Loading...
1988 07 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ~ JULY 6, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: SUBIDIVISION OF 2.38 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 1.64 AND .74 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 2841 NO. MANOR ROAD, MARY SCHUMACHER. Public Present: Name Address John and Mary Schumacher 2841 No. Manor Road e Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Steve, any comments? Emmings: I have no comments. I think it's appropriate. ElIson: Ditto. Batzli: I just was curious about the shed. Do we usually do that? Not remove it? Olsen: It has been done, yes. Batzli: Is that just as a matter of course, we normally kind of grandfather these things in? Olsen: A lot of times there's conditions that they have to remove them if they're in bade 'shape, they have to remove it upon building permit appli- cation for that lot. - Batzli: But that's usually handled then when there's a building permit for that lot? Olsen: If it's something that we want to be removed. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 2 e Batzli: I don't have any other comments. Conrad: Jim? Wildermuth: No. Conrad: Dave? Headla: No. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-15 as shown on the plat stamped "Received June 8, 1988" and subject to the following condition: 1. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be responsible for paying appropriate lateral assessments for sewer and water when connected if not already paid. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF 1.3 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET AND ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 77TH STREET AND FRONTIER TRAIL, VIRGIL SCHLOTTE. Public Present: Name Address Alice Schlotte James and Arlene Zimmerman Ross and Gigi Sullivan Bonnie Mihalko Ted and Kathy DeLancy Rt. 1, Cokato 7602 Frontier Trail 7522 Frontier Trail 222 77th Street West 7505 Frontier Trail Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Conrad: Do you thing that there is evidence that the applicant could bring in that would make staff comfortable with the buildability of the lot? You're saying one good alternative is to get more information to give it a chance. - Olsen: It would show us the amount of fill that would be required and how steep the driveways would be with the whole lot. It would show drainagecand new drainage patterns and it's just we're more comfortable seeing that now than conditioning approval on receipt of those because once it's a Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 3 - lot, you can't deny a house being located on it. Alice Schlotte: How would we do it? There is a house on the one lot. what we're trying to do, we would like to make three lots. If nothing else, we'd like it at least to be two lots because we want to sell that house with retaining the other two. e Conrad: Staff is telling us that, and those of us who visited it, it's a different lot from a buildability standpoint. It's a tough lot to build on and they're asking for more information. We have some choices here tonight that can be to basically table the item right now and have you work with staff some more. If you read the staff report, they basically said it's not, and maybe I'm reading this, I'll have to look at the words again, but they're not real comfortable with the site as a building location and possibly, if they got more information, they might be able to recommend to us that we allow the subdivision. As the applicant, would you like to see us go forward tonight without that information and there's a good chance without that information we're going to be kind of negative on it but at least you get your hearing here and you get to move it to City Council. That's what it does for you. However, without the information there's a great likelihood that City Council will also table it or turn it down. I guess it's up to you. We can do it a couple ways and it's really our decision on how we want to do it but I guess I'm asking you right now how you would prefer to handle this. I guess it's my strong recommendation that we table it and that you work with staff to help them get more information. A better handle on the subdivision. More information so they can possibly give us the feeling that it is a piece of property that is subdividable. Alice Schlotte: Of course, our ultimate wish would be to go into three lots but I can understand your feeling on that. ...to approve the plat with a condition and of course no building could ever take place without approval anyway but we'd like to sell the house separate from the other two lots. That's what we kind of are counting on. We're just kind of stuck because we can't move... Of course, like I say, no building can take place anyway until it was all approved. Your soil and all of that so basically we're working on tonight is the house. The lot that has the house on it. To get that away from the other two. Conrad: Jo Ann, as she says, she'll merge Lot 2 in with the oulot. You still probably have some of the same concerns. Olsen: We would just like to see what the impact of making that lot into a buildable lot will be for the surrounding areas of that lot. We would just be more comfortable than seeing that now. Once again, if it is created as a separate lot, it's a buildable lot. e Conrad: Did you hear what Jo Ann Olsen said? She said even if you merge the outlot with the second lot, staff still has the same concerns with the buildability and clear cutting and fill for a second house. They really are still not comfortable. Even though we've taken care of the outlot problem, we still have the buildability problem of the second lot. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 4 e Alice Schlotte: We have no plans for a house on that. We would be comfortable just letting that stay until maybe other things can... We would just like to get it divided off of the house right now. Conrad: When we do that though, it's like when we allow the subdivision, it's like saying a house can go there. It's like you've met our ordinance. It's telling you or a future purchaser that the City believes a house really can go there and right at this point in time, staff has not made that commitment. They have not been able to justify it yet. with more information, they might be able to but right now they're saying, just splitting off a lot as a commitment to the future buyer that Chanhassen says it's a buildable lot and we haven't made that commitment yet. Alice Schlotte: Of course it has to be, anyone that purchased that property would have to get a building permit and bring that lot up to par to do that so I don't see... Conrad: Building permit looks at different things than what we're looking at right now. They're more technical in some respects. Would you like to have us go through the public hearing process and hear what we have to say based on your choice of merging the lots together? Alice Schlotte: I think so. e Conrad: It's a public hearing. proposal? Are there any comments on this particular James zimmerman: I live at 7602 Frontier Trail which is right across the street from this proposed site. First of all, this land we're speaking of is very undesirable land as far as building anything on it. That's my first concern. A second concern is Frontier Trail in the past few years that I've lived there has been kind of a unique situation with having...trees and things like that. I would like to see this land just left as is without any building... Also, the lady from the City was talking about drainage and the adjoining home situation. We have a horrendous drainage problem where we live right now. Although I've got it draining down from our property, ...directly across in this area and if that would have an effect on our land or not, I really don't know but there is definitely a drainage problem. It's existing presently. I'm speaking for myself and my wife. There's probably five families that live right on Frontier in that area and adjacent to that property. There's another family here but none of them are interested in having this thing happen. . . Alice Schlotte: Do you understand we're not going for a building permit? We're not talking about building on that land. - Ross Sullivan: I live at 7522, right next to these people. Maybe I missed something here but I thought when you first started talking about this you were talking about clear cutting the property and having a 20 foot setback or a 30 foot setback. What are we setting back if we're not going to build anything and why would we be cutting trees down if they're not going to build anything? - Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 5 e Conrad: Once we allow a subdivision, when we allow a subdivision through the City, which is basically we're splitting a lot here, it means that the second lot is buildable. Right now we're not convinced. If they separate this lot out and say we're not going to build anything, it doesn't matter because sooner or later somebody's going to want to build that and right now, when we subdivide we have to apply our subdivision... Ross Sullivan: You're approving this for building by dividing this off, is that what you're saying? Conrad: Yes. We have to apply our subdivision ordinance to this particular piece of property assuming that it's going to be built and assuming that it's not going to be turned into a park or something like that. Ross Sullivan: I'm not proposing what they do with their property but I personally bought my house because it was in the woods and it just kind of in a city but in the country so I guess to put a house across the street from my house and cut all the trees down would make me very unhappy. e Arlene zimmerman, 7602 Frontier Trail: I would like to see this stay as natural habitat for the owl. It's absolutely a wonderful place for birds at least through the field, not for a house. I would love to see it stay that way because there's so much building going on anyway and the land gets less and less it's natural. One of the beauties of Frontier Trail is to drive down that part where you don't see a house for 20 feet from the road. It's a beautiful area. It provides a lot of shade and I also would like clarified exactly how many lots you're speaking of. She's speaking of a lot with a house to be divided and then she's speaking of two more lots. You're speaking of the house and the lot and one more lot and an outlot. How many lots specifically is she speaking of? Conrad: The request that came in tonight was to split off one additional lot and then to designate an outlot besides that one additional lot. That's the request that's in front of us. Arlene Zimmerman: Is that a possibility of two lots to be built upon? Conrad: Possibly. The staff is saying that the second lot, the outlot, would be extremely difficult to build upon. There may be something in the future that could happen to make it buildable. The staff's recommendation is, a possibility is to merge the outlot with the number one lot to be split off and just call that one parcel and have us react to whether we feel that that should be allowed as a subdivision with a whole series of conditions. So we could grant that subdivision but have a variety of conditions that would relieve some of the concerns that we may have with that property and maybe some that you may have also. ~ James Zimmerman: Can you define the difference between a lot and an outlot? I really don't know. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 6 e Olsen:. Legally there is no difference. An outlot can still be deemed as a buildable lot. James Zimmerman: So we're really talking two lots. Olsen: Yes, technically. Batzli: There is a definition in the City Ordinance. It's a platted lot to be developed for use which will not involve a building or which is reserved for future replatting or development. James Zimmerman: Thank you. If she's concerned about selling the existing house, that house sits on a fairly nice lot just as is. I don't see why they'd have any problem selling that regarding these other lands. Alice Schlotte: It's got to be divided from that land. ElIson: She has to sell that house along with the whole land. Alice Schlotte: We'd like to just break that piece off. e Bonnie Mihalko, 222 77th Street: My husband isn't here right now but our concerns are with trees because in our backyard is thick with trees and we're concerned about what we'd be looking at if this is divided. Also, we've had drainage problems like these people and we're concerned if there is fill brought in, it would have to be expensive from what we're looking at. We're wondering where exactly the run-off is going to be and that our lot is going to be the run-off. That would be something that we don't really want. We don't want to be run-off for this other place. Also, we're concerned that our lot is going to become one lot because our house has to be sold just like their house is. We don't know...and that's pretty much the same. I guess that's our concerns. Mostly the trees in the backyard and what we'd be looking at. If we'd be looking at another house being back up to ours,...it's really not what we would like. Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: Larry, what's this, two neighbors have talked about drainage problems. When I looked at it, it seemed to have a nice berm on Frontier Trail. When I looked over the edge, I couldn't see any...but where's this severe drainage problem come from? Or do you agree there is a drainage problem there? e Brown: I would agree that what I've seen and what's been shown on the plan would support that there's a drainage problem there. Your plan shows a culvert right now that exists under Frontier Trail and unfortunately, as I've been told and as the document shows in your packet, fill has been brought in. I went out searching to find the end of this culvert because this end was unrecoverable. This fill had been placed over that, at least to the best of my knowledge from where I could tell the location had been due to the existing topography. Right now extending off this draw and Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 7 e over on this side, the water, the drainage comes from this direction and normally before the fill had been placed, would have flowed through this culvert and down a main drainageway. Now recently I've been hearing the same complaints as we've heard this evening and my belief, at least the information that I have, is that because this culvert is plugged with the fill, it may be obstructing the natural drainage path that did occur before that fill was placed. I know one of the gentlemen back here, at least I talked to some of the neighbors, he's in this drainage path and has complained that this area has backed up in the past so to the best of my knowledge, that's the drainage problem that now exists. Headla: Thanks. I didn't agree with that. I didn't see the pipe. If this went through, who's responsibility or would somebody have to open that up? I assume that would be a condition. Who would pay for that? Brown: That would be at the developer's expense. Headla: And that would go under the property if the house went in there? Brown: I guess that will be part of the questions that you resolve by a structural engineer or another engineer. There's obviously several options to it. They can reroute it in either direction if they care to. e Headla: The reason I was interested in that drainage and I really looked at it, there's a severe grade there and to start filling, and I haven't seen anything of what they plan to do but I can just see that house walking down the bank in 10-15 years. Just an inch and if it's in the wintertime, the people have a mess and the village has a mess. I guess just with that steep grade and no other information, I can't vote in favor of this. Wildermuth: That culvert does not have an easement associated with it, right? Brown: To the best of my knowledge no. Wildermuth: So technically the property is not in violation of anything by placing fill over the exit of that with an easement? If there's no dedicated easement? Brown: Because they're blocking the natural drainage path, I might think otherwise. Wildermuth: But it wasn't natural before that culvert was placed. Brown: True but you are creating an upstream problem. e Wildermuth: The point is, without an easement, the culvert could be relocated. It could go somewhere else without a dedicated easement. sympathize with the property owner in trying to split Lot 1 from Lot the outlot but it almost appears as though the original plot was set because, especially the outlot area would be unbuildable without a variance and I think it would be difficult to get a variance to set the I 2 and up Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 8 e house 20 feet rather than the 30 feet. If the City foot setback, the chances are probably good that if in there to get the proper elevation for the house, holes would fill would not be contained on the lot. into the adjoining property. would require the 30 you placed enough fill the angle that the It would spillover Conrad: Is that DeLancey's? Wildermuth: Yes. I guess I would not be inclined to support this. Batzli: I agree with Jim's comments except I don't know that I would say I would not be inclined to split it. I guess what I'd like to see is have all the neighbors come up and buy it from the owner. I think that would make everybody happy but I think that I'd like to see more information on whether this lot could be buildable and I would like to see it tabled. ElIson: I have nothing new to add. Emmings: I have a question on the map that came in the packet, you said this property is a long skinny, what appears to be a lot. Is that a lot? Is that your lot? Bonnie Mihalko: Yes. e Emmings: So your lot runs the full length of this property just to the east of it? I basically go along with the comments that have been made. I don't think we've got enough information to approve or deny it and I think we ought to table it so they can get more information into us. Erhart: Let me ask you this, is the only reason that you're against the subdivision is because of the slope? Jim or Dave? wildermuth: Not the slope but the amount of fill required. Headla: That's by far the major reason but Frontier Trail has a lot of character and to reduce that setback from 30 to 20 feet, I don't think it's fair to the rest of these people. Erhart: Okay, but are we being asked to reduce the setback here? Batzli: That's where they show a house. Wildermuth: If Lot 2 was split off and sold separately and somebody came in with a proposal to build on it, that would be the first thing they would go after undoubtedly is a variance. e Erhart: Over the years and even before I was on this Planning Commission, I've seen a number of subdivisions come in with a slope and it seems to me the general conclusion was and I even heard some of our previous Engineer people say essentially that you can build a house on any slope and make it structurally safe. My comments are that that would not be a reason that I would vote against a subdivision. That is not a valid reason to vote against it, I would also agree that we should not allow a variance for the Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 9 e setback. That it should conform to the same rules that the neighbors have had in developing. Conrad: I wouldn't feel good about sending this to City Council even with a negative vote. I think from a property owner, to give this a chance, there should be more information to staff. I have to treat staff like experts in this case and the experts who know far more technical information than I do are saying don't go for this one until we get more information and it's just that cut and dry for me. I think it's to your benefit that we would table this. Very possibly there might not be the information that would allow the subdivision but on the other hand, it's the only thing that's going to get the subdivision through in my mind is a little bit more information so City Staff can deal with the problem but I agree that the position on the lot is going to significantly change the environment with clearcutting that will have to be done. I'm not for the variance that would grant it closer to the road. I think the fill will rollover to the next property and I guess I just see a lot of problems with this particular parcel. I'd like to see some answers. Some technical information so at this point in time, rather than turning it down and passing it forward to City Council, I think it's to everybody's benefit to table this and have the applicant work with the staff to try and give us a little bit more information on what would happen to this plan. Is there a motion? e Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded to table the preliminary plat #88-16 as shown on the plat dated "June 13, 1988" for more information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF 1.66 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 19,421 AND 52,854 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, GEORGE WAY, JR. Public Present: Name Address 3605 Red Cedar Point Drive 3605 Red Cedar Point Drive 3755 Red Cedar Point Drive 3720 Red Cedar Point Drive Claudette and George Way, Jr. Robert Way Tom and Kathy Paradise Lori Lobitz Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. .- George Way, Jr.: It's my mother's land. My father had it divided before but he didn't quite comprehend what had been done I guess...dividing it up so it can be more easily sold. We've had some... Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 10 e Kathy Paradise: My name is Kathy Paradise and this is my husband Tom. We live next door. When we bought our property which was actually bigger, it was zoned single family along this loop. By moving out here we moved out here to get away from being closed in. We don't feel that the lot is large enough to accomodate two homes and the area being as built up as it is, we're concerned about over populating the area. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Has this been decided if Lot 1 ... Dacy: Lot 1 is proposed at 19,421 square feet. That's where the existing home is. Erhart: Lot 2, excuse me. Dacy: Right and the newly created lot would be 52,854 square feet so it would be over an acre in size. e Erhart: Okay, so these are as big as the big lots that are typically found in the area. What was the reason for not putting a new driveway out to Red Cedar Point Road? Dacy: That's still an option. The applicant or a future lot owner of Lot 2 could install this new driveway or improve the existing one. Erhart: Okay, so it's just a matter of convenience? Dacy: Yes. Erhart: And that's not a problem with us? Dacy: No. Emmings: I don't have any more comments. division. It seems like an appropriate Ellson: I think the size of the lots are good sized especially for this lake area. I think it's a good split. - Batzli: I guess in visiting it I was surprised to see how big it really was. In speaking with at least one of the neighbors in there, his only concern was that the roadway be maintained as it was so they have access for the current people who live on the south end of the property and I think he's going to be the one that's most affected by it. I was kind of concerned because it looked swampy down there and I asked him if was wet down there. He basically said that the previous owner had a garden down there and it actually wasn't swampland. That destroyed all my questions and I think it's appropriate. ~ Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - page 11 e wildermuth: I agree. I think the subdivision looks appropriate but in view of that low area there as you drive through, I'd like in addition to the staff recommendation, I'd like to see an easement, a drainage easement established where that corregated metal culvert is on our map. Batzli: Won't that be within our easement? Our right-of-way anyway? Our 50 foot condition. Dacy: You're right, the 12 inch corregated metal culvert. Wildermuth: Yes. Do we need anything additional? If there's a 50 foot easement, street easement? Dacy: Right. The recommended size of the easement would cover that area. Headla: Where was that 50 foot easement going to be? On Red Cedar Point Road? Dacy: No, it would be located roughly on the westerly side of Lot 2 and probably a portion of Lot 1. Headla: Okay, and that's going to take care of the people on the hill? e Dacy: Right, it will be located down to the southern property line where the other properties begin with their driveways. Headla: There's only one house up there now isn't there? Dacy: No, there's four houses. Claudette Way: But they go up the hill in the back. Headla: Yes, the pierce house burnt down. Batzli: They rebuilt it. Headla: Along Red Cedar Point Road, did the Park Commission look at this at all? Dacy: Yes they did and they had no comments on this particular one. Headla: They aren't interested in having the road a little wider, an easement so people can ride or run or walk? That road is so narrow and if people are parked there and you had to bring the fire trucks, it could be a terrible mess. Dacy: If the Commission wants to add that as a recommended condition for staff to analyze, that's fine. To the best of my recollection, I don't think Red Cedar Point Road is on our overall trail plan but if you feel that's important... - Headla: When I park my car on that road, people came awful close to me. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 12 e Claudette Way: Are you talking about Minnewashta Parkway? Headla: No, Red Cedar Point Drive. If there is any real emergency that whole place is just going to be a mess. I thought there would be some plans. Larry, what do we do with that swale that's in there? The drainage. People can't fill that in or if they fill it in they have to have a culvert or what happens? That's a natural drainage area. Brown: If it's a drainage area, I don't think it would be advantageous for either one of the properties, either Lot I or Lot 2 to obstruct that drainage. If Lot 2 obstructs the drainage they're going to get an overflow condition over the road anyway. They're going to end up with the drainage and certainly Lot 1 could obstruct the drainage. Headla: I was thinking of the people to the east. If any fill went in there at all and water could run right down to Mr. Benton then couldn't it? Brown: I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand your question. Tom Paradise: On the southeast corner and...and the drainage flows to the southeast corner. e Headla: It's close to the southeast. Now if somebody wanted to put any fill in there, then it could go onto the neighbors and then into what they call a swamp here on this drawing. Do we have any way to protect people from that? Dacy: One of the conditions of approval is that we get a drainage and erosion control plan for a building permit for Lot 2. In looking at the site, I think the most natural location for a building pad is going to be in front of the pines but you never know. There could be somebody that would want to locate the house in the rear of the lot. Headla: I'm thinking like in 10 years. If you look to the southeast with the natural drainage, I think people might be hesitant to put something in there and I just wondered if we had any way to stop that? Not that it's necessarily detrimental. I don't want to leave that but if someone would start putting stuff there and then it would flow right into the swamp then into Minnewashta. Brown: If I may make a suggestion, staff is going to have to be looking at this lot through the building permit application process and we will be attentive to the drainageway. The other option that you eluded to is maybe 10 years down the line Lot 2 could possibly be subdivided and again we would be looking at that drainage. Headla: So one way or another you... e Conrad: I don't have any problems with the subdivision. Although it's not as big a lot as maybe you'd like to have, it certainly exceeds a lot of the current standards. A lot of us moved out here for larger lots but again, this particular case, this is larger than our standards in the area Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 13 e so it meets that and I feel comfortable with the subdivision. Is there a motion? Headla: Let me bring up something just for discussion. How did the rest of you feel when you went down that road? Did you feel uncomfortable where there are so many people back there and it's narrowness? Batzli: Are you talking about Red Cedar Point? Headla: Red Cedar Point, yes. Batzli: I looked in my rearview mirror as I was idling there on the street looking to turn into the driveway. Ernmings: It's been developed for so long and it was put in in such a hodge podge anyway, what can you do? I don't know what you can do on this application to straighten out that mess? Headla: If we start asking for like 20 feet. An easement for 20 feet. Maybe it should be 10 feet. I don't know but we've got to start someplace. Wildermuth: But to get it all the way. e Headla: It's just like..., you don't get everything all at once but get it by evolution. If you start now, eventually I think that could be possible. Erhart: You want to get a total of a 66 foot easement on Red Cedar Point Road so you want 33 on this property? Is that what you want? What is it now Barb? Dacy: Red Cedar Point Road I believe exists as a 40 foot right-of-way. Erhart: So what you're saying if you ought to increase that... Headla: I guess that is 40 feet. Is that adequate for a car and emergency vehicles? Dacy: A typical city right-of-way is 50 feet. We could look at an additional 10 feet to be dedicated to the Red Cedar Point Road right-of- way. That would give 30 on the south side and 20 on the north side. 50 feet is adequate for the road surface plus an off-street sidewalk. Again, whether or not there's going to be a sidewalk there or off-street trail, that's something that the Park and Rec Commission would have to look at. Erhart: Wouldn't it be more fair just to ask for their half of 5 additional feet because you don't know what will happen to the next door... e Headla: There's still a lot of land that can't be used down there. Maybe it should be 5 feet on this side but it sounds like that should be corning from us. I think it's a good suggestion from the Planning Commission that Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 14 e we take a look at that. Conrad: Are there any priorities on that Barbara, from the City standpoint, to upgrade that particular road? Dacy: Not at this time. Erhart: I think it's been our policy in the past, at least in south Chanhassen on the subdivisions we've had that is anytime a subdivision comes in, we try to get the, you know TH 101. Although there is no plans for TH 101 except to close it I think, every time we've asked to bring the easement up to what the State has recommended and we've done it. If it applies here, I don't think it will adversely affect the property. Conrad: Maybe there's a motion that we could have the staff make a recommendation to City Council in terms of expand the road easement on Red Cedar Point. Headla: That would be the way to get the ball rolling. Let me make that motion then. Conrad: And remember Jim has something. You were taken care of. e Wildermuth: I was just going to make a motion. I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-11 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received June 8, 1988" subject to the conditions 1 through 4 set forth by staff and to include a condition 5 that staff analyze the roadway right-of-way requirements for Red Cedar Point Road to bring it up to standard at some future point and make that recommendation to the Council. Headla: Second. Batzli: I'd like to amend his first condition. I think he wants to amend his own first condition to go along with what Barbara suggested and that is, that the reservation of the 50 foot drainage easement is not necessarily going to be along the westerly side of Lot 2. I propose with a friendly amendment that it be changed to read, reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street easement generally along the westerly side of Lot 2 with final alignment to be determined by City Staff. Conrad: Jim, would you amend your motion to read as such? Wildermuth: Sure. Headla: Second. e Wildermuth moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-11 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received June 8, 1988" subject to the following conditions: -^ Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 15 e 1. Reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street easement generally along the westerly side of Lot 2 with final alignment to be determined by City Staff. 2. If Lot 1 is to continue access along the existing gravel driveway, an appropriate driveway access easement be executed with Lot 2. 3. If Lot 2, Block 1 further subdivides, a street shall be constructed at the benefitting property owner's expense within this dedicated roadway easement to service what would be all five lots. 4. A drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit application process. 5. That staff analyze the roadway right-of-way requirements for Red Cedar Point Road to bring it up to standard at some future point. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RELOCATION OF THEIR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AND CONTRACTOR'S YARD ACTIVITIES TO PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF PARK ROAD, MERIT HEATING AND COOLING, INC. e Public Present: Name Address Steve Berquist Tom Quammen Bob Schoker Jim McMahon Applicant Applicant Agent for Merit Heating and Jim McMahon 8301 Audubon Road Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: The plan that they submitted that you gave us tonight, a little bit of a time table. Do you have any comments on the plan and the time table to guide us? If this 1988, we're talking about 3 years out. Can you give us the down side to approving the request as is without those I improvements? e Olsen: It's just that we've always required those improvements to be made. There are reasons to have those improvements. As far as paving and widening of the roadway for truck traffic and things like that. And the landscaping to screen the activities. It is also difficult to, they did not want to make that investment at that time but that could be the case in 1991. We are requesting a feasibility study to see how sewer and water will be extended to the site and how much it will cost. There are some key factors. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 16 e Conrad: Can you enforce a bonding requirement for something like that that would guarantee? Olsen: A letter of credit in a development contract. Emmings: ...these conditions all met or have done a plan... Conrad: And you know what a pain that is. Emmings: I don't know. What is it? Dacy: Not necessarily revocation of the permit but if they can't accomplish their future plans then they have to do the improvements to the site. Emmings: That's what I'm saying. They're given a choice. Dacy: But not revoke the permit. Batzli: What if they don't do either one? Dacy: If they don't do either one, then that is grounds for revocation. e Emmings: That's what I'm saying. Either do what you're telling me to do or do what you said you were going to do or you lose your permit. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Steve Berquist: This is brand new to me. I'm not quite sure what I'm hearing but my basic bone of contention is the conditional use permit as a contractor's yard. I understand regardless we'd end up operating under a conditional use permit. If our business was deemed to fit into an lOP district, would we not then fall under Section 4, Temporary Structures and uses? Dacy: That's been repealled from the ordinance. e Steve Berquist: That's been repealled from the ordinance. Did you know that? She's saying that temporary structures and uses has been repealled from the ordinance. Well, what I'm going to present, I had written out some things that I wanted to talk about. From the word go, when we first began to submit our application for land development, Jo Ann had said that they were going to look at us as a contractor's yard and I understand that. I understand where that conception would come from but I think in this case that interpretation of Merit Heating and Cooling opearting as a contractor's yard may be flawed. Section 16-2 permits a variety of businesses to operate in the lOP district. Number 1 on the list is offices. We have offices. Number 2 on the list is warehouse. We have warehouse. Number 4 on the list is trade shops. Now I couldn't find a definition of a trade shop in anything but we do sheet metal work. We install furnances and air conditioning systems in residential and commercial establishments. We call ourselves subcontractors, yes but in Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 17 e my opinion that's the extent of us falling into the definition of a contractor's yard. We use trucks to get to our job sites. The only equipment that we load is a furnance or air conditioner out of our warehouse in the truck. We don't have heavy equipment. We don't have trailers. We don't have any backhoes, loaders, trenchers or anything similar. Section 28-14 defines contractor's yards as vehicles, equipment or materials commonly used by building, excavation, road construction, landscaping and similar contractors. I contend that given these parameters of the conditional use permit as a contractor's yard is an inappropriate interpretation. I know my business. You are here, you're not familiar with exactly what I do so I feel it's in my best interest to take some exception and try and explain where it is we're coming from. I'm asking the Commission it be in order a reexamination of the ordinance interpretation or approve our request for a conditional use permit for useage of the property as per our development allocation. Conrad: We can have legal counsel take a look at the ordinance. Is the next step in this case or would that be a possible step Barbara? see how the ordinance applies to this particular thing or are you so confident right now, or Jo Ann, that fits within the definition? that To e Dacy: We maintain our recommendation that it is a conditional use permit. Yes, we could have the Attorney write a formal response and analysis. The fallback position is, if it's not a contractor's yard then it is either some other type of use or as the applicant suggests, a permitted use. I know the applicant wants to get started and really doesn't want to see any delays in the review process. The Commission can go ahead and act on the application one way or the other. Erhart: Barb, let's say it's light impact. What are the conditions? ElIson: Or a permitted use? Erhart: So what? Any permitted use. What are the requirements? Emmings: He's. going to have to make the same improvements. Conrad: The improvements that we're talking about are going to be yours whether you're a contractor's yard or whether we categorize you some other way. Do you understand that? Steve Berquist: I understand. Conrad: The only thing you'd be getting out of is the conditional use permit and that's it. You still have to meet the ordinances that would apply to whatever you're categorized as and almost all of what the city staff has recommended to us tonight would still be applicable to whatever you've, however you'd categorize. e Steve Berquist: in a 6,000 square and at some point building and sell So what you're telling me is that even if I stamp widgits foot building and I wanted to move my facility to a barn in time then develop the land and build myself a off the rest of them, I would still have to pave all the Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 18 e things? Put the curb and gutter in? Prior to even moving in there? Conrad: Right. Steve Berquist: So in other words, it's not economically feasible for me to buy the property and develop it now. It's not economically feasible for the seller to sell the property as a horse farm when it's located in the lOP district so he has no out and I have no in. Is that what your position is? Conrad: We haven't said that. Erhart: It might be feasible for someone else to buy it. e Conrad: There are other people. As you've noticed, the Industrial Park is growing and we have people who want to move into Chanhassen so we haven't excluded. We have these standards that say when you want to move into the industrial area, these are the standards that you have to live by. We do that on our residential area. We do that in all our diff(~rent zones. The zoning that you're moving into has these requirements~ You're asking us to slip those requirements tonight for the first time and we have to decide for ourselves, is that smart? Is that a smart decision for Chanhassen to slip those requirements yet we've forced everybody else who's moved into our lOP area. We force them to do these things. Now we have to decide whether it's good business for the City to slip it in your case and justify and rationalize it. We understand your economic position. We understand that but then that's sort of a price that happens when you're moving into something that's bigger and for future development. Development is not the easiest thing, the easiest game in town. We do understand that but then again, we have to justify it too because force these standards, we impose them on other people. Steve Berquist: One more question before I sit down and let some other people talk. Section 4, the temporary structures and uses section of the ordinance, when was it struck and what was the reason? Olsen: It was when the new Code was approved. The reason for that is that a temporary structure, there was no way to really keep it temporary. It could become a permanent use. Steve Berquist: As outlined through the 12 month permit. Olsen: Our Attorney recommended that this was not proper to have the ordinance and that it should be removed. e Dacy: In essence, what the Attorney said was that the ordinance was permitting a temporary conditional use permit and that conflicts with State Statute. Once you issue a conditional use permit that runs with the title of the land. What our Attorney came back and said is that if we keep that section in our codes and ordinances, we were opening, even with that 12 month stipulation in there, he said he didn't feel confident that we could defend any action against us and that was initiated and repealled in early '88. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 19 e Steve Berquist: Well, I'll sit down and keep my mouth shut for a while. Conrad: Any other comments? Anything that anybody else would like to say in the public hearing? Bob Schoker: I happen to be the agent representing both buyer and seller. Did I just understand that there are no conditional use permits being permitted or given in the City of Chanhassen? No conditional use permits? ElIson: Temporary. Batzli: It was the temporary conditional use permit was repealled just several months ago so your ordinances may not be that much out of date. Bob Schoker: One other question. Staff, they viewed the property and this included the Fire Marshall, Building Inspector and City Engineer. My understanding of the report that they indicated that all of the buildings, the barn as a warehouse, the home as an office, were all structurally sound and would be appropriate for the uses established with the addition that they brought... The question in my mind is, why the positive report, the application couldn't move forward? e Conrad: If you want to do the things that the zone requires it can move ahead. They gave positive reports. We read the positive reports. If you want to do the things that every other builder in the IOP district has done and meet those standards, it's just going to fly through but we've got a list here of the things that you'd rather not do that our ordinance requires. I think you're not selling us on why we should slip all those different ordinance features that we felt was important to build a good Industrial Office Park and it is good. The fact that you're in town, we like having you in town. There's a lot of good things about the businesses that are here but we still have this protection for that IOP that we're trying to make sure that it meets all these standards. Whether it be for sewer, water, landscaping. We're trying to keep that area at a certain high level so we can attract more people. That's what we're trying to do but at this point in time in the conversation, we haven't heard a whole lot, at least I haven't, about why we should do it. e Steve Berquist: In looking at it from a developer's point of view and I'm not a developer, but looking at it from our point of view, if you just drive down through the office park, and it is a good office park, but if you drive down through it, Roam Properties, the building that we're in, has space available. I see the building two doors down has space available. The gentleman that built the building right across from the City Garage has half a building available. The firm that built the building that Century Technologies just went into a few months ago has three-quarters of a building empty. That's a whole lot of square footage you could buy. It's not practical for us at this time. Opus owns two sides of land adjacent to us and they haven't put a blade to it. They've still got land available there so for us to come in and put in sewer and water that is roughly, I forget what the report says, like 600 and some odd feet away from our site, for us to go in and put in somewhere in the neighborhood of $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 worth of blacktop in Class V only Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 20 e to have it torn up when that area does become viable for development, it's not good business. We'd love to. If our pockets were a little deeper and we were a little bit more the risk taker, heck yes. Let's try it. It's a nice site but it'd be a foolish move regardless of how deep our pockets were. That's why we're asking to operate out of the farm on a temporary basis and then as Chanhassen continues to grow and develop and the office park continues to build and things get much, much more entrenched, then it will make sense and at that time I assure you that development will take place and we will bring everything up to snuff. It's not like we're saying we will never do it. We're just saying we'll do it when we can and it makes sense to do it. Tom Quammen: I'm Steve's partner and I guess I'm pretty ignorant as far as all the ordinances go but how I was looking at this proposal with Jim and us trying to buy this was that Steve and I are renting a space from a guy and I'm looking at it like when I used to rent an apartment. Then I got real rich and bought a house. This is just our first step as far as trying to buy a house, so to speak. All we want to do is run a little heating business out of this house and barn for a short time and who knows what the future's going to do. Like Steve says, there's so many vacant buildings around, why build more? I really didn't think it was going to be quite this complicated. I understand your folks position completely but we're just some little peons wanting to get a small little hunk of Chanhassen dirt and that's really what it amounts to. e Jim McMahon: I'm the landowner but I guess the one thing we all have to remember here is that, as I listen to what they've said and listened to what you've said, they're just asking to postpone doing all the extension and so on until it makes sense from a dollar and cents standpoint. I can't see where it's going to be a detriment to the City or that it doesn't make business sense or it doesn't make sense from development. Conrad: Where do we draw the line in similar situations like this? Jim McMahon: When the City's full. Conrad: Let me relate it to a neighborhood. Let's say it was a residential area and this may be a bad analogy so bear with me, but if you live in one parcel and it has certain standards and somebody moves in next door to you and the City applies totally different standards, you have just totally different standards that the City for some reason gave, how do you justify that? Under what course? How far do you go? We have not slipped our standards in the IOP area yet and you're the first one. You have the opportunity of being the first ones to ask us to do that so it's a litle bit more difficult. We don't have necessarily the reasons yet, although we certainly understand what you're trying to do. It's not that we're not empathetic with that, it's just that what do we tell the other people? The next one that comes in and says, we have 100 employees and we really don't want to connect up to City water and sewer. Do we tell them, well, that's okay? How do we make that decision? e Steve Berquist: First of all, this is the only structure in the IOP district that is not, there's no other structure of this nature. The Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 21 e situation will not happen unless someone puts a barn up and then comes to you and says can we occupy it. The other thing that I find interesting is. . . Conrad: Let me ask you why we should justify the septic problems where we now start taxing maybe a septic system that's not intended to really take care of a whole lot of people? e Steve Berquist: Let me address that septic system. First of all, the sewer and water is 650 feet from the property so it's a ways. The cost of that is prohibited. As far as the existing services that serve the building, Jim has 5 people that live there full time. Himself, his wife and three children, one of which is a teenager, and 5 people living, washing, bathing, do all the things that people do with water, will generate a significant amount more water than we will. The staff report refers to a total of 18 employees. It's a bit misleading because in truth what our operation consists of, for 8 hours a day is 2 secretaries plus 3 additional office people. We've got 5 people that come there at 8:00 in the morning. They'll drink coffee during the day so they use the facilities now and again. They'll wash their hands. You've got 3 sales people who are there a maximum of 2 to 3 hours a day and installers and service people that are there first thing in the morning and then last thing at night and that is it. There's no washing. There's no bathing. There's no dishes. There is no useage even approaching that of a family. The report from Sullivan Services says that the sewer system is working and operational to the best of their knowledge. I was out there when they pumped it. It's a two tank system with a drainfield and I can't guarantee that it is in perfect condition. I can't guarantee that it will continue to work forever but if it doesn't or if you folks want us to put in a holding tank to be pumped every 6 months, we're amenable to that. I don't have any problem with that. As far as the well goes, the report refers to an aging well system, again, where we've got a family of 5 using the facilty, using a 4 inch submersible well, a family of 5 plus Jim watering 30 to 40 horses. Those suckers get thirsty. So again, our needs are going to be as I stated before. We'll be making coffee, washing hands. That's really it. Be using the water faucet. Our useage of water is going to be fractional compared to what a family uses. Conrad: Anything else? Steve Berquist: One other thing I wanted to mention is that, as a matter of course, staff sent out letters to everybody that owned property within however many feet and I don't think that any of them are here. I would take that to mean there are no exceptions to be taken by the adjacent landowners. Conrad: In that report that went out, what was on the notice? e Olsen: Just the use of the property. Batzli: Not the fact that it's non-conforming. .-- Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 22 e Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: ...1 can't but help think that when they came in, they bent over backwards to put in something right away. They hit it hard to come in. They made a real commitment. When DataServ came in, we forced them, you've got to live by the ordinances. We didn't break down at all. We've been doing that with people. Now housing contractor's, whatever, we've been treating them the same. We'v been consistent. Now a gentleman comes in and he's got some pretty good arguments but I don't see a financial commitment on his part. It's all bet on the come. It's up to us. I'm going to put in that sewer and water and I'm going to show I've got real plans and I could live with some of the other stuff but to see bare bones on his part, he's taking away but he's not putting anything back. Not making a commitment. Based on that, I'll vote for denial. Wildermuth: I think the ordinances that have been established are appropriate. I sympathize with the situation. It is unique. It is a single structure of it's type in an lOP district on the one hand. I think the ordinances have to stand. Batzli: I agree pretty much with what's been said. I sort of feel like we're being asked to subsidize their investment into a future land development plan without letting us know what they're going to do and that and us subsidizing it, I guess I would vote to deny it at this point. e ElIson: Before the plan came in for the 1991 improvement, the staff report said that you had no future plans because they depended on Opus and the future subdivision of the property. So from the time that they wrote this report to the time that you had that written up, it seems like you made some future plans. I'm not sure how well thought out they were. If this was something that you did just to help it get through but I agree with your first thoughts that you were probably not planning for the future because you wanted to know what Opus was going to do and you wanted to know other things so you really hadn't planned the two buildings but it seemed like the two buildings came up just because you heard staff was going to deny it. I don't like the idea of temporary at all. It may be what you said initially that it isn't economically feasible for you right now to take advantage of this opportunity. I'm not sure if you can arrange something with the property owner or what have you. It doesn't seem like you're agreeing to any of the conditions. Like Dave said, maybe if you do half or whatever and you had the agreement that after 3 years it was not done, something I might go with that if I saw an approach from your side that you're willing to do that but like the other commissioners said, we've certainly stuck to our guns and made people change their signs that they've had across the world and everything like that because we have these ordinances and it would be awful tough on the next one that comes in if we let this go. To try and do something like that to them. I would probably deny it unless I saw that you'd be willing to do at least some of them. e Emmings: Basically I go along with the comments that have been made so far. I don't believe in anything being called temporary. I don't believe Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 23 e it. There's no such thing as temporary. It sounds like it's a buyer's market out there. It sounds like there's a lot of space available in the lOP and maybe that's the most appropriate thing for them to do. I don't know but if there's all that empty space out there, you ought to be able to get something at a good price. The only thing I'm not clear on is, I'm not sure I know what they're asking for to know if we should move to deny this or if we should move to recommend to approve it with the conditions which are essentially the same thing. I've got to know what, I guess we have to know that before we know which one to do. Dacy: The staff report says all three. Emmings: It says one of our options is to deny the application because it doesn't meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and one is to recommend approval with all those conditions and those conditions would bring it in line with it. I and 3 are really identical. How should we handle that? Dacy: It depends on how the applicant wants to pursue the application. They could ask the Commission to go ahead and act on the application maintaining the position that they don't feel that the paving is appropriate is now and have the Commission act on it. They might get the same response at Council. They might not. e Emmings: I guess it's the same thing in effect. Conrad: You either say it positively or negatively. Erhart: I pretty much agree with everybody elses comments. I understand the strategy of the developer and why it may seem the obvious thing to do from an individual's standpoint. It is the worse thing that we could do is plan to even consider such a request. It just goes totally against the planning process that we have created here at the City of Chanhassen. I think we've done a pretty good job but regarding the issue of whether just simply deny it or approve it with conditions, my personal feeling is it would be totally unfair for the rest of the owners of buildings and businesses in the park to approve what is now a single family house for use as an industrial. That's not to say that I couldn't move my business from the Hiteman Building over and put it in his barn. I think if I came in with that request, you'd all be appalled. This is really no different. You've got a few more employees but the situation is the same. Again, I have a similar comment that we're asked to subsidize someone's investment. I think that's simply what it is. I think just a simple denial is appropriate. Conrad: Are there any standards that we could justify slipping somebody would move in to that area? So to speak, it is on the of the track. Is there any rationale that you can come up with that would say it's separated a little bit? as other side for me e Jim McMahon: How many facilities like this are in that park? that question? May I ask Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 24 e Conrad: How many facilities? Jim McMahon: How many houses and barns are located within the industrial park? Conrad: Right, we have one. Emmings: I guess the flip side to that is, how many people want to run their business out of a house and barn? It's not, you're trying to jam a use into a set of buildings. I think there's a real big conflict right there. It doesn't make sense. You wouldn't put your barn in a warehouse. You don't put a business in a barn. Jim McMahon: They're asking for a temporary use of that. Emmings: We don't know what that means. Ellson: The situation of someone saying we don't want to do the berming right now. We don't want to do the curbing right now. That sort of thing can come up in any of the lOP's. e Conrad: It's just really tough to rationalize. You can rationalize some of these things. Temporary and whatever but not all of them. Not all of them. Just because there's a house and barn there, there are these other requirements and you can't, these other requirements are there regardless of whether there's a house or barn there. Are there any of these restrictions that you feel comfortable with, that could be slipped for 3 years? Wildermuth: I think the curbing. there. I think a hard surface roadway is steve Berquist: It was our intention from the beginning, especially after talking with Jo Ann about what would be required and they wanted some additional parking and what not, so they had an engineer. You talk about making a commitment, we're making a substantial commitment not only in terms of the money because we're going to end up spending a lot of money to be able to operate out of there. It's like putting a size 12 foot in a size 9 shoe but it is temporary. Emmings: In 25 years? How long? What does temporary mean? Steve Berquist: Did you say 25 years? Emmings: Yes. Who knows what it means? Steve Berquist: I've tried to use 1991 as some kind of a ground. Can you tell me how long it's going to be before the City of Chanhassen will be able to support additional structures beyond the tracks? e Emmings: I don't have to. I'm not asking for your approval. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 25 e e Steve Berquist: You're asking for me to be a soothsayer and I can't be. What we're looking to do, we're buying this for an investment of course and we're trying to operate out of there with the least amount of disturbance to the existing property as we possibly can. We're willing to grade. We're willing to bring in Class V and make the parking lot useable. We're certainly willing to landscape and hide, for instance we've got to roll off sheet metal into the old furnances and stuff. We're certainly willing to screen all of that stuff. It's not a major investment, I grant you, but nevertheless it is an investment. It seems to me that major investments aren't warranted in that if things go like we think they're going to go and in 1991 we do put the whole thing under the blade and subdivide and put up two buildings, that investment will be right down the tube. It doesn't make sense. If you were in my position I think you'd feel the same way that I do. What I'm saying is, I will certainly do, if you want us to put a holding tank in to supplement the sewer system. We'll pave it with Class V. I think blacktop is a bit of a strong request. As far as the feasibility study conducted by a registered engineer to provide sanitary sewer and water, we all know that the cost of running sanitary sewer and water from it's present location is going to be prohibited and the location of those facilities are written in that report. Ms. Olsen herself, if I remember the report properly eludes to an expensive proposition. We'll comply with the conditions of the Building and Fire Inspector. We're going to end up bringing it up to the fire code. We're going to end up increasing the electrical service. We're going to end up spending money to bring in additional phone service. We're going to spend money to upgrade the heating and air conditioning plan. We'll put in an air conditioning plan. We're going to spend money to sheetrock and take down walls and put in carpet. We're going to spend money, you get my drift. Conrad: We know and we also know that development is an expensive proposition. That's why I'm not in it. It's a tough deal and this Commission sees people trying to develop stuff all the time that maybe they shouldn't be doing. Steve Berquist: One last thing, please bear with me. My initial submittal to the City I referred to it's going to depend on what Opus does. Like I said, Opus borders the property on two sides. This was a tentative plat of lots and as you can see, there's a road that runs directly from Audubon to a cul-de-sac and right here is Opus land. Yes, it depends on what Opus does to a degree. We could make that a clean cul-de-sac but if we're able to strike a deal with Opus and extend this road back further into the park, that may benefit all of us. The City and both developers so it's not like we're attempting to get away with anything or hide anything. The problem is, as I'm sure you aLL understand, is that on the other side of the tracks it tends to get nebulous. e Conrad: Going down these things that we think we might be able to slip. Landscaping. Any feeling we could slip our standards there? Building and Fire Inspector we wouldn't slip on there. Sanitary sewer and water. Would we consider that? Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 26 e Batzli: I don't know that we're even requiring any of these conditions. I thought we were merely asking for a feasibility study as to an alternative. That didn't sound to me like we were really requiring these conditions. Olsen: We would want to do a feasibility study... Conrad: But that's getting water and sewer there. That's the way I read that. Batzli: The best alternative to provide so you're just trying for the best way to provide sanitary sewer. You don't mean that there's an alternative. I read that as basically saying he could have a holding tank and drill a new well. Brown: eluded a site system Part of our concern was obviously, and I think the applicant to this, it may be prohibitive costwise to extend these services and therefore we need some sort of guarantee that the existing will support... to Conrad: So your comment is not to run sewer and water there? e Brown: It also incorporates that. We need concrete evidence, though I'll look at that and State Aid is too far away, we need the alternative because again, this is within the MUSA area and suggests that it should be serviced by sewer and water. If the feasibility study comes back and says that (a) the costs are prohibitive then we, on the other side of the coin, need documentation stating that the existing services will supply the demand. even to explore it's use Dacy: Just carrying that one step further, if the study comes back and says that there is no feasible solution to provide sewer and water to the service, then the City may want to look at deleting that parcel from the urban service area but up until this point it has been included in that. Again, the feasibility study can identify a feasible way to make the connection. Some time in the future that property has to be hooked up if it's going to be in the urban service area and the study can tell us how much, who's going to benefit and how can it be paid for. Through assessments or... Batzli: Why would anybody want an lOP area without municipal water and sewer? Dacy: Exactly. If we take it out of the urban service area, then it would have to revert back to ago e Ernrnings: I note that on the Fire Inspector's letter, he made it a condition that there be a total sprinkler system in the barn for both levels and also the house and I guess my question, maybe the engineer could answer it, if there's a fire in the barn, can you pump water fast enough out of that well to service sprinklers? Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 27 e Brown: Yes. That's been a common question as of late. It does involve the addition of pressure tanks onto the site but that's being done more often than not in the rural areas that are requiring sprinkling systems. Emmings: So it could be done with the well that's there? Brown: Correct. Olsen: But there will have to be... Brown: Not knowing, I want to clarify your statement. Not knowing the existing well, but that sort of plan is certainly possible. Jim McMahon: On the question of whether or not the water and sewer is feasible to that property. There are two ways that it can be brought into the site. I'm aware of this because...who were interested in that property and they did a study...in conjunction with Opus... Conrad: Any of these other requirements that anyone would feel comfortable slipping or delaying? The driveway? Batzli: I think there's a big redundancy between (a) and (f). I'd be willing to get rid of one of them. e Conrad: If there's a feasibility done that said it's not feasible to bring sewer and water to this site, then we would probably kick it out of the urban service area right? The financial... Erhart: I'm having a hard time following this. Most landowners would just jump up and down to get their land put within the MUSA line and have it zoned lOP. with the growth out here, it's simply a matter of time and that land, I know that piece of property because I drive by it often, it's just a matter of time somebody with the money to do it right is going to want to buy that piece of property to build their own corporate building on and I just can't imagine why we would screw around with this temporary stuff given all those facts. I just can't imagine. e Conrad: I'm just trying to keep this, I'm looking for a way that, is there a way to justify it? I'm probing here and there and I'm trying to extract that. We owe that to the applicant to see if there's a way and that's what I'm trying to do here. If there's not a way, I think then we stick to our guns. Without lecturing, I think one of the things Planning Commission can do is to add some reason to ordinances. Sometimes they don't have to be enforced to the letter of the law and sometimes that's why you have a public group involved. Yet on the other hand, I think we've all been around here enough to know that our ordinances are pretty good and we've updated them and we're pretty comfortable with what those ordinances are doing for us. Anyway, my only comments. I really don't know how to justify slipping some of the requirements. I don't know how to do it in one case and not in the other and when somebody doesn't give me those rules that can say in this case you allow it, in that case you don't, then I have a real problem of allowing the variance or slipping the standard. I think if I had seen a very definite plan, a 3 year plan that >~-- Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 28 e said I'm going to do this in 1988 and this in 1989 and this in 1990, more than a piece of paper that carne in in the 11th hour, whatever, I think I might be more receptive to saying hey, it's going to happen but because of that, I guess I'm not in favor of this particular application as it stands right now. I believe that the ordinances and the requirements are pretty important to maintain and I can't find a way to justify a temporary way around enforcing those at the current time. Is there a motion? Erhart: I'll move to deny the application on the basis that it does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Ernmings: Second. Batzli: You don't think that you want to approve it with the conditions at all because they're going to go by and they're not going to build the nice building? Erhart: I think I've stated a couple times. I just think it's inappropriate to even consider it. We make other companies, if I was the owner of that land and I heard some discussions up here about rezoning this thing to A-2 and taking it out of the MUSA, I guess I'd rip up my purchase agreement and stop this conversation righ tnow. This is going all in the wrong direction. e Conrad: Tim? And you don't like this because, you want to totally deny it, why Erhart: I think they should corne in and meet the ordinance. Conrad: If we approve it and they meet the ordinance, what's the difference? Erhart: I'd like to see a plan. There's no plan. Wildermuth: I guess that's why I'd be in favor of tabling of it and allowing the applicant to corne in with a plan with some assurance that there would be a time table. Something beyond just saying that it depends on how Chanhassen grows. I think we've got to have something more concrete than that. I think we have to have some assurance that the structures that would be temporarily used would be maintained in good order. Would provide a relatively attractive alternative to razing and the ability to construct a new building. I'm be in favor of tabling it at this point. e Conrad: I wouldn't want to table it. I think the applicant should take it to City Council. I think he should hear what they're saying. We react to a whole different, they react to other things than what we do. We really do get into the planning and some ivory tower stuff. They incorporate some other things in their decision making and I think in this case, they should take it to the City Council and find out what the Council has to say. It's going to give them a better feel for pursuit rather than us sending it back. I think it's really smart for them to go up and talk to Council. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 29 - Emmings: I was thinking that the right thing to do was to recommend approval with the conditions because that would give them the opportunity to comply and do it and I found that the owner didn't like that. I changed my mind on that. One of the major things that made me change my mind was the fact remembering that our Attorney told us that we don't want to create temporary conditional uses. I thought, and again I was more willing when I came in here tonight to look at some of these and try and find some that we could maybe put to the side if they do others. I thought that we, for example, my initial reaction was we'll put the sewer and water in, get that done and go easy on the rest of this as long as there is some assurance that they do it or we have sanctions if they don't. I don't feel that way anymore. I just think that creating a temporary use and applying different standards to this property on things that we can apply to the rest of the lOP makes no sense at all. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to deny the request for a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard in the lOP, Industrial Office Park District for Merit Hearing and Cooling, Inc. on the basis that it does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. All voted in favor of the motion except wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried. e Wildermuth: I would like to see the issue tabled and I'd give the applicant another opportunity to put together a different plan. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER ON 4.86 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, JUST EAST OF Q-SUPERETTE, HIDDEN VALLEY CENTER. Jo Ann Olsen and Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Conrad: Right now Barbara, if they gave us their presentation, more than likely we're going to table the item. I'm just speaking for myself but would we be inviting them back for another presentation therefore? Dacy: Yes. I- I I Conrad: So we would see it, if we decided to table and we'll certainly give the applicant a chance to speak for themselves but from our standpoint, is it worthwhile looking at their application now and their presentation or should we, from a planning standpoint, wait based on what you might find out in the study? Will the studies change what you think is going to be presented by them a great deal? Dacy: I don't think it would hurt that you would allow them to go through the presentation to become more familiar with the site. It might save time at the August 3rd meeting. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 30 e Conrad: Is that agreeable to everybody? Okay. Is there somebody that would like to give us a little show? Frank Kramer: I'm Vice President of New American Homes. We started working with the City staff approximately a year ago in working on the site plan for this area that we're going to present. Back in December we met with City Staff and they said, will you work with us through the legislative session? We think we can funding proposed for the TH 51TH 101 alignment. We'll know a lot more. In the first part of June, the 5th of June, we met with City Staff again and we were on your last Planning Commission agenda. We wrote a letter to the City Manager and said that if we get a letter from the City stating that we've met all the requests and all the ordinances and all zoning ordinances, we agree to be tabled until the next meeting. We never received a letter back so we really should have been on the last meeting. We'll make our presentation but this will be the second meeting we've been tabled at. We're holding a very expensive piece of ground and we tried to work with City Staff and I hope you take that into your consideration when you decide what you're going to do about this. With that, I'll have Jack Boarman from Boarman Associates who's the architect make the presentation. e Jack Boarman: We basically, just to illustrate some of the background, we started the project by coming to staff and going over the various planning and zoning issues. This is TH 5. This is the Lake Drive East. This is the intersection point. The setbacks. The signage. All of those have been worked through various revisions and various preparations to get it just right. I think we have that. One of the things I wanted to point out, I think at an earlier proposal that we went over with staff, we have a little bit more than 40,000. In reviewing the actual final submittal as revised, we do have some interior landscaping islands and 40,000 square feet. All those numbers reflect compliance, I think with some revisions that we submitted to staff later on. Erhart: A question to make it clear, the design is based on the existing road? Jack Boarman: Absolutely. Erhart: And we want to delay it so we can redesign it around the proposed intersection? Jack Boarman: I think, if I could hold this up, this is our property right here so as you can see... Erhart: It has a major impact on it. e Jack Boarman: It cuts it in the middle. After several revlslons, I think this sheet represents the compliance as finally revised. A lessertive plan than that is represented here. From the standpoint of the design of the facility, we've got pretty much all the schematic and design development drawings done. We're working on final processing. Within a short period of time would be in a position to pull a final building Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 31 e e permit. This project really begins at this point with the larger retail facility here. We've designed this end of the building so it really has some good visibility so there's really very little rear of the building kind of exposure. Heavy landscaping across here. Another larger facility here. Smaller spaces through here. A central tower element and focal landscaping in through here accessing off of this tree columnated access drive here. Heavy landscaping through the islands in through here. Then heavy landscaping on the berm that runs through here and through over here and a berm across the back which is going to be Norway pines and Spruce as a barrier back here so the rear of the building really doesn't have a problem as far as exposure. The overall design theme of the building, as the completed design, we tried to relate to the high quality of retail design that's being introduced and expanded over the years here in the community. Obviously this beautiful model out in the lobby represents your potential and there's construction going on and I think the design of this, with this central pylon tower element with a clock and a central canopy element. This is at the intersection of the columnated driveway off of this intersection and onto the road here so as you come in, it really is the focal element. It's high enough that from TH 5 you see it as well. More of a village square kind of look to the facility. A combination of brick and wood and metal roofing. Again, similar to the design palate that you have established here now, the series of higher entry elements with lower will give it a sense of not being a horizontal kind of building but a building that has a series of focal point entrances. We spent well over a month looking at different design sketches. The roof design is, in some areas, a straight truss that slopes in. In other areas it drops down and over and down and up so that it maintains a gabled edge but has a lower recessed area for screening equipment and that type of thing. We're very, very sensitive to providing a very high quality design image. We think that this location is outstanding. It's the type of thing that provides not only an excellent design for the community but the location is inherently a very important spot and we want to make sure that the design is of the high quality that befits this kind of location. I think at that point I would open it up for any questions about the design. e Conrad: Any questions that we may have of the design? The one access point is something that intrigues me. Just one. Jack Boarman: I think there has been some discussion with staff about even a second access point up here and we would think that that is fine. We were actually more concerned about creating controlled points of access as the level of this road intensifies. Naturally through development, not through realignment of TH 101. The point of our interest is that this drive right here, as a frontage road with a controlled entrance here and a controlled entrance here is a very viable type of street layout for this type of project and also for the traffic. This location, of course, is kind of at midpoints between these and provides an organized location for a major turn in and out. Obviously as the development proceeds, we would assume that this road here would be designed to take the type of development activity, traffic that we're talking about so we'd want to, for safety sake, try and concentrate the intersection points so that even if it became a left in or out if there's some kind of geometric to this Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 32 e intersection that might be improved for the sake of traffic flow, it would be a planning issue. Having an exit point in addition like this, you could have two of them. That wouldn't bother us but we were concerned about the traffic effect on movement out here. It's going to be a lot more traffic movement out here than there would be on our internal street as our engineer notes. Conrad: Any other questions? Erhart: Do you want to kick this around? Conrad: Sure. Erhart: Right now you're looking at moving Lake Drive East further west? Dacy: No, TH 101. Erhart: Or TH 101. Further west right in the middle of this development. So that means two questions. Why do you want to move it further west and then want happens if you move it further west? What's going to happen to your development? What you're proposing. Jack Boarman: It's pretty serious. e Dacy: Your first question is why the realignment, is what you said. are we going across TH 5? Why Erhart: I understand that. We've already approved that for the Comp plan we're working on. Dacy: But what are you saying by moving it? Erhart: Why do we have to cut across that property? Why can't you just use the existing? Dacy: There are a number of engineering standards that have to be met in order to be approved by MnDot. For example, the angles of these intersections. They have to be a minimal angle. There has to be appropriate stacking distance from the TH 5 intersection. As a matter of fact, I think the original concept was a little farther over to the east but in order to get as close of a 90 degree geometric on TH 5 as possible, they had to move towards the west, get a proper crossing over the railroad and get into a touchdown point over at Lake Drive East. So what r'm trying to say is that there are engineering reasons why it's being proposed as it is and that's why we've got our consultant trying to fine tune that to make sure that that can be accomplished and be acceptable to MnDot. e Erhart: Are we trying to work in the proposal as much as we can? Dacy: As proposed right now, it cuts right through the middle of the property. They would not be able to build a 40,000 square foot shopping center. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 33 e ElIson: Haven't you told them that since the conception of the development idea? Dacy: Right and what we're looking at now as part of the study too is to determine exactly how much is going to be left over to see if there is a use remaining. They're obviously saying, I can't build a 40,000 square foot shopping center. We accept that but we need to find out the exact construction limits and so on. Jack Boarman: If I could only add this. The setback limit is 30 feet for any development plus the setbacks for the building and the view, I don't want to draw on this but if you took this piece and you came back to that amount of distance plus here you are, you'd have a developable piece that's a sliver. Really very, very small and that's the end result. Now is it true that the alignment of TH 101 has had a series of discussions prior to this engineering plan? Conrad: We've been working on that for quite a while. e Jack Boarman: Sure and I don't think the actual drawing of this type really has been, I have several drawings in my file of concepts that cut all the tip of our piece and head into Lake Drive and through a lot of different configurations. The point I'm getting at is we've been working with that issues as long as, maybe not as long as you have but certainly over a year. As we've developed this plan, the road alignment has been getting more and more detailed but it's also been more and more moving. Obviously it's not moving in a more complicated direction. Erhart: When did you buy this property? Frank Kramer: In 1983. Dacy: They were the original subdividers of Hidden valley. e Jack Boarman: We've been working on this design about, the first time we looked at it was about 12 months ago and it went through site plans and stopped and started. My only point I wanted to make is, this is, having been in the business 15 or more years, dealing with highway department issues is always a big issue and they have very good geometric issues that they want to have. I think we've taken the approach that the road is under design and therfore is not in place and we've seen already 2 or 3 different alignments and obviously the use of this project, if it were here and done, it would certainly affect the design and layout of this because that's the case with these apartments over here. Any of these buildings that are done and up certainly have affected the location of this. The use of this property is not, this building isn't done yet but this is clearly a subsnative use that if it were in place, would affect this location. I think we've been trying to see where this thing is actually going to be located and we've seen it in other locales. Whether it's over here or whether it's over here, it certainly would have been less detrimental to the developer and yet, if this were in place, clearly those types of alternative locations to this one would have been more Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 34 e seriously looked at. Maybe that's the best way to put it. Anything on paper is cheap. You can do it over and over and move it around. I think that's kind of the issue we're hoping to see happen. Batzli: Is this configuration the one we looked at when we were looking at the church? Was that the one that BRW was working on? Dacy: This one is different than the one we looked at the time of the church's application. It shifted over more to the west on the basis of MnDot. Again, August 22nd could come around and the Council could deny a land use plan amendment. There could not be a project for realigning TH 101. We need to decide that. The Council needs to decide that once and for all and that's what we've got to ask. Through the public hearing process, the north leg option of trying to take the traffic down on TH 5 and south on TH 101 has been a suggestion and I can assure you that the room will be packed full of people at the Planning Commission and the Council asking very good questions. We need to do that traffic analysis. Erhart: Where are we proposing the funding come to do this intersection? e Dacy: There is still an outside chance that we'll have legislation reintroduced in a special session next fall to extend the life of the Economic Development and Tax Increment District to Hennepin County. The City, I think it's fair to say that the City Staff at least is committed to trying to find as many funding options as we can to get this project the public support so that's one avenue. There's always bonding avenues. Erhart: Isn't the fact that they're going to redo TH 5, isn't that going to pay for all the improvements whether it's at one location or the other? Dacy: What MnDot has said is that they will construct, they will be wllling to pay for the improvements within the right-of-way. At minimum, if we can not get the roads built in conjunction with the TH 5 widening, that we would at least try and achieve to get everything in place here first before constructing the remainder of the roadway. It's another reason why we need to know some of these cost implications. MnDot is really looking at this as a City project. We're looking at MnDot and saying, but hey, this is a trunk highway that is carrying more than Chanhassen traffic so we're trying to determine some costs and approach MnDot with some proposals at some type of cost sharing and then finding some financing alternatives that maybe we can work some type of financing agreement out to accomplish the realignment. Erhart: I think the plan that you've presented is very nice and it's a higher quality than the one that we're currently putting in downtown from appearance wise. I think the one downtown is pretty nice. e Jack Boarman: The point that I want to make is that we're within 30 days of being able to finish documents and we've been doing it for 14 months and we'd like to continue. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 35 e Erhart: If you went through the process here in the next 60 days and got approval, when would you start construction? Jack Boarman: That's getting closer to the fall. Frank Kramer: It's not only a matter of construction time but the tenants we have lined up ready to go right now are saying, are you ever going to get this thing off the ground and are we going to go someplace else? With that, also with us tonight is John Karrens our Attorney for New American Homes and he would like to address the Commission also. e John Karrens: I'm John Karrens, counsel to New American Companies. I don't mean to play the heavy on this one but I think it might be useful for you to understand how I see this from my planning standpoint which is simply, they've gone through a lot of effort in a very, I think, effective working relationship with your staff on the basic site plan and it does comply in all respects with what you're basic requirements are and it is a permitted zoning use. I am bothered by the idea of simply letting it set aside given the fact that it does put what we're required to do on the site what you plan. I often do site review plans myself when I was on the City Council of Minneapolis and I realize as volunteers you're sometimes caught with these things a little bit but basically the ordinances are drafted to set up the negotiation that worked here to develop a site plan that conforms. I can fully understand if we had a major hook in here and we're asking for a variation of our conditional use permit or something like, it might be appropriate to set it aside when we comply fully but on these advise and consent site plans, it seems to me that it needs to move forward now since we're in compliance. I'm bothered by the idea of tabling it with on a somewhat related, I think somewhat speculative project. Now our clients have looked at this now for well over a year on this particular design. I know when we had discussion with NSP over the easement that runs across the front of the property on TH 5, even at that time there were several different alignments because NSP at that point wasn't quite sure how long their power lines. They've now gone ahead and apparently built so I would really urge that this pass forward to the Council now and we'd like to see the Council at least approve it recognizing, as I think your staff has in the report, that we've done what the City expects us to do. We've done a site plan to meet yours plans and specs. I'm troubled by the idea of setting it aside for a while here since we've already been set aside once. We'd like to move forward to the Council and get past that point and obviously the factors that go into this basically or partially and I think the near to this stage project. We're been sitting on the caring cost here which is quite substantial now for several years and the market out here has gotten much stronger you know, I think from the development activities in your community. This is a very strong community and now I believe the time has come to move ahead and do this project which we've been carrying for several years at a cost so I would urge you to push ahead to Council now in acknowledgement that we've done what you've asked us to do and we comply. We do meet your site plan regs in every respect. I'll be glad to answer questions. e Erhart: Barb, does this in fact tabling this before, was this on the agenda? Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 36 . Dacy: No, it was never scheduled. e Conrad: I hate to play the heavy here but on the other hand, we've been looking at the realignment of our highways for quite a while. We've been looking at TH 101 and solutions. We've been looking at traffic flow problems in Chanhassen and it's not that City Staff just dreamt this up. We've been playing around with it and we finally worked it into a comprehensive plan. That plan is documented and it's there. The exact alignment obviously has been moving around but it's not that there hasn't been attempt. I see a City Staff that has laid out a very agressive schedule where they're saying we are going to do this and we are going to do that and we're going to turn this around in a month. That's pretty aggressive type stuff. If you've worked with cities before, you know that cities don't always move that fast. Sometimes you don't get on an agenda, and I've worked with many different planning commissions and councils and you don't get on the agenda for 4 to 8 weeks, just getting your turn in those rapidly expanding communities like Apple Valley and Burnsville. I'm pretty comfortable what I heard tonight that City Staff is not, if I saw them trying to delay something, I think we'd say there's something wrong but I didn't get that feeling tonight. I feel they're trying to explore the other options and those other options may fall away after, the highway that goes through is going to have a whole lot of input from the neighborhood but that's just critical based on what this group has been doing for the last couple years, and we have been playing around with that for that length of time. Again, I'm speaking for myself and the other commissioners certainly can comment on these things but I see those two things. One, it's in the comprehensive plan and two, we're really aggressively going out, not trying to delay a project because we like development and this looks like a good development. Something we'd like to have here but we'd be doing a disservice to the community if we didn't take a look at how we're going to shuttle people from the south Chanhassen to the north and people from other places south through the town. I guess I'm not real sensitive to some of the comments. I don't think we're delaying excessively and I think we specifically do owe it to the residents of Chanhassen to take a look at the alignment. Conduct a public hearing and work with you as quickly, as extraditiously as we can. I heard staff give you that commitment and I think that's pretty good. Any other comments? Headla: We could take the approach to deny it based on the reasons you just gave us so it would go to Council and let them decide on how critical the realignment is. Dacy: I would recommend that we not take that approach. Headla: Why? e Conrad: I don't think it's good planning. Dave, when it's not good planning, then I don't feel that just getting it out of our court is smart. When it's a close call and it's a question of whether it's good or bad planning, yes, let the Council have at it but in this case it's just good planning. It makes sense that we take a look at this. They for sure Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 37 Ie are going to be talking to the Council members and staff knows that there's a parcel here for development. I'd love to have it in that, I'd love to squeeze it in there if we could. I think that would be neat but I think we do have an obligation to conduct some of these public hearings. I don't know if we need to bump it up. Headla: I don't have the feeling of the sense of urgency at Council and what's the difference. That bothers me. Dacy: I'm sorry, you said the sense of urgency? Headla: Yes. Dacy: There is a window of opportunity here with this widening of TH 5. I have to believe that if we can't accomplish the realignment of TH 101 and redo Dakota Avenue and so on and put in all those improvements and spend x amount of dollars, then if that window passes, it's going to be very difficult to come back and start allover and start working up a plan. I think there is an urgency here. We have an opportunity to work with MnDot in trying to accomplish this new realignment. MnDot is saying, hey Chanhassen, make a decision. Are you going to build the street or not? There's a window here that we have to look at. e Conrad: Tim, what's your druthers on this one? Erhart: My impression from talking to Council people, they're very serious about getting this intersection at this time. Secondly, I think the getting intersection improved is priority number one and this development, as much as I like it, I think it comes second to that so I think we ought to table it. Emmings: I think denying this would be abusing our discretion. There's no valid reason to deny it so I don't think we should deny it. I think to approve it would be sticking our heads in the sand when there's a substantial possibility that a road could go through the middle of the project so I think it's appropriate to table it. I also agree with Ladd's comments about the fact that this is going to be moving along very quickly. Ellson: Table. Batzli: I don't have anything further to add. Wildermuth: Table it. Headla: Table it. Conrad: Any other comments back to us? ~ John Karrens: I think we'll be heard at the public hearing on this too. Conrad: I would hope so. Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 38 e John Karrens: This conception, I hope by anybody here, that is a very expensive piece of road with the development that's zoned properly and designed like this. I can see that there ought to be a better way to get traffic across TH 5 to the site... Conrad: We'll take you through the process with pUblic hearings and we'll take it through with you as quickly as we can. Jack Boarman: Just one other comment, I seem to hear people saying it's either or. I would only ask all of you to say, can both happen? No one's disagreeing with the value of the TH 101 issue but let's not make it an either or thing. A highway pays no tax base. This certainly will. Conrad: I think we'd all like to have you have it there. I think if the road really did go by, if we could sneak it by, the value is going to be... e Jack Boarman: I made a comment earlier about plans not being very expensive, I said they're cheap but I meant if there was a building there, it certainly would be a key factor in the alignment of the road. Since there's nothing there, we have plans on paper, it's not considered as heavy or as seriously in affecting the Highway Department's CAD system that they're laying out there in geometries. I would only ask you to join with us and maybe making the leverage on their CAD system as they layout their geometries to be a bit more of a range. A bit more flexibility so both things can go. Conrad: We'll be real interested in hearing your perspective, if we have the alternative of bringing TH 101 in front of your shopping center because that's got to quadruple traffic and I'll be interested to hear how you react. If TH 101 doesn't go through or if it moves away. I guess if it doesn't go through, it just doesn't go through. You take the local traffic but if TH 101 goes in front of your center, that's just got to be a boom to filling that baby up. Jack Boarman: That sounds very exciting and if you could help this kind of go in front rather than through the heart, that would be great. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #88-6 until August 3, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-695, 20-715, 20-774, 20-795, AND 20-815 TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. e Conrad: Any questions on this? Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 39 e Emmings: One of the things that I wondered if we should do, when we talked about the off-street parking, there's no minimum setbacks, we said it is hard we're still subject to screening requirements. I just wondered if we should, if I come in as a developer and I read that I don't have anything in the setback, I automatically think, by god I can go right up to the edge. I just wonder if there should be something in (a) and (b) that just say that they will however be subject to screening requirements or conservation easements. Dacy: We can add like for (a), except where... Emmings: I don't know where the screening requirements are. Just so they don't look at this and think gee, I can go right up to the edge. Batzli: So what do you want to add? Emmings: I don't know. Jo Ann said it. Olsen: We'll be adding that you have to meet the requirements of whatever landscaping requires. Emmings: Essentially saying there is no minimum setback. e Conrad: When it abuts. Dacy: Except when required by the landscaping, Section 20- be the landscaping ordinance. which will Batzli: Can't we just say except as provided in our? Emmings: Right. Anything like that. Just so the person doesn't think they're free to go up to the edge. Make them aware of these because when they're looking at this part, they're thinking how close can I get and let's make them aware right there. Batzli: Where is our landscaping screening? Dacy: Article 25, Section 20-1176. Olsen: As far as landscaping it's 1 tree per 40 feet at least. Dacy: I think we should just refer to the Article in the amendment. Emmings: What brought this to my mind is this. We were talking about something down here behind that was against the railroad tracks. What am I talking about? Conrad: Instant Webb and Lyman Lumber? e Emmings: And they said they were going to have no setback but there was a conservation easement which in effect wound up giving them a 20 foot setback. That's what brought it to my mind and I guess there may be other ways that we want to impose easements or other screening because there's Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1988 - Page 40 e ...stuff somewhere and that's going to be a conflict. They'll say I don't have a setback requirement. I get to go up to the edge. Conrad: I think it's good to have it in there. Emmings: Yes. Bring it to their attention right away. Then it won't raise the question. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #88-11 to amend sections as shown in Attachment #1 with the following additions: SECTION 1. Add: d. The minimum setback is twenty-five (25) feet for side street side yards. With the additions to l(d) as discussed to bring attention to the fact that there may be screening requirements or conservation requirements. SECTIONS 2-7. Add: e d. The minimum setback if fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 15, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor except Erhart and Headla who abstained and the-motion carried. Wildermuth moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e