1987 06 17
"--":""~ii;},~1i:W-~"~~.:f'~~_ ~~Jtf~1t~-
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
it~~. 17, 1987,
~C~~irman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad and James
Wildermuth
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Howard Noziska and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
ON PROPE~ZONED RSF, R-4, R-8, AND R-12 AND LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST
SIDE OF POWERS BOU"'EEVARD (CR 17), 1/2 MILE-s6UTH OF HIGHWAY 5, DON-pATTON';
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Name
Address
Kathy Holtmeier
Tom Rice
Neil Hamer
:JaJfreg Br ick
~obert K. Kupp
Ron Dahlen
Don Patton
Jim Hill
Jim Lamson
Bill Goers
8524 Great Plains Blvd.
61000 Sally Lane
1225 Bluehill Bay
4679Parkridge Drive, Eagan
22088 Navaron Drive, Burnsville
15028 Butternut Lane, Burnsville
7600 Parklawn, Edina
8300 Humboldt Ave. So., Mpls.
5132 Medina Ridge
1601 Lyman Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the PUD concept plan for Lake Susan
Hills West.
Don Patton: I would like to introduce some of the people involved in this.
Jim Lamson and Carl Reeves are two of the lanoowners involved in it. Jim
Curry is also one of the landowners. The builder is represented by Ron
Dahlen of Joseph Miller Construction who is proposing to build the homes.
The thing we're looking at is really two separate communities. On the west
side we're looking at homes in the $90,000.00 to $140,000.00 range. In your
exhibit you've seen the kind of homes that are being proposed in that. On the
east side we're looking at homes in the $140,000.00 to $225,000.00 range. The
conservative estimate of what this will bring to the community is about 9
million dollars of taxable real estate. We have changed some of the zoning.
We're trying to maintain the R-12 here. Again, RSF, as Jo Ann has said, we're
meeting all of the requirements of the Ordinance. Minimum 12,000 square foot.
Average 13,500. 20,000 square foot lots along the lake and 15,000 square foot
average or more than 15,000 square foot average along the wetlands. And
~gain, you have designated wetlands in these areas. In through here and here
I _
_..._~-
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 2
tltnd through here, we're looking at 15,000 square foot with 75 foot setback
from the wetlands. The building at the setback will be 80 and 85 feet. One
of the reasons we feel this is important to do as a PUD, it's a considerable
area of land. There are several areas that have critical services in them
from the standpoint of drainage, because they are adjacent to the lake and
because of the sanitary sewer. Especially down through here. Jim what is the
maximum grading?
Jim Hill: Anywhere from 30 to 60.
Don Patton: So with these extremes it is important to have an overall plan to
put all the services in. I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Hill who has done
the planning on this and he can give you some of the details.
Jim Hill: The opportunity to take 300 acres in Chanhassen, the owners have
combined their efforts in ownership and taken that 300 acres and we have,
under a PUD, have the opportunity to vary both the land uses, the house
styles, the densities, the lot sizes and how the neighborhood overall is
planned for the intrastructure and the park systems that hopefully we can
achieve in the Lake Susan area. We have taken the higher density parcels that
you see in the yellow and we've put that as a buffer to both the industrial
and the business park to the north adjacent to Creek Drive and we've kept the
higher densities along Powers Blvd. for the opportunity for the vehicular
traffic from the higher densities will not traverse the residential
.€ighbOrhood but will go directly to the major collector and that being Powers
.1 vd.. So we've kept that higher densi ties then as a buffer and also adj acent
to the arterial. That gave us an opportunity then, in looking at the
topography of the site and existing tree cover, wetlands, the low lands, Lake
Susan, gave us an opportunity to determine where the homes should be built and
where a family should live. We took the position that between Lake Susan and
Powers Blvd., we would have a single family residential area that would
recognize the wetlands, the opportunity to have the PUD addressed and be able
to have access to the entire PUD, have access to Lake Susan through the system
being development and/or sidewalks and trails. So we allowed that to happen
along the edge of the shore of Lake Susan. When we get to the park plan we
will show you the pathways and sidewalk systems. Along with that we have
recognized the wetlands and the lower area that is this green strip of land to
the south-southeast of the PUD. We recognize that as low. We recognize that
as a drainageway to Lake Susan from the south-southwest. Eventually in time,
I think that can be a very passive area for people in Chanhassen to traverse
and view nature. Along with that then we have and I forget the number of
units we have on the east side of the PUD, east of Powers, but if you walk the
area, the entire parcel has beautiful views. It was the assumption of the
developers and the landowners that we would have a larger, more expensive home
on the east side of Powers Blvd.. We get to the west side of Powers and here,
if you get on top of the ridge line, you would see that the west neighborhood
has some beautiful locations for some homes. Both in views and the unglading
landforms that exist in this entire area west of Powers. Beautiful area for
homesites. We've taken that in this general area and again we are recognizing
and I'll show you the wetlands and the drainageways through the west
4IreighbOrhOod, but recognizing the wetlands, recognizing the higher density
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 3
_arcels and provisions for parks on the west side also. We have come up with
this plan for the residential layout. In this neighborhood we wanted to
separate the residential neighborhood from the multi-family density and also
from the business park. For that reason, we had no tie, vehicular or industry
between the multi-family and the rest of it. We want to separate that
vehicular activity. That should be oriented to Creek Drive which is as
planned. The park system is approximately 18 acres to the south in the very
southerly area of the parcel. Considering the plan and the layout, there are
three designated city wetlands and we recognized that and we will achieve both
the lot sizes and the setbacks as the individual preliminary plats come in
for additional review by Planning Commission and Council. You can see that
phasing on how we will be finishing the entire PUD. These three wetland will
be recognized and planned accordingly with the residential development.
Although with that there is a DNR wetland and that's this larger area along
the southeast line of the property. Included in the west village we have a
major drainageway and ponding system that help in the overall storm water
management plan for the Lake Susan west PUD and that storm water management
plan will take the run-off through a series of ponding areas and eventually go
out through the normal drainageway not exceeding the run-off that is taking
place today. That's part of the storm water management plan and also part of
the Watershed District's requirements. In the original PUD, as proposed and
in the narrative proposed, the park system and amended plan for sidewalks and
bituminous pathways consisted of this plan here. Approximately 18% of the
land open space and parks outlined in green and just short of 2 miles of
~athways and sidewalks located in this area. In meeting with the Staff and
.ast night meeting with the Park Board, what you have, I believe the
resolution or comments from the meeting. The developers have accepted their
comments. The park plan now becomes just short of 62 acres representing 21%
of the land and it's located in these outlined green areas. All of this
additional 8 acres that you see in this area that are split will come with the
final approval. It is suggested here that 5 of the additional 8 acres and 3
of the additional acres be located... Along with that an additional sidewalk
was proposed from the original plan. Proposed to go to the southwesterly part
of that. On Powers Drive we have a pathway on the easterly side. A 5 foot
sidewalk will be built, on this roadway included a 8 foot bituminous path in
this portion of the Lake Susan. ...3 1/2 miles of sidewalks and bituminous paths
represents 62 acres of open space representing 21% of the land. The cul-de-
sacs and landforms, I have colored this map, these forms right here, these
darker browns, are slope areas that exceed 16%. That's the darker areas. The
reddish brown is that wetland drainage storm water management that I just
showed you a minute ago, representing this system through the west village.
The question was, can we do a better job in planning this in eliminating some
of the cul-de-sacs and believe me we've looked at that. We've traveled the
site. We've looked at the landforms. We've looked at the percent of grades
and remember that in the City of Chanhassen maximum street grade is 8%. These
indicate 16% or they go up to 30% or 40% grades. Recognizing those landforms
and recognizing the drainage plan along the storm water management plan along
the west village, we selected this plan as proposed to more readily locate our
homes, our families and keep the landforms that are there. Those landforms,
if you look closely on the plan, are in the rear yard in most cases and will
4Irot be disturbed. I can see only a few that would be touched along here
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 4
4Itringing this westerly road through. Most of them will be maintained as is
right here. Most of them will be maintained as that present road on it so
there won't be additional erosion and silts out of the subdivision. For that
reason we have the cul-de-sacs. Because of those landforms. For example, if
I said, why don't you connect these two cul-de-sacs here, there's a
differential of 50 feet between this cul-de-sac and that cul-de-sac. This
differential here is 32 feet and I have only a short distance to make up that
32 feet knowing that the grade of the city is 8% maximum. If I'm going to
meet the 8% max, I've got to do a lot of heavy cutting. That's starting to
destroy the landforms we have here. That was the purpose of that and I
appreciate the fact that Staff has looked at the fact that we have a number of
cul-de-sacs on the PUD. If you look at the original PUD you will see they
don't exceed the original that was done some 8 years ago. Again, another
study of the PUD from 8 years ago came up with the same answer that we do have
to have some cul-de-sacs. Unfortunately or fortunately, if you are buying a
home and you want to live on a cul-de-sac, fortunately because of the landform
and drainageways we've got to recognize and hope to protect on this plan. In
the EAW, which is required under the PUD regulations, the PUD will recognize
the fact that some of the areas outside of the MUSA line, and that's a corner
here and a corner right in here that is outside of the MUSA line and if you
looked at the transfers of densities and uses from the original PUD that was
approved to what we are proposing now, that the small amount of residential
homes that would be added to the MUSA line should be a housekeeping item with
the Met Council. If you look at the zoning map today in comparison to our
al?roposed PUD, you will see that we overlap them and changed some of the R-12's
~nd the R-4's and eliminate the R-8's. To us that's a housekeeping item and
if and when the PUD is approved, the zoni ng can take place under the new PUD
or the housekeeping can take place as each preliminary plat comes in for final
action. It should be noted that under the old PUD, there was some 1,023
units on 340 acres, 3 units per acre. We don't have 340 acres today. We
have approximately 300 acres at 3 units per acre so our density is, in
relationship to the land that is in this PUD, we have not lost any units, it's
just smaller in size. In the park plan, the park department has required an
additional 8 acres. Generally the park plan has provided that 33 acres
according to code if you take the number of dwelling units and multiple it by
2.8 people per house per dwelling unit and code indicating that 1 acre park be
supplied for every 75 people we corne up with 33 acres. Of the 53 acres that
were proposed and still are proposed in the PUD which represented these two,
approximately of those acres were accepted by the Park Commission as
acceptable acres for park credit. That left the owners with 8 acres of park
that was not creditable against the 33 and that's where the 5 and 3 comes
about. The additional 8 acres. If it happens in these two areas, the R-12
and the R-4, we're asking that the resolution also indicates that the
densities, remembering that the 33 acres was calculated on the basis of 884
dwelling units and 94 dwelling units and that if we take 5 acres out of here
and 3 acres out of here, we've just lost 72 units of dwelling units that we
would like to still build those dwelling units in those spaces so we would
like to have the density transferred in a sense. When outlot A becomes
buildable, we would still like to build as proposed in the PUD. The 316
dwelling units and as Outlot B comes in for a development plan and site plan
ea p pro val un de r the P U D, t hat we w 0 u 1 d s till b u i 1 d R - 4 a tat 0 tal n u m be r 0 f
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 5
tltnits of 144. If this is not feasible, the wish of the Planning Commission
and Council, then we will have to recalculate and I think the 33 then will
become 30 acres and we will change that. I don't think the overall density of
3 units per acre is a strain on the 300 acres. I think the dwelling units
proposed for those two outlots can be still achieved or combined with all of
the multi-family and still be achieved under this PUD. The lot sizes will
vary. You have a tab and an amended tab on the lot sizes. They will be
between 80 to 100 feet at the setback. They will be, as in the tab, meeting
the code wi th 56% of them in excess of 15,000.00. Mr. Cha irman, I'm not sure
that we've covered all the items but we would answer questions.
Don Patton: I would like to show one other transparency. I think this is
relevant to what we're talking about. The question on phasing and the reason
for that is topography, access of sewer and water and drainage. As you see
here, in the upper level housing, we're looking at developing this again with
the street coming in here, the cul-de-sac and generally, all these lots would
be wooded. Phase Ion the other side in the medium income housing, is this
area down in through here, phase 1. Phase 2, on the Lake Susan side would be
here. phase 2 here. phase 3 then ties onto this. phase 3 here and again
phase 4. We have no projected use or layout of the multiple family lots. We
do want to get the zoning at this point so once they are defined and the
density is defined, it's much easier for someone to come in and then that
would then go back through the whole approval process with preliminary plat
based on the PUD approval. But this is the phasing that we're proposing
4IfrobablY over 3 to 5 year period.
Kathy Holtmeier: I live on the north side of Lake Susan and I'm here for the
Lake Susan Homeowners Association. I have a question about the trailway on
the western side. They are to give up approximately 80 feet to the City
right? That area is dense woods on a hill and it's heavily treed and I'm
wondering, 80 feet goes approximately halfway up the hill, correct? It
doesn't go all the way up the hill?
Don Patton:
It goes all the way up the hill.
Kathy Holtmeier: So the entire hill would be given to the City? Okay, so
then the building will be on the flat part?
Jim Hill:
It would be on the top of that.
Kathy Holtmeier: And the trees would be a buffer?
Jim Hill: Yes. Again, this is in, last night at the Park Commission, the
comprehensive trail system for Chanhassen with Staff and we have tried to make
our planning as close to that trailway system that is recommended in the
Comprehensive Trail System.
Bill Goers: I live on Lyman Blvd. and I'm in the process or I think I'm in the
process of purchasing some property adjacent to that on the west side of that
development. I'm concerned because the zoning of that property is the same
_ErectlY to the property that I'm in the process of purchasing. I'm not real
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 6
~nOWledgable about this but I'm concerned as to whether I can tie into that,
if they are going to develop that higher density, then I wasn't originally
aware of, is it possible to tie my property into a higher development also and
gain access to it? If not, I'm not as interested in the property and I'm sure
the existing owner would have the same concern.
Conrad: You are outside what we call the MUSA line and they are abutting
right up to that. within the MUSA line it's a higher density area and there
would not be a great chance of including your property in this particular
development. The Metropolitan Council governs where that line is and it
doesn't move without a great deal of energy. It's always your perogative to
try and change the MUSA line along with the City but realistically speaking
it's would be really tough.
Bill Goers: What would be the possibility of getting approval for this to be
like 2 1/2 acre sites?
Conr ad: Normally wha t you wou ld ha ve to do, if the MUSA 1 i ne moves one way
the city has to take out some other property in exchange for the part that
they just put into the MUSA line. They are going to have to take some part
out of the MUSA line which means you and the City would have to persuade
somebody who's already in the Urban Service Area to take their property out of
that service area. Most people don't want to do that.
_Bill Goers:
Conrad: I
and saying
So in other words, it's really a long shot.
would say it's a real long shot unless Barbara, I'm just speaking
a small parcel like that may be, by chance they wouldn't care.
Dacy: You summarized the process very well. I understand that you spoke to
Jo Ann about that and the Commission tonight really can't address his issues.
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Conrad: Just reminding the Planning Commission, some of you who have not gone
through this stage on a sketch plan, the point of a sketch plan is to be real
upfront before the developer does a lot of stuff and be able to advise on our
opinions of how a big parcel should be developed. In the PUD process, this
was important because we found in the old method a lot of plans came in with a
lot of energy and by the time they got to us, they were real firm. They had
done a lot of engineering and if we didn't like what we saw, there was a lot
of wasted energy. I think tonight it's a chance for us to get some comments
in on this. I guess if we could focus on two issues for sure and then
specific questions or comments about the plat that we see in front of us. But
question one is, is this a PUD? Question two, if we down zone basically, and
that's really what the developer is asking us to do. He's putting less units
in the area where we thought there should be high units. More units in.
Where should the City of Chanhassen find other land for high density? They
haven't totally taken the high density away as you know but still, Chanhassen
_is obligated in the future and if you've been around for a while you will
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - page 7
4Ilemember that we look for high density areas. There aren't a lot of areas in
Chanhassen that are well suited for high density. We have earmarked a few
around the core city but I think you have to consider the impact of this PUD
in terms of how it effects the Comprehensive Plan and our zoning and where
future high density areas would be placed. I give you that as my thoughts as
we review that and a little bit of background.
Emmings: As far as a PUD goes, I guess it appears to me or maybe I should
say, the way I've been accustomed to looking at this from another one we've
looked at, the question always seems to be, is the City getting something
for what it's giving up? Giving up in terms of allowing smaller lots. It
would appear that they are proposing a variety of housing. They are working
to the extent that they have gone actually a long way towards preserving the
natural site features to the extent there are any but they haven't done
anything else. They haven't done anything extra in terms of creation of
parks and open spaces then what they are required to do in a subdivision.
I'm not sure we're getting much to make it a PUD. It's a huge project.
I've never been here and looked at something this big. It's really hard for
me to do. As far as specific questions on this, I don't know why we're
looking at this without looking at a specific plan for the high density
development. It seems like all the emphasis is on the single family and one
of the things that we're interested in is a variety of housing. I don't
know why they don't have a specific plan for the other lots. That bothers
me. It almost makes me feel that they're not as serious about that as they
.re about the lower density areas. I was sitting here looking at this and
ondering if they are planning to do the higher density last and I'm just
wondering if they're going to corne back later on and ask us to change that
area to single family because they are going to tell us at some later time
that that's what the market will bear and that's all the market will bear.
Conrad: There's a good chance of that. Obviously the single family
moving in the market right now and that's why I posed the question.
consider this, we better know where the high density is going to go
Chanhassen. We are obligated to Met Council to have areas for high
is what's
If we
in
density.
Emmings: The other side of that is, if we would go along with this plan, I
think they should know that approval will be contigent upon them building
that and then I wonder if they'll ever get it. If they get done with their
first 3 phases and phase 4 is high density and they preceive no market for it.
So are we getting anything at all for allowing this to corne in as a PUD? Like
I say, it doesn't seem like they've done much in the categories that we've got
and where they have done one, in terms of at least laying out where an area of
housing would be, I really question whether we're ever going to see it.
Someone mentioned a 3 to 5 year period to build this up. Are you saying
that the whole thing is going to be built, all four phases, in 3 to 5 years?
Is that your plan?
Don Patton: That would be our plan if interest rates stay where they are. We
can't predict the interest rates and the affordability of the buyer.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 8
_mmings:
today?
But when you say 3 to 5 years, what did you mean? Is that your plan
Don Patton: For the land that we have sold at this point. That is, projected
absorption rates based on fair marketing approach.
Emmings: I don't understand that. The land you have sold?
Don Patton: The single family. We have a buyer who I introduced earlier.
Emmings: The builder?
Don Patton: If I could say one thing, by approving the PUD, you've really set
those densities. Mr. Hill actually asked that those densities transfer in the
additional land that the Park people asked be given. Be transferred into
those higher density areas. We're actually trying to keep the density.
That's our objective.
Emmings: Do you see a market for the high and medium that you've proposed
here now?
Don Patton: I think probably the medium yes. As we've indicated, the high
density, the R-12 could not be developed because of the access so we feel like
something is being given up in that by having that built were it be developed.
~mmings: I'm not following that either. Outlot A is proposed for high
density. Do you foresee their being a market, at this time do you foresee
there being a market for high density in that place?
Don Patton: That's the only place in the project for high density.
Emmings: That's not the question. Do you see a market for high density?
Don Patton: I guess I don't see that much market for it.
Emmings: Then my question is why are you proposing to build it if there is no
market?
Don Patton: That's the zoning for that area.
Emmings: You are including this in here simply because we're requiring the
zoning?
Don Patton:
yes.
We have tried to accomodate your zoning ordinances in this plan
Emmings: As market conditions stand today, you wouldn't build it right now?
Don Patton:
drive.
e
No we wouldn't and we couldn't because of the access to that
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 9
_mmings:
I don't understand that either.
Dacy: The street has to be built.
Don Patton: The access for C and D are to this road here. Outlot A access,
again we didn't want the high density coming through the single family. The
access to that would be onto this road when it's built.
Emmings: When is that supposed to be built?
Dacy: Hopefully within the next 3 to 5 year period also.
Jim Hill: There was a feasibility study done last year.
Dacy: It depends on, Opus owns the land now. First phases of the business
park is to build it up. They are marketing lands on the north side of Lake
Susan. They are also marketing this land and we would anticipate that as the
PUD is developed obviously we would have to construct a road. Given the past
industrial growth that should occur very quickly.
Emmings: Do you have any comment Barbara? To reserve an area of high
density which doesn't make any sense in terms of the marketplace today.
What they are proposing is to build a bunch of small townhouses and the only
reason there's a blank space up there at the top of the map is because they
<<eeded to do that to get lower density and that's seems to be subverting the
hole notion of the subdivision Ordinance.
Dacy: To address your first issue about the R-12. From a land use standpoint
to have a higher density there adjacent to the business park would make sense.
I think they are recognizing that and saying, yes we want to keep that there
also. It's not so much the R-12 is the issue really. In looking at the plan,
you can see that there are more R-4 areas being preserved and really what's
being eliminated is the R-8. Just rubbing it out is approximately 32 to 35
acres. You multiply that by 8 units per acre and you get roughly 240 to 300
units. So, when we did the Zoning Ordinance review we anticipated that these
types of land use patterns could exist on this pattern and they are coming
back and saying we would like to rearrange that but as Mr. Hill said also,
what's being reduced is the amount of R-8 zoning. Now, the Commission
potentially 2 or 3 options that we could investigate with the developer. The
first option would be to look at some type of redesign of the left side there
to hold out an R-8 area and work with that Outlot B contains very steep
slopes. Look to reserving some additional area there. The second option for
the Planning Commission would be to look at other areas within the City to
zone as R-8 beca use the Met Counc i 1 will come through the Land Use Plan
Amendment process and say, Chanhassen you have responsibility to keep the
percentages between single family and multiple family fairly reasonable to
provide a multiple housing choice. The third method that we could investigate
also, which has not been done before in Chanhassen, is for example shifting
the R-8 to the R-12 so you have a density of 20 units per acre. Transferring
that density up to that Outlot A. You make up those units in that development
~ut as I said, that high of a density has not been proposed in Chanhassen.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 10
~mmings: There probably is some value in
whether they are being built now or not.
preserving areas for high density
Dacy: Like Mr. Patton said, it's very hard to predict the American
marketplace and right now it is leaning toward the single family but on the
other hand, there is demographic information, there are smaller household
sizes corning on. You've tried this for single family homes to become mother-
in-law apartments. More families within single family homes so I think there
is a need out there for attached units and so on.
Emmings: I was wondering what the Staff's reaction is to the notion of
allowing them to the stuff that they're losing by having a park on the
Outlot A.
Dacy:
It's an option we can discuss.
Emmings: You're not adverse to that?
Dacy: That's the purpose of this meeting.
Emmings: It looks to me when we had this done before, and he was showing
why he had the cul-de-sacs, that appealed to me as a matter of common sense
what he was saying. What do you think? Why are you opposed to the cul-de-
sacs?
e:nsen: Just what it did to the utilities and servicing that many and
emergency access a lot of times can take a lot of turns in dead ends.
Typically we prefer to have a less number of cul-de-sacs but as we point out
in the Staff Report, they are preserving some of the site features by having
these cul-de-sacs. We just wanted them and it sounds like they did, look at
it to see if there was a possibility of extending or connecting some of
those cul-de-sacs and still preserve the site features but they said they
couldn't.
Emmings: The trail system, one part that I don't understand, unless on
Powers Blvd. it shows the trails they are shown with dashed lines on the
streets. What are those?
Olsen: They will be all street trails.
Don Patton: Those will be concrete sidewalks.
Emmings: Every bit of it is off-street?
Olsen: Yes. Even on Powers and that will probably be bituminous.
Emmings: The City, as I understand it, will allow them what's called a
public open space along Lake Susan?
01 sen : Yes.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 11
~onrad: At the end of our conversation here, we're really not looking for a
motion, we're looking for opinions. We're not necessarily looking for
consensus but I'm sure the developer would like to hear some type of
consensus but in terms of what goes to City Council, it's not necessarily a
motion tonight.
Dacy: You need to give them direction. If you feel the plan is good the
way it's submitted, fine. If you don't think so, you should say why.
Conrad: Don't need a motion. Basically the Minutes from our hearing will
go to them so they're going to hear our concerns or our positive feelings.
Siegel: In the Staff's conclusion here where you say the application does
not appear to meet PUD requi rements. I do not see where some of thoes have
but could you put those into like a 1, 2, 3?
Olsen: First of all it was the percentage to plot. We had to have a
certain number, 50% 15,000 or above and they have adjusted that now so they
now have above 50% at 15,000 square foot lots. Some of the other concerns,
it was not clear that they were preserving the natural features. That's
just because I did not have a plan from which to see where the trees did
exist. Now they have submitted a new plan showing all the existing features
and again, some of those cul-de-sacs are cutting into those more than we
would prefer. This is really the first time we've reviewed the PUD under
_he new Ordinance. We were just trying to point out some of the
uestionable areas and those were some of the reasons why it was stated that
'way. The number of small lots. There are a lot 12,000 square foot lots.
What are we getting in return for that? What over and above a typical
subdivision and I think one of the major concerns was that those different
density areas exist now and are we just using that to make smaller lot
areas. Those are some of the concerns.
Siegel: The density transfer question of those lots below the MUSA line,
what exactly are we exchanging on that density transfer of those lots to
include them in the MUSA line and where is that shift coming from? We're
talking about another density transfer.
Don Patton: If you look at it, it goes around the park. The current MUSA
line goes down here and around this area, it's an area that's being
dedicated as park. We excluded that part from within the MUSA actually.
Dacy: Some of the single family lots here are outside of the MUSA line.
Don Patton: Yes, but I'm saying the MUSA line, in through here.
Dacy: But what the density transfer is applying to is the single family
lots.
Olsen: What would happen is how many single family lots they are proposing,
they would have to give up a potential 30 units within the MUSA line to
~llOW for the transfer.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 12
_iegel:
Is there any indication of where that transfer...
Olsen: I'm sure in the high density and the amount of single family that is
being proposed, with the higher density that can be accomplished.
Siegel: Okay, but this is not in relationship to us losing the R-4 zoning?
Olsen: Part of that would be more within these higher densities than the
high densities. So in a sense yes, if they were to develop it to the
potential of all the high densities that exist there, they wouldn't have the
capacity to transfer that unless they gave up some open park area within the
development.
Siegel:
for the
density
at all.
How does that relate to, ...the points of getting density transfer
forfeiture of parkland areas. Outlot A and Outlot D as sort of a
transfer situation too which would not be related to the MUSA line
Olsen:
also.
I really didn't look at that closely about that loss of density
Siegel:
In other words, we're not really getting anything there.
Olsen: Initially they requested something within the site and as a
~compromise we accepted some of the higher density instead of giving up
~ingle family.
Siegel: I guess I'm not really that concerned anymore with the point 3 on
the plan showing lots designed for solar housing. That's sort of a loaded
question as a requirement. If they are amenable to it, fine. Having to do
with whether the points were the looping requirements of the City Engineer
on the watermain, the looping requirement because of the number of cul-de-
sacs in this plan, I guess I wasn't firm in whether that was addressed in
his recommendations firmly enough about them meeting those requirements.
This is a premiere example of extensive use of cul-de-sacs and of course a
lot of people think that possible use and opportunities it provides for land
use but there is an incredible amount of cul-de-sacs in here and it does
pose problems I'm sure with watermain and utility service.
Olsen: That will be addressed as a condition as part of the preliminary
plat. We were just pointing out some of the items that will have to be
addressed with the preliminary plat. Show a detailed utility plan and now
the applicant is aware of that and I'm sure they will provide looping out to
the cul-de-sacs.
Siegel: I get the impression that this is another one of those computer
actuated housing developments for maximum amount of useage made utilizing
cul-de-sacs as the culprit to do that because of the configuration of some
of the cul-de-sacs. Some of them are real short. The access is just an
access off a primary road and maybe those are easier to address from a
eu t i 1 i ty standpo i nt than the bigger ones bu tit does seem to pose some
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 13
~roblems from that standpoint, utilities.
Wildermuth: I agree. Particularly in the western, Phase 3 area. I think
something has to be done about the number of cul-de-sacs there. It doesn't
appear that the topography issue is quite as critical there. I would hate
to have to look for an address in that area. I think it would be a real
problem for emergency services. I just don't share some of the other
Commission members concern for the density issue. I guess my feeling is
that despite the Met Council, lower is better. So as far as I'm concerned
and the fact from a commercial standpoint, the higher density units aren't
very attractive from a business standpoint right now, that's fine. I don't
have any problems with deferring the plan for those outlot areas. Or even
decreasing it a little bit. What I do have a real strong concern for, and
I'm not throwing stones at what I see in the handout, but I'm very concerned
about the quality of housing that's going to be in the area that is the
western phase 2 and western phase 3. We've seen a number of subdivisions
come to the City in the last few years, well let's be generous and say that
the housing quality, construction quality is less than desirable. I would
hope that's not going to be the case. I would really like to see this be a
subdivision rather than a PUD. Conferring with Ladd, the subdivision would
require the 15,000 square foot minimum and I think that would be appropriate
here because I don't think the City is getting very much for the PUD
concession.
~Conrad: If you could relate to me, the parkland on the southwest, 25 acres
~r 18 or whatever it is, because the MUSA line comes in there, is there a
park on the other side of the MUSA line or do we have a park? I see Summit
Trail coming up into the park. What are we left with? I'm sure the Park
Commission looked at that but we basically have a park that narrows to 50
feet in the middle of it. Is that the way I read that and is that useful
park?
Olsen: We went out to the site and it's outside the MUSA line so it could
not be developed but it can be used as parkland. It's going to be split.
There will be a baseball field in one area, a sliding hill and then the
other area will have a softball diamond and soccer field.
Conrad: So on the other side of the MUSA line though we do have residential
areas and those might be 2 1/2 acre parcels so we sort of have a park
situation around those people. If you want to go from one section to the
other, you're kind of funneled down to a little shoot there. The park
conceptually has not been planned I assume.
Don Patton:
It's a planned park.
Conrad: Are parks generally better on the fringe of the community or do you
like to see them in the center of a community?
Olsen:
in the
.
From what Lori Sietsema was saying, they would prefer a park right
center.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 14
.onrad: So what we've got are some parks that are on the southwest and
fringe outside the MUSA line or close to it and we've got a park on the
fringe again on the northwest so we've got people walking to get to the park
which I supposed is okay but it looks like a park inconvenience. I don't
know that the park's really been designed at this point in time into this
community and that's what a PUD does. To me it designs things and features
into it. This kind of looks, at this stage, that it's tagged on to some
fringe areas.
Olsen: The Park plan has been accepted.
Conrad: By the Park Commission? Jo Ann, you comments you talked about
wetland alteration permits and I'm not sure how I heard those words. Is
that just forewarning the developer that there are wetlands or did you see
something that said we're already planning to alter a wetland?
Olsen: I didn't go into details but there are wetlands throughout the site.
Class B wetlands and they will be using a pond area. So because of them,
they will have to receive a wetland alteration permit.
Conrad: At this point in time, is that our consultant's opinion that that's
good use of those wetlands for ponding areas?
Olsen: She visited the site and yes, she agreed. There are four wetlands
on the site. Actually there are five but when we visited it, it was gone
~nd Elizabeth agreed that it was not there. But the four wetlands are
located by blue. This larger wetland was the nicest one on the site and
they are not going to be altering this at all. It's adjacent to a Class A
wetlands, Class B wetlands so this is the one that they really should not
touch and they are not going to. The other three were more meadow, low
areas, drainage areas. ...a need for meeting the Fish and Wildlife
regulations on level bottoms with open water. Elizabeth Rockwell agreed
that they could be altered that way.
Conrad: Just my thought. We've got a lot of acreage here so I don't see
any reason we can't do things with the wetlands that are the right things to
do. We don't have to compromise on the wetlands. As long as Dr. Rockwell
is recommending the use this way, I'm comfortable but I'll be looking at
her report to see what she's saying and again, when we have this much
property, it's not like we're trying to eek out a few extra lots. We have
enough room to take care of the wetlands and to do it according to ordinance
so I really don't see any reason to alter our ordinance or compromise our
ordinance as it stands unless I hear Dr. Rockwell talking to us about the
good reasons and apparently she has already seen some of those things.
Bottom line for me, in my opinion this is not a PUD. It's a subdivision.
We're getting exactly what we have gotten in other subdivisions so I would
prefer to see th i s come back as a subd i vis i on ra ther than a PUD unless the
developer can persuade us there are things beyond the typical subdivisions
that we've been seeing but I don't see it yet in this particular sketch. It
looks like a subdivision to me. When we decided what would be good to get
4Ifor the PUD, it doesn't mean we need all 7 of those things. We're just
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 15
~OOking for things that would assist in this community. Make it work
better and I do not see things that are significantly beyond what we are
requiring in our subdivision ordinances right now.
Emmings: As I sit here, I basically agree with you in that this is just a
way to get small lots but we are getting that space. One thing we wouldn't
be getting is the space set aside for higher density.
Conrad: No, that's already there. It's zoned already. You look at the
park, and they would have to have the same parkland in a subdivision. The
35 acres of wetland, they can't build on anyway. They're not donating that.
That's protected.
Emmings: Basically what you're saying, if they brought in a subdivision on
it the way it's zoned now, we would be getting all that stuff?
Conrad: We'd be getting the same thing unless they can tell me we wouldn't.
I apprec i a te the way they are preserv i ng some of the fea tures of the site
but to tell you the truth, I don't think because, especially in the western
part, there aren't that many features to preserve. When there's a PUD with
lots of wooded land, then I can see making it a PUD. The nature of this
site just doesn't tell me it's a good candidate for PUD. We've already
zoned the land for high density and medium density and low density and
again, it sort of takes some of the impetus for a PUD out of it. The land
azoning is already there so therefore, I guess the bottom line for me in my
~omments to the developer and to the City Council would be, it sure looks
like a subdivision candidate. I don't mind the cul-de-sacs as proposed yet
I do think, because I think the developer is looking for land features, they
are sensitive to the land features and I appreciate that. I think there
might be a few less cul-de-sacs in the Phase 3 part of the western portion
of this and I suggest that they look at that to see if they could minimize a
few of those. It didn't look to a novice, which I am, that the land
characteristics were that tough to deal with in that phase 3 area to
eliminate some of the cul-de-sacs but it's not a real concern to me at this
time. I'm not overly concerned but I would recommend that we take another
look at that and see if we could minimize a few of those. The last comment
that I would have is that to approve a PUD or subdivision like this, I
really would like to know where the R-8 zoning will be in Chanhassen. In
other words, because the developer is down zoning and generally know how we
feel, I'll guarantee you there will be pressure for us to put in higher
density and before I could vote for a plan that's close to this, getting rid
of that R-8 area, I would really have to feel that we have another area
identified for higher density because it will happen. Right now I don't
know of too many neighborhoods that are willing to stand up and donate their
property as potential zoning candidate for R-8. We worked a great deal of
time to come up with the current zoning and the Met Council was appreciative
of some of those high densities that we had there. This looked like a good
place for it. I appreciate the developer wanting to do what they want to do
here. There's a market demand. I understand that. I understand that. I
guess it's a concern I have however that we find, if we allocate or we
4Itidentify other parcels that could take over where we are tempted to allow
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 16
~own zoning like this and I don't think I've ever said anything like that
before on the Planning Commission where I was concerned with densities
getting low but I think that's appropriate. Any other comments? I think
what I would like to do with the deveioper is at least to leave them with
some kind of consensus or some comments here.
Wildermuth: I would like to get back to my original statement about housing
quality. It's very difficult to legislate quality but one of the ways in
which that comes about is with larger lot sizes. More expensive lot to a
degree dictates a larger, hopefully better quality home and I think in going
from a PUD back to a subdivision, we're requiring all lots to have a minimum
of 15,000 square feet. We're going to encourage that.
Emmings: I think it looks like a subdivision to me. That's why I started
and particularly this last point that you made clear. The zoning is already
there. We're not going to lose anything in the zoning. I am concerned
about having the higher density but that's already in the zoning so that
takes away my last concern. I agree it should be a subdivision.
Conrad: Bob, is that a consensus? Do you feel it should be a subdivision
versus a PUD? Speaking for four planning commissioners at this time, it
looks like a subdivision to us. There are three missing tonight. My guess
is that they would probably follow suit. I think it's worthwhile taking it
forward to the City Council and seeing if that's their perspective also. I
.hink it would also be appropriate for Staff and the developer to talk about
w:he zoning and the R-8 void the city has so we get a feel from them whether
they're concerned that we don't have right now a replacement for that R-8
zone and I think we need direction from the City Council in terms of if they
are comfortable with this particular density arrangement then I think they
should also make some recommendations as to what we should do with the
higher densities that we're losing and giving up in this area. Along with
the Staff Report, I think the comments that Staff had in the report in terms
of what you would like from the developer, I agree with most of those
comments. If some other commissioners doesn't agree please jump up and say
that but the only one I'm not totally positive about is the comment of Staff
with the reduced number of cul-de-sacs. I think I would like you to look at
that again with Staff, especially on the western side. It doesn't bother
me, as long as we're all comfortable that it's good planning and good design
using those cul-de-sacs, I could go along with that but I guess I would
prefer to see that we try to eliminate a few of those in the western part of
the plat that we're looking at. Any concerns Steve on cul-de-sacs? You're
neutral on that?
Emmings: It looks like a lot and I would prefer to see fewer but if they
can show the same kinds of justifications through site features or
elevations like they've done more to the east, than I wouldn't have any
problem with it.
Wildermuth:
boulevard.
e
I really like the development on the east side of the
It looks very good along Lake Susan.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 17
.onrad:
Mr. Patton, I guess those are our comments.
Don Patton: So mainly it's the downgrading of the R-8?
Conrad: In my opinion and it's not that what you've done is bad, it's just
that I'm looking at Chanhassen saying where are we going to get that? Where
are we going to have the R-8 area when that particular market comes back and
we need it. We don't have a location for it right now. I think that has
to be a factor in how we look at this.
Don Patton: One thing that I guess was hard for me to follow, I recognize
the R-8 I also kept hearing that you didn't want to keep the density up to a
certain level and you do achieve some of that with the PUD, have a little
more free style planning of the lot sizes and configurations rather than
cookie cutter style.
Conrad: But in the developments that we're seeing coming in to Chanhassen,
we're not seeing the cookie cutter type. A lot of our developments are
coming in that our subdivisions are looking very similar to this and we're
saying, because that's what we're seeing, we're not seeing a change from
those subdivisions in this particular plan. At least that's my perspective.
Wildermuth: with the topography on that big parcel there, you probably
couldn't use a cookie cutter if you wanted to.
4Ibon Patton: Actually you really can't because if you walk the line, one of
the reasons, if you walk this, this is a natural ridge line that goes all
the way down here and if you look at your wetlands plan, the break goes
right through here with this part going to Lake Riley/Purgatory and this
part going another way so you really end up, as we mentioned with the
phasing, this is a natural phasing area for this. There are some very
critical things, because of this, this being much higher than this, that's
the other reason the PUD is so important. This is lower and you have
critical points in here and here and here and in through here to get back to
the sewer line that goes across there.
Conrad:
I don't understand why, is the PUD so important to that?
Don Patton: Because there is a substantial cut that has to come through
here to achieve gravity pull for the sewer into the lower area.
Conrad: I still don't follow. The same would be true for a subdivision
wouldn't it?
Don Patton: If you came in with an individual subdivision, there's always
the opportunity that that might not be put in at the right depth to be able
to service all of this. You've got to go to the extra depths to achieve
these other areas. It's really important especially for the sanitary and
drainage that you've seen here.
ttEmmings: Why can't you plan them together as a subdivision?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 18
.on Patton:
A 300 acre subdivision with a phasing plan.
That's possible.
Emmings: I think that's what we're saying. Whether it's done as a PUD or
as a development, those things should be done. I agree with you so you do
get it at a depth the whole area would need.
Conrad: I would just make a recommendation that when you go to City
Council, again, when we do a PUD we're looking for things a little bit in
exchange. PUD's in my mind are a little bit creative. There is a variety
of density in the PUD and you cluster and you have open spaces and you do a
lot of different things. You put parks in central parts of the community.
You put in trailways and I think you're getting that with the
recommendations of the Park Committee but some of those things are required
in a subdivision as well as a PUD. I think when you go to see City Council,
you should really be focusing on what the community is getting other than
the depths of the sewer. I guess you should be talking about what
Chanhassen is getting or that community is getting in terms of creative
approaches. We've listed seven of them in our ordinance. Whether it be
improving solar housing or additional parks. If we require one acre for
every 70 people, I would guess a PUD in my mind might come in with 2 acres
for every 90 people but we give you greater densities or whatever. I don't
think we're looking at a density issue here. At least I'm not. I think Jim
is. You're going to hear a little bit of difference in strategy but again,
if you do some creative things with the land and get more park and then I
_think I would be tempted to give you greater densities if you wanted that
~ut you're not. I think those are the things I'm looking at in a PUD and
this is a straight subdivision in my mind and I've looked at quite a few of
them.
Jim Hill: Under the PUD ordinance we have an opportunity to vary lot sizes.
We've done that here. We've done it because we have given 62 acres of open
space.
Conrad: No you haven't. You haven't. The 35 acres, you haven't given
that. The 35 acres you can not build on. That's wetland.
Jim Hill: I accept that but if the City of Minneapolis took the same
attitude 100 years ago, we would not have the city of lakes.
Conr ad :
I miss the point but go on.
Jim Hill: Lowlands are acceptable as open space.
Conrad: They are but you haven't given it. They are there and they are
protected right now. You couldn't develop on it.
Jim Hill: Surely the person who is paying taxes on it...
Conrad: Very minor taxes.
ttJim Hill: That's a difference of opinion.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - page 19
.onrad:
No, it's absolute. Taxes on wetlands are quite a bit less.
Emmings: You're not saying in your opinion they can build on those
wetlands?
Jim Hill:
I'm not taking that position. We're saying the PUD is there.
Conrad: What's the range of densities and sizes of lots that you've got
here. You said you had a variety of lot sizes. What's the range?
Jim Hill:
It's in the handout.
Conrad: But what's the range? Is it something than what we have seen in
other?
Jim Hill:
It meets the PUD ordinance.
Conrad: It meets it but we see that kind of range in all our subdivisions
too. Most of our subdivisions.
Olsen: You answered my first question. I just wanted more clarification on
what it was that you were looking for so we could tell the applicant when he
asks. Then also, just for clarification, if they came back in maintaining
that R-8, it would still be the straight subdivision. You are asking also
~for additional open space, creativity, clustering.
Conrad: In a PUD.
Olsen: Right. If they came back in showing R-8, maintaining that, that's
not necessa r i ly wha t you were mean i ng as you would accept tha t as PUD. I'm
afraid that the applicant might be thinking that if they maintain the
existing density that is there now, then it will be accepted as a PUD.
Conrad: I think they are sort of separate issues. The first issue is it
doesn't look like a PUD to me. It is not a PUD. The second issue is a
broader issue that the City Council and Planning Commission has to deal
with. If we agree with down zoning, then it's our job to find another area
to designate for R-8. The developer has all the right in the world to
continue the direction of changing our zoning.
Olsen: So he can come in with it down zoned but with the PUD clustering,
open space and then they would just have to provide for that higher density
elsewhere?
Conrad: Then it would be my direction that we find it elsewhere. The logic
for where this zone is, the R-8 and the R-12 is excellent. We worked those
over for a long period of time but I also understand that it's hard to
forecast where things should be and we're certainly not rigid in that area.
We don't know that many things about trends when we do comprehensive plan
and zoning, we're guessing and when a developer comes in with a specific
~roposal I think we should be sensitive to that proposal so I'm ruling it
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 20
.ut that we can't down zone but
someplace else and do something
to force us to do that anyway.
we do have an obligation to find that land
about it immediately. Met Council is going
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE ~ ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATES TO BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF THE HWY 212/169 INTERSECTION, TED PERUSSE. -- ---
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Name
Address
Tim Thornton
Bert Noterman
Dennis Coyne
1221 Nicollet Mall #700, Mpls.
1520 West 10th Avenue, Shakopee
1221 Nicollet Mall, #700, Mpls.
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on the Rezoning Request.
Tim Thornton: I represent Bert Noterman, the owner of the property. If
you are familiar with this parcel it's the old Tri-Y Drive-In down on TH 169
in Chanhassen. That's a front view of it. This is what it looks like from
the back. This is looking across TH 169. This is looking down TH 169
~owards the Drive-In from the motel. This is looking back towards the Super
America. Here's looking at the Drive-In from the Super America and this is
looking north up the road. Significantly, we like the Staff's
recommendation for the rezoning. I think it's important to remember this
has been a commercial use for 35 years as a Drive-In. To suggest
agricultural zoning doesn't make a hell a lot of sense. Nobody is going to
grow soybeans there for example. We're mindful of the constraints, the real
constraints that are associated with the wetland situation here but the
actual uplands, the lands that could be built without a lot of permits from
Fish and Wildlife and Corps of Engineers, are a little different than the
use that was there. The owner is not aware of any acquisition by MnDot.
MnDot has talked to us from time to time about acquisition but so far there
has been no acquisition. This we think is about 170 by about 160 but the
uplands that has been the result of some filling and some natural uplands
goes about like this. It seems to me to be very spot zoningish, if you
will, to suggest that you're going to only zone 20,000 square feet. It
seems to me that if you're going to zone, you have to zone the parcel.
Mindful that the use or any use in the Business Fringe District requires a
conditional use or specialities permit. At that time you will have a lot
more details as to exactly what use is proposed or not proposed. What
barriers, if any, you need between the wetlands and concerns with fillings
and things like that. We were talking about a 400 acre zoning project the
last time and now dropping down to 20,000 square feet. What we would like
to ask is the recommendation of the entire 2 acre parcel be zoned mindful
that when we come back, we wouldn't be talking about using any of this
_wetland or 10 w land but would ha ve a spec i f i c plan to use the upland s and in
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 21
_he perm it process as opposed to the zon i ng process, to work with the S ta te
and with the Staff to build in the necessary protections and concerns
related to the wetlands. We know that someday this is going to be acquired
by the Fish and wildlife Service or the Corps of Engineers but in the
interim, to only zone 20,000 square feet would be essentially to take away
useable upland. Indeed, take away a lot more than is being used now because
it is at least 170 by 160 which calculates out to, well if it's 170 by 170
that's about 29,000 square feet so we're not that far apart. We're talking
about a 9,000 square feet difference but the purchasers of the property feel
that if they run the car lot the way it needs to be run, and again it's not
going to be a service operation. They would like to use as much of the
upland as possible. If you know the history, that's a sensible use and of
course you're going to have to work with MnDot related to the access but it
seems to make sense for all concerned. It's never going to be farmed. It's
zoning that's consistent with it's historical use.
Dacy: That 170 by 160, is that that square?
Tim Thornton: Yes. If you went there, what was basically used for the
Drive-In, this area here is upland. Indeed, fill was put in there by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and a creek no longer comes here.
The creek kind of comes over to the side here. If you've ever been out
there, it's been filled here and there is some filling back here. Then it
drops off quite steep along here down to the wetland. I'm doing some work
~ight now for the City of Savage associated with the industrial development
~ark over there by where Fab-Con's property is across the River and they are
talking about acquiring land there over associating with the fed and like
every other governmental body has budget restraints, it's going to be a long
time before the federal government comes up with money to buy that land. In
the interim, it just doesn't make sense to deprive the landowner of a
reasonable opportunity to use his land in a reasonable way. In the city to
exercise ordinary zoning controls over the entire parcel of property and
allow your permitting process to address specific lot concerns because
someday the federal government might buy the land. That could be 20 to 30
years off.
Dacy: What I would like to recommend, you may not be aware that we do have
a specific wetlands ordinance that we establish a 75 foot setback from the
ordinary high water mark of the edge of the wetland. If the Commission
should chose to recommend approval of the rezoning, we would like to have
that subject to the applicant's attorney and Staff work together to try and
determine where the edge of that is. Again, I'll consult our City Attorney.
I can understand your point. You're trying to say zone the whole piece.
You're going to regulate what's there anyway. I understand your position. I
guess I would just like to ask the Commission to allow us to discuss that
more. However, I think we can get that resolved by the Council.
Tim Thornton: We understand. Just when you zone it then you still have to
address the conditional use permit situation or problem and of course, any
conditional use permit application has to apply with applicable zoning
~regU1ations. You can't mix zoning for an entire parcel plan with permitting
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 22
~ith a specific use.
Dacy: Our concern is we don't want to give the impression that the entire
site is to be useable as a use for the business district nor do we want to
encourage access along the curve there along TH 169. The application was
submtited to my office in relation to the existing building and I want to
use that area to open a used car sales. I would just like some more time to
address it.
Tim Thornton: What do you mean?
Dacy: I just said I would like the Commission, if they want to recommend
approval of the rezoning, that's fine. Subject to you and I sitting down
and talking it all out.
Tim Thornton: Sounds great.
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Wildermuth: I guess I really don't have any problem. You can work it out
whether it's the 2 acres or the 20,000 square feet. I agree with Barbara
that probably nothing else should really happen on that curve that would
access the highway from a safety standpoint. What kind of auto dealership
tlfan you put on a 160 by 170 parcel? Are you talking about a used car lot?
Tim Thornton: Yes. We're not talking about a dealership with service and
inside and anything like that. It's a used car lot. The purchasers have
some association with Twin City area banks and don't even for the most part,
deal with the retail trade. They deal with wholesale with other car
dealerships. First National Bank repossesses a car and they pick it up and
deal with Win Stephens so it's primarily a holding area for cars and there
isn't going to be any servicing or any indoor show room or hot dogs, popcorn
and balloons on Saturday afternoon. That's why, at least in the zoning
process, let us give an opportunity to survey the land. Determine where the
high water mark is. Determine where the uplands are. Determine what we've
got to do to deal with the Corps. of Engineers and Fish and wildlife Service
and the DNR and Minnesote Pollution Control Agency and the EPA and everybody
you've got to deal with once you get below the high water mark and then come
in with a proposal on how to use it but that's permitting. It isn't zoning.
We understand you've got to talk. We understand there's a long distance
between where we are now and where we're going to get with the permitting
but zone the parcel and then let's make an application that suits the use.
We've got much more specificity to the actual uplands and you've got more
than just sort of this sketch of what's upland and what's wetland. Believe
me, I know wha tit takes to get a perm it from the Corps and wetlands and
there ain't no used car lot in the world that can carry that overhead.
Emmings:
it looks
e
In looking at the ordinance for the business fringe district and
like everything you do there is a conditional use.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 23
.im Thornton:
Right.
Emmings: And maybe you made the same point that he did but anything that
they want to do, if we rezone the whole thing BF, anything you want to do
we're going to look at and we're going to have to vote. Right?
Tim Thornton: Right. There are no permitted uses.
that on record so we've got to come back.
I'll stipulate to
Emmings: And they wouldn't be allowed at the time they came back with their
conditional use application, they would have to show us where the 75 foot
setbacks are and so forth, that would all be things they would have to show
us?
Dacy: I agree with that.
Emmings:
I can't see what your relunctance is.
Dacy: All I'm saying is that there is no requirement that you have to
follow property lines for a rezoning action. It's better, I agree but I
would like the opportunity to discuss this with the City Attorney. If it
was any other parcel I would agree with the applicant. However, this
situation, because of the highway and the wetlands and so on, I think it's
in the City's best interest to be a little more cautious and to consult the
.ity Attorney. That's all I'm recommending.
Emmings: Are you saying to table this?
Dacy: No, I think you can move to approve the rezoning subject to Staff
resolving these concerns unless you are uncomfortable with doing that. I'm
coming from the standpoint that I think it can be resolved.
Emmings: The only think that makes me uncomfortable is I don't see why we
shouldn't just go ahead and rezone the whole thing. I don't know what
reservations you have.
Olsen: ...to give the impression that they could extend their boundary down
to that area that's not wetlands.
Emmings: But when they come back with their conditional use application,
won't we have the chance to talk about all those issues at that time?
Dacy: I'm just requesting the Commission to allow me to talk to our City
Attorney. I'm just requesting some extra time. I know the applicants want
to get going and so on. I don't think it's necessary for the Commission to
table this. I want to talk to our City Attorney.
Emming s :
I don't know what you're going to ask him.
Dacy: I'm going to present what the applicant just said and review the pros
~nd cons of that so I can respond from the Staff position to the Council.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 24
~mmings: And you feel you will have that done between tonight and the
Council meeting?
Dacy: Yes.
Conrad:
Zoning land that is not buildable. I'm having a problem with this
one.
Tim Thornton: You've got land zoned allover the City that's not buildable.
In this other development, you just went through that exercise. You've got
to dedicate parks and everything else. The zoning part is different than
the permitting part. Once you corne to the permitting part, you address the
actual instances. Otherwise, what are you going to zone? 20,000 square feet
where?
Emmings: And right now Ladd it's zoned as agricultural residential and you
can't do that there either.
Tim Thornton: We're not putting up a nuclear reactor.
Conrad: Fringe Business, it was never thought to be anything other than
accommodating current uses. That's the only reason we had that zone to my
knowledge.
.pacy: In this case, the applicant has a good case. It's been used as a
~ommercial property for years. They have been paying taxes as a commercial
building even though it has not been zoned properly. Again" the uses in the
A-2 district, as the Attorney pointed out, you can't use it for agricultural
and it's certainly not suitable for single family home. That's the basis
for our recommendation.
Conrad: And we're saying by rezoning it to fringe business.
Dacy: We can allow some type of use. I think it would be a different story
if it was located in some other location that didn't have the years of
existing use. I think then that City's in a little better position to say
we have certain goals in this corridor that we want to achieve. However, in
this case, I think the existing conditions warrant the rezoning.
Conrad: Of the entire parcel?
Dacy: Again, I'm saying I would like some...
Conrad: See, I don't have a problem with the rezoning. The one where the
applicant had a specific use even though that is to a degree spot zoning.
In this area I don't mind that because this is a sensitive area and there is
a use planned and I think that's appropriate. In going ahead and looking at
that whole area because there are lot lines involved I guess, we have some
lot lines.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 25
~acy: And that very well may be the case. All that I'm requesting is I
would like to talk it over with the City Attorney, that's all.
Conrad:
area.
I'm just trying to justify in my mind Barbara rezoning the whole
Tim Thornton: What we're suggesting is the use we're wanting to make is
more than 20,000 square feet but a lot less than 2 acres. To know that
exactly. We're going to go out and do some surveying. We're going to have
to do some measuring. Have to double check exactly what the upland is. The
upland at least by the Corps of Engineers definition is partly defined by
what kind of plant grows there. I don't think you want to zoned where
there's a flowering cockumany here, that's the zone between your business
fringe and your agricultural. They have some crazy people at the Corps of
Engineers if that's the way they figure things out. If that's the way they
define between upland and wetland is based upon vegetation types and if
you're going to start zoning this city based upon the way the flowers grow.
Dacy: That was never our intent. The intent was to have a legal
description to describe 20,000 square feet. The square that he's shown
there would be a basis to do that. Of course it's not our intent to zone
by that.
Conrad: We understand that Barbara. I'm concerned with aggresively going
.ut with Fringe Business districts. All of a sudden we now have a new tool,
.' r i n g e Bus i n e s san d I k now why we h a vet hat d i s t r i ct. Th at was a d i s t r i c t
of convenience to accommodate what was already there.
Tim Thornton: You didn't accommodate us. Not only did you forget about us
but you didn't even tell us you were doing it.
Emmings: On that point, when was that first zoned? Even the drive-in was a
non-conforming use.
Dacy: Right since 1972.
Emmings: And that use has now lasped.
Tim Thornton: So if we're zoning the way it was in 1972 and that was an old
drive-in in 1972.
Emmings: That wasn't zoned as commercial or anything else at that time.
It's been that way for 15 years.
Conrad: Okay, I'm comfortable zoning the whole area Fringe Business.
Emmings: To me, it might as well be the whole parcel. I don't any reason
not to because we're going to get, as far as zoning goes, that doesn't
bother me but when they come in with a plan to use it for anything, that's
when we get to take a hard look at some of the things that I think bother
~ll of us about it.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 26
~onrad: When you sell your land Steve to whoever is going to buy it, you
~et more if it's zoned Fringe Business or do you get more if you have it
zoned agricultural?
Emmings: I don't know that.
Conrad: I don't know that either.
Emmings: But no matter if it's zoned agricultural or fringe business, if
it's wetland and unuseable, it doesn't matter. The thing that I really
doubt is how they're going to be get access to TH 169 there. It looks like
it's right on the corner.
Tim Thornton: Right after you go around the bend.
picture shows where it goes around the bend.
If you look, this one
Emmings: Do you realistically think you'll get access onto there?
Tim Thornton: There's access now right next to Super America. Here's the Y
right here and TH 212 goes here and this is TH 169 coming around the corner.
The kids got in and out of there to get hot dogs and hamburgers for 35
years.
Conrad: When you put a business district there, we're saying that we
probably think that it's got the possibility of having access.
~mmings: Turn that around then. Since we've called it agricultural
residential, have we said there's a possibility that we allow using it?
Conrad: When you zone, you assume you can use that land for that purpose
and I guess right now we don't know so we're saying, potentially you can use
it. We have a control to take that use away if it doesn't make sense.
Emmings: Or not grant that in the first place as a conditional use.
Whether or not they're able to get access and stuff like that.
Conrad: I think we should make a motion on this. I don't know that we need
to incorporate subject to wetland ordinance because that's going to be taken
care of sooner or later. Barbara are you going to be able to talk to the
attorneys before this gets to City Council so whatever our motion is, it's
certainly impacted by Staff Report when it does get there so I don't know.
I'm not sure we have to weave in a Barbara talking to the City Attorney
because Barbara will talk to the Attorney no matter what and that will be
more data for the City Council to review. However, somebody may want to
make that motion and incorporate our approval subject to a lawyer reviewing
the situation.
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Rezoning Request #87-2 to rezone the entire 2 acre parcel
from A-2, Agricultural Estate to BF, Business Fringe District with specific
instructions for Barbara Dacy to talk to the City Attorney prior to the City
~council meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 27
4IlPPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated May 13, 1987. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
Wildermuth moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated May 27, 1987. All voted in favor except Siegel
who abstained and motion carried.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
The Planning Commission discussed the Comprehensive Plan Update item
presented in the City Planner's memorandum of June 5, 1987. The Planning
Commissin directed Staff to include an analysis of the Lake Ann Interceptor
Area in the plan update process but felt that an application to amend the
Year 2000 MUSA line was premature until other issues such as land use
patterns and transportation issues were fully addressed.
Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m..
~ubmitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
prepared by Nann Opheim
e