1988 06 15
--
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15, 1988
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, James
Wildermuth and Brian Batzli
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Jim Chaffee, Public
Safety Director
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 11 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS AND A DOUBLE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON HWY. 41, CHES MAR FARMS, BRADLEY JOHNSON.
Public Present:
Bradley Johnson
Harold Nasset
Chuck and Ginger Gross
Terry Jones
Applicant
Applicant
2703 Ches Mar Farm Road
Southridge Development Inc.
It
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order.
e
Brad Johnson: I do represent Gary Kirt who is the owner of this property
in this particular case. There1s always a reason behind somebody coming
in and asking for something that's not supposed to be done. In this
particular case the reason is that the property has continuously for the
last 30 years decreased in value. Primarily due to the decay of the
structures that exist there. We1ve had a number of fires and basically
changed the uses over the years. Originally, this is what the farm
originally looked like. This is what the farm was originally like in the
late 40's. I don't know if anybody has been out there lately but what has
happened over the last few years, about 20 years since it was originally
owned by Charles and Mary Johnson as a working horse farm. Over the years
as working horse farms became uneconomical, a fellow by the name of
Naegele purchased it as a land speculation and tried to develop it into
some form of property. I think he ran into the sewer problems and later
on sold parts of the property off to the County as a part of Carver County
Park. The next person who owned it went bankrupt. Not just because of
this but a couple of other dealings that he had and Mr. Kirt purchased it
out of a foreclosure with the intent that he could bring it back to life.
It's a very beautiful piece of property. It probably has a lot of
historic significance to those people who live on Lake Minnewashta. I
know the Gross' who are here can attest to the fact that years ago it used
to be an active part of the Chanhassen community. The problem that's
happening is Mr. Kirt acquired it and I think he was going to live there
Planning Co~nission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 2
e
e
and he moved a home on there which he had planned on doing and for various
economic reasons decided that it was not, at that time, a good idea to
remodel that particular home. When you have a duplex and a 6 unit in a
rural community, a rural area with non-owner occupants living in the unit,
it tends to degenerate into a slum. Mr. Kirt asked me to visit that
particular piece of property about 6 months ago because he'd had it on the
market for approximately 2 years. As Jo Ann said, they've been able to
sell off two of the buildings. One's a duplex which Jerry Eickenspot has
fixed up a little bit and then the front gate house was sold off and
that's been fixed up quite a bit but he's been unable to sell the two
units. He said when he bought the Kirt place he literally drove a truck
up to it, filled a truck full of garbage and hauled it away. Interestingly
enough, unless he's had family members living in the units, which he has
had off and on, other than one unit periodically, they have to drive a
truck up to the door and clean it out. This is not uncommon in this type
of property where you really have buildings that are not really designed
to be rental units, which is the case here. It is not a real attractive
place for people to live in the long term. The type of tennant that they
attract seem not to take care of the property so that's the economic
problem. Valuation from a tax purposes has steadily declined over the
last few years also for that reason. He came in and requested this as a
PUD, I think as your staff report indicates, that this was at that time
and has historically, you'll notice that it has at times a much higher
density than it currently has even. It's just there and the concern that
we have had is that it is getting tagged, Mr. Chaffee is here from the
Public Safety Department and this is whether it's Mr. Kirt who owns it or
anybody that owns it, it will probably always be the economic problem as
long as there's six units there. Our solution was to shift the valuation
or the debt that happens to be on the property from the 6 unit building to
the land. To that end we purchased, or have option, an additional 21
acres because we felt that one thing we could not do is come in here and
ask for an increase in density in that particular area. So currently
there is 1.2 acres per unit and our proposal is 3.1 acres per unit by
adding the outlot. The configuration that we're proposing is there
because we felt that this particular piece of land should remain looking
a little bit like it does at the present time, which you see is the fences
and things like that. By creating a large outlot and clustering the homes
around what is now the existing drive, we felt we could maintain the
credibility of the existing community. This is a PUD. It is a rural PUD.
If you look in your ordinances, there's nothing that allows PUD's not do
you allow 6 unit buildings out in those areas. Nor do you allow duplexes
out in that particular market. They just happen to be there and what
we're trying to accomplish is dealing with them. Gary dealt with it in a
way. He was in fact able to sell off two of the buildings to owners
occupants. Our concern now is how do we make this particular property
viable as a real estate place to live without just burning it down, taking
it off the tax rolls and forgetting about it. We felt that one of the
reasons people may not want to develop it is because it is outside the
MUSA line so we've been in contact with the Metropolitan Council folks and
they have no problem, at least verbally, with the plan that we have
presented here. In other words, either the City, through the City
Council, has an agreement that they will not increase the density. They
felt that this project is not increasing the density out in that area
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 3
e
therefore, from an agreement point with the City. There won't be the
sewer and water there but at least we're not violating anything so there
would be no opposition on their part, at least verbally, with this
particular plan. That was our first step.
Emmings: Could I ask you, did you talk to the Met Council yourself?
Brad Johnson: Harold did.
Harold Nasset: I spoke with Matt Paul of Met Council.
Emmings: Was this a telephone conversation?
Harold Nasset:
Council.
It was a meeting that Barb Dacy and I had over at Met
Ernmings: And they saw this drawing?
Harold Nasset: They saw this concept and the idea was that we were going
no more units. That we were trading rental units for single family and
they were reading it as... So there's 11 units if you count on there
presently. If you count the number on the single families that were
converted to duplex, or the 6 unit into a duplex, it's the same amount.
e
Ernmings: Okay, and they saw this land. That part of the land that's
being counted in is this long skinny trail going dOwn to the lake?
Harold Nasset: Yes.
Brad Johnson: They actually saw even a more common area type of thing.
The idea of the common area, by the way, again was to maintain it from TH
41, the look that that property currently has. Using the PUD technique in
some communities, you go to more clustered urban type housing where you
cluster things. Here around the knoll or around the beauty area or you
give them a view point and you try to maintain the other property as it
is. The other problems that we have in dealing with this particular piece
of property, other than the fact that it's outside the MUSA line at the
present time, it's just that it's there already. The road system has been
there for a number of years, probably 40 or 50 years, so you have to try
to work whatever plan that you put together around what exists. The
orange indicates the three properties that are currently owned by people
other than Mr. Kirt. The Gross', Chuck and Ginger Gross are here tonight
and we've been working with them for a while. Each of these parties has a
certain interest in the project because they live there. I would say it
would be safe to say that, and Ginger you or Chuck could speak to this,
that they would like to see something done. How many years have you been
worrying about this?
--
Chuck Gross: We've lived there close to 15 and we've seen a
deterioration. ...is still there and yes, we are interested in seeing
something done about it. We would like to see an upgrading. Better grade
of people living there as neighbors. We have a vested interest with our
manor home there that we're living in.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 4
-
Brad Johnson: You're faced with, let's say there home is worth at least
$100,000.00 but let's say there home is worth $200,000.00 to $400,000.00,
which is the pinnacle as you come in. You have a small gatehouse that
fits in the sides. They have this huge monsterous building in the back
which adds value to their home until you get near it. I was just reading
Chaffee's report, you can smell it as you get closer. That's the problem
we're facing with in that property. What would you say about the state of
repair Jim?
Jim Chaffee:
It needs a little work.
e
Brad Johnson: We get tags and it's not as if, in this kind of property is
as close, I use to deal just in properties in 30th and Hennepin and 30th
and Lake and that area. It's as close to that kind of property or is
getting to it from a tennancy point of view as you can possibly get.
Another party owns this property and another party owns this property out
in the back. They all have concerns and I think I've listed them in our
presentation and I'll touch on them but in the design of the project we
have to deal with their rights. Currently there is a 25 foot easement
that goes with the project. In other words it goes with the back property
from this TH 41 to this point. Whoever established this whole thing
originally made sure that there was only a 25 foot easement, good or bad.
The balance of the property is owned by the Gross'. The road itself is
on both parties property. Now we could put a road to the right of that
and infringe on these folk's homes but that's not the proper way to do it
so we're working through them. One of the requirements that both these
parties have relative to a road system coming in there, at least until
public utilities are there, is that that road remain private. They are
concerned about taxes. They're concerned about traffic and any
connotation that would have to do with a public road entering into the
property. Traffic, things like that. Much like what has been established
like at the Hesse Farm which is a well established subdivision in this
particular community. From there on in we are okay with most anything
that could happen. What we did say though as an alternate and for public
safety reasons or whatever, we needed a public road and these two parties
would not agree. Then we have provided an outlot around the back of the
property through the acquisition of the property to the south. We also
have set this outlot up in case, in some future time, maybe 12 years away,
that they actually want to run sewer and water in and then that City then
could do that. This would just be deeded over to the City or accessed to
them so they could do that. From this point on we would like to lay the
road system out a little bit different than it is but there's an easement
that runs from here to here to service this particular party. Her feeling
is that she does not want to allow any change in the easement on this
road. That it must remain as it is and rather than argue that point out
we therefore run the road in along the northerly portion of the property
and spun it around here. We had a couple of other ones that wrapped it
out and probably very small as a cul-de-sac or an effective way of dealing
with it. Thus the plan. I don't think there would be too much problem
within the plan to meet a 1 acre standard for most of the lots except for
the duplex lots. The duplex lots, they're kind of, there again, we just
can't do much about it. Again our contention is that the outlot concept
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 5
e
e
with trying to maintain some type of identity within the farm is the way
to do it. We also have set it up, whether it's a useable beachlot or not,
at least it's perceived to be that way. Concerns that people have raised
are things like septic. I believe you have in general, in the rural area,
2 1/2 acre requirement primarily for septic purposes. In checking around,
there are other methods of handling septic on the lot. Actually the two
adjoining properties are examples of that. Camp Tanadoona and Dogwood
both have what's called the mound system, which is a community septic
system and they've been in operation for 10 or 15 years and according to
our engineers who have been out there, they're working very fine. Both of
which are on the lake. There are probably engineering ways, let's say, of
getting around the lot size and the septic system problems. There's been
a concern about is there water out there or not. Again, that's an
engineering problem. We've been sort of assured by our engineers that
water has serviced through private wells, a few homes out there in the
past and there should be plenty of water for a number of years more out in
that particular area. The lot sizes, as I said, I think we could
configure it to make it 1 acre. We could actually increase some of them
to 2 1/2 acres but we think from strictly planning and aesthetic point of
view, we'd be distroying a lot of the things that the current property
has. As I said, we designed it so that the density is 3.1 acres per unit.
As I understand we're coming in under an adjustment in a PUD and the
purpose for a PUD is exactly this. How do you deal with something that
shouldn't be there probably in the first place and/or how do you deal with
something where you're trying to preserve the beauty of the site without
exceeding the density? We felt that if we stayed under 2 1/2 acres per
lot, in other words more, that we'd at least be showing you an effort of
not trying to increase a high density and therefore we went with the cost
of purchasing the balance of the property. The private versus public
road, as I said, Hesse Farm has a private road system. There we're
dealing with, and maybe Ginger or Chuck can speak to that private road
system concept. What is your concern? I know what they are but you might
point them out.
Emmings: Why don't you make your presentation and then I'll ask for
comments from the other people.
Brad Johnson: Setbacks, I think most of the other kinds of things could
be met. I think the only, our concern from the land planning point of
view is that we realize that this does not meet standards currently
established by the City. We are here just to explain our case. The
owner's got a problem and you mayor may not want to address the problem
at the Planning Commission. We are looking for some feedback. We're more
than happy to come back again if you have some ideas of things that we
should change or concerns and make some modifications to our current ideas
but we will persist I guess is what I'm saying. We think we have a legal
right to proceed based upon the PUD and that's kind of the comment I've
been given by the guy who's basically knows about it. That's my comments.
tit
Emmings: Just a couple of questions. You know our regulations. When you
say this one doesn't meet our standards, that's really an understatement.
It doesn't meet any of them. It doesn't come close and I understand that
you're here, making a proposal on behalf of the client and you've come up
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 6
e
with a plan. That's fine, we'll take a look at it but I'm sure you're
also aware that when we looked at this before, there were some, in '85
when we looked at this and we made it a PUD, it was done at that time,
very different things were said to us than are being said now. One of
them was we want to maintain the character of this piece of property as a
farm and now it looks to me like a lot of buildings. Now it looks to me
like it's going to look like a residential subdivision. I guess I'm
wondering, that bothers me because I'm wondering if that was part of a
plan. Was I getting the straight shot then? Am I getting a straight shot
now? I wond~r about that. It's probably something you can't answer. You
didn't represent them before.
Brad Johnson: He was planning on living on the property.
come about.
It just didn't
Emmings: The other thing is, both at the City Council and at the Planning
Commission we're very concerned that there not be any increased density.
We were talking about the land area that was there within the PUD at the
time and all that's getting shuffled around. Is there any reason to think
this isn't subject to our subdivision ordinance? Do you agree that it is
subject to our subdivision ordinance as well as the PUD?
e
Brad Johnson: I guess if you looked at, I'm not a lawyer okay. I do know
that you can take cases like this a long ways and normally the City would
lose because it's generally felt that they have this lost. I think it's
one of those hardships that somebody has dealt with in the past and when
you have a grandfathered type of a situation. In other words, I wouldn't
corne in here and say this is the thing to do. I was contacted by the
owner, who's a friend of mine, and he'd been trying to market the property
for 2 years. I said, well Gary it looks like it isn't working. Let's try
to figure out what the problem is. I met with all the neighbors. Done
the history of the thing and my bottom line is, from my experience in
rental property, that this place will tend to degenerate forever until the
MUSA line is extended and you put 60 lots in there or 30 or 40 or 50.
It's just a problem. Even if you bought this building for nothing, it
would still cost you more than you could rent it for.
Emmings: The sixplex?
Brad Johnson: Yes. It's just a problem. It's a very nice duplex
interestingly enough.
Emmings: The sixplex?
Brad Johnson: The sixplex is really a nice duplex but they've modified it
over the years. It used to be a barn years ago.
Emmings: So it's at his highest and best use?
e
Brad Johnson: Yes. It's been moved. If you look at this, it's very
creative. I found out that the duplex that's way out in the back of the
property was a chicken coop so this thing has gone on and on and on and
the neighbors, you could think what kind of credibility I had when I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 7
e
proposed to them that we change this again.
be honest. Now Ginger I've been talking to
figure out. What you see here is something
what they would probably accept.
So Ginger said, you've got to
you, because we tried to
that, not what we want but is
Emmings: Yes, you're having the same problem here.
e
Brad Johnson: I think Gary in good faith was trying to figure out what to
do himself. I said Gary you've got to accomplish something. It may not
have been the right thing certainly at that time. Now the 21 acres we
purchased back was part of the farm but even when they subdivided this
whole thing out for many different reasons they did it incorrectly. Gary
could have come in here, not a very months ago, a year ago, and come in
for a 2 1/2 acre subdivision on this property after acquiring this and
probably making it work. Today we're just stuck with the current
ordinance. I told him, I don't see for 12 years you're going to see sewer
and water on that street. I don't know what to do and so we thought that
we'd try to create a real posh community out there. Now we got stopped a
little bit, not by all the neighbors, by some of the neighbors, that this
doesn't come off the way we thought it should. We have to deal with
existing houses. We offered for example to buy this back and try to
straighten it out a little bit. They're just there. We did acquire this.
One of the covenants of the transaction is that this will never be
subdivided. It will always be an outlot. Interestingly enough, as we
moved along and started talking this way, we found people, we've got a
person in the crowd tonight that's willing to move in along with one of
his friends and families and they will actually move in here and start
work on this project July 1st. To live there which we've been looking for
a long time for somebody who wants to live there other than Gary's family.
Emmings: You said something just now that I want to follow up on. You
said that one of the covenants on your option to purchase, if you do
purchase the 21 acres, one of the covenants will be that you can't
subdivide that 21 acres.
Brad Johnson: This parcel here.
Emmings: But those lots go into that parcel now don't they?
Brad Johnson: No, I said the outlot that would remain.
Emmings: Okay, the new outlot?
e
Brad Johnson: Yes. I think one of the reasons the Gross', again I'm
speaking for them, I don't mean to do that, but one of the reasons they're
interested in this is that we perceive the, and again we don't want to be
stuffy but the average valuation of a home in here will be $300,000.00 to
$600,000.00. Currently the tax base in there is $400,000.00. We think we
can increase the tax base. Secondly, the scale of houses that we'd have
to build in here would then be the size of the Gross' or the size of the
monster duplex in the back which until, quite honestly, 7 months ago I
thought was a big single family house. I thought that was the main house
but the main house has always been the Gross' house. That's where the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 8
e
Johnson's used to live in the front. So we're just trying to deal with
it. I'm not saying this meets, I'm sure Barb just enjoyed seeing me walk
in the door and saying I've got a problem but on the other hand this is an
opportunity. That's where we are. We've got a couple of other ones like
this in town too we're working on and this is a classic problem. The PUD
is a solution and it'd be a real easy solution if there was sewer and
water there but there isn't.
Emmings: Would the gatehouse, the Gross' and the duplex have access to
the beachlot?
Brad Johnson:
There's a deed
Ches Mar Farm,
have access to
I think actually by the way it was set up, they do not.
that transferred this property and within that deed it said
which at that time was this piece of property, shall always
the lake. So technically they mayor may not.
Emmings: I specifically asked when this was here before, whether or not,
Ches Mar Farms, what we were dividing into a PUD, into 4 lots, whether
they had access to the lake and I was told they did not. Is that wrong?
e
Brad Johnson: There's an easement that runs from this point to here.
Under the original transfer. The property itself was not owned by Gary.
There was just an easement that ran from this lot over to here. Now he
may not even have known that but that's what we found out later. Nobody
has ever exercised the use of that easement. Now wasn't there always a
concern by Margaret or somebody, I hate to ask but they have the answer.
That's the idea.
Emmings: This is a public hearing, is there anybody else who wishes to
speak on this proposal?
Ginger Gross: I'm Ginger Gross and we've been on the farm for about
years and we are thankful to see something proceeding at this point.
Johnson is right, there has been a good deal of deterioration and it
not appear it's going to get any better. We're not 100% sold on the
proposal as I'm sure yourselves are not. There are some questions that
have and some other avenues we'd like explored. What we would like to
know is if they have been explored. As things stand, it is most
unacceptable. We've had deterioration that has been almost life
threatening in many regards out there at the farm so something does have
to be done. If Mr. Johnson's plan does not go through, I think if you
move to put Mr. Kirt in some regard.
15
Mr.
does
we
Emmings: What are your concerns about this specific proposal?
e
Ginger Gross: We would like to see the area remain as rural as possible.
Obviously if we had preference, if it was my property to develop, I'd
still like to see horses. I'd still like to see wildlife. The current
residents there would like to see people who appreciate the outdoors and
take part in it. That's the concept of the farm. In regards to Mr.
Johnson's proposal, again I do appreciate what he's trying to do. I would
like to see something a bit more natural. Some of the houses maybe
snuggled within some of the contours of land, if that's possible. I don't
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 9
.
.
know how realistic it is, I'd like to see 2 or 3 parties there as opposed
to as many as he's proposing. We really don't want to see a public road
going through. We feel that it would be most inappropriate to the entire
area. I think then you would probably have a lot of people approaching
you and wanting to develop there if we had a 50 foot road. Now it's a
quaint private road and it does not stand out. There is some
consideration that we might have a privacy gate or security gate at the
entrance. I think should Mr. Johnson do the development, I think he would
do it in good taste. I don't know, I've not seen his work but if that's
what his plan is. Mr. Johnson is trying to work with all of us and we
appreciate that. He's trying to observe the things that are important to
us. I don't know how much you can preserve the existing character. A lot
of the existing character does not need to be preserved. We would like
the feeling that it still is a rural area. He's right, if we wait 10 or
12 or 14 years, whoever sells off the property will not have appropriate
use of the property either. Anyone who would come onto the farm, want to
buy those properties at this point, probably would also let them continue
to deteriorate. A lot of people who think that they could have a lot of
house for little money. I don't think it would lend anything to the area
at all. Again, I don't know if it's been properly marketed. Previously I
know Mr. Kirt had marketed it through his own realty company and Mr.
Johnson through his. I did some research, I went to Waconia and victoria
and I understand that the kinds of things that we assume they were trying
to develop on the farm, those things are happening in the Victoria and
Waconia area. I don't know if Mr. Kirt or Mr. Johnson spent any time in
those areas or with people who, most people think you have to go further
out than we are to have that kind of acreage and the comments that I had
out there is that what we thought should be done on the farm is being done
out there all the time.
Emmings: And that is what specifically?
e
Ginger Gross: People looking for 10 acres or 20 acres. 2 or 3 people.
Not necessarily revitalizing the area. A lot of those people want to
build private homes that are going out there. If that's what it takes, it
would be nice for something like that to take place. I don't know how far
Mr. Johnson or Mr. Kirt are willing to go or can go in marketing property
to say, horse people or animal people or outdoors people. I don't know
how much control they have over that but they have indicated that they
would work with us as much as they could. Obviously there's some economic
factors and there are a lot of considerations that are coming into play
that that may not take place. That does concern us. We don't want
plastic people in plastic houses. The public road would be a problem. We
share a well with the family at the gate and the road separates the two of
us. Our well is on their property. They have easements, Mr. Kirt's
property has, Mr. Kirt the owner, their property has easement for the
road, I think that's the appropriate term. If you were to widen the road,
it would take it up to the front door of the little cottage that has our
well and the well is right under that proposed roadbed area so you do have
a problem there. We could work with Mr. Johnson on some of our property
but we really don't want to give up a good deal of our project. Mrs.
Johnson, the original owner, again I don't know the technicalities, she
laid her plan out accordingly. Her attorney laid it out so that she would
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 10
e
not ever have more road corning into her yard. She sold the property to
Naegele's who were bringing new developing but she sold the property that
she sold to them with the understanding that her property would always
remain her property.
Emmings: So in other words, if they widened the entry road, none of the
additional land would corne out of your parcel?
Ginger Gross: That's right. Obviously a lot of things have taken place
down through the years. That little gatehouse burned down at one time. I
think if people had really been on top of it, the little house would have
been rebuilt because that did not allow them the appropriate roadbed that
they needed...but apparently they needed a roadbed. That's the only place
it could corne from is where that house is. Mr. Kirt and Mr. Johnson have
some definite problems that they have to overcome there that are going to
have to be dealt with at some time. We like some of their proposals.
They're trying to work with us as best they can but we are concerned about
the private road. We would like to see it that way. Obviously for the
next 10 or 12 years, if it remain private that it remain as it is but it
would also remain as it is for the...
Terry Jones: I was asked to corne here this evening to address you all
because I'm the person who is, also like Mrs. Gross, moving onto the
property. I'm with Southridge Development Incorporation.
e
Ernrnings: Where are you moving onto the property?
Terry Jones: Into the double home which is now a sixplex. We're also the
proposal, depending upon the outcome of this entire proposal, to purchase
and develop the rest of the project. My partner couldn't be here tonight,
David Kenneth is also personally going to live on the property and my
cowboy boots show that we like horses also. The property is a very
tranquil setting. That's what attracted us in the first place. Speaking
for myself and my company, which becomes very personal, we also would not
like to see a plastic type of development but rather a development which
would lend itself to homes positioned just right in the right places so
that it preserves the beauty of the property. These are things that have
to be dealt with down the road and I was just here tonight to introduce
myself and say that depending upon the outcome of this entire property, we
do have someone who's willing to throw in the necessary money to make sure
that these things happen.
Emmings: Do you feel this plan meets your desire to have things laid out
in the best possible way for the property?
Terry Jones: Basically yes. With the time that I've had to spend with
the property, I think it does. I'm moving onto the property at the first
of the month where I can deal with that more on a hands on basis.
e
Brad Johnson: As a part of our proposal Mr. Kenneth, when we first met
they had a number of objections to the current status of the property. As
as far as Terry and his family and Dave Kenneth and his family moving onto
the property, Mr. Kirt has agreed to fund basically the exterior of
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 11
e
refurbishing the sixplex and the clean-up of the yards which is something
he just didn't feel comfortable doing. He's done it once before and now
we're doing it again 3 years later. So he feels comfortable he can
attract a good tennant, worse case, potentially with development, best
case, if we can get it done. Fix it up. Fix it up and it falls apart.
Somehow we've got to stop that and we think the concept is simply to
transfer, what we call a debt of the sixplex into the land and sell the
land out so the whole cost of the project is taken care of in that way.
We just can't reclaim anything from the sixplex. Planning Commission's
historically aren't concerned about that. The problem is we've just got a
problem we're trying to solve and that's an economic problem. I think
Terry came after they started the process. He's the type of guy I was
sure I was going to be able to attract to this project. It will work. It
will be a very nice place. I thought about moving up there myself. If he
doesn't, I am. I hope he does because I'm comfortable where I'm at but
we're going to get this done and that's where this whole thing originated.
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Wildermuth: Brad, what is on the outlot A? You've got 3 things there.
There's a green box. A circle.
.
Brad Johnson: Somebody said preserve the character of the farm and keep
the barns and stuff like that. We're leaving some on there. Some are
falling apart so this is a barn that we're going to move. I think we can
buy the one that's over on Westin. What's the subdivision just over this
way? What's the name of the one on Minnewashta that was just completed?
Olsen: Pemtom?
Brad Johnson: Pemtom has a little barn that's for sale so we thought
could bring in a barn. There's a stable. These are just images for a
horse corral that we could add back.
Wildermuth: But there's nothing there now?
Brad Johnson: No. It's interesting, if you look at that photo. I always
thought, if you ever go in there and it looks like there's a bridge where
water used to go under. Look at the photo. It's the bridge where the
horses used to go back and forth across the road so that's the way that
whole thing was set up. I always through there must have been a huge
gushing of water continuously. In real life, this whole thing was just a
big farm years ago.
Wildermuth: Outlot A, just outline the part that will never be...
e
Brad Johnson: And we did it, if you saw, somewhere I've got some other
plans but originally we were just going to even shorten the length of
these lots and make it a little bigger but it got to be too much of a
variance. This would work nicely with 1/2 acre sites but we felt that was
a little bit too much for the farm.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 12
e
Wildermuth: I guess I'm inclined to agree with the staff's analysis of
it. It no way meets our rural subdivision. It appears something has been
attempted with the sixplex. It's in a pretty sad state of repair and the
house that was moved onto the site really with those two structures on the
site, even if something like this were to be acceptable, I don't see how
you could attract $100,000.00 into an area like that. I guess other
conditions that would be required or a bending of the rules, bending of
our ordinance structure, would be that there would be a central watering
system and a central sewage system for this PUD. I'm surprised that the
PUD was... That's all I have.
Batzli: I guess I'd be interested in hearing what the Public Safety
Director has to say about putting up structures such as this. If they're
going to have individual wells, obviously to bring your own water but then
again the buildings that they've got now are supposedly hooked up to, not
the mansion... I think something needs to be done about the site. I
think it's a beautiful old farm and I kind of got nostalgic wandering
around it when I went out there but I don't know that the economic
hardship of developing in a different way, if that's the criteria for why
this plan in particular was presented, is enough to convince me that this
is the best plan for that area.
e
Conrad: I have just a few comments. I think something should be done. I
like the concept of this a whole bunch. If I could design Chanhassen 10
years ago and no doubt at 15, this type of development would have been,
still is, real attractive. I have a problem of the ordinances that are
quite sound. I'm not even getting into the design in terms of some of the
details of soil conditions and septic things. I'm hung up on our
ordinance in which it talks about 1 unit per 10 and 2 1/2 acre minimums in
the rural area and I just don't know how to justify changing those
standards to other rural people that might want to do the same thing. I
wouldn't know how to defend any action if we took a look at this and tried
to massage our standards a little bit. I don't know on what grounds
somebody...tell me how to do it. I thought about it and I can't figure
out how to do it. I can't tell Brad, Brad's in here for a concept and I
thought about what I would tell him to go away with and come back with and
I don't know what I would do. I honestly don't know what would work
within our ordinance so we wouldn't have to drastically change it. I
guess I'm kind of at a loss. I go back to some concepts, however, that I
think something should be done. I'm empathetic to the situation and I do
like the overall concept but I don't have a clue as to how to get it done.
e
Ellson: I don't really like it. I think the PUD was, you could say the
City and the Planning Commission and the City Council bending to try and
accomodate somebody who, at that point had economic hardship also. He
wanted the PUD so that he could eventually separate the parcels which he
has been able to do in a couple of the cases. I think we went above and
beyond just granting the PUD to help him out and I think he's stretching
it and trying to get a little bit more. I'm not sure that I can go along
with being that much more accomodating because that really is a lot of
increased density. The area is gorgeous but I wouldn't want to see having
any units in there. I'm not opposed to looking at other plans and things
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 13
e
like that but I think it doesn't conform so drastically and I think trying
to slip under, well now that this is a PUD we're trying other things is
kind of taking advantage of the good nature that they gave you the PUD in
the first place which was for the original plan and not this one. I don't
really think this is called a PUD anymore because now they've changed it
so it's not the existing conditions when we called it a PUD. I don't know
what's been used to what will hold it in court. Now that it's a PUD we're
going to go for different things so I'm against it. I'm not against
something about the area but I'm against this exact one.
e
Emmings: I made the motion when we turned this thing into a
PUD, I noticed in our old Minutes so some ways I feel like I've got to
justify that. It made sense at the time based on what we were told by the
applicant that he couldn't sell the individual. It was all one parcel and
he couldn't sell the whole parcel, he needed to break it up. To be able
to sell it, he wanted to maintain the farm and rural character of the
property and that sounded very nice and we're concerned about him wanting
them to subdivide the four parcels we let him have at that time so we put
in a specific condition that we're not going to have any greater density
here. We're not going to let you subdivide this down. Now they've come
back and basically it looks to me an attempt to backdoor or shoehorn in
what is basically an urban subdivision into a rural area and I think it's
totally inappropriate. I did drive through the property tonight. The
Gross' property is very beautiful and the rest of it is in a sad
condition. I sure can't approve of a plan that looks like this.
PUD Ordinance says it has to be coordinated with the subdivision
and it has to be coordinated with the provisions of the, what is
around it there? Is it A-2 or RR?
Our
ordinance
all
Olsen: RR.
Emmings: In either case, they both require the 2 1/2 acre lots and we've
got the 1 in 10 problem. I'm real uncomfortable allowing somebody to
count as acreage in their density a long hallway of land that really could
never be built on. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I think
that's very inappropriate.
Conrad: So what would we like to see done here?
Emmings: When we have an outlot like this, this Outlot A, do we typically
count those in computing density?
Olsen: We usually do the net and the gross density and the net density is
just the lot areas and it doesn't include the outlots or park areas and
street areas. Typically we have used net in the past. Although in the
Camp Plan the densities are determined by gross densities.
Conrad: Jo Ann, under our ordinance, what could be done to...
e
Olsen:
Under our ordinance, again we'd have to meet the 1 in 10 density.
Conrad: And there's 28 acres?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 14
e
Olsen: Yes, so you get two units.
Conrad: 28 acres, help me figure that out.
Olsen: Two units.
Conrad: So they would get 2 units?
Olsen: Right. If Met Council is willing to forego that l,unit/lO acres, they
would still hav~ to .have a minimum of 2 1/2 acres per lot. The reason
that we have the common mound system on Dogwood was because the s~stem
railed and the City had to put that in. Never have we permitted that
common mound system~ simply because of the lots created would not support
the septic system.
Wildermuth: What about a central water system and a central sewage
system?
Olsen: I don't have an answer to well system. I don't know whether we
have done that. We may have done that for the Lakeview Apartments. It's
not determined that each of those lots couldn't support a well.
e
Wildermuth: In reading Mr. Whitehill's letter and he seems to be very
concerned about that.
Olsen: About limiting his water? Yes.
Wildermuth: His concern has impact upon everybody.
Olsen: I asked our engineer if that would impact other wells and he
did not know.
e
Emmings: I'd also like, I noticed in the Council's Minutes from January
21, 1985 that Councilman Horn, at the time this PUD was before us said
that in this case we're dealing with pre-existing conditions. We really
don't have a choice because this stuff was put up before our Zoning
Ordinance was there. We can be comfortable with this because of that but
if we were creating something from scratch, that's one thing but this
already exists and I think now they're going back and creating something
from scratch. I think they're going over that limit and I don't see any
way that we can support this kind of concept at all. As far as what ought
to be there, I don't know but that's not my problem. I don't own the
property and I think we're being asked to do this to make this marketable
and by god I don't think that's the City's role at all. I don't think we
help developers make a bad investment good. If it doesn't meet the
ordinance, it doesn't meet the ordinance and I'm sorry. I wish I had a
great idea to make the property look nice and I guess you need somebody.
If a horse farm isn't viable economically, and I see them being built out
in the Waconia area, as the Gross' were eluding to. They just put up
another big one up on the way to Waconia. They two out there now just
recently. I don't know, maybe land cost is too high in here to do that, I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 15
e
don't know but if they can do something like that, that would be
wonderful.
Conrad: One of the neat things about a concept plan is where we can give
the developer some input. That's the point of a concept.
Ernrnings: You know why I think we can't on this one? Because this one is
so far off that it doesn't advance anything. Lots of times when you corne
in with concept plans we say, yes change this a little bit. Shove this
over here a little bit but this is more like okay, if we can't do this,
what can we do? This is so far off it doesn't just need a little
massaging, it's got to go back to the drawing board and start allover and
I think that's why we're having trouble corning up with ideas. That's my
impression.
Conrad: I don't know how to change it but I think it's just smart for Mr.
Johnson to take it to City Council. He's obviously dealing with some
economics that we are not inclined to deal with.
e
wildermuth: The addition of the tax role I think is very attractive.
There's no question about that but when the PUD was granted it was to
provide parcels that could be sold individually, I think the easy parcels
were sold individually. The sixplex is a mess. The house that was moved
onto the property is probably a good candidate for practice for the Fire
Department. I don't think you could probably put $250,000.00 in that
thing before you could get it to look like some of the other homes that
you might anticipate building. You'd probably have to put $250,000.00
into that Herman House.
Brad Johnson: $150,000.00 to $200,000.00. The valuation that's the
$400,000.00 to $500,000.00. It's a very historic house. The real trick
there is the lot. The lot's worth, just sitting there by itself...
wildermuth: The lot is a nice lot.
It's a nice size.
e
Brad Johnson: We're basically selling that particular thing, we've been
able to sell that as either a group home or individuals like myself that
are interested in purchasing. A group home is permitted in this whole
area and that is probably another alternative to the whole situation. In
both cases, people who wanted to buy the Herman House looked to the
sixplex and they wouldn't buy the Herman House if there was a sixplex. We
get a call a week on the Herman House and the price is a buck for the
house and $125,000.00 for the land, that kind of thing. People are very
attracted to that house. I think there were one of our salesmen already,
had they be able to appropriately pass the sixplex and that's why I'm
here. You guys want to know why I'm doing this is because I was going to
buy the Herman House and we finally figured it all out and when we got
done with it, like you said, we'd have $150,000.00 into it or $200,000.00
but until the sixplex question was taken care of and you look at the
economics of the whole deal and it just doesn't work. You're right, it's
an economic problem which Planning Commissions aren't supposed to deal
with. I'm here realizing that. We deal with those every day in the
downtown area. I do know that people's cities take care of it. Otherwise
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 16
e
they end up with a downtown like Chanhassen has. Sooner or later the
problem will come up and it will be taken care of more from the Council's
side. I've listened to the neighbors. I've listened to you guys. You're
telling me what I thought I'd hear. It'd be interesting to figure out a
solution and I'm not asking for a solution per se. What you see there is
what we came up with as I understand a PUD. That's my business and my
business is understanding that kind of stuff. Now I understand that in
the PUD ordinance that we have to have out there, you have all the
flexibility in the world. In theory. That's why it's there. PUD's are
there. You've got an apartment building we approved over here not too far
away that's got 23 units per acre. The minimum in town is 12. Why is it
there? It's there because of the great need.
Emmings: Brad but you're aware too that our PUD ordinance says that a PUD
may include only those uses consistent with the general land use category
for the area on the Comprehensive Plan and also that subdivision review
under Chapter 18 has to be carried out simultaneously with the review of a
PUD so it also comes under all the subdivision ordinances.
Brad Johnson: Without a doubt and the last thing you want to do is change
the ordinance.
.
Emmings: I've got pages of questions here. If I thought this plan was
close to being approved, there are buildings on lot lines in this and I
don't know if those buildings, if you're planning to tear them down.
There's a garage right behind the Herman House. I don't know, maybe
you're planning to tear them down but I've got a lot of little questions
like that.
Brad Johnson: In this kind of thing, the only thing that would be left
would be part of the sixplex and that would be all.
Emmings: And why is the sixplex on two lots?
Brad Johnson: We're going to divide it. It's truly a good duplex. You
run it right down the middle and go in and it's a very nice place.
Seriously. It was built...
Emmings: And is Lotus Realty, now you've got a sign out on the road. Have
you listed this property? Is that what's going on?
Brad Johnson: six months ago he asked me what I should do and we left it
on the market for a while and I said this isn't going to work.
Emmings: And our mayor is still working with Lotus Realty?
Brad Johnson: No.
Emmings: He's not? What is he doing now?
e
Brad Johnson: He works for Realty World. He has for about 8 months.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 17
e
Emmings: I didn't know that. Alright, anybody else have any more
comments?
Brad Johnson: Should I take it on? My real question is, should I bring
it back or should we go on to the City Council?
Emmings: We'll ask for a motion here to get you out of here.
Ellson: I move the Planning Commission deny approval of a subdivision of
11 acres into 9 single family lots and a double lot on property zoned
PUD-R on TH 41, Ches Mar Farms. Does that make sense?
Conrad: Do we need a motion on the concept?
Olsen: You're really not acting on the subdivision itself.
Emmings: Okay, so we're just going to pass our comments up?
Conrad: Brad's got our comments. Brad can run with them and do whatever
he wants. Council gets the Minutes and Brad know more than he did when he
came in here.
e
Emmings: I'd like to ask staff one other thing that didn't seem to come
up and that is, this is a private drive. Don't we have limits on the
number of houses that can be on private drives?
Olsen: Yes. It would have to be improved to a public street. The
question is whether it would be rural or an urban street. 50 foot or 60
foot right-of-way.
Emmings: And how are we going to deal with that gatehouse problem that
Mrs. Gross brought up if that has to be improved to a public street?
Brad, how do you plan to deal with that?
Brad Johnson: The request that we have was that we needed, one of the
reasons that we bought the neighbors property to the south is we have the
ability without having to deal with that entrance.
Emmings: So to go around the Gross property?
Brad Johnson: If that was the requirement and if the neighbors were
against it, that's what we'd do.
Wildermuth: How would the Gross' feel about having a road on four sides
of their property?
Brad Johnson: I wouldn't feel very good about that. That's just the way
it is. When I took it out as a road and left it as the outlot for public
utilities but...
e
Batzli: Can you see down TH 41 at all if you move the street further to
the south like you're proposing? The sight line is bad already when
you're coming out of that street looking to the right down TH 41.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 18
e
Brad Johnson: In talking to the engineers, the corner potentially is just
a bad corner in the first place. When that corner was there, there was no
TH 41. The old Ches Mar Road used to go down the hill there so it's just
another problem but it's got to be corrected over time.
Emmings: Would they be allowed an access that close to the other road
corning out on TH 41?
Olsen: You mean the outlot?
Emmings: Yes.
Olsen: No. One of them would have to be closed. That's what the
engineer was saying. They are providing the 50 foot right-of-way with all
those outlots.
Emmings: So if they got that, then the people who live in the gatehouse
would have to come in on the road on the south side of the Gross' and go
back around. All around the Gross property and back to their house?
Olsen: That's something that we still have to work on.
e
Brad Johnson:
to do.
That's what they want to do.
That's what they would like
Batzli: That would avoid all the traffic by their house everyday.
Brad Johnson: That makes the problem bearable. What you see there, when
you go through this process is consensus building an agreement... I have
certain economics working against me.
Batzli: Your concept is probably great. It's just it's in the wrong
location.
Brad Johnson: It's there already you see and the question is, and it's
not a Planning Commission thing, we'll get out of here, should the City
continue to allow the deterioration of this property? They say well, the
common thing is we'll let the landlord improve it. What ultimately
happens in these kinds of properties when you go into an urban renewal
district and tax increment financing, they're improved and that"s the
classic with the hotel downtown. Any of those that go into this kind of a
cycle. Until the uses change.
Emmings: It's difficult for me to understand how this owner had so little
foresight two years ago when he came in to ask what to do what he did then
that it got to this condition today.
Wildermuth: When I went out there, it's pretty unimpressive. There's
~ trash. There are old appliances. Old furniture.
Brad Johnson: And you know who puts that there is the tenants. That's
where the problem is. It's not the landlord that does that. It's the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 19
e
tenants.
Wildermuth: I'm surprised he didn't haul it off.
Brad Johnson: It is being hauled away this week. As I said, it's part of
a general clean-up that's under process. If it were cleaned up, we'll
figure out a solution but the solution, until there is that kind of
property... I wouldn't believe it had I not gone back and guys like Bob
Naegele owned it and a guy by the name of... Both of those were of
considerable net worth at the time and the place just kept going nowhere.
Emmings: So this just goes onto the City Council and we don't have to
take any action?
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-813 TO ALLOW CHILD CARE
CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT,
INSTANT WEB, INC..
Public Present:
Richard Warren
~ Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order.
Dick Warren: I'm Dick Warren with the Instant Webb Company. I wrote the
letter that is included in the packet. I told Barb that I would bring
along a copy of the revised 4,300 foot structure plan to give you a sense
of what that would look like. It's the same concept. The fundamental
issue is we're dealing with so many ratios, space ratios, it's a little
bit like designing a...and we just couldn't get the job done in the
structure design. I'm available for any questions that you have otherwise
I don't have any further comment.
Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
ElIson: I love it. I love the idea. I think it's great. I think you're
idea is great. You can hire me any time because I'd love to have an
office that had a daycare. I think it's wonderful.
Conrad: No comments.
I think it's a good idea.
e
Batzli: I had a comment and I realized probably how silly it is now that
I reread the definition of an accessory use and my question was going to
be why don't we make it a conditional use but it's a permitted accessory
use so 6 of I and half a dozen of the other, I guess, and since they're
licensed, I don't have a problem with that.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 20
e
Wildermuth: Excellent idea. I think Instant Webb is to be commended. I
think they're probably the first company in Chanhassen to have a daycare
center.
Emmings: I have no comments. I agree with Annette.
ElIson moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Co~nission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-10 to amend Section
20-813, Permitted Accessory Uses of the lOP, Industrial Office Park
District as follows:
(4) State Licensed Day Care Center.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-904 AND SECTION 20-6l5(6B),
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, STORAGE BUILDINGS AND DETACHED BUILDINGS.
e
Olsen: We're asking you to table it right now until we can republish.
want to publish the whole thing so people can see it.
We
Emmings: At this point you just want to know that we...
Olsen: That this is okay. The new stuff is in bold hopefully to make it
easier to see what the changes were.
Emmings: We're going to table this I guess.
Conrad: So we're not going to have a public hearing.
Emmings: So we're not going to have a public hearing and I think what
they're asking for is our comments as to the content of this when it does
come back on the public hearing so they want to be sure that we're in
agreement with what this says at this point in time. If anybody's got any
reservations, just go ahead and speak them out.
Conrad: The only thing that I find interesting is the City Council, who
was very concerned about 1,000 square foot accessory building and we
rationalized 1,000 as a good sized three car garage and a shop. That's
how we came to that 1,000 feet. That makes sense to me. I have no other
comments but that's a number we could certainly move around. Whether it's
1,000 or whatever. I think City Council will move it to where they want
to move it anyway so I don't really care.
e
Emmings: The 3 acres is the same thing. It could be 3. It could be 4.
It could be 5 or 9 but I think it's reasonable. Then does everybody feel
that this basically says, that it brings together what we tried to do so
many times before.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 21
e
Batzli: The one comment I had was for agricultural district with less
than 3 acres. Are there many agricultural districts in the City with less
than 3 acres? Are you talking about lots in agricultural districts?
Olsen: Yes.
Batzli: I think I'd just clarify that or something. We're talking about
lots.
Emmings: Agricultural district lot.
Batzli: Something like that. You're not talking about the district.
You're talking about lots within the district.
Emmings: Or parcels maybe because they probably aren't divided into lots.
Batzli: That's just kind of a clarification.
Olsen: Just add parcels to residential district parcels and agricultural
district parcels.
Batzli: Does the 3 acres apply to the residential district as well?
e
Olsen: No. I'm just saying, if you're confused with agricultural
district maybe residential district is confusing too.
Batzli: Well, it's in any residential district or in an agricultural
district on lots of less than 3 acres is what you're trying to say,
correct? I guess I'd just clarify that a little bit.
Emmings: Okay, then is there a motion to table this until proper notice
can be given for a public hearing?
Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to amend Section 20-904 and Section 20-615 (6b) until proper notice can be
given. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION OF THE FIRE STATION, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Wildermuth: I have no questions on this issue. I think it's a fine idea
to expand the fire department.
e
Batzli: I think it's a fine idea to expand it as well. I have a couple
questions though. I was curious where, the power lines now run along the
north side of the property. Apparently some sort of utility easement. Is
that where the property line is?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 22
e
Olsen: Where the utility easement is?
Batzli: Is there a utility easement on the north side of the property and
is that where the property line is?
Olsen:
If there's a utility easement, I'm sure it's along the north edge.
Batzli: Because if that's where the property is and they're coming in 16
feet 16 inches from the property line, there's no way they're going to
save any of those pine trees on the north side. It's about 15 feet to the
pine trees. That was one question. The other one was, are they going to
remove that maple tree on the northeast corner of the property? Is that
what they're doing by putting in this new bituminous surface? A big old
30 foot tree?
Jim Chaffee:
I don't think we are.
Batzli:
I also understand there's not going to be an elevator in this?
Jim Chaffee: No.
Batzli: Why not?
e
Jim Chaffee: I think when we presented it to our building inspector, they
decided because of the dock we proposed, we did not need it.
Batzli: What about handicap accessible?
Jim Chaffee: I think they considered...
Wildermuth: There aren't too many handicapped firemen.
Batzli: But this is, the lower level is available to the entire city.
Jim Chaffee: I know what you're saying. I can't remember how they
determined that. They thought about that and they decided it wasn't
necessary....
Batzli: I guess I have a problem with that and I don't even know that I
mentioned it when we talked about the addition to this building but I have
a big problem with that. I think that every building the City builds
should be handicap accessible in all ways. My one last question was, if
we continue to have the voting at the fire station, are we losing parking?
Gaining parking? That kind of stuff by doing this?
Olsen: No, we're not losing it. We're maintaining the same.
Batzli: Once you pull all the trucks out so people can go in to vote?
e
Jim Chaffee: I don't think we'll be losing anything. It's hard to
determine that because the back parking lot on the west side has not been
marked in any way. This time it will be. I don't think we'll be losing
any. That was one of the major concerns of the fire department because
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 23
e
we're adding members, part of the reason for the expansion was to
hopefully increase our membership. To do that they have to park so we
looked at that.
Olsen: We didn't look at it in terms of the voting...but the zoning
requirements in terms of the square footage.
Batzli: I think some of your peak periods of parking might be during
those periods and obviously you've got a lot of city streets there and
other things that people can kind of muddle around in. Then I had a minor
changes to the staff's recommendation. Those were my four questions.
Emmings: What are the changes?
Batzli: Just that they're going to be acceptable to city staff. Provided
to the City Engineer. For instance, in condition 4, calculations which
verify. Just calculations will be provided to the City Engineer. That
type of thing.
Conrad: 50% impervious ratio.
missing it Jo Ann? When I look
believe that there's 50% that's
the part that isn't?
That just always amazes me. Where am I
at the layout here, it's just hard to
not impervious and 50% that is. Where is
e
Olsen: It's in the setback areas. There's quite an open area between the
street and parking. It always does amaze. It's just those setbacks
really add up those areas.
Conrad:
It's just incredible to me. There's no way it can be.
Emmings:
Is this going on?
Conrad: That's the only place it can be. There's the little jog saying
never, never land to the left and yes, that's it. The plantings, there
are no sugar maples on the plantings. Any particular reason?
ElIson: That one big one that's there now.
Conrad: Was there any logic to the plantings around the fire station?
Olsen: We usually just go with the plantings recommended and then
confirm.. .
Conrad: I'm just looking for logic.
Why are we planting a juniper here?
I'm just trying to figure out why.
Olsen: They usually do it in terms of density...
Conrad: They're lower trees right?
e
Olsen: The juniper?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 24
e
Conrad: It looks like the planting schedule are all shorter. Junipers.
The crabs are smaller. Summit ash, I have no idea what that does. The
sanchera is small... I'm not going to force with this but when an
architect comes up with plantings for Chanhassen and we're talked about it
a little bit. If Headla was here he'd talk about it some more. Why not
the symbol of our...
Olsen: A lot of times they pick out the more exotic trees because they
look at it from the aesthetics of what kind of form it will have rather
than looking 3t the maple trees.
Emmings: None of these are that.
Conrad: I guess the only thing that I would, and I really don't care a
whole lot other than it's kind of interesting to know what the architect
or the planner was thinking of when they said this is rationel for the
types of trees. That's a one liner on our staff report that says the
architect planted these trees for these reasons but I don't think it's my
time or anybody's time right now to talk...
e
Batzli: From the planting schedule, they don't have, I don't think they
have the one maple that remains.
Jim Chaffee: I pretty sure it's staying.
Batzli: It looks to me like they're planting two snowdrift crabs there.
Do they take out the maple and put in two snowdrifts?
Olsen: We'll check that out.
ElIson: No comments.
Emmings: I don't really have any comments either. I djdn't look at the
fire station, I had to admit but if there's a big maple over there, if
there's anyway to keep it, it ought to be kept. And for god sakes, Bob
Siegel used to sit here and say every time, let's see some sugar maples in
here. Especially on city buildings where we've got control over it. I
can't imagine why we wouldn't have them there. It's kind of a minor
issue. Brian, is there a motion?
e
Batzli: As much as I hate to do this because I still want an elevator,
I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site plan review
#88-5 for expansion of the fire station based on the plan stampted
"Received May 23, 1988" and subject to the following conditions.
Condition 1 as it reads. Condition 2, the landscaping plan shall be
amended to indicate a species for the proposed trees along the south lot
line and to attempt to save the sugar maple on the northeast corner and
maybe throw a few more sugar maples in there. Condition 3 as it reads.
Condition 4, calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer which
verify that adequate flow and pressue conditions will be met to meet the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 25
e
demands for the sprinkling system. Condition 5 as it reads and I guess
I'd like somebody to verify where the heck the property line is so that we
know. This isn't part of my motion. My motion is done. I'd like
somebody to verify where the property line is to make sure that all those
trees are going to stay on the north side.
Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #88-5 for expansion of the fire station based
on the plans stamped "Received May 23, 1988" and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Concrete curbing shall be added to the north side of the proposed
driveway entrance to the new appartus storage area.
2. the landscaping plan shall be amended to indicate a species for the
proposed trees along the south lot line and to attempt to save the
sugar maple on the northeast corner and maybe throw a few more sugar
maples in there.
3. A revised grading plan shall be supplied to the City Engineer for
approval prior to final site plan review.
e
4. Calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer which verify that
adequate flow and pressue conditions will be met to meet the demands
for the sprinkling system.
5. Adequate fire hydrant spacing will be met as part of the plans and
specifications review process.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated June 1, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Batzli:
meeting.
Let's talk about this memo that we got about adding an extra
I'd only do it if Ladd didn't run the meeting.
ElIson:
there.
I think you're really asking are we going to get at least four in
-
Olsen: We're just asking if you do want to split those up or if you want
them all on one?
Batzli: It's hard to say without seeing what would be involved on all of
these as well.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 26
e
Emmings: Obviously you must have thought it was a lot.
ElIson: Some of these are back again. They shouldn't be quite as
difficult. Which ones.have big public concern?
Olsen: A lot of them, George Way subdivision. The Schlotte and Schumacher
are just two lot splits. Those are real easy. Lyman Lumber, that should
be pretty easy. The site plans usually go pretty easy. McGlynn is kind
of changing the whole site but that wouldn't really take too long. Merit
Heating there will be lots of discussion with that one. Hidden Valley
Center, I think we'll be recommending that you table that one because of
TH 101, realignment...
Emmings: What does the 20th look like?
Olsen: We don't know.
Emmings: Why don't we knock off, I suppose 11 and 12 are small items but
those at least could be knocked off.
Olsen: A lot of those, almost all of those short subdivisions I told you
wanted to be on the last application process. Those would be really
difficult for us to table. lri fact, they ~ll got their applications in
last week.
e
ElIson: You're talking about 11 and 12.
Olsen: Oh, I'm sorry.
Emmings: I said 11 and 12. Even if those are just short items. They are
public hearings, like 12 is a public hearing because that is the one that
we just looked at tonight right?
Olsen: Yes, that would be short and 11 would be short. Reed, I think
that might have lots of discussion.
Emmings:
Is that one up on TH 4l?
Olsen: Adjacent to HSZ so you'll get that public again and than Westside
Baptist, that might be a long one but the rest of them, the site plans.
Batzli: It sure sounded to me like you just named about half of them that
were going to maybe long ones.
Wildermuth: Jo Ann, isn't Westside Baptist already being built?
Olsen: No, that's out on TH 41.
e
Emmings: But it is. It's under construction. They're moving dirt out
there.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 27
e
wildermuth: Right. They've got the erosion barriers in already.
Emmings: We already approved that, I remember it.
Olsen: No.
Emmings: They're moving dirt. I don't know if they're buildng but
there's big piles of dirt out there.
wildermuth: There's equipment out there.
Olsen: I'll check that tomorrow. Are you sure that's not the Lake Ann
Interceptor going in?
wildermuth: No. There's a sign there. The erosion control barriers are
up and everything else.
Emmings: I remember looking at that in the past Jo Ann.
Olsen: What we did was we amended the ordinance to allow a church in the
rural.
Emmings: Okay.
e Conrad:
Is Hidden Valley going to be tabled?
Olsen: We're going to recommend tabling that one so that one would really
be all.
Conrad: How long is that McGlynn going to take?
Ellson: We always they're going to...
Conrad: There are four of them that could take, McGlynn, the Merit, the
Westside and Reed addition and Hidden Valley. We couldn't do all of
those. If they all happened but I could almost, the others I assume are
not much other than those.
Olsen: They could be real quick.
Conrad: But if you threw Hidden Valley in there, than we're just
pressing.
e
Olsen: We're definitely recommending tabling. We've already told the
applicant. In fact that's what the next item is on open discussion that I
need to talk to you about. You remember with our transportation plan how
it shows TH 101 going by Lake Drive East. Hidden Valley, that side is
where TH 101 is going through so we're working with MnDot trying to get an
official map going. Trying to corne up with our traffic counts to get that
site established so what we want to do on August 3rd, tpe first Planning
Commission meeting in August is to have you adopt a section of the trans-
portation chapter. June one section and then we will also be looking at the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 28
e
Hidden Valley site plan at that time. But that one is definitely going to
be recommended to be tabled.
Emmings: I know if I was running the meeting I could get through all this
stuff but Ladd, since you're going to be doing it.
Conrad: I thought Steve, you'd take the meeting on the 6th and I'd take
what was left over for the 13th.
Olsen: You could do it that way too. See what we can get through.
Conrad: It's really, I personally like short meetings like Steve led
tonight. You're fresh and you can react and it's fun. When we get into
11:00, it stinks. It just is not fair to us. It's not fair to me but the
people who come here. To hold them on and sometimes, like the first item
tonight, I had no idea. I thought that one was going to be a half hour,
45 minutes. Well, it lasted an hour and something. Simple things last
longer. It would be nice to take care of all of them in a short meeting
but I don't know if we can do it.
Batzli: Then do you want to have an extra meeting? Is that what you're
saying?
-
Conrad: My preference is to have, I can make both those meetings. My
preference is to have meetings every other week and not be here every
week. It gets real tiring being here every week. That's not fun.
Emmings: Yes, because this is three in a row, not two in a row.
Conrad: Yes, two in a row is no big deal but when you get that third one,
you say boy I'm here again.
Ellson: We could even arrange it so at least four was always here.
Conrad: Now that Jim's back, there are more people attending on a regular
basis than we've had.
Emmings: I should be able to make two meetings for myself.
Ellson: I think I could make those two. I don't think I can make the
20th as it is.
Emmings: Brian?
Batzli: I'm not sure right now, to be honest. I don't think I can make
the 20th actually, the third one. I don't think these two dates are a
problem right now.
Emmings: Jim what's your preference?
e
Wildermuth:
I can make it.
Conrad: Let's leave it that we have the two then.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - page 29
.
Emming: Try and even it up.
Conrad: Unless staff sees magic and can put it into one.
Emmings: Except they've got to
done that, they can't pull back
you've got a couple of big ones
you think there's a couple that
make sure you put one on each.
advertise and give notice and once they've
to the 6th. Try and even them up so
and a couple of little ones but also if
could be tabled, wind up being tabled,
Do stuff like that. What else Jo Ann?
Olsen: The final one was what I was kind of bringing up just to let you
know what was happening with that. What we're going to be doing is on
August 3rd we'll be bringing just that portion of the transportation
chapter, not the whole chapter but just the part that addresses that TH
101 realignment across TH 5. We'll be bringing that to you on August 3rd
for approval and the reason we're doing that is to show our commitment.
MnDot needs to see our commitment for that intersection so we can keep the
ball rolling. We have to have construction plans by the end of this year
so that when MnDot gets their construction plans completed, they can
combine so when MnDot builds their extra intersections, they will allow
for ours so we're trying to work with them. Then again, that also works
with that site plan. We will be initiating an official map process to get
that realignment official so that we can acquire the proper easements.
That was just to let you know.
e
Batzli moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
e