is a little over 32,000 square feet. Our
intent was certainly to stay within the zoning regulations of Chanhassen so
that we have done according to the regulations as we understand them.
Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Conrad: Just to kick it off briefly before we start through the Commission
comments, I'm curious about the character of the neighborhood and the lot
sizes. From what I've heard, the people in attendance tonight say their
lots are ranging between three-quarters of an acre and an acre and a little
bit plus. Is that true throughout the east and the south part of this or
what else can you tell me about the character of the neighborhood?
_Olsen: The existing lots along Murray Hill Road and along Chaska are
larger.
Conrad: Would you say they are double in size?
Olsen: It depends on which size. The smaller lot proposed, yes.
say close to doubling but then there are also some smaller lots.
Hill there are some smaller lots to the west and southwest.
I wou ld
On Melody
Erhart: The lots on the south end of Murray Hill Road and the cul-de-sac,
what size are those?
Olsen: They are all the 15,000 to 20,000 but they are more recent.
Erhart: I've got an overall concern that we're not getting the flavor from
the whole neighborhood. I don't know what that means.
Dacy: This is like one of the members of the public said, this is an older
part of the city. Her house has been here for years. When Mr. Fransdal
came in for to subdivide we checked his original plat date and I think it
was 1884 so they are larger lot sizes because they've been platted and
existed that way for a number of years.
Erhart: What are the street conditions of Chaska Road and Murray Hill Road?
-
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 30
e
Olsen: They are paved.
not in really poor shape
Chaska Road doesn't have any curb and gutter.
and it's not in really good shape.
It's
Eleanor Johnson: That cul-de-sac that he was talking about, that road was
originally there. It has been there for years. All he did was widen it
when he put all those houses in on the end of that cul-de-sac at the end of
Murray Hill. The south end.
Bill Swearengin: Point of information. Chaska Road used to be TH 41. This
itty bitty road used to be a state highway.
Erhart: Chaska Road and Murray Hill Road are not curb and gutter?
Olsen: That's where the drainage will be directed to that storm sewer.
Erhart: What's the standard right-of-way for a curb and gutter street?
Olsen: 50.
Erhart: It is 50 and then rural is 60. The situation is what I see
happening is if we allow them to put 15 lots in here we're going to have a
situation where some of these streets are going to have to be improved and
the expense for that then goes back to the neighborhood again?
"Olsen: The neighbors have to petition for it to be improved unless it
"'became a public improvement.
Dacy: The issue with Chaska Road is there is an additional factor in there
that it's partly in Shorewood also. You've got 7 lots proposed on Chaska, 8
lots on the proposed cul-de-sac. That's not a significant amount of traffic
but we agree that sooner or later, especially if Chaska Road, that that
issue is going to have to be addressed by both communities. That will have
to be probably be a joint project.
Erhart: Regarding the outlots here, normally in an outlot subdivision, who
ends up owning that deed? The original owner of the land?
Dacy: The developer.
Erhart: In this case the developer doesn't want to own the outlots is that
correct?
Olsen: They want them maintained.
Erhart: I don't think that this subdivision warrants a homeowners
association. I guess I would like to see outlots A and B, that definitely
not go with Lots 3 and 15. I think they have potential conflict with the
owners of the lots on either side of them. Outlots A and B have to somehow
ei ther give them to the City or back perhaps someway so they were given to
.. the people who owned the property on either side of the street rather than 3
.., or 15. It makes more sense.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 31
~Emmings: When I read this I didn't have any comments. The only thing that
struck me, that seems peculiar to me is that we take out a house on a
residential lot and then put a road through there. Have we ever done that
before?
Olsen: Not that I can remember but this home is, I believe it may be
condemned.
Emmings: I understand that the house should be gone. I guess it seems
peculiar. I think about if my neighbor all of a sudden his house would be
gone and not only would the house not be there but it would no longer be a
residential lot. All of a sudden it's a street and that strikes me as being
very peculiar thing. I'm not sure why it strikes me as being so peculiar it
just does.
Olsen: Those outlots will be buffering the street. There is some
vegetation there now to screen.
Emmings: There's nothing in any of our
from buying a house on a lot, taking it
access to another bigger parcel behind?
up with that?
ordinances that prevents someone
down and putting in a street to get
That's something that we don't come
Dacy: That's part of your review right now.
~Emmings: I mean there's nothing in our ordinance that prevents it or
anything like that? I take it that the reason they're not coming off of
Chaska Road is it must be very steep up this lot and it looks like there is
a drop-off of some 60 feet or something from the top to the bottom. Real
steep. There wouldn't be anyway to come up off of Chaska Road there?
Olsen: It would be difficult to maintain a 7% grade required. I know
that's been proposed in other plans. The road comes from Chaska and how
they did it I'm not exactly sure but it would have to be maintained and the
7% grade would really be altering a lot of that site. The proposal now is
really preserving a lot of the vegetation by maintaining it in the rearyard.
Emmings: We had a lot of comments that the people think it's a tight fit
for the number of lots that are proposed but it meets all our requirements.
15,000 is the smallest lot we require and none of them are that small. They
are all at least a little bit over. Is there any concern for emergency
vehicles reaching these lots that are in the end of the cul-de-sac? Has the
Fire Department looked at this?
Olsen: They reviewed it and they had no comments. No problems.
Emmings: If the water assessments, we heard some people saying back here
that they were concerned that if water went in that that would get assessed
to their property while the primary benefitting this proprty. I think I saw
e you shaking your head there.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 32
e
Olsen: It would be a private installation. The developer would have to pay
for that extension. It would be a private development contract.
Emmings: So that would not be assessed to them.
Olsen: If they wanted to get in, there would be connection charges.
Noziska: I'm glad to see you clarified the matter of the sewer extension
because I think that is something that we should be sensitive to. So that
would be paid for by this development?
Olsen: Yes, a private development.
Noziska: Then the other concern that I have is the connection to Murray
Hill Road and even access to those 8 lots. I'm sensitive to the fact that
probaby something is going to have to be done to Murray Hill Road is that
not right? Has Staff looked at it from that standpoint?
Dacy: We ~idn't really specifically address the upgrade of that at this
point.
Noziska:
problem?
So you don't think that 8 additional lots is going to cause any
e Dacy: No.
Edgar Graupmann: When they found it last time, they only had one roadway in
but then there was a lot of discussion about emergency vehicles come in on
one road and going out the same way. Now you would be doing the same thing
here.
Conrad: Yes, we're familiar with needs for emergency service. We're
sensitive to cul-de-sacs. We've reviewed a lot of cul-de-sacs over the last
year.
Noziska: My comments were even getting to the cul-de-sac. If you follow
the tangle town, not that we don't have some buidings already in there, but
we're exaggerating what appears to be a problem to begin with. That was my
comment and I guess the Staff isn't concerned about that. Is that what
you're saying?
Olsen: That was my feeling.
Wildermuth: I guess I can really sympathize with the adjacent property
owners. Unfortunately the ordinance specifies 15,000 square foot minimum
lot size. That's what we're faced with here. In my view, it doesn't look
like the development really fits the area at all. Rather than have the cul-
de-sac coming in off of Murray Hill, I would like to see the plot
reconfigured with maybe two entryways to Chaska Road and maybe a lot right
A at Murray Hill would just continue to be a separate lot. I think something
~has got to be done with the outlot A and B situation there. There has to be
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 33
~ a better resolution than turning it over to a homeowners association. It
doesn't seem to be acceptable to turning it over to the City. It really
doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try to give to Lots 3 and 15. I don't
think this is a good development.
Headla: Outlots A and B are going to be kept up someway so the neighbors on
either side aren't going to consider them an eyesore?
Olsen: That's what we're trying to condition that they are maintained.
That's one of the conditions.
Conrad: The developer Dave said they would be part of Lots 3 and 15.
Headla: Well, whatever they do with Outlots A and B, anything going on here
going to create costs for the neighbors or the neighborhood?
Olsen: No.
Headla: So regardless of what they do all through here, Ed isn't going to
see an increase at anytime?
Olsen: No.
Headla: And the outlot is going to prevent people from driving by and
~lOOking into his house, is that the intent?
Olsen: I think it's just extra property that is left over but it can be
used for that reason.
Eleanor Johnson: 15 more families just coming up that road and it's just a
little road.
Headla: Between 8 and 9, that 12 foot nature trail, is the City going to
foot the bill to put in that nature trail and maintain it?
Olsen: What happens is each lot has to provide $415.00. Every lot
throughout the City when the building permit goes through and that goes into
a fund and yes, it does. If the Park and Rec Commission decides to improve
this as a trail, it would come out of the city funds and would be maintained
by the City.
Headla: Like when people 8 and 9, are they aware of fencing? Jr. High
school kids going through and these people end up putting in fences. The
last one I had was on item 4. I like the way he did it and the way that's
worded, if I was going to put in a building permit and I didn't approve it
with the trees, what if they cut the trees down first and then they corne to
you with a plan? I think we ought to have more control as to what trees are
cut down.
Olsen: We go through final plans and specs when the streets is improved and
~that's the only other time they have to clear cut within their property.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 34
e
Headla: But they can go through as I understand and cut down any trees they
desire at this time.
Olsen: If this is approved, that condition would make it that they could
not. That they must provide a plan for the trees.
Headla: But this is at the time of building permit application and he's not
applying for a building permit application at this time.
Olsen: To be more general then you could possibly make a condition to have
a detailed tree removal plan prior to final plat approval.
Headla: Something like that and I don't think it has to be really detailed
but there's got to be some control over all those nice trees that we
maintain them.
Erhart: What was that one condition that we attached to that one
subdivision at the last meeting?
Dacy: These conditions are exactly the same as the previous subdivision.
What she is referring to is he has to submit a final plan to the City
Council regarding the construction of a street and typically we require that
only the vegetation necessary for the installation of a street be removed at
this time and no other clear cutting on any of those lots would be
_permitted. If it does occur, then they are in violation.
Headla: And what's the definition of clear cutting?
Dacy: The complete removal of the vegetation on the site.
Headla: That's what bothers me. They can go out and reduce the trees by
50% before we even apply for building permit.
Dacy: But that's what we're saying. Through this approval process they
will only be allowed to remove trees for the street.
Headla: I think you said two different things.
Olsen: This is part of the final plat approval.
specs.
Part of the plans and
Headla: I'm afraid they can go ahead and cut the trees they suspect may be
a problem. Then they come in with the plan approval and they meet it.
Robert Sommer: If I wanted to cut trees I could
have done it last week. Last month. The unique
and we want to preserve as many trees as we can.
pheasant Hill.
do it tomorrow. I could
beauty of this is the trees
Otherwise, you've got a
e Dacy:
It would be very easy to add a condition stating that there shall be
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 35
e
no tree removal other than removal of trees necessary for the streets and
utilities.
Headla: If we could do that then I think that's going to be getting a hold
of clear cutting.
Conrad: Just one point on the Staff Report. Staff questions whether a
storm sewer is even necessary. What does that mean? Why would we not want
a storm sewer? Simply because it's not necessary.
Olsen: Right and we want to review the drainage calculations to see if the
run-off rate necessitates it. That prevents digging up more land and
installing a pipe and having to maintain it.
Conrad: Just some general questions. Jo Ann, have you looked at other
plats that have come in on this property and access from Chaska Road? Have
you looked at any previous plats?
Olsen: The file that I have with the plans in it...
Conrad: Is it your opinion Jo Ann or Barb that access to this property, the
eastern part is best where the current cul-de-sac is? In other words, are
we preserving more that way than if we brought it up from Chaska Road?
~Olsen: We're definitely preserving more of the site features because you
"'would have to be cutting into the slope and vegetation. There are pros and
cons either way because Murray Hill is a steep slope.
Eleanor Johnson: They are both steep. You're lucky to get up either Murray
Hill or Galpin in the wintertime.
Conrad: So generally you would say to access this middle part, the cul-de-
sac served area, as we look at this whole plat and the neighborhood, this is
the best way to service it?
Olsen: We could look at alternates. It's hard for me to say because I
don't know how much of the site would have to be altered to provide the 7%
road from Chaska Road. I was talking with one of the other engineers from
before and they said they had proposed a street from Chaska Road that kind
of weaved through 7, 8, 9 and then up into 11 then a cul-de-sac but how long
that had to be. That's very steep slope. Then the sites themselves would
have to be cross slopes. I can't say without seeing another option that
this is the ultimate.
Dacy: As she suggested, there are two options. You're going to have to
weigh the alternative of destroying a significant amount of slope, removing
a lot of vegetation versus not having any access onto Murray Hill Road.
Joel Cooper: I would like to address what you're talking about here with
Chaska Road. Basically what we're looking at is 60 feet of relief from
~Chaska Road to the top of the hill here. I'm speaking in terms of percents
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 36
~ of grades, you just can't go from a 7% from Chaska Road up to the top here.
You have to provide a landing down at Chaska Road to start with to make the
intersection somewhat, a good stop prior to entering that road. Typically
3% per 100 feet is standard practice in doing that. We're looking at a
distance from where we are at the center of the cul-de-sac to Chaska Road,
we're looking at typically 300 feet so that means you've got 200 feet at 7%,
which is 14 feet plus 100 feet at 3% makes it 17 feet and we're looking at
60 feet so that's 43 feet elevation difference. Physically, that just
doesn't make any sense.
Allen Putnam: What Jo Ann is saying about weaving some roads through here,
you're really cutting up the property to do that to even still compenstate
the 43 feet that physically is really tough.
Conrad: How does that current get service right now? There is a house on
Lot 2. It's going up at a fairly significant grade isn't it? There's a
driveway going up there I assume.
Noziska: Yes, there's a driveway off of Chaska Road.
Allen Putnam: That is Robert's driveway and I guess he could tell you how
well he manages it.
Bill Swearengin: Where you're talking about putting the road up the hill,
~that's where the kids slide. Not the place for a street on this Chaska Road
"'really. You're talking about a problem.
Joel Cooper: A driveway and city street are two different things also.
Conrad: The setback Barb from Lot 2, the property there, have they met the
setback to Lot 6?
Olsen: Technically the front would be from Chaska Road and that would be
the side lot although the house does face right over Chaska.
Dacy:
also.
The side setback is 10. That's going to be at the top of the hill
The pad for Lot 6 is going to be where that dashed line is.
Conrad: I'm not real comfortable with the plat as I see it. It's a strange
piece of property and we're carving it up in unique ways and we're accessing
it in a way that if I were a neighbor I would be rather irritated to find a
new street sitting next to me. I also feel that the lot sizes are a little
bit out of character. They meet the ordinance but they still are out of
character with the neighborhood so therefore I'm not too concerned about
keeping the 15,000 square foot lot size minimum. I'm more concerned with
matching character of neighborhood. More as we look at other subdivisions,
we try to provide, as you recall, transitions, lot sizes. We don't have
much room for transitions in this small subdivision but still I don't see a
great deal of emphasis to make any kind of transition between the
~ neighborhood. I think my bottom line on this, given that this may be the
,.,best way to access the property and give the owner access to it, I'm not
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 37
e sure of that yet, but maybe it's true.
prefer to see at least two lots taken
taking two lots out and reconfiguring
concerns and fit in a little bit more
I think it's too dense and I would
out of the subdivision. I think
some of this may solve some of my
with the neighborhood.
Olsen: Are you happy with the proposed street?
Wildermuth: No but I don't know that we want to include that in the motion.
Dacy: So you're wanting a plan that shows access from Chaska? Is that what
you mean by reconfigure?
Wildermuth: Right.
Noziska: I go along with the reconfiguration and increase of the lot size
so I would second it on that since I don't know whether accessing off of
Chaska is the right way or not but I want to take another look at this
before we send it to City Council. I also don't like to send something to
City Council with 12 or 15 recommendations so from that aspect.
Conrad: Would you rather table it or would you rather turn it down?
Noziska: I would rather table it and see it again. If we turn it down then
ewe may not see it again and I would just as soon see it again.
Conrad: But Jim's motion was to reconfigure it with access from Chaska Road
and you're not in agreement with that Howie are you?
Noziska: I don't know whether reconfiguring from Chaska Road is the right
way or not. I think coming off of Murray Hill it creates some very weird
outlots and I feel uneasy at best about the creation of those outlots so I
think something in this whole process, if we're going to have that access
and that may be the only way to keep from chewing up all of the trees but I
think somehow it has to be planned better than well, we'll have maybe some
developer or maybe some homeowners association take care of it. Something.
Either do something off of Chaska or resolve this problem of Murray Hill and
I also think that I'm not totally convinced in my own mind that we've looked
at the problem currently as to what we're going to do with Murray Hill so I
think maybe there are just so many questions yet in my mind that are up in
the air tha t tabl i ng it and to take a look a t another proposal where we
don't have quite so many recommendations and quite so many questions makes a
lot of sense. Whether it's access off of Chaska or whether it's
reconfiguration or redo of the new proposed street off of Murray Hill, I
don't know but something needs to be done to make it better.
Wildermuth: Okay, I'll take the provision about accessing off of Chaska
Road. The options that they either go from Murray Hill or Chaska Road.
Joel Cooper: Would it be helpful, we've got grading plans that shows the
e limits of the work that's being proposed with this road as was shown here.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 38
~ I think it might shed some light on how much new construction would be
disturbing the present site as it is. I can delineate some lines or some
limits of the construction as this is proposed and I think it might be
easier for you to understand how this better suits the property than coming
from Chaska hill if I'm right.
Conrad: Let's do this, I'm not sure that that's going to alter what we do
now. I think at some point in time that's important for us to see because
as you can tell, I have some questions. I'm still a little bit
uncomfortable but I think what we do have are some recommendations that
aren't totally in concrete on our Staff Report right now and I'm not real
comfortable turning them loose today when they haven't totally been
resolved. The outlot situation. The Park and Rec recommendation. I would
kind of like to see what they are saying. I think there are some things
that I would like closure on before I send that along to City Council. The
configuration and the proper access is important but I'm not sure that I
need to close in on that right now. Under discussion, what you folks think
about tabling it versus reacting to it? We could react it to tonight, send
along to City Council. They could get a feel for that or we can table it.
The developer has all the right in the world to come back with the same
configuration. We can say we don't like it. He certainly can come back and
we're going to have to send it along. Do we have enough reason to table it
for other information and that's what I really want us to be sure of. If we
can request a developer to consider something but I guess I really want to
~make sure that we're tabling it for information purposes that we don't have
., right now.
Emmings: Couldn't we ask the developer to bring it back? Table it. He's
heard our concerns tonight and ask him to tell us why this is the best way.
Why there shouldn't be access off of Chaska Road to this project rather than
going, let him explain that to us in detail and maybe even if he could show
us a couple of drawings of how you could possibly do it. Maybe that would
show us why you can't do it. The other thing he could show us at the same
time, the other thing he should have to defend is putting in all of these
15,000 to 30,000 square foot lots because when you said that we're not
locked into that, looking at our ordinance and all it says is that 15,000 is
a minimum subject to all kinds of other considerations. I think maybe those
15,000 square foot lots are too small for the neighborhood. Maybe we could
also Staff at that time to bring it back to show us what more of the
surrounding property looks like. I think that will help us so for those
kind of things I think it would be worthwhile tabling it.
Noziska: I also think too that we still need a better explanation of what
in the world is going to happen is this new proposed street goes in, how the
outlots going to be? To me there is just a whole pile of unanswered
questions floating in the air.
Emmings: Maybe we should see a landscaping plan for those and we should
know who is going to own it and who is going to maintain it and we don't
e know tha t now.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 39
e Bill Swearengin: Item 6, from the school district point of view, the
principal of the new Minnetonka Intermediate School will be striken if he
finds out that there is another path for the students of the 5th and 6th
graders to route themselves down to the shopping center. That should be
striken from the plan. There is a street that goes up called Chaska Road.
Melody Hill goes right up to the playground. When West was open we had
enough problems with the kids sneaking through the woods and through all the
lots. We don't need a walkway to help them get to the shopping center.
Conrad: We've got a motion out there and I think there's a pretty good
feeling that we table it. At least you're hearing some of our concerns.
More than likely it would not pass tonight if we didn't table it. What I
would like to do, if that does pass, invite you back in two weeks if that
fits on our schedule so the engineer can go through with us and just
reassure that this is the best access method because it's a little bit
unusual. Tearing down a house and putting in a road. I am concerned with
lot sizes but more specifically, I'm more concerned with some of the
unanswered questions in our Staff Report right now and I think the Staff can
work with you and resolve some of those issues so we're not sending to City
Counc i 1 someth i ng tha t we don't qu i te kno w wha tit was once it gets there.
Any more discussion?
Erhart: I think we ought to go ahead and vote on it but I think we ought to
take a little bit more time to relay our feelings about these lots sizes.
4ItI'm not too sure that we made it clear if we vote on Jim's proposal.
Conrad: Let's do that afterwards.
Wildermuth moved, Noziska seconded to table Subdivision Request #87-24 until
it has been reconfigured so the lot sizes are more in keeping with the other
parcels in the area. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion
carried.
Conrad: Let us review what items we would like the Staff and the applicant
to review together and corne back with. Specifically the number 2 on the
Staff Report, if we can have closure on number 2. On number 6, will Park
and Rec react before we meet again?
Noziska:
I think Bill's comments should be relayed to them too.
Conrad: I'm concerned with and would like Staff to review road access again
on Murray Hill. I just want to reconfirm that there aren't going to be any
hazards. Any needed improvements. Let's review it and see front end that
this has not imposed any new traffic problems for Melody Hill Road. What
other items would we like Staff to review?
Headla: On number 4, I think that's got to be reworded.
Barb had that reworded.
It sounded like
~ Noziska: We were talking about the compatibility with the lot sizes. I
..,think that's an important thing for the developer to keep in mind and if it
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 40
4It is not in concert with the area, I think that should certainly be taken into
account. Also, I'm not sure that 13 foot for a sideyard is kind of like my
45 wide lot in downtown Minneapolis. It's a little tight and we could check
out the neighbor. Is that far enough away?
Dacy: In that case for Lot 6, again, they are on top of the hill and the
building pad is going to be on Chaska Road and there is going to be an
elevation change there.
Nozi ska: That I'm not concerned about. The di stance part, if it's 13 feet
and it only has to be 10, then that answers my question so I don't have a
concern there anymore.
Conrad: Anything else before we get to the developer and what we would like
him to talk about?
Headla: I do have one concern right now about the 15,000 square feet and we
want to judge it on today. I think we ought to be judging on where is the
rest of the area going to be in 5 years, 8 years. You're asking us to judge
it on what's today and he's going to get trapped into that. The other
people can come around.
Conrad: Absolutely. They can subdivide just like he can subdivide and I
think that's a valid point. So therefore, we have to consider that when we
Atake a look at what the community may go to. What I would like you to do
.when you come back. I think some of these points you can resolve fairly
easily with Staff. What I would like to do is have the engineer give us
some real rough ideas of what it's going to take to different accesses. I
don't think we want a whole lot of, we want to get a feel for the damage
that it would do to the site and just be real confident that you're bringing
us in the right location. That's where we want to be. The other thing is
I guess I would encourage you to take a look at reconfiguring of lot sizes.
I'm reading this group and I'm not sure, I think you should come back if you
still are in favor of this, I think persuade us that this works in the
neighborhood. Any other direction to the developer?
Eric Canton: I sense there are a number of sort of free floating questions
or concerns that weren't really verbalized and with all due respect, it
would help us if you could, at your convenience, at least advise Staff who
then could advise us what those concerns really are.
Conrad: That won't happen. We won't do that but are there any other
concerns that they should be aware of?
Emmings: I think if you take a look at the Minutes from this meeting,
you'll have them all. Somewhere or other in this mess of talk, you'll find
it.
Eric Canton: I guess I'm appreciative of any firm direction as to specifics
~ that you have in mind that you prefer and things you feel very uncomfortable
..about and there was some vagueness I think in some of the points and I could
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 41
e. .
artIculate them If I could understand them.
Emmings: Lot size is certainly one. You've got that one. Access is the
other big one. Can it come off of Chaska Road? Why shouldn't it? What's
going to happen with those out1ots? We're concerned about who is going to
take care of them primarily. To me those are the key ones.
Conrad: I don't think there are any other items than that. On some you can
persuade us on. Lot sizes, I don't know. You're going to have to do a
fairly good job of persuading me that they are right for that neighborhood
but I'm not telling you that they have to be the same as the neighbors but I
see the disparity. In my mind, given the information I'm looking at, there
is a tremendous disparity between your lot size. Tremendous. I don't know
what that means. There is a disparity between your lot sizes and the lot
sizes of the neighbors. Between you and Staff you can come back and talk to
us. My gut feeling is there is more density in there than I would like to
see and that's my gut feeling and probably the rest of the Planning
Commission but we're giving you an opportunity to come back and persuade us
one way or the other.
Robert Sommer: The City fathers pronounced the lot sizes to be no less than
15,000 square feet.
Conrad: Those are guidelines. If you read them, between 15,000 and 40,000
~and the other guidelines are they have to be, that's one thing and we don't
"want to tell you exactly but we also want it to fit into the neighborhood.
A new road going through an old neighborhood is a little bit unusual.
Somebody didn't plan this right in the beginning if you really think about
it many, many years ago. Now we're doing what somebody affecting a
neighborhood that's been there for a long time and I think it's hard for me
to react to sure, let's just do that and let's put in small units behind
their house. I think the direction of our ordinance is to talk about
sensitivity to the environment and I have a good feeling that you are. You
are communicating that fairly well. Our ordinances also talk about
sensitivity to the neighboring lot sizes and I'm not sure you are sensitive
to that right now because I don't see what those sizes are and I think the
way we're handled other subdivisions, we've really tried to get them to
match up as much as we can. Bigger subdivision than you have so that as
they move away you can change lot sizes. You're in the middle of a lot of
stuff.
Robert Sommer: Economics determines the lot size.
Noziska: Also, I think that as a City we need to do a little more homework
or at least maybe I'm not as informed as I should be on Murray Hill Road and
how this intersection with a cul-de-sac works with Murray Hill Road and
what's going to have to be done with Murray Hill Road. Is anything? Isn't
anything and why?
a Bill Swearengin:
..,so that you're...
Is the Planning Commission planning on touring that area
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 52
~allocate so many spaces for
have certain spaces in that
residents?
visitors? Is that a possibility where visitors
parking lot and the balance is for the
Brad Johnson: I guess the way we handle that question because it always
comes up when a building is built, is that we try to show you how we
could add 12 more spaces or something to the site and then redo it if
somebody on the Councilor you guys say we have to do it. I've done that on
a number of projects where we've just singled out here's an alternate sketch
of how we can do what's proposed. It's a fairly common question.
Especially when you start going over 1 1/2. We can come back with an
alternate sketch for City Council.
Conrad: Obviously you would approach the issue by finding more spaces
rather than restricting residents in apartment buildings? I don't have any
more comments. I like the way it looks.
Noziska moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Planned unit Development Requeit #87-1 subject to the
following conditions:
1.
A detailed utility plan showing water, sewer and storm sewer
connections, as well as fire hydrant locations shall be submitted
prior to building permit issuance.
e
2.
A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted detailing additional
screening along the south, west and east property lines prior to
building permit issuance.
3. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction
with the development plans for the retail projects to be developed
to the south and east of this parcel.
4. Detailed facia and signage plans shall be submited for Planning
Commission and City Council final review prior to building permit
issuance.
5. Removal of the existing single family residence including the
proper demolition procedures.
6. Detailed lighting plans shall be submited prior to building permit
issuance.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Chairman Conrad left the meeting at this point and Steven Emmings assumed
the responsibilities of Chairman.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 51
e Erhart:
That's what you're trying to comply with in a PUD.
Dacy: Transfer isn't the right term. You're really allowing an increase in
density over what is typically required by the zoning ordinance.
Erhart: And in exchange for that we give some various things and here we're
saying what we're getting is tax increment financing?
Conrad: Based on this development, what have we taken the density up to?
We taken from 60' units for this development, what does that work out to per
acre?
Dacy: 23.
Conrad: So really what we're doing in my mind is we're saying 23 units per
acre in the City of Chanhassen is acceptable. We're saying downtown right
now but we'll be pressured for other high density, multiple dwelling areas
to the City for us to explain why 23 there and why not 23 there and we'll
come back and say...
Dacy: At Staff's suggestion that they file another application outside like
in the Curry property.
Conrad: What's on the north side?
_Tom Zumwa Ide:
2 1/2 story apartments.
Conrad: The HRA has reviewed this plan or is it going to the HRA?
Dacy: They have reviewed the financing package and the development
contract. They have seen an overall schematic but they have not seen this
report.
Conrad: My only concern is based on Fred Hoisington's comment on how that
is dividing up that eastern portion of the downtown. I think the green area
that's being interjected there. I think that looks good but I don't even
want to get into the planning of that as long as somebody else is looking at
that and it makes sense from the downtown standpoint.
Brad Johnson: This is the housing portion and not seeing what is planned
for the rest. We held up this proposal until we had figured out what we're
going to do with the rest of the downtown area to adjust to what we just
did, no problem and we use the same firm for every development.
Conrad: If somehow we discover Brad that parking space is not enough
because these people tend to have far more visitors than the average, what
can be done? I really don't want parking spaces. I don't like it but I
also don't think it's smart to put it out on the street either and force it.
What are the chances of restricting? You're putting in more density than
what we originally planned and what the area can hold, are there
~possibilities for restrictions for the apartment building people where you
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 50
eEmmings: The other thing, I would expect that this is the kind of thing
that is really known in exquisite detail by people who plan so I'm going to
take my comfort in that but I'm not going to find any comfort in the fact
that our ordinance is consistent with other ordinances.
Tom Zumwalde: The Edenvale apartments that are just down the street on TH 5
and TH 4, we built that and that's a one to one. We've had to add 21
parking spots to that.
Emmings: When you say one to one.
Tom Zumwalde: One car per unit.
Emmings: And were they all single bedroom?
Tom Zumwalde: Yes.
Emm i ng s: So one to one turned ou t to be adequa te bu t here we have one to
one and a half.
Tom Zumwalde:
It's the first one we've had to increase the parking on.
Emmings:
It looks there is room to do that here.
... Noziska: Steve, if it's not on a Sunday morning or early Saturday evening,
,.,they always have St. Hubert's parking lot.
Erhart: PUD I see is real simple to apply if we are assuming that we're
getting something extra. Let me go back a second. How did we ever justify
these densities under the old ordinance?
Dacy: They were were built some in the late 60's prior to the Comp Plan or
Zoning Ordinance.
Erhart: How did we ever come up with 12 units per acre in the most recent
zoning ordinance? Did we make provisions for apartments complexes?
Dacy: Right, but only at the density of 12 units per acre.
Erhart: I was just looking at what our history shows us that that's
inadequate for an apartment building.
Dacy: Through the Commission process and the Council it came back that 12.
Originally 15 was proposed. It went to Council and they said no, that's too
high. If you came back and had it amended for 20, Met Council would jump up.
and down for Chanhassen to do that. They would love this plan.
Erhart: So let's assume we're all in agreement on that, what is density
transfer again? Density transferring from one area to another?
~DaCy: Right and that really isn't applicable in this situation.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 49
~garage and then 48 open spaces.
spaces per one bedroom uni t and
we've got 108 spaces and that's
The way your ordinance reads, it's 1 1/2
2 spaces for the two bedroom or larger so
exactly what the ordinance calls for.
Emmings: I know it meets the ordinance because that's what our report says
and maybe that's perfectly adequate. It just seems to me that people who
have a two bedroom unit are very likely to have two cars and I don't know
what happens if many people show up at once to visit, I don't know where
they are going to park.
Noziska: Downtown.
Emmings: I suppose they could park in the retail area and hike over there.
Brad Johnson: If it gives you any comfort, we anticipate around 10 to 20 of
those units will be occupied by single senior women. We would probably
request to have a spot per center. We find that we were normally running a
half a car per unit is even enough.
Emmings: How do you take into account people who come? Not just people who
live there but the people who come to visit?
Brad Johnson: Just by the odds and the numbers. I think it's done that way
because that's what people have found over time is adequate.
~conrad: The question is, is that the standard to accommodate guests and
that's a real concern. If it's all taken up with residents, I don't think
we're wild about having people park on the street.
Tom Zumwalde: For what it's worth, your ordinance is consistent with every
other ordinance that I've seen. It's based on a certain number of parking
spaces per dwelling unit and I don't ever recall seeing an extra number of
spaces set aside for visitor parking so it's my assumption that in their
calculations, the spaces for the number of units, there is also some for
guest parking. In this particular instance, we don't have a great deal more
room on this site to add any parking. I guess I would question from an
aesthetic standpoint first of all what it would do to the site if we were to
add more spaces. Are they in fact going to be necessary or are we going to
take what could be green and turn it into bituminous? The other thing I
look at would be the alternatives for parking. If in fact there was a day
when everyone had guests over or something, I would assume that there
probably are some other alternatives around the area with the amount of
commercial space.
Emmings: Let me ask you this, I don't want to beat this to death because I
think reasonably I think it's fine and the Staff says it's fine but if it
would turn out that there was a shortage of parking, could you expand? It
looks like there might even be room to expand parking to add to.
Tom Zumwalde: There is space back in here.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 48
~Noziska: I guess the density is a bit high but in looking at the plan, I
really don't have any objection to it. I think they've done a nice job of
taking a pretty big building and making it look as small as you can and it's
a rather clever use of a good soil so I guess I don't have any objections.
I don't think it would be out of context that bad with the neighborhood. I
don't think I object to seeing that. I'm glad to hear that we're going to
have some daycare available because those kind of apartments are going to
need daycare. More so than we do even today so I think it's a good plan.
The only one thing that I always come back to is I would assume that it's
wood frame above the garage.
Tom Zumwalde: That's correct.
Noziska: And it always bothers me putting a building of that size together
wi thou t more concern over fire. I just don't know how one would even pu t
fire walls in the building that's configured that direction. I always thing
of Chanhassen as having rather limited capacity. We've got plenty of
neighbors around here but still that's time.
Tom Zumwalde: I talked with the Fire Inspector for the City about various
potential problems he saw and had addressed those to his satisfaction. In
terms of the building and the details of fire walls and so forth, they have
not been figured out yet. We're not at that stage of development. We will
meet all the code requirements for fire and for the building inspector too.
e Noziska: I know we've got a motel that's an excellent example of a fire
resistant structure and that makes me feel good in a community that has a
volunteer fire department because I know when we start building, if we build
too many huge barns like this, we're going to have to do something with our
fire department so that's also money and taxes later on. I think the motel
people provided for an excellent example of an affordable fire resistant
structure. Those are the thoughts that are my mind and maybe with the soil
considerations it's not possible to make a fire resistant structure. That I
don't know but other than that, I go along with Jim.
Emmings: I think it's really an attractive building. I like it a lot.
Parking is the thing that I key in on. Maybe I'm becoming and Barbara
predicted I would bring this issue up and I have thought about it because
there are 60 units there are 2 parking spaces.
Dacy:
It should have been 108. That was my fault.
Emmings: Even so, it's not 2 per unit and maybe you don't need them but
aga in, 1 i ke we had th i s other one tha t came up here and I th i nk abou t where
do visitors park and all that and maybe it's adequate. I simply have no way
to know but it bothers me. Is the parking in the garage, it is reserved for
the people who live there I assume?
Tom Zumwalde: I am assuming the same thing. That it will be just strictly
residents. The way your ordinance is set up, it's one covered space per
~dWelling unit is required. There are 60 units so there are 60 spaces in the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 47
~Wildermuth: what kind of precedence are we going to be setting if we
consider this as a Planned Unit Development? In the recommendations you
said that the Planning Commission has to decide if this location is
appropriate planning for development or what is the alternative?
Dacy: The PUD process is really a rezoning process based on an individual
site plan. The community has a lot more discretion because it is a rezoning
application and you are evaluating a specific site plan for a specific site.
The alternative to the PUD application was submitting a site plan review and
a subdivision application. But because of the density of the proposal a
variance would be required. The other option that was suggested was you
could literally create a zoning district to allow 24 units per acre. We did
not recommend that however because of the past process we just went through
the past three years that you could file a rezoning application for that
anywhere else. One of the other reasons for the PUD, it was at this one
specific location and had other existing apartments surrounding it to the
north of similar density.
Conrad: So based on that logic, we're setting a precedent for the tax
increment district in terms of density.
Dacy: The entire tax increment district, or I should say the downtown, is
guide planned as commercial. As Mr. Zumwalde noted, this area along Chan
View is guide planned as high density as well. We're talking about an
~additional acre of land that's being used for multiple family. If there was
~to be another proposal for multiple family in the downtown area, you would
have to go through a guide plan change so to take back on the commercial
land that we already have now, I'm sure the Council would not...
Wildermuth: The only extent for which it is precedent setting is that it
happens to be in the tax increment district? How long does the tax increment
district survive? Until the debt is retired?
Dacy: That's correct and at this point I think we're proposing to retire it
in 1994.
Erhart: Is this the PUD ordinance we just passed?
Dacy: That's right.
Erhart: Doesn't that talk about minimum lot size of 12,000 feet?
Dacy: That's regarding single family development.
Erhart: That's the only thing we've got.
Dacy: No, it refers to other uses.
Wildermuth: I don't have any further questions.
like the elevation views.
e
I like the design and I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 46
~aware of what the plans and everything is.
Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Headla:
This letter from Fred Hoisington, could you comment on that?
Dacy: The intent for his third item is that he wanted to insure that
everyone is aware that there is 170 feet left as opposed to 230. It does
put more of a constriction as to what you can do for the site plan for the
property to the south. Brad mentioned they are just culminating their
planning process for what we commonly refer to as this being Retail Central
and Retail East. Mr. Hoisington when he wrote the letter did not have the
benefit of this plan but he was just flagging an item that he wants everyone
to be aware of at this point in time.
Brad Johnson: What he's saying there is if we were to build retail, we
would have to build it right here in front of this lot. We were aware of
that and that's why this is now parking. There will be a lot of parking for
the medical center.
Headla: How are you sure that area is being put to the best use for the
next 40-50 years?
..Dacy: You are questioning whether or not the apartments are appropriate use
. there?
Headla: Yes.
Dacy: That's really an item for discussion tonight. If the Commission
feels that the proposal is proposing too much, then the option is to scale
back the yard and the additional area is left for commercial area. This
issue tonight that you're dealing with is just a proposal.
Brad Johnson: As you see it there, the project for best use is how you
define it. How we define it is how much tax dollars is generated for the
City.
Headla: I guess I don't want to say best use. I'm thinking not only of
today but in 10 to 20 years. Where are we going to be in 20 years. Is that
going to be a hinderance in 20 years?
Tom Zumwalde: This piece of property was already zoned R-12 which is the
highest housing density you have. Traditionally what happens is that when
you go from single family to commercial, you go to a higher density housing
before you get to commercial in almost any community I can think of and
that's essential what's happened here. You've got single family residences
up further north. You get down to the 2 1/2 story apartments here. You get
a larger apartment and then you start hitting the commercial area and that's
fairly typical in almost any community. At least any that I'm aware of in
~terms of overall planning and land use.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 45
~downtown area, we have to generate x amount of increments. Originally we
were going to put the housing over here. We discovered that to acquire this
one building was $250,000.00 and we could not afford to do it. Then we
discovered we had $500,000.00 worth of excavation and pilings that would
have to be dumped to build on that site. These were all surprises as we
went through in trying to create a plan that we were working on. So we did
some more surveys and found out there is a hill right here hidden in the
ground that we could build this particular building. Our first design is
not very nice but the new one is quite nice I think and with the new plan
coming in, I think we end up with a pretty substantially good looking
building when we accomplish it. We have to increase the density by 20 units
so we bought some more property which is the Rettler building and put the
Bloomberg property which was originally supposed to be business and we then
said, we think we can accomplish this so we signed a contract with the City
saying we'll produce a $20,000.00 something over here and 2.5 million dollar
something right here. That's the kind of process we have to go through and
then as we were going through that, about 3 or 4 weeks ago we said now wait
a minute, what are we going to do with this now? So we've been running
around and we found out that somebody was thinking about putting a clinic in
town and as of Thursday we were the selected choice for the new medical arts
facility which will be built in the City if we can get it all put together
through the HRA and through City Council. This is planned as a two story,
30,000 square foot medical arts building which will be half medical and half
arts, retail type of space that wil be going into there. As a requirement
~of this, the clinic is requiring that this become a daycare center over here
_and that one be put in the community. That comes from the fact that there
apparently has been a service for two years to try to find a site for a day
care center in this community and they think this is good so we're under
contract and you'll be seeing things on that one. We'll be able to put a
tot lot back here and it will be close to St. Hubert's and that's kind of
where we're at and why the plan is as it is. There is plenty of parking to
meet all the requirements but there has been a fairly big change. It's hard
to envision how this all would go together if you just saw the first page.
All this new part will be presented to the HRA next Thursday as part of what
we now perceive a doable and rentable which would be more important, plan
for the downtown so that we can generate the dollars that are necessary. At
the HRA level, it's very much oriented towards how can you, that's us,
generate enough tax dollars so we can change the downtown area. Wouldn't
you say?
Dacy: Just to clarify so the Commission understands, also in that contract
the HRA fully recognizes the role that the Planning Commission plays. There
is also a statement in there that they have to comply with any applicable
zoning ordinance review, subdivision review, etc.. You guys are the
planners for the community. You don't have to deal with the finances.
That's not your purvue. You're to be dealing with planning issues.
Brad Johnson: So the process is HRA, City Council, back to the Planning
Commission for our kinds of stuff. I think that's why things come to you
after they've been through a big circle. By the way, we met with all the
_neighborhood people three times. That's why nobody is here. They are all
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 44
~building materials themselves, I'm looking at about 50% brick on the lower
portion of the building. It reads dark on the monitor. Above the brick we
would have the lap siding right in this area and up into the gabled ends.
Then for the roof itself, we're proposing asphalt shingles. There was some
discussion with Barb this week concerning the type of asphalt shingles since
most everything in Chanhassen now is cedar shakes. The scale of most of
your buildings is a little smaller such that cedar shakes on a building of
this size probaby would not be appropriate. It also would be prohibited
from a cost standpoint. What we're proposing is a timberline type asphalt
shingle which has the appearance of a cedar shake type of roof. Generally,
that's it. I don't want to spend any more time on it.
Brad Johnson: I th i nk you probaby know I would 1 i ke to sta te why we're
doing what we're doing. Basically, as a downtown redeveloper, our objective
is to internally finance the acquisition of almost Two million dollars worth
of property on the north side of the street. Tear it down and then build
what we're trying to build. One of our problems is building something big
enough to accomplish that so what happens is that as we were going through
the process of getting final approval from the City to do Retail West, they
wanted to know how the whole downtown was going to work and as you will
start hearing here pretty soon our grocery store is moving over here
someplace and different kinds of things so we've shoved a lot of what we
perceived to be retail type of endeavors are going to be more to the west of
the Dinner Theater now. It has to do with the people wanting highway
.. visibility. At least with our current situation. Our objective was to be
~under construction and have the north side of the street completed by the
end of next year so we went about trying to figure out how we could build
enough mass in order to generate enough tax increment so that we could then
purchase the property, tear it down and build something new. So what we're
dealing with in scale is a plan that has to meet the HRA and City Council's
requirements as to the amount of building we'll build during a certain
period of time so we can take care of what is considered to be the blight of
the community which is the Hanus building. There is about a million dollars
worth of acquisition, I hate to call Bernie's building a blight but it is.
Bernie Hanson: Careful.
Brad Johnson: But basically right here is my problem so when we make a
proposal to the City and they have approved this. See, this is part of our
development problem. We've got a contract with the City to build this. The
City has a contract to tear down the Rettler House. These are all things
that have been done as part of the HRA process. The City Council and HRA
have basically approved this because they signed a contract to do this.
We're generating most of the money, the excess increment from here. The way
we have to go through our process on redevelopment is we go to the HRA.
They approve it financially. We go to the City. They approve it
f i nanc i a lly and then we come back to you to see wha t you th i nk of it. As
you know, we're kind of running through it. We're running through the
process and I think last time when I was here with Retail West you said
you're going to see a lot more of us because now you get more involved in
~the overall process. The bottom line is, in order to accomplish the whole
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 43
4Itneed a greener buffer around the site itself. I was a little bit
uncomfortable creating too much of a barrier only because I think then we're
starting to...than to make them all work together but I guess the one
concern, the one area is here. The difference in density in building sites
from one to the other. In terms of screening the residential building from
the new development along here, it's our hope that the new building just
south of the site will be not a frontal building but rather have a nice back
side to it as well so we won't be looking at a service area but it will be a
clean face. I guess what I'm saying in essense is that we like to minimize
screening that area around the site. What we're proposing is a three story
on a concrete garage. The garage itself will be approximately 50% below
grade and 50% above grade. As the grades are right now. What we would be
doing is some berming around the building so a good portion of the garage
will be hidden by that built up portion. The drive itself has a single
entry/exit point at about the center. It's actually on the east side of the
building. You enter and you would have parking on each wing of the
building. The red area shown on here is stairs and elevator and mechanical
storage. The three upper levels are kind of an inverted question mark
configuration. There are approximatey 20 units on each floor. The first
floor has a community space in the southeastern corner. There is a dashed
line around it. The balance of the floor then are units. 13 two bedroom
units and about 8 one bedroom units per floor. Each floor has a laundry
room and then several storage areas for individual storage for each unit.
Let me speak just for a moment about the configuration of the building.
~Barbara mentioned the soil problems on the site which restricted our use of
..the land in terms of buildable area. Everything along Chan View and
'basically the R-12 portion of the site, is a poor soil section that building
requires pilings. In putting the building over in this area, first of all
we're pointing it a little bit away from the residential area and also this
configuration has a very limited portion of the building that extends out to
Chan View. You go back to the site plan for just a minute and look at that
portion of the building that faces Chan View. It's not so dissimilar to the
2 1/2 story building right next to it in terms of size. It would be a
little higher and a little wider but it certainly a lot different than what
you see on the model over there with the entire building spread out along
Chan View. I think that will soften the transition from residential to
commercial and if you look at the commercial side of it and go to another
drawing of that showing the proposed commercial development as well, the
relationship as you come in the realigned West 78th Street, you end up with
the proposed two story office and medical building. The three story
building and then some one story buildings over here so from a planning
sense and just a spacial sense, you get a nice feel of the buildings kind of
rising up one on the other. I feel in a larger sense as is shown on this
plan that this building configuration fits very well with the commercial
business as proposed right now. Now I'm going to skip back again to the
building elevations. They are not intended to be this red. I don't know
how it reads on your monitor but what we're looking at essentially are earth
tones that fit in with the rest of the community. First of all, the style
of the building generally will be fairly traditional. You have gabled ends.
Living units with balconies and steep roof slopes on the gabled ends so you
~would be 12/12 slopes which is a very traditional quality to it. The
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 42
e Conrad: We'll make sure that we're out there.
We'll stop in.
That's a good idea Bill.
Bill Swearengin: Walk up the hill right across from my house, that's where
the driveway is going to go. That's a high speed road by the way. It's
posted at 35 but the traffic travels mostly at 45 to 50. To dump a road
down a hill onto that is going to cause an infinite number of problems.
You'll have more objections to dumping onto Chaska Road from the neighbors
on Chaska Road than you will from Murray Hill.
Nancy Swearengin: The Comprehensive Plan, that whole area from our land on
the four acres and all that, we're still chopping away at it in pieces and
we're not blending. You're supposed to read the Comprehensive Plan on how
you're going to build corners so everything blends. We're chopping away
again.
Conrad: How are we doing that again? I know the Comprehensive Plan very
well.
Bill Swearengin: You're spot zoning.
Conrad: No, we're not spot zoning.
Bill Swearengin: You still have us guided for single family and yet we
enjoy a traffic count of 30 some thousand cars on our immediate corner.
_There should be a buffer between his development and TH 7 and that should be
us.
Conrad: But right now you're zoned single family right?
Bill Swearengin: Right.
Allen Putnam: I think one other thing to remember is that Murray Hill Road
is not exclusively in Chanhassen either. Before it gets to Chaska Road it's
in Shorewood.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON 2.5
ACRES. THE PARCEL .!.E.. ZONED R-12, HIGH-DENSITYRESIDENTIAL AND CBD, CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHAN VIEW OPPOSITE THE
HURON INTERSECTION,-cHA~ASSEN DO~TOWN DEVELOPMENT-ASSOCIATION AND FIRST---
AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION.
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this PUD application.
Tom Zumwalde: Given the late hour, I believe all of you received
of drawings and do you want me to go through the drawings again?
through it I'll try to explain some of the concerns from our side
tltconditions that were put on here. One that was mentioned we felt
a full set
As I go
and the
that we
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 53
~REVIEW FACIA PLANS AND SIGNS FOR RETAIL WEST, CHADDA.
- -
Dacy: This review is following up on the recent action that you took on the
Retail West site plan and conditional use permit process to review the
detailed facia and signage plans. Looking at your monitor now, this is a
revised facia plan for the Retail West project. You may recall from the
previous plan it's more a western appearance. It's a flat roof line,
heights on the roof and now they are proposing a pitched, 12/12 roof and
appertances here that you see that look like chimneys but really house the
air conditioning and rooftop equipment so it provides more of an appeal in a
residential setting and mixes in well with the area to the north. Both Mr.
Hoisington and BRW have reviewed this and their comments are attached. The
only comment that they did have was a very minor one on the poundage for the
roof shingle. The intent being to increase that amount to 450 to 500 to
make it look more like cedar shake which was eluded to earlier that
currently exists in the downtown area. That was their only comment. Again,
the roof pitch plan and overall appearance has improved and I also want to
point out that this was the color of the rock faced brick that was
originally proposed. It's a little more yellow in color and what they are
proposing now is a cooler gray and they were going to have an example
presented but we felt that the grayer would look a little better but this is
an example of the facia for the rock face and this is an example of the
siding. The consultants and everyone is very much pleased with the revision
that was done and we are recommending approval on that. Then the other
items was the detailed signage plan. Again, we have no problem with that
~excePt that the free standing individual pylon sign is proposed as a larger
sign than is allowed in our ordinance so we are recommending that you do not
recommend that sign at this time. That they come back with a smaller sized
sign to fit our ordinance standards but the wall signage plan they proposed,
we're recommending approval.
Brad Johnson: I just want to point out something. This is a signage size
plan. I don't want you to be surprised though if the colors, I think I
stated this last time that tenants who have various colors and we would like
to have the discretion of the signing if we stayed with kind of a newer
sign. I'm afraid if I show this to Brook's Superette they may not rent a
spot because you can't see the sign.
Emmings: What do you think they would want to do?
Brad Johnson: They go with their normal standard logos.
Emmings: Which is?
Brad Johnson: Yellow and black or white and black.
Dacy: We have no problem with the color differentiation. All that the city
is concerned about is standardization of signs.
Brad Johnson: We want to make is as nice as possible too but we get caught
4Itin franchising. All these guys come with certain requirements and that's
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 1987 - Page 54
~what we have to deal with.
Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
that the City Council adopt the revised facia plan stamped "Received May 22,
1987". All voted in favor and motion carried.
Noziska moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the wall signage detail as shown on the plan stamped "Received
May 22, 1987". Any variation of signage shall not be permitted, especially
as pertaining to the gas pump canopy area. No other signage shall be
installed without Planning Commission and City Council review. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
wildermuth moved, Noziska seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated May 6, 1987. All voted in favor except Erhart who
abstained and motion carried.
Wildermuth moved, Noziska seconded to adjourn the meeting.
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at
""SUbmitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
All voted in
11:30 p.m..
prepared by Nann Opheim
.