Loading...
1989 01 04 . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF~RESENT: Steve Hanson, City Planner; Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer and Mark Koegler, Planning Consultant PUBLIC HEARING: CARL CARRICO - PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON LAKE LUCY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE WEST OF YOSEMITE: A. SUBDIVISION OF 12 ACRES INTO 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND DREDGE A PORTION OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Public Present: Name - Frank Cardarelle Carl Carrico Torn Nye Mr. and Mrs. Dave Hughes Carol Droegemueller Pat Johnson Jim and Doris Mielke Mrs. Palmer Mark and Tracy Williams Warren and Arlene Phillips Address Representative for Applicant Applicant 1641 West 63rd Street 1780 Lake Lucy Road 1740 Pheasant Circle 1730 Lake Lucy Lane 1645 Lake Lucy Road 1690 Lake Lucy Road 1655 Lake Lucy Road 1571 Lake Lucy Road Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Conrad: Steve, just. a comment. We've never, to my knowledge, this is almost like spot zoning. We're spot MUSA lining and we've always got the feedback through staff that if we need to expand the MUSA line, we should be doing it not on a spot basis. We've got to do it and they've got to agree to it, at Met Council on a total redrawing of that line and they have not been willing to do that. In fact we are contractually tied into not doing that from my understanding. They had specifically said no. When they have done that, it has been land swaps. In other words, we'll put this into the MUSA but we'll put something out of the MUSA. The recommendation right now is you're telling us that we should do something we've never done in the past and that's to approve a site plan or subdivision given the fact that it's outside the MUSA and that's not how we've done it in the past. Has Don Ashworth recommended that we do it this way or has the legal advice changed or, try to help me understand why we're doing this? e Hanson: It's really so the applicant can get a reading on whether the Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 2 e MUSA line can be amended. Obviously the one stand is to say, we're not going to support the application because we believe the MUSA line where it exists now should remain that way and if we're going to do it, let's do a major amendment. Conrad: Are we trying to test Metropolitan Council again? Is that what we're doing? Hanson: I guess that would be my reaction, yes, that we are. Conrad: Okay. I'm not sure how I want to handle this because this is a little bit different. Is the applicant here? Would the applicant like to make some comments on the staff report or things that we should know? e Frank Cardarelle: I'm Frank Cardarelle, the surveyor representing Carl Carrico who is here, who is the applicant. We are fully aware of the staff report and we have nothing further to add. We have worked with the staff and the engineering department and the whole reason is that this happens to be just a little piece out of the MUSA Ijne north of Lake Lucy Road. Obviously in order to develop it, it almost has to be hooked into the sewer. It's high. It will work. It fits into the sewer and water, the scheme of things. In order to do that, we were told that this is about the only possible way that we can do it. Again, it's kind of a catch 22 like the staff said. We were under the impression that there was 2 or 3 particularly pieces that had the same problems that this particular piece has. Granted, if the Park Department decides they want to purchase the whole thing and the applicant and the Park Department can get together on price, then it's all moot. It won't matter anyway but something on the particular piece of property has to be done. It happens to be just this little tiny piece cut out of the section. Why it was left out, we don't know. It's a hardship case as to what do you do with a little tiny piece of land that sewer is all around it. Sewer and water. It's very small and it is kind of a hardship. That's where we're coming from. This was the recommendation that we do follow in order to do something with the property. If you have any other questions, I'd be glad to answer them but I don't think there's any need to go through a presentation when he's already done it. Conrad: Steve, do you have a graphic that you can put up and show us where the MUSA line is? Do you have an overhead? Hanson: No, I don't. Frank Cardarelle: The MUSA line runs just around this little piece. It's from Lake Lucy Road north, just on the north boundary of this and on the easterly boundary and westerly boundary of this piece of property. Conrad: Why was this property not included before? - Brown: Maybe if I can add a comment here. Obviously Met Council, at least from my estimate at this time, determined where that MUSA line was established. Right now prior to Barb Dacy leaving, she made a submittal to the Metropolitan Council. They were concerned about land swaps and Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 3 e making C!mendments to the MUSA line. What areas could in fact be served by sanitary sewer via gravity system. MWCC has had the philosophy that if it can be serviced without a lift station, we will consider the amendment. Our Comp Plan is being revised to try and incorporate all possible areas that in fact the topography information that we do have on file, to try and analyze these areas and find out why they should in fact be included in our Comp Plan, but unfortunately that study has not been finalized as of yet. So right now this is kind of, as Steve pointed out, a catch 22 system. We know that it can be serviced by gravity system but whether Met Council wants to amend it, we don't know. Conrad: Is it logical that this area be included? Is there a good case to include this that Met Council would listen to? They're obviously saying don't move the MUSA line. We've gone to them how many times and it's all land swaps. Contractually we're tied to not putting it in so is there a good case to go there? What's the case? Brown: All I can tell you is that... Conrad: The developer wants to develop it? Brown: The developer wishes to develop it and it can be serviced by gravity sanitary sewer. _ Conrad: And it can be? And why wasn't it incl uded before? Okay. We'll open it up for other public comments. What I'd like you to do. You can stand where you are or you can come up and talk into the microphone if it's working. Whatever you're comfortable with. What I would like, if you have comments, is to state your name and address for the public record and then we'd sure like to hear your comments. Are there any? Tom Nye: My name is Tom Nye. I live approximately slightly north of this property. What separates this whole development from me is Klingelhutz' pheasant Hills 4th Addition. We've had a lot of water build up on my property on 63rd because much of Pheasant Hills and that area drains through my property. It has recently been rectified so it's flowing into some additional holding ponds and makes it way to Lake Lucy and so on. I'm concerned I guess, if this is all filled in, that the water will not be able to flow, make it's natural way to the swamps and so on which I think the corner between Hughes, that Lot 1 is pretty wet. I'm just concerned that it might get dammed up and won't be allowed to exit my property. Down the road. If he makes allowance for that, I guess I wish him all the luck in the world but I'm concerned that, you've got to be concerned about the people up river. The way the water flows, it could move back and get dammed up. That's it. -- Frank Cardarelle: Just to answer that. All the storm water will go to the south and west and through this. In fact the dredging operation which is not addressing, we met with the Department of Natural Resources and Corps of Engineers. The only thing that we would be doing is taking the small area where the storm water would go as it traverses through this particular project on to the storm drainage to the southwest. It's on the grading plan. The grading plan you have with the packet. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 4 e e Dave Hughes: My name is Dave Hughes. 1780 Lake Lucy Road. My property is there on the left. Concerning that drainage, I'm the one that should be concerned about it because I'm the low end of this process and it's true that in our 4,000 year storm, we took some water down in that area but normally that hasn't been a problem. It seems to flow through adequately. I'd like to address two issues. One, this MUSA line in general. I don't understand the process. I'm not a developer. Mr. Brown has been most helpful in bringing me up to speed as to the processes involved here but it seems logical to me that you have, of course pheasant Hills development on the west end of Lake Lucy and you have, what is that development called on the east end? Where the farm was developed? Curry Farms? Curry Farms developed on the east end and both of them come down to Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road is a south end boundary of the MUSA line on both ends. Now it's true that the .9 miles which is distance between those two developments, which is the length of Lake Lucy Road, the old Lake Lucy Road. I'm sure there's specific spots along there that gravity wise wouldn't flow into the sanitary system but generally speaking, all that land between those two big developments would flow probably just fine. I'm sure that Mr. Brown and Mr. Hanson's department are going to address that and probably are going to make a recommendation that everything down to Lake Lucy Road or from Lake Luqy Road north be included in any MUSA line movement. It would seem logical. I believe, is it Mr. Conrad? You asked, you wonder why it wasn't included, that particular piece of property and I don't understand the processes except in talking with Klingelhutz I understand that nothing that a developer hasn't brought in and gone through all the processes and shown all the plat plans and made all the applications, they just won't put anything else but that. It's obvious that the folks down on the east end of Lake Lucy, that Curry Farm development, a major development, a major contractor with all the lots and all the planning and Klingelhutz on the west end did all the necessary things and they got it done. And all of us property owners inbetween, we're all small. Mr. Carrico is probably a little larger than some of us but relatively speaking to those two developments, we're small property owners and we're not in a position to undertake the grand program to get a MUSA line in like those two developments did. So we'd like the City, I would think, I certainly would and I know Mr. Carrico would and I'm sure most of the property owners inbetween those two developments. Let's just get that MUSA line right down at the same place it is for the big developers on both ends. Lets just get it filled in there so all of us smaller property owners can take advantage of that development as the community's developing. It's obvious the community is developing. The two big developers have brought that development to that point and now we got caught in the middle. If it's one at a time, it sounds like it's a very difficult process with the Met Council but if that's the way it has to be done because we can't move the line to Lake Lucy Road and take care of it all at once, than it's got to be one at a time. I mean, it's just a logical progression. e Conrad: Just a comment. I'm not sure that that's how it happened, your scenario. Big developers being involved and they do obviously. There was some logic in where the MUSA line went. There were some people involved many, many years ago that determined how it went but most of the time it Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 5 e depended upon one. The Metropolitan Council telling us how much land we could put in within the MUSA line, period. They said you can have so much. Originally we wanted a little bit more. They moved it back. The second criteria, we looked for logical boundaries. The logical boundaries are roads or whatever, and also where you can get your sewer service. Your gravity sewer service so there are logical reasons for some areas included and some areas not. There's a logical reason, or there's rationale why this wasn't and that's why, I don't think they're going to listen to us unless we know why it wasn't and then, is there new data telling us that's something different than what we saw before? But anyway, I don't think it was the big guy versus the little guy in this case. Dave Hughes: You just defined my lack of understanding in that area. How this process is going. I thank you for that. I sort of ask you folks. Are you going to recommend that line to be moved south of Lake Lucy Road? And if not, why not? Conrad: That's what we've got to decide. e Dave Hughes: You folks should be coming to us rather than us coming to you, the way I look at it. Now I understand it's a momentum thing and priorities and you've got a lot of things and I understanding engineering is doind that. Plans to do that. I would hope it would be a work together. Do you know, is there anymore property in Chanhassen that Metro Council says you can include or have they said, that's the boundary? Conrad: We've got a line right now and it's good through the year 2000. Dave Hughes: proposal... So they only consider it if you've got an overall Conrad: Contractually speaking, and we have signed a contract to my understanding, that says we will not move outside of that line until the year 2000. My understanding. Dave Hughes: They will reassess that I assume if the City makes an overall recommendation? Not by parcel but by the overall city development need I suppose. Conrad: That's the logic. That's what bothers me about this particular thing because it's like spot zoning. You don't do that. You go and say we need property. We need more land in Chanhassen to develop based on the needs that we're projecting and this is an isolated case and it doesn't really say, maybe we should be looking at other areas besides just this one if we need more land. But again, contractually speaking, they're not going to change based on the feedback that I get. Just some comments. e Dave Hughes: As a point of inquiry. The initiative to approach the Met Council to expand the MUSA line to meet the needs of the City, who instigates that? Is that your group? Engineering? Is that Planning or is it a... Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 6 e Conrad: We may recommend it. We may recommend it and send it to City Council. City Council says yes, that probably makes sense and then it's a matter of how much staff energy they want to spend versus the other items on their agenda. All the other things that the City has to do, to see if they really want to go after changing the MUSA line. The MUSA line is a tough one to change. Metropolitan Council is a really strong group and basically we haven't touched it unless there's a land swap. That's what we've done in the past. The other thing we've done in the past is we've typically had the developer go over to Met Council and talk to them and see what their openness for change is. That's why this is a little bit different scenario for me to listen to. Where we're recommending, we're looking at a subdivision before we can even manage the MUSA line. Saying we need to expand the MUSA line. That's what we should be doing as a Commission rather than reacting to one particular property and the City council should be telling us, yes it's worth our energy to really look at that MUSA line and make a major recommendation to the Metropolitan Council. Dave Hughes: Where is that? Is that process started in our City or do we pretty much say, all the lots, we have all the development property available that's needed at this time to sustain growth? Conrad: Mark, what are we doing? e Mark Koegler: As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, there is work being done ~n revising the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan which addresses the MUSA line issue. I think Larry eluded to that before. That's in the process and I don't know what the completion date is. I assume it's pretty much in the next couple of months. Brown: As I understand it, that's correct. If I may add to that. The Metropolitan Council, the contract that we signed to get the MWCC trunk line through the City of Chanhassen basically states that we will not go for an overall amendment to the MUSA boundary until such time as all areas within the MUSA boundary at this time have been developed. That way they're saying, these are th~ areas that we've designated. We're putting our priorities there and we will not go for an overall amendment until that time. Carl Carrico: Larry, do you remember the date of that contract? Brown: No. e Dave Hughes: As I understand it from talking to Mr. Klingelhutz, and I could stand to be corrected, but I understand that his property was outside of that boundary under the contract. And he, through sheer preserverance and applications and responding to all the necessary requests, got an amendment and got his in so obviously there is a policy by which this can be done. And I understand in talking to you too Larry that Metro Council has said that they won't even consider it unless the Planning Commission inkles that they will consider this development if the line was moved. So they said, give us an inkle and then send the developer over and we'll consider it. Well, that's all they're asking Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 7 e for. He might get stonewalled over there but that's his problem. Frank Cardarelle: I'd just like to add one thing. We have met with the Metropolitan Planning Council and that is essentially what they have said. They feel that this is surrounded by development. It's a piece that is logically to be developed next, that they will consider it but it has to, like we said, the catch 22 is thus, we have to have you approve it first and then we can go over there subject to their approval of moving the MUSA line. If they don't move it, obviously we can't do it. Dave Hughes: And it's apparently been done by Klingelhutz. Brown: Just a point of clarification. As we've seen in the past, we have made amendments to the MUSA boundary. We've been able to swap land before with a trade for that. I wasn't referring so much to a small parcel. I was referring to the overall amendment which I know the Commissioners are complying with. Dave Hughes: Was there any swap done on the Klingelhutz land? Brown: I don't know. e. Dave Hughes: I don't know of any. That's something I spole with Mr. Hanson's department about and with Mr. Brown. Someday when I retire maybe that's what I'll do with my land. Try to develop it but specifically why I brought it up is you notice my easement for my driveway is along the left hand boundary of Mr. Carrico's property now. It's a 32 foot easement and to develop the property I would say I have to have a 50 foot easement. The second is, I've been advised by my engineers, ...and Novak, that the access to the property has to be a little bit easterly as the driveway is shown, redrawn, to make it developable in any reasonable fashion. I only bring it up at this point in that Mr. Carrico has graciously offered to work with me to move the driveway and negotiate that but if this development should go through and the City should wind up with that frontland as parkland, I would just like to petition the Planning Commission now to know that to make my piece a viable piece for future development, if this MUSA line ever gets done and all the other considerations, that I would hope the park people would be sent a message, hey Hughes likes to, needs his driveway over. I'll buy it from them or buy an easement from them or whatever but I have to get it over approximately 100 feet east of where it is. The centerline to centerline. I realize that the Planning Commission doesn't tell the Park Commission what they have to do and so on but I'm just trying to share these with everybody and I wouldn't have your guys job for anything. e Carol Droegemueller: My name is Carol Droegemueller and I live in pheasant Hills. The property that was developed by Torn Klingelhutz. I've lived there for 4 years. I was one of the early residents there and just in the most recent discussion, I just have a couple of comments before I get to what I was here to say. Yes, this property is bordered by the MUSA line on two sides and two sides it is not so it's not surrounded by the MUSA line in my understanding of it. If it's bordered on the west and the north, then it is not bordered on the east and south so it's just half the Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 8 e borders. The first comment or what I came here to say is that our area, Pheasant Hills is planned to have as many as, I think it's 80 homes. We are completely park deficient in that development in terms of useable park space. We have some outlots that have water on them but in terms of a dry parkland, we have none. In my conversations with Lori Sietsema, the possibility that this property will be developed into parkland was looking fairly positive if the property values came close enough that negotiation was possible. Your recommendation to have this property approved on certain conditions. I would like to speak to the second condition and have that be almost be more of a priority that the park exists. That that be considered for parkland almost as a priority. I guess that's what I wanted to say. Then I just have a question. If this city approves this to go to the Metropolitan Council to change the MUSA line and then the MUSA line does not get changed because of that committee, than what legal ramifications are there for the Carricos who want to develop that? Does the City bear any legal responsibility for having first approved it and then not having it approved by the...? ElIson: It's approved with... Carol Droegemueller: With those conditions? Okay. e Carl Carrico: My name is Carl Carrico and it's very difficult for a loud mouth to keep his mouth shut but basically there's one point that I don't think the Planning Commission has been made aware of and that basically is, for ladk of a better name, Carrico Lane, hooking back in with Klingelhutz, we will be able to give the Fire Department a better circular service. Not only for our development but for Klingelhutz' development. In other words, there will be a loop route in there and I think that's very important. When we originally talked about developing this about 8 to 10 years ago, that was one of the significants points about this land. They wanted to make sure that we hooked into Klingelhutz' property. e Pat Johnson: My name is Pat Johnson. I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane which is across Lake Lucy Lane, immediately to the south of this project. I agree with Carol here. We've been down here at different meetings. I guess she has a lot of the people from pheasant Hills have been down here talking about parkland. I'm from Lake Lucy Highlands which is just across the street and we've been talking about parkland. We've got hundreds of kids in this area, many of whom, like my kids, are under 6. I see a couple of problems with the plan, although I just saw it tonight. Haven't had a chance to talk to the developer but the one problem I see is that it seems to me that the entryway to the development from Lake Lucy Lane, I believe it's part of Lake Lucy Road there but it's my understanding that would be Lake Lucy Lane, is fairly close to the intersection of Lake Lucy Lane and Lake Lucy Road which is a terrible intersection to begin with. A lot of us in Lake Lucy Highlands are upset because we have a requirement of at least 2 1/2 acre lots because we're not part of the service and Lake Lucy Road, although it has a speed limit of 30 mph, appears to be more like a freeway going through that area. It's a very wide road. A lot of trucks. A lot of traffic. Because we have children, we're quite concerned with that. It appears to me from the plan here that the entryway to Carrico lane would be fairly close to that intersection which Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 9 e is a blind intersection and a bad intersection. That would be my first. objection to it. The second thing is, Carol mentioned, as far as the service line goes, we're not a part of it. We're directly to the south of the proposed development so as I can see it, the service area is moving to the immediate north and west of this property. Finally we have again, the parkland area is a big concern to us. This particular piece of property is a fine piece of property because it's one of the few remaining that can be developed into parkland in our area of the size that I understand the park commission wants to develop a park and it's conveniently located. Therefore, I think that what's been proposed in our area anyway, would oppose the granting of the plans to go ahead with this project at least without some sort of further information being provided to the public, especially the adjoining landowner. Thanks. e Frank Cardarelle: I have some answers. The road, Carrico Lane is 150 feet, at least 150 feet west of Lake Lucy Road and the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane. That was the recommendation. We can move it further. I think if you'll note on here, it's colored so it's a little easier to see, it is 150 feet giving 10 cars, or approximately a 10 car back-up from there to the intersection. Also, we have held out the 4.42 acres for park if they can get together at this time. If not, it will be developed in the future. And again, like I say, it's a moot point if they do get together and purchase it for park but on the other hand, something has to be done. The developer wants to use the property and again we have met with Metropolitan Planning Commission. We are trying to follow the proper procedure to go ahead and do this and that's why we're here. Pat Johnson: Let me say, we're not picking on you. You just happen to be the last one that's developable out of that area. The problem is a lot of developers, and I understand the action of the City, the City's problem where a lot of developers had set aside this land and for various reasons the City has decided we'll let you do this and this instead of giving us a big hunk of land. As a result, we've got a lot of people, a lot of kids with no park. Conrad: Larry, normally there's an engineering report attached to something like this. A subdivision. There's nothing here. Have you evaluated this? Brown: My report is. We did evaluate that intersection. We did a mini- analysis for pheasant Hill and it does meet the required spacing so a car can cue up to safely turn onto Lake Lucy Road without creating a problem. e Carol Droegemueller: I forgot to mention also that all of the property owners in our area had contributed to a park fund, a city park fund, and the general fund. Not necessarily that it comes right back to that neighborhood immediately but kind of gets spent as needs present themselves. We hav~ contributed to that fund and yet we have yet to even have a totlot area or anything out there. There's been a lot of park development in Chanhassen but we haven't seen it yet and I guess I'd like to go for broke. I'd like to see the whole piece of property used for park rather than the 4.4 that's remaining in the wetland area or the Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 10 e larger area there simply because once it's gone, it's gone and you can't retreive it. Pat Johnson: If I can add real quick. The problem is, a lot of these small acreages set aside, which I guess is private parkland, are wetland and you can't use it for a park for kids. What we want is something that we can play ball in... Doris Mielke: I'm Doris Mielke and we live at 1645 Lake Lucy Road right across the street from that and I certainly want to go on record too. We've lived there some 27 years and we really do need a park in that area now. There just are a lot of kids and if Chanhassen needs a park anyplace, it's in that area. e Jim Mielke: I'm Jim Mielke, I live at the same address, 1645 Lake Lucy Road. Lived there for 25 years. Anyway, what I hear from between the Klingelhutz property and the Curry Farm, there's 8 property owners including Mr. Hughes and Mr. Carrico's property. What I hear tonight, if you make allowances for this property, Mr. Hughes is the next one in. Then the next one down the line is going to be coming in making the same pitch to you and just like a bunch of dominoes falling in series, that whole row is going to go down from what we have and what we're faced with on the south side of the road. A very nice, suburban area with large lots. My acre is only 2 acres. Not near as large as some of the other lots being developed but you're going to change the whole character of that neighborhood on the north side of the road plus you're going to end up with high density all the way along there with still no playground for these kids. The kids are going to be running their trikes up and down this road where the traffic is now way beyond 30 mph. I think you as a Planning Commission have a chance to hold the line here and live with the Comprehensive Plan and put the parks in the place where you promised these people to put them. I think this is the best thing you could do for this property. So thanks. Frank Cardarelle: I have one comment I guess I'd like to make. This one, my understanding Larry is that the MUSA line is on the westerly side of our property and the Hughes' property. Is that correct? It goes along the north boundary of their property and our property, comes down approximately on our east so it does, just except this small piece out of it. As I understand, all the rest of the property, all the way to the Curry property is all within the MUSA line. It's just this little piece north of the road. That's my understanding. Now if I'm wrong, I'd like to have Larry correct it at this time so we know what piece we are talking about is in the MUSA line. Conrad: We don't have an overlay of the MUSA line right now. Something new that we haven't heard? e Dave Hughes: I listened to the dialogue about parks before when Klingelhutz, when they were making their proposal to you people and to the City Council on that development. There has always been a concern for that and there still is a concern for that. If there's going to be something done, I would like to solicit the Planning Commission to get Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 11 e ahold of the undeveloped. There are several excellent pieces along the north side of Lake Lucy Road. Phil Mathiowetz has a nice piece. that's high and would lend itself for ball diamonds, tennis courts and other things. A big piece of property on the north side. I would solicit you people to go and talk to him and make a proposal to him and try to buy it. You're talking about, you would have to buy the north side of that property because the south side is mostly lowland. If the park takes it, it will make a wonderful pond but it isn't going to lend itself for ball fields and tennis courts and other things because there just isn't any flat, high enough area to do it that isn't flooded any season that happens to be raining out. Last season it wasn't. So, I agree. Parks are needed and that was recognized before. I don't think there was adequate park provisions in Klingelhutz' development to begin with but that's a personal opinion. I'd like to see our commission, or whoever the people are in our city, go to these property owners before they come along and want to develop it and then hold them ransom for a park. Maybe we should get that done before it gets to this stage. If that is possible in the process. I don't know the process but it would seem logical. e Carol Droegemueller: I'm Carol Droegemueller of Pheasant Hills and in response to that question about whether this lowland is going to be suitable for a park. In my conversations with Lori Sietsema, she said this property, from what she knows of it and they looked at it for quite some time, is that it really lends itself very well for parkland. It's the kind of wetland that it's dry most of the time and would require very little changes to convert it to ball diamonds and tennis courts, a basketball courts or whatever. Whatever they planned to do with it and that it would be a good park and not a wetland. Dave Hughes: We've lived there for 15 years and I'd invite her to come on over any season of normal rainfall. You'll be wading in water three- quarters of that property. It stands in water. It's a Class A wetland. Mrs. Palmer: I've lived there for 40 years and it's always wet. Conrad: I think that we hear the signal that there's a need for a park. Carol Droegemueller: Is there somebody from the Park tonight? Conrad: Not tonight. We have a report from them and I think we understand that there's a need. I think the City's responsibility is to decide where that park goes and I think you made your point real clearly. We've got to decide how much park. What kind of park and specifically where it goes. Are there other different comments? Anything else that hasn't been said? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. e Headla: Larry, what's the rationale for when we consider this when the Baptist Church wasn't considered at all for the Interceptor? I've never a better rationale than the Baptist Church being able to tap into that line. Why should there be a difference between there and this? Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 12 e Brown: Right now we know that sanitary sewer exists within a very close proximity and again, I hate to beat a dead horse but this property can be served very easily and it's within close proximity. As far as the church, I don't have any information to tell you whether sanitary sewer service is in fact within this distance. To say whether it would be amended. Obviously we're in a situation here where the Met Council has looked at the property and said, okay we're going to give a little and it's like anything else, a lot of it may be first come, first serve. Headla: We open this, I think we're opening a bunch of other things. I personally feel I don't want to touch this thing. I'd like to see, if we're going to do it, if it makes sense, I think there are other people that probably should be involved. If our people, our staff looks at it and after looking at that whole area you come back and say this particular part is reasonable, then I'd look at it but until I see that in writing from our staff, I don't think we should consider it. e Wildermuth: The argument for park area is very compelling but I think that's an issue that the Park and Rec Board and the City Council have to take up. From a planning standpoint, I'd like to see a MUSA line study of the area and I'd like to see what other areas should be included or could be included rather than just look at this one small 11 acre parcel. One thJng bothers me Larry. In reading your report, you say the proposed 50 foot right-of-way maintains a design speed of approximately 15 mph through the 90 degree bend adajacent to Lot 5, Block 1. The design criteria does not meet the city standard for an urban roadway but yet we really haven't raised the issue there. That suggests to me that the plan could be improved and probably should be improved before anything is done with it. Before we could even think about going forward with it. The other thing, the third point that I have is that the wetlands are impacted by that road. Paul Burke from Fish and Wildlife seemed to be pretty concerned about any fill that was going to be required. I guess when I look at all of that and I put it all together, I don't think we're in a position to make any kind of a recommendation on this proposal. Batzli: I agree with everything Jim said except for the caveat that I don't know that it's not part of our function to take a look at where parks go and we've talked about that before. But I would like to add that I don't think in this case we really looked, or an additional comment really is, I don't think that we've looked at why we're really trying to rezone this. I don't know really what the kind of lot densities are on the other sides. Why we're doing it. What is the rationale? The only rationale I heard to look at rezoning this was that the applicant said something like it's the next logical development. There's a lot of areas in the city that might be next logical developments but I haven't seen any kind of factual findings or looking at why we should amend the comprehensive plan in this particular parcel to RSF from it's RR and what impact that may have on the adjacent landowners. So I'm totally against looking at this right now. - ElIson: I voice the same concerns. I think one of the reasons we have a Comprehensive Plan is you sit down and you do a long range plan before people all get up in arms and personal about it. I know that if I were Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 13 e the Hughes' I would thinking down the road a piece and if I were the Mielkes and Johnsons and Millers, I'd want a park in my neighborhood and one of the reasons we write this plan out is so that we get a clear picture before all the personal personalities and opinions get involved and everything. I agree with Brian. They want it rezoned simply so that they can get this many more on here. I think the zoning we picked for the comprehensive plan should still be the zoning it should be. Again, our comprehensive plan said that we're poor in a park in this area and I feel that that's what it should be. I don't necessarily want to see a MUSA line study or anything else. I think we should go with what we planned. I don't really see a good reason to rezone this based on one person. We had that in place a long time and we made other people follow it. Emmings: I guess I've got a little different outlook on this than I've heard so far. I've got some specific questions first. The road that, as it comes down toward Lake Lucy Lane, on the drawing that I have, it actually goes over into that excepted area but I see on the new drawings it's been moved over to the west. But is this property owned by someone else? Hanson: Yes. e Emmings: Can they build their road right up to that? their road right up to that boundary? How can they build Hanson: They can go up to the property as long as they stay within their own. The road right-of-way. Emmings: They can have their road rLght up to the property line with no setback requirement of any kind? Hanson: Not for the placement of the right-of-way. Emmings: That seems to me to be something we better look at. a 11 owed . . . If that's Conrad: The right-of-way can go up to the property line. Not the road, the right-of-way could. They couldn't put the right-of-way on the neighboring property. e Emmings: But where are they going to build it within the right-of-way? It sounds like essentially they can build right up to the property. If our ordinance allows that now, I think we ought to take a look at that. The road design, having that right angle in there, I guess, as Jim pointed out, that's not too... My view of this is, we've got residential development to the north. This area is going to be.developed. I thought this was a very peculiar request. I think I understand it somewhat better now that it's being explained during this catch 22 situation but it almost seems like we're being asked to give an advisory opinion. What would we do if and I don't like to be faced with that. I also don't like the fact that the rezoning is separated from the site plan and everything else. It ought to be looked at as a package but it seems like it can't be because Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 14 e e the Mei Council has indicated that they won't act until we do something first. I'm not really opposed to approving this plan to let them see if the Met Council will include it within the MUSA because I think that's kind of an interesting test to be able to send up anyway. I think that's a place that we're headed in the future and we've got a person here who owns land and has a right to attempt to develop it if they want to. I'm concerned with, what if this comes back from Met Council and they say yes we'll include it and we decide not to rezone the property? I don't like being in that situation because I'm afraid we'll hear from the developer, well, we relied on the fact that you approved the site plan and let us go onto the Metropolitan Council and now we come back for the rezoning that you knew was coming and now you say you won't rezone us. I wouldn't want to hear that and I'm sure that we might if it came to that so all and all it's a very unusual proposal. Certainly unlike anything we've ever seen before. But like I said, I wouldn't mind approving the site plan because it does meet the criteria of the RSF zone which is what they'll be asking for. It does seem to be bordered by similar type of development to the north and we all know that's heading south because the process has been going on for some time. If it would be approved, and it doesn't sound like it will be, I would say that condition 1 ought to have, it says that approval is intended to indicate a willingness on the part of the City to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. I think there ought to be a second sentence in there that says approval should not be construed by the applicant as an agreement by the City to rezone or to amend the Comprehensive plan or anything else. I don't think we want to be put in that position. As far as, just the way these recommendations are written, in number 3 it says that all concerns in the attached referral be resolved prior to submittal of final plans. I think it's fine to include the referrals as conditions or the contents of the referrals as conditions but if you're going to do that, I think you ought to list them so everybody knows precisely what was attached. For example, you say the staff engineer's report dated December 29, 1988. Make a list of those right in here so that when they come back and say what do we have to comply with, there's absolutely no question about what has to be complied with. Then the other thing I'm confused about is on our agenda it says something about the wetland alteration permit but I don't see anything in our materials about that. There's a condition down here at the end that they have to submit a plan. Would this require a wetland alteration permit? Hanson: Yes it would. Emmings: But where is that or is that something that would come up later after they came back? Hanson: Initially it was going to be part of the request tonight and I did not put that on there, just keeping that out as a condition. Again the subdivision is what the Metro Council wants to see. e Emmings: So actually the condition 4 down there should say, the obtaining of a wetland alteration permit? Hanson: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 15 e Emmings: Alright. up the church. You the interceptor but flat no. I think the thing on the church too Dave. You brought know we all thought they ought to be able to tap into they went over to Met Council and Met Council just say Headla: I don't see any consistency. Emmings: But other than that, I don't really seem to have the strong reservations about this development that other people do. Parkland is obviously a very important item to this neighborhood. It's an issue that ought to be put, sounds like on a very high priority by the Park and Rec and by the City Council but I don't think we can impose it on this land owner who's coming here with a plan for development for his land unless you want to buy his land. That's it. e Erhart: Again, providing a little comfort on the Park and Rec issue. Whether or not this body should be involved in that. I don't know but we aren't but I might add that 4 of the 5 councilman are here tonight and I'm sure all of the comments that were said about parks and recs were taken in so I think the effort was well worth it. Regarding whether we ought to look at this. I think again, this demonstrates the error in attempting to control the growth of the Metropolitan Waste system by drawing an arbitrary line around the metropolitan area and jogging it around one person's land versus another. I think it underlines the unfairness, a central planning approach to the waste water growth that it imparts on landowners. Simply because one landowner happened to be in the right place one day and the next guy wasn't, one fellas land is worth 4 times the adjacent land. Other communities have for years used market forces to control the growth of their waste treatment system and I think it would be a far better system in this area to also use those systems. Whereas a very valuable piece of land could tap into the waste system and simply would have to pay the price and compete with the next land owner instead of basically someone making arbitrary decisions. I think I've stated my position on that before. I agree with Steve. I think if we would have simply proceeded with this we would have had this thing through the Planning Commission and back to staff and Mr. Carrico could have been onto the Met Council yet tonight. I think we ought to proceed to discuss the merits of the plan. Maybe when we're all done is that the City ought to discuss with Mr. Carrico, perhaps ask him to wait. In the first place I want to say I'm glad to hear Larry that we are doing a study on whether looking to see what the possibility of incorporating a land switch could be served by gravity flow into the existing sewer. I think it makes totally good sense. The fact is that we're doing that and what we should ask the developer here is to just wait until that's done and if we have an opportunity to take a bigger picture, take a broader view and go to Met Council and find out what the outcome of that is first. Obviously you're welcome to go over here. I would propose that you're welcome to go over there yourself but we might get more done if we work together on this thing with Larry and Steve and the Council. There's another question. I think Steve brings up a good point here too is that if we were to go ahead and evaluate the proposal tonight and submit a recommendation to the Council, possibly a recommendation, I think there is an issue then if we're using this as a test balloon. Do we want to come back and spot zone e ~ - Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 16 e it? I'm not too sure how we handle that. Steve and Ladd, you may want to give that a little thought. with those comments, I guess I'd like to proceed with some questions on the development. I'm assuming that we're going to go ahead and to take a vote on it. Conrad: If you have more questions, go ahead. Erhart: Yes, I have some questions specifically related to the development. One is the elbow in the street design. I don't understand that. It just seems extremely dangerous in that how does, if someone is proceeding southeast on the upper portion of it and another car is coming north, what happens at that circle? Are there two stop signs there or whatever? I think there are bigger issues to discuss but I think that's something that has to be resolved and I don't think we should try to resolve that right here. To me that's not acceptable unless I just don't understand the traffic flow. The second thing is, what is our, maybe you don't know Steve but help me or answer it later, again we have a series of lots on the northwest side where the frontages are 72, 73, 77 feet. Is our policy on curves to put the lot width at the setback as opposed to the street now? Hanson: Yes, at the setback is the way it goes. e Erhart: street? So it's not just cul-de-sacs? It's on the outside curve of any Hanson: Yes. Erhart: What is it, just quickly, not taking a lot of time, what is it that we're doing with the wetland? Is it simply putting in the road or is there more to it than that? Hanson: There's some modification to the wetland. The way that it exists now due to the road. It's been mentioned the concerns that Paul Burke had and he's had a concern about it but he's also said he doesn't have a major problem with that alteration. Erhart: Okay. We're going to see that wetland alteration? Hanson: What I have suggested is that if you want to go ahead with the subdivision and do the subdivision solely and give an okay on that and hold the alteration plan until such time... Erhart: Okay, that's specifically what I'd like to do. That's the last of my questions and I guess I'd like to see us proceed with a positive reaction on this. Either the City or the developer can go to Met Council. e Conrad: My quick comments. I have some problems with the design. Specifically the elbow and the street into the wetland and I think there are some things that, this just doesn't quite feel right in terms of the design. In terms of the procedure, in terms of going to Met Council, it seems kind of futile to me unless we had some good rationale in going there. It's like how many times do you want to go back unless you have a Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 17 e good case. And to let them go in with one case, unless we had some rationale by saying here we had a mistake. It really is an area that could be hooked up real easily and areas to the east and west are all okay and this is just a real unique situation. I don't see the rationale right now for going to Met Council. My preference is, and I don't mind sending up test balloons but I want to have a good case when we go there. Why waste staff time? Why waste the developer time when maybe we don't have a good case and I don't think we do. We've played with the MUSA line enough to know, unless staff is telling us they're more receptive to changing their response. I guess I'd prefer to see this item tabled and have staff tell us what they believe should be done to look at the MUSA line in general. Now Mark is working on the Comprehensive Plan with us. I think we have some other studies being done. I guess I'd just hate to take this out of context of a bigger picture and wasting a lot of energy. For sure if this goes, well than we have some other things that other people would want to include and it just really doesn't seem like good planning to me at all. I'm not even tempted to roll this one to City Council until somebody tells us that it makes sense to do it this way. And I think I'd like to have staff or City Council tell us it makes sense to do it that way. But right now I'm not comfortable at all sending it forward. My preference is to table it until Mark has a Comprehensive plan done that says the MUSA line should be moved and here are the places where it should be moved in. I just have no interest in going or allowing somebody to go to Met Council with 10 acres or 11 acres of property. I'd like to go with a bigger picture than that. That's my feeling. e Emmings: Can I ask you a question. It's my understand that what could be happening here is that the applicant will be going to the Met Council. The only thing he'd be bearing from the City is the fact that we had given approval to the preliminary plat. The City isn't going to say, we think they should be included. We're just saying that if... Conrad: It's implied that we think it should be. If we let it develop in small lots, it is implied that the MUSA line should be changed. It's implied that the zoning should be changed and we totally agree with the developer. That's implied. In my mind it is. I don't know. We haven't looked at zoning in this case. Again, we're saying this is the right zone. We haven't looked at the zoning yet. Emmings: No we haven't said that. Conrad: Well, if you allow 15,000 square foot lot sizes, you have insinuated to the developer what you want on this land. Emmings: That's your view. way. I don't think you have to look at it that Conrad: The developer will look at it that way. want to send. It's what signals you e Emmings: If he gets our approval on the preliminary plat and if he's approved by Met Council, than he has to ask us to rezone and amend our Comprehensive Plan, neither of which we might do. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 18 e Conrad: I think that's unfair to them. Emmings: But that's what he's asking for and if he's asking for that, why should you say it's unfair to him? e Conrad: I don't want to send a signal that says I want to rezone and I want this particular design right now. I also need a signal coming from Park and Rec telling me what they thing where a park should be and if this is parkland, I feel uncomfortable saying that we want a development there when we have a feeling that there might be a need for a park. There's a lot of loose ends that I'm not comfortable with right now and therefore, and I really want staff coming back and saying, there is rationale going on a piecemeal basis to go after the Met Council and see if, use this as a test balloon. I don't believe that staff will come back and say it to us that way and I think with Mark's input, we may do a different approach. It's one of the biggest issues that our new mayor and city council are going to deal with is development of Chanhassen and how much. How much do we want to deal with the Met Council and where does that MUSA line go. But that's my personal opinion. I just don't want to deal with it this way. There are other ways of dealing with it and sending it over there. Those are ways of doing it. They're not my ways of doing it. Basically, we have a lot of alternatives. Approving it. Approving it with some recommendations. Tabling it. Turning it down and sending it along to City Council. Tabling it doesn't get it to City Council. Turning it down or saying something positive about it, recommending approval of it gets it to City Council for their comments. Your choices in making a motion can consider those alternatives and I'll accept a motion right now. Headla: Let me make a motion on that but let me give some rationale on it. I don't object to the property being developed but I think we have to have a plan. What's going to be the impact with the MUSA line? The parkland and the adjoining properties all along that line. I'd recommend, I'd make a motion that we table this. I'd like to see the staff do a study on the gravity flow. What's the impact if we do go, bring that within the MUSA line and what's going to be the impact and requirements for parkland? I think this one gentleman, and I don't know who it was now, brought up a very good point. If we expand the MUSA line there, we're going to put in a lot more properties. A lot more kids. A lot more people. What's going to be the impact to that area? Wildermuth: I second the motion. Conrad: Was that a motion? e Headla: I started with the rationale and then I made the motion. 1111 make a motion that we table this proposal for the time being and have the staff do a study on the impact if we increase the MUSA line and that based on the study Larry mentioned, the gravity flow. What's going to be the impact on requirements for parkland. There's a third point. The gravity sewer and parkland. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 19 e Ellson: And density were you saying? Headla: Well then the density goes into that. I guess maybe those two points brought it together. Erhart: If we table it, what is the time limit? Is there a time limit on tabling a proposal or what's the procedure for that? Conrad: Let's ask Steve. What type of time? We're basically saying, tell us more. We need some legal opinions. We need staff telling us what procedurally the right way to look at more areas. Specifically right next to this. I think what we're looking for is some staff advice. Not necessarily on this parcel but in parcels in general in this area and a program as to what we're going to do. Some of that's going to do in the future for all of Chanhassen. This gets into City Council stuff so it's kind of tough but what type of timeframe would you see that coming back to . ? us In. e Hanson: Larry has a question but one thing I would see as, the way that you talked about it, it opens up in a lot of respects Pandora's Box. As far as how far you take that evaluation of what you want to include within the MUSA line. Obviously if there's no parameters on it, what's not within the MUSA line right now but I think my understanding of what you're talking about is those areas that would logically be called infield lines. Jay was kind enough to go grab a copy of the overhead of the plan with the MUSA line on it and the property that we're talking about. The Carrico property is sitting right here. It runs from there, this is the Hughes property right here. I would assume that you're talking about, for example this whole area and whether you want to include other areas in that, I don't know. Conrad: Okay, should we limit what we're asking staff to do as specifically to that area north? Ellson: If you're doing a MUSA line study, is it fair to just do it for their neighborhood because like he says, that Baptist Church would want it? I think that we should send it onto the Council with one or the other. Conrad: A yea or nay versus a table? Ell son: Right. Headla: However, when you look at it, they've already made the point it's easily accessible, that particular area and I think that's got to be criteria on expanding any MUSA line. Is it easily accessible? If you're going to run 1,000 feet, I don't think that's necessarily easily accessible. e Conrad: Can you get back in 2 weeks to us a recommendation as to how to handle this specific group of parcels north of Lake Lucy Road? Brown: Obviously with the contracts that we've been mentioning and with Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 20 e all the other constraints that go with it, obviously Met Council has in the past said, if you give us this area, we need to swap another area. That's precisely what we're looking at through that Comprehensive Plan. Trying to take in all the constraints, and there are many of them that may not have been mentioned this evening. For us to take a look at this one area, I think we're putting the blinders on. We're duplicating work that this study is already in the works. I guess what I'm trying to get across is if you recommend tabling it until you can get some valid information on the MUSA, I'm afraid the only thing that's really going to give you a fair answer is the Comprehensive Plan which isn't due to be completed for a couple months. Headla: That was my third point. Would we be an organized manner? Look, this is our plan. doesn't make sense and there may be just that makes sense but at least we gave it thought. going to the Met Council in This makes sense. This little nitch in there that It isn't helter skelter. Batzli: legwork, the MUSA rezoning I guess from the standpoint of if we're asking staff to do some I'd also like to see them look at that. If we're going to extend line to that area or look at it, we should also be looking at that entire area rather than this one parcel. e Conrad: Based on what Larry is saying, we're not going to get to the bottom line for a couple of months. Staff may not have a fair evaluation for a couple of months. In that light, we literally, we may want to vote it yea or nay and get it to City Council so that they could add their two cents to the issue. Wildermuth: Maybe the way to address the MUSA line issue is to put it in the Comprehensive Plan. Erhart: Ladd, can I ask the developer what he prefers to do? Conrad: I don't know. Erhart: He may be willing to wait until the study is done. Conrad: You would like a reaction wouldn't you? I guess, do you have a timeframe? Would you like us to do some studying? It may take a couple of months. e Carl Carrico: I can understand your problem because I've heard all of you discuss it. But, basically I think you still have my under control if I go to the Met Council and see if I can do it. If it's necessary to wait for the Comprehensive Plan, I guess it's certainly going to delay my plans for development but I'm here to cooperate. I'm not here to, I have 4 children of my own and I like parks too but they like to eat too. I don't think it's your purpose and I'm sure you've consider, delaying this decision is going to hurt me but I'm willing to take it on, withdraw my request until the Comprehensive Plan is completed. I would prefer to be able to go to the Metropolitan Council and see if I can get it done. I don't think it's going to hurt anybody. When I come back, you still have to approve my plan anyway. I understand that you don't normally do it Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 21 e this way but I'm going to have to do it anyway. It's not the City who's going to have to do it. Mr. Cardarelle and I are going to have to go Metropolitan Council and see if we can get it done. If we can't get it done, then whether you approved it or not isn't going to make any difference. Conrad: You'd like us to react to it tonight then? Basically you'd like us to react to it tonight so you can take it up? We've got 5 or 6 more items on the agenda tonight so we've got to get this going somehow. I'm just going to take your comments to say, react to it tonight. Don't table it. You don't want to withdraw it. Carl Carrico: If you want to table it, I'm not here to make... I'm not going to make the decision for you. I've lived in Chanhassen. I've developed a lot of property in Chanhassen and I like Chanhassen. Probably a long time before most of you were here so I really believe in this town and I want the best thing for the town too. I've owned the property since 1972 so it's not a quick suede shoe operation. e Wildermuth: I could really get behind the idea of taking it to the Met Council if the proposal was a good solid proposal. If the road issue was taken care of and if the wetland issue was taken care of and if we took a look at a little larger picture as far as the rezoning. The implied rezoning is concerned. I guess that would be why I would want us to table it for the moment. Have it come back. Rework the road. Let staff look at the zoning issue for the general area up there. Than I could feel a lot better about supporting the proposal. It's kind of like, I'm going to compromise my principle to support a philosophy or are you going to compromise your philosophy to support a principle? Conrad: Are you in favor of tabling it for a short period of time? Emmings: No. Conrad: Do you feel comfortable with the design as presented? Emmi ngs: No. Conrad: You don't? e Emmings: I have reservations about the road plan. I think that left hand turn in there is a bad thing unless somebody can convince me otherwise but I don't have problems with the rest of it. I also don't like the road coming against that other piece of property. But I don't think it ought to be tabled. Usually we don't have this much dissention here. Usually we find a consensus. That's suggests to me that this is an important and doubtful issue and I think the thing to do is to let the Council give us some direction here by sending it up to them. If they reject it, we're going to know the next time one of these comes along, what the approach is going to be. Otherwise, as long as it's very, very clear that we may want to look at some other things on the site plan and that by giving this preliminary plat approval we are guaranteeing them absolutely nothing or agreeing to absolutely nothing in terms of rezoning or amendments to the Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 22 e Comprehensive Plan, if they understand that, than I'm willing to pass it on so they can go see if the Met Council will buy their notion. Headla: I bet I can find the Council's opinion without it going to Council. I don't see where they're really going to add value and I think we're just wasting more time. Emmings: I'm not going to guess what they're going to do. I haven't even met them. Conrad: Dave, in terms of what you'd like to do. Given the fact that we may not want to keep this out there for months, would you be comfortable, when you table it, based on satisfying Jim's concerns in terms of the roadway, redesigning the site a little bit, the subdivision based on some concerns. The wetland. The road. Maybe the staff making some recommendations on the whole area back to us in terms of zoning and staff making, let's see is there anything else? And park. Maybe we get Park and Rec type of input in. Those four things. If those came back within a limited period of time, is that what you're looking for or are you looking for something broader than just this area when we table it? Headla: I think it's primarily that area. I want to see it a little more organized than what I see right now. We don't even know the impact of if we started letting small lots go in there. e Erhart: Are we voting on... Conrad: We're voting on tabling it. We're voting on the motion to table. Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Preliminary Plat for Carrico Addition #88-19. Conrad, Wildermuth, Headla and Batzli voted in favor of the motion. Emmings, ElIson and Erhart voted in opposition of the motion and the motion to table carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Conrad: The item will be tabled. Steve, timing wise, what do you think? Hanson: I think the one thing from what I feel I owe the Commission is to come back to you in two weeks with nothing less than a detail on the program on how to deal with the issue if you will. Also, an anlysis on... may go on for several months. If that's the case, I'd want to be able to advise you that that may be. If we're looking at a long term situation that may totally affect the way you want to deal with it. Headla: Will you give us the status on it then like before the meetings type of thing so it doesn't just slide and slide? e Hanson: Yes, what I'm suggesting is that I would come back at your next regular meeting and give you a staff report on what it would take to deal with it. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 23 e PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH WEST NURSERY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HWY 101, JUST SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 18, MARK VAN HOEF, APPLICANT: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER A CLASS A AND B WETLAND. Public Present: Name Address Mark Van Hoef Rick Dorsey Kevin and Valette Finger Applicant 9151 Great Plains Blvd. Mark Koegler presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Mark Van Hoef: I'd just like to add one thing to the report and that is in regard to the shade structure. The chronological timing which he's got in his report is all accurate and fine in correspondence to all the written correspondence that went on between the nursery and staff. What wasn't in there was the fact that in June, the first week of June when we realized there was obviously some damaging weather that would be occurring, we at that time contacted verbally Jo Ann Olsen trying to find out what procedure we had to pursue to get some type of shade structure up to protect some of our shade tolerant plant material. At that time, and this is again in early June, we were told that we had to have a blueprint. We had to have photos. We had to go to the Building Inspector and that process, when I came up to the City and started to go through that, I impressed upon her the timeframe that we're dealing with. We at that time sat down and discussed it. She thought there would be no problem. I still should submit the blueprints and a formal application but in discussing that with Jo Ann, her comment to me was that we had to adhere to a 50 foot setback. Now it wasn't for 2 weeks that she followed up with a written letter than said it's 100 foot and unfortunately, what's not in this report is that construction was before the first of July so when that letter came to our nursery, the structure was already up. The only thing that was not completed was the overall lathe and at that time when the inspecter came out he put a work stopage. Now I share that with you just so it doesn't look like we were told that we had to have 100 foot setback and we just went out and randomly put it up wherever we wanted. If you'll note, the report states that we are 68 feet back and so that would have adhered to the verbal 50 foot setback that we were told that we could pursue. The only other thing that I would state and as Mark's got in his report, you talk about any work that's going to be done on TH 101 and the fact that that 100 foot setback would provide an easier condition to have people come in and use a little more of the land. If you'll note on the plan, the house that we now are using as an office is closer to the road than the shade structure. So if we have to move the shade structure, e Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 24 e that's fine but keep in mind that the house is actually closer to the road than the shade structure is presently as it stands. I think those are the only comments I wanted to make. Rick Dorsey: I've got property on Lyman Blvd.. I just had a question as far as expansion of the growing yard. How big and what kind of traffic problems would be involved with trucks going in and out. e Mark Van Hoef: The only expansion that we're really going to do as noted on the site plan, is less than a 2 acre canned expansion. The majority of the listed areas that we were requested by staff, Jo Ann Olsen, was that there was a lot of area on the original site plan that we submitted in 1985 that we didn't feel that we were going to need for several years. Well we planted up to 15 acres. We're out of room in terms of any plantings so to do anymore expanding, I thought all we had to do was get the plow out and till up the land and start planting. She alerted me to the fact that anytime I went beyond what was noted on the original site plan, I was no longer in compliance with our original site plan and therefore no longer in compliance with the original conditional use permit. So what you see in front of you is the complete expansion that we would foresee us ever using. That was brought up by Mark that we also put in a proposed secondary road access because in the spring when we are shipping and receiving plant material, it's rather congested because we are using semi-trailers to bring plant material in and ship out plant material. That secondary road would definitely not be something we want to see happen right away but again, we were encouraged to put all our future considerations on the map. So in reference to the question at hand, the only physical expansion in terms of actual container area would be less than 2 acres. All the rest of the expansion would be in field operation. Conrad: Traffic? Mark Van Hoef: Taffic, if you go back to your 1985 notes on our receiving our conditional use permit, there was some discussion as to traffic. At that time we were talking about the possibility of doing any retail sales on the site. The feeling of the Planning Committee at that time was that due to additional traffic pressure that any retail sales would provide, they didn't want to see us doing any retail. So at that time we said we won't pursue any retail and the only traffic that we have is heavy traffic in the early spring because that's when all the harvesting and the receiving of the product is done. You have to understand the nursery industry is an industry such that we harvest only in the spring. So we're digging our tree. We're shipping our tree. We're dealing our trees in a 3 to 4 week period. From there on out, there is no semi traffic but rather contractor traffic that comes in and picks up material. So in reference to the traffic issue, I guess the majority of the traffic that we're looking at is early April to end of April to early May and then after that it's all customer traffic, which according to our expressed use permit, we have the right to bring our customers in and they're picking up their materials. e Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 25 e e Kevin Finger: My name is Kevin Finger. I live at 9151 Great Plains Blvd.. I think I live across the street across from that nursery but from what he just said, I don't know if I do or not. I'm sorry, the reason I'm coming up here is I came to the City Hall Thursday and Friday and this was not available so this is the first time I've been able to see it. I guess the thing, he keeps talking about harvesting trees and the only thing we ever see from across the road is semi truck loads full of trees coming in, dumping them off starting at about 7:00 in the morning and the Bobcats running all day long moving trees around until about 9:00-9:30 at night. Chanhassen is supposed to be a nice, quiet area. It's not there. I look back and what I saw when they received their conditional use permit, was that they were going to be mostly a tree growing nursery. They have 15 acres of trees. That's not a tree growing nursery. They broker trees. They move trees in. They move them out. They're all balled when they come in. They're all balled when they go out. Granted I know you do some but I know a lot of people who work for you and that's not the bulk of your business. I have a real problem about giving them more yard space. Right now they dump water onto our property on a steady rate. I've talked to them for the last 3 years to try to have them do something. Supposedly they changed their watering system. I still get the same runoff that goes underneath the culvert under TH 101. I've talked to City Engineering. Oh, they'll work on it. They haven't done a thing. Help. I need somebody to help me, a little citizen who's lost six 4 to 6 foot evergreen trees. Two 40 foot stretches of good raspberries. I know it's no big deal but it is to me and there's an area probably 200 square feet that I can't mow in front of the house because it's too wet and I've got about 12 to 14 inches of sand. Another thing, they've excavated the road and with all the trucks going over it, it's really nice. Every time there's a rain storm, we get about another 3 or 4 inches of bark and sand on our property. So before they're given another opportunity to expand their conditional use permit, I think the two things should be looked at that was given on their first permit and that is, number one, the number one thing that was mentioned by the Planning Commission was, would they hurt any of their neighboring properties. And it was absolutely, they would not. Well, I've talked to them for 2, it's actually 2 1/2 years because 3 years would be right now. About 2 1/2 years and they haven't done anything. They haven't talked to me and now they want to expand their yard. Trust us all, we may never do it. We're going to give them 21/2 more acres of pots. Where do you think they get them? Do you think they grow them? No, they bring them in by trucks every spring starting about May 1st. So I am opposed to it. I hope you got my letter. I dropped it off. I guess you're to represent us, the small people, that don't have the big nursery that comes in with their big plan and all that stuff. The small people can't get it until you come to the Planning Commission meeting. I don't understand why it wasn't available here but that irritated me quite a bit. I wasn't even aware of the first two things. I came in and asked what it was about and I was told that it was about the shade. I wasn't told anything about the wetlands or about the increased yard so I'm very upset and I think something should be done to help me. Thank you. e Mark Van Hoef: Can I respond? Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - page 26 e Conrad: Sure. e Mark Van Hoef: I guess what he's saying, he's got three problems. The major one, and I read his letter, is with regards to the runoff. He's right, he has approached the nursery. However, what he hasn't told you is that the culvert which he wants us to divert is not our property. And Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City Engineers come out and inspected the property and we were in full agreement that they wanted to divert any of the water that runs off of our property, they are more than welcome to do that. All they have to do is dig a culvert under our driveway, let it run down the roadway and fall into the ditch but that's not even our property. I really take exception to the fact that he is upset with our future expansion on an issue that we have no control over. If he wants us not to water our plant material, than we really can't stay in business. The other thing I take exception to is the fact that he's eluding to, we keep talking about a tree growing operation. When we approached the City Council, that's what we said the majority of our business was going to be. However, if you look at our application and the conditional use permit we received, it was as a commercial wholesale nursery and we are operating as a commercial wholesale nursery. We are operating by the explanation and definition that you have in your city ordinance and if someone takes exception to that, than I guess you're going to have to change the verbage in the city charter because we are operating under those guidelines. I guess the third issue is the problem with the container area and it's really not consistent with the fact that he doesn't like our runoff because if you'll note on the site plan, any expansion is in the rear of the property so any of the runoff on that expanded area would not reflect his property at all anyway. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Kevin Finger: I've got one rebuttal. The culver that goes under and he talks about it. Keep in mind that he's...and that was all grass on that hill so naturally the...would handle that without any problem. That's not the case. There's about 8 garden hoses going on that hill into the culvert. You guys, I can't get any help from the City Hall. Conrad: Other comments? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Just a quick comment. Mark, there's no wetland alteration permit in our packet. Is there a reason for that? Is there a wetland alteration? I went through mine again. Batzli: The form itself? - Conrad: Yes. And typically on that form we ask for justification for the applicant why. Emmings: Oh you mean the application permit? Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 27 e Conrad: Yes. The permit itself says what is it going to do. What's the harm. What's the benefit. What's the rationale and that's not here so it's tough for me to react. Normally we also get staff to react to that permit. Just for those of you who are here, we do try to preserve wetlands because they're a vanishing part of our country and what we ask the applicant to do when they want to build or build close, we ask them, is this going to improve the situation? Typically they can make it so it improves the wetland. We have structured that in Chanhassen so we don't necessarily get rid of the wetland but we allow developers to play with them sometimes and actually improve the drainage and improve the habitat for wildlife. In this I don't have very good feedback on anything, to tell you the truth. Mr. Burke's letter is real confusing and doesn't tell. It's in different terms than what I'm used to. I just have a personal problem with some of the data that's here in terms of the wetland alteration permit. It's not here. It's not in our packet and we do need that. That was just a quick aside. Tim, we'll start down at your end. Erhart: I assume we want to talk about all three things? Conrad: Everything, .yes. e Erhart: Regarding the expansion of the conditional use permit. What's the distance between the new driveway and the proposed driveway? Brown: Approximately 350 feet. Erhart: And what's the ordinance require on an arterial? Isn't it 1,200 feet? Brown: Right. If my memory serves me correctly, we need a quarter of a mile. Obviously TH 101 falls under the jurisdiction of MnDot and we would basically look for their recommendation. Erhart: Yes, except our ordinance has, a flat arterial, I think it's 1,200 feet. I think that's an issue. The argument, I might add, in driving by there in the spring there is a lot of trucks going in and occasionally some have backed in. If that can be at all avoided by adding a second driveway, there's a positive aspect to that although I think on this plan, I think there appears to be enough room for the turning around of all semis isn't there Mark? In your current plan here? So the backing in of trucks won't be required in the future? Okay. Regarding, let me jump ahead to the wetland. I'm a little confused about exactly what alterations we're making here with the wetland. Are we moving the lines that were drawn on here by the Fish and Wildlife fella Burke? These are the lines as they exist currently? They're not the line that differentiates a Class A wetland and Class B wetland? The edges are not changing? Correct? - Mark Koegler: That is correct. They are, if you look at the area of the Class B wetland, in the proposed shurb growing field. It says proposed shurb growing will be right on above there and there's a little notch there. In the middle of that it says... Do you see where I'm at? Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 28 e Erhart: Okay. Mark Koegler: That area, the coordinates come back and said, that area alone the applicant could deposit dredged material from the pond as long as it was level. That's the only area outside of the excavation of the pond that would be modified as a part of the wetland alteration. The Corps letter also references, and I haven't seen a copy but they did send along some typical section type data to enhance the wildlife value of the ponds that they're proposed to create as a part of their berm. Erhart: That's the 10:21 slope? Mark Koegler: Yes. Erhart: Going back to that again. Would you explain to us again that filling, is that filling in an existing Class B wetland? e Mark Koegler: The area that we're referencing is this portion right here. Here is the exhibit that came back from the Corps which they have indicated the hatched area A, which is referenced. They have a copy of the letter you have, .3 acre site that could be used to place fill material from the pond. They've come back and found that to be acceptable. The rest of the wetland, the Type A is totally undisturbed. The rest of the Type B is only disturbed insofar as the two ponds and the connecting ditch are constructed. Conrad: Doesn't our ordinance say that's not acceptable though? Depositing debris within 200 feet of a wetland. Mark Koegler: The ordinance does reference upland areas which was part of my original recommendation. And you can stick with that or you can agree with the Corps. Presumably the material that comes out of here can as easily be placed somewhere else on the site if that's your desire. I don't think that would be a big hurdle to anybody. But the Corps has come back and said, for the purposes of a nationwide permit, that's an acceptable place to deposit that material. Erhart: The reason I ask, I think our ordinance on wetlands is stronger than the Corps generally. I think in following our ordinance, I think the material would have to be deposited somewhere on existing highland areas just to follow in line with what we apply to other people in our following ordinance. The drainage ditch, there's a note here that says drainage ditch that goes between the easterly pond and the westerly pond. Does that mean that that ditch, the bottom of that ditch is lower than a Class A wetland? Mark Koegler: I would assume so, yes. There's no contour information shown there but the ditch obviously connotates a lower elevation. e Erhart: Is that a drainage ditch just between the two ponds or does that go along someplace else? Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 29 e Mark Koegler: It only goes between the two ponds as proposed. Presumably the applicant's intent, and I think he can speak to that, is to pick up on other things, some of the drainage that's coming off these irrigated fields and channel that to the ponds. Erhart: Is that right Mark? Essentially the drainage ditch is to drain the future tree growing field area into one or those two ponds? Mark Van Hoef: That whole field that you're looking at, at one time was farm. It was an alfalfa, in fact it's in your packet. The aerial photo. Barb Dacy, when she first presented to the committee, showed that as being farmed at one time. The only thing that we're talking about doing is stumps that were left on the outside perimeter of that field are still there. In removing them we're going to create some pockets anyway and we wanted to connect the two ponds with the ditch along that border. Erhart: I just want to make sure that that ditch is not intended or will inadvertently act to lower the water level in that Class A wetland. Mark Koegler: The indication from the Corps was that that would not occur and they specifically address that... e Erhart: I go back to my feeling of the growing of trees in the area. This is really an agricultural use and I have no problem with growing the trees. I do it on my farm so I don't have any problem with that. Currently there is no open water existing on this whole wetland is there except for that half...so what we're creating here is open water where no open water exists on several, maybe 30 or 40 acres of Class A marsh. Is that a correct summarization of what we're doing? Mark Koegler: My knowledge of open water is restricted to one visit... Erhart: And that's pretty much correct. Mark Koegler: There's no open water on the entire Class A or Class B wetland in that whole area. - Erhart: I personally worked with the DNR. I believe in an area as large as this where essentially it's grown over cattails and so forth, that opening up some areas for duck hatching is an improvement to the wetlands. I just think we should all concur that we don't want to see any fill of the deposits in the existing wetland. I would ask that we be assured that the deposits were put on the highland someplace so I would favorably respond to the creation of the ponds and so forth. One last, regarding the variance. I can see perhaps where there may have been some confusion about the 50 feet or 100 feet of TH 101. I think there's been confusion ever since I've lived here and been on the Planning Commission on what in fact the right-of-way is and what the plan is. I think a way to look at this problem and to get out of it without creating a lot of hardship on the owner is, I question the interpretation of the structure as permanent. I would question that. There's no walls. There's no roof and I suggest in reviewing that, that point of it, if future right-of-way was needed, it would be easy enough to move. I guess I'd be in favor of allowing it to --- Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 30 e stay but with the requirements that no addition was made to that particular structure and nothing was done to make it more permanent. That's my feeling on that. Lastly, I feel that there's not enough screening on the business, particularly as it grows further north. I would like to see Mark has put some very nice evergreens, of course he gets a good deal on them I think, over on the south side of the property and along the south and along TH 101 on the south end of the property. I'd like to see that same thing done on now the north end as they are building some permanent/temporary structures and so forth. Back in the old conditional use permit it says that the hill screens it. When I drive south on TH 101, it doesn't screen it for me and I don't think it screens it for others. It is a business. We require businesses in our industrial park to screen and the ordinance relating to these two wholesale nurseries is that we do require 100% opaque scre~ning from the highway I do believe. And I'd like to see additional screening between ,that proposed driveway up to the house. Not necessarily screen them from the house. With all that, I'll pass it to Steve. e Emmings: Starting with that storage issue, I guess under the conditional use permit, it says that the applicant has to comply with Section 2257 and 2257 speaks to screening. It says that all outdoor storage areas, this is on wholesale nurseries, all outdoor storage areas much be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming. I don't see this addressed in the staff report as to whether they're in compliance with that at this time or not but I see it's a condition. And as long as they're aware of that, that that condition is being included, I guess then after that it's just a matter of enforcement. Mr. Van Hoef said we should look up the definition of a wholesale nursery so I did. I think he might be surprised to find out that maybe what he's doing isn't within the definition. It says here that a wholesale nursery means an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site. That's it. As well as accessory items directly related to the care and maintenance of plants. I'm not sure that all the trucking in of, you know I was surprised frankly to find that. I thought that you would be right but that is what the definition is and I'm not sure that what you're doing there complies with that definition. I'm very concerned about the neighbors complaints. I guess I want to know from Larry why, if he's looked into this drainage problem and what, if anything can be done to resolve it so these people don't have. Water's bad enough but when you're getting sand and a lot of bark and debris with it, that's awful. What's the problem there? e Brown: I've been waiting to comment on this issue. I've been out and visited with Mr. Arlen Finger three times that I can recall. All three times, after visiting with him, seeing the problem, I went back over to the nursery and gave them notice that hey, you've got a problem over here. You need to take care of it. All my attempts to do so failed. My next route was to go to MnDot saying, hey you've got a problem with the culvert out here. It's clogged. please take care of it. MnDot did come out and clean the culvert at one time but they have failed to do so since. As the applicant did indicate, MnDot has jurisdiction over this. The other attack is, how do we resolve the problem? When this application came in, unfortunately the consultant was not aware of this problem nor did I place a review in here on this problem. What our intention was, and I was going Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 31 e to be adding this condition, or asking that this condition when the discussion was through, is that as a condition of the conditional use permit, that the applicant submit a revised grading and/or erosion control plan which solves this problem. I think through the creative use of berming or putting up some other type of vegetation or even using the silt fences that we have in place along some of the other developments, we may be able to rectify this situation. Emmings: Okay, so you think there is a solution out there? Brown: Yes I do. Emmings: Have they been cooperative? Have you suggested to them that they do certain things to fix this problem? Brown: We have asked them to take care of the damage that has occurred on the other side. Now obviously our powers, we're stretching our power there but we have asked them, yes. Emmings: But have you asked them to change. his operation in any specific ways to prevent the problem? - Brown: My last site visit out, I talked with the receptionist that was out there and informed her that we would expect to see some sort of immediate action to take care of the erosion problem, yes. Emmings: Okay, so there hasn't been any real specific things? Just a general? Brown: No, since this permit has been a long time in coming and we knew that it was coming in, we're going to attack it at that time. e Emmings: I guess for the property owner across the street too, he should know that the Section 2257 that he has to comply with also restricts hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. So again, there are provisions here that maybe will affect the operations of this and somewhat mitigate the problem that you've raised but these things don't enforce themselves. You should be aware of what they are and you'll have to try to get the City to enforce the ordinance complying with that. Enforcement is always a problem. with the added condition that Larry just mentioned, that the applicant submit a revised grading and erosion control plan to eliminate the consequences of all this runoff on the neighbor, as long as there's compliance with the rest of those conditions, I have no problem with the conditional use permit. As far as the wetland alteration permit goes, with the extra information that Mark gave them when Tim was making his comments, I don't really have any problem with the wetland alteration and I think we can do what Tim wanted to do simply by destroying condition 3 to what it was before. Mark just amended it in his comments. It previously read all excavated material shall be placed in an upland area. Mark amended that to say, or areas approved by the Corps. I think what we should do is just have it read, all excavated materials shall be placed in upland area in compliance with the Chanhassen ordinance. Otherwise, I have no other comments on the wetland but on the variance. I guess it Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 32 e would be my feeling that if Jo Ann recalls telling this gentleman that there was a 50 foot setback, I think we ought to ask her. If she recalls that she did that, I think it ought to stay there but with the conditions that Tim put on it. He shouldn't be made to move it. If on the other hand, Jo Ann told him 100 feet from the beginning and it wasn't built there, than I don't think a variance should be granted. Ellson: I too was concerned about the Finger family problems and the additional condition 4, revising grading and erosion control plan. I'm not quite sure, are we saying that we're going to approve or if it's going to eliminate the problem? It's going to reduce the problem? Or what's going to be considered acceptable? I think anybody who has a culvert in their yard is bound to get more water than someone who doesn't no matter where you live. Granted he's certainly got a lot more water across the street than most people but like Steve said, I think the bark and the sand have got to be the absolute worse part of it so even if it's something like that erosion. I'd like a little more specifics. To who's satisfaction is this plan going to be? Our City Engineer's? Is that basically it? Brown: That would be my intention, yes. - Ellson: Well, I'll trust you Larry. If it went for the Finger's satisfaction or Mark's or what have you, I'm not sure that we'd ever corne up with a satisfactory solution. So we'll go with a city employee. Than I guess I could see that. I agree with these two. I never even thought about the berming part of it, 2257 and they made a good point so I could see adding that in a little more detail maybe in condition 1. Instead of basically saying, we'll comply with the Section, make a point about the berming that we necessarily haven't seen in one. The other two, I don't know, I think Jo Ann is a lot like me. She has to have the actual facts in front of her and I've seen her do this with me when I've called her on things. Say one thing and then later corne back and tell me another so I don't believe it's not possible that she said 50 feet. I can believe it because that's the way I am too. I really hate granting variances but the point he made about the house is even further up than this screening deal. I would go along with Tim that we're not going to add to it. We're not going to...the possibility of taking it down but I can't see that this is that big a deal. I would probably let it go. Batzli: I like the submission of the erosion control plan. I think we may want to specify that one of the things it's intended to correct is the runoff to the gentleman's property across TH 101. The wetland alteration permit, I guess I would like to see a condition 7 stating that the applicant shall insure that the elevation of the proposed drainage channel will not adversely affect the Class A wetlands so that everybody's clear on what this thing is going to do. That we received his indication that it's not intended to adversely affect it but I guess I would prefer that that be a condition. I had a question for Mark. He's going to build a pond right against the Class A wetlands, according to our map here correct? e Mark Koegler: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 33 e Batzli: And you indicated that the typical 6 conditions that are normally in there would apply to that pond? Did you say that earlier? About the slope and all that other good stuff? Mark Koegler: I referenced the wanting to avoid the storm water runoff provisions that were a part of the wetland alteration permis would apply. Conrad: That's not it. Those are conditions from the DNR. Batzli: They are the u.s. Fish and wildlife Service conditions typically are included in ponding areas of this type. Are those include in here? Mark Koegler: I don't know that I had it. The item that I added with item 6 was a reference to the Corps' permit requirements. The Fish and Wildlife, essentially in this particular case, and Paul Burke specifically has essentially not commented, if you will in any level of detail other than to say that basically it's under the Corps' jurisdiction and he agrees with their findings and then offered to conduct the visual inspection which might tie in to some degree to item 7 prior to the time that the actual disturbance occurs. Stake the location where the drainage ditch in the field... - Batzli: I guess typically we look at whether a ponding area is going to kind of be a deep, open water pond, if you will or an enhancement to the wetlands in accordance with the U. S. Fish and wildlife Service's recommendations for a wetland type area. I guess what I'm hearing is that they apparently didn't really look at it for that. He just concluded that this was under the Corps' jurisdiction? Mark Koegler: Let me respond to that in a couple of ways. First of all a little elaboration. Connecting with the Fisheries people and the Corps' people and everybody else was very difficult with the holidays intervening inbetween so as a result unfortunately some of the material literally came into the City yesterday. If it's your desire, I would suggest as a part of the grading and erosion control plan that they submit, that they submit a section on the proposed pond construction in conformance to the Corps criteria that's been submitted along with this letter of December 29th. In that way, the City would have on file the intended construction packet for the pond. There is no elevation or section right now of the pond submitted with this plan of materials to the City so we're hoping to request that so that again Paul Burke has something to review in the field when he goes out there. Batzli: So you would actually put that in the conditional use permit, the fourth condition? That the grading and erosion control plan be submitted to the City Engineer? e Mark Koegler: I suppose more appropriately would be a number 8 in the wetland alteration permit that is part of that process that the applicant submit upon their application by the City a section of proposed pond which is consistent with the recommendations of the Corps which again relates to this maximum 5 feet depth, gently sloping sides, and so forth to produce Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 34 e the wildlife habitat that is desired. Erhart: That's a Fish and wildlife recommendation. Emmings: The ones that we're talking about up here right now are Fish and wildlife. Mark Koegler: They're pretty well in sync. Again, both of these agencies and both of these gentlemen we're involved in... Erhart: There's a regular handout, I've got a copy of it. I could swear it was the Fish and Wildlife. It is the item that he just mentioned. Mark Koegler: From my understanding, they are synonymous. Not the agencies but the recommendation. Batzli: I guess I'd like to see that added as a condition. One other thing, correct me if I'm wrong, do we often times not link the conditional use permit with the... Emmings: If we want to. Batzli: Well, do we want to? e Emmings: Yes. Batzli: But we haven't here? Emmings: It's number 5. Batzli: Did I miss that? Emmings: I wrote it down but I didn't say it. Batzli: Well, I would like to see that as a condition that we link the wetland alteration permit with compliance of the conditional use permit and basically vice versa. One other question for Mark and then I'm pass the torch here. My question is, how can they realistically build this pond without dredging in the Class A wetlands? Mark Koegler: The field conditions are pretty definitive when you're out there. There is a stand of willows that actually sits right on the edge of the A and the B so physically there is a very definitive reference in the field as to where they're at so it should be totally possible to construct totally within the Class B area and not disturb the Class A. Again, that's part of the rationale behind having a final verification of staking a pond outline. I see no reason why the applicant can't do that. e Batzli: Are they going to kill all the willows when they're digging the pond? Or is that a silly question? I'm sorry, I said I was just going to ask one more question. That was all I had. On the variance, I kind of like the idea of asking Jo Ann if she remembers telling him that before we would say one way or another. I think it was an emergency type situation Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 35 e and she did tell him where to build it and he did it, I think it's tough for us to at this time to tell him to tear it down. I think that's kind of silly. wildermuth: I'm wondering if this conditional use permit is fora nursery or whether it's for a contractor's yard. The operation doesn't seem to fit our ordinance's definition of a nursery very well as Steve wrote just a little earlier. I think one of the conditions for looking at the conditional use permit, there's got to be satisfaction of adjacent property owners. I understand Mark that we don't have all the information on the wetland alteration permit but reading Paul Burke's description of this thing, I get the impression that there was a lot of fill work done even before the application was made which is strictly in violation of the ordinance. e Mark Koegler: Again, it's my understanding and I apologize for probably none of us having a consensus of information here. With Jo Ann gone, we're doing the best we can. It's my understanding there was some material deposited on the edge of the, probably the tree edge in the Class B wetland which is primarily potting material. That's what I believe triggered one of the initial responses from Jo Ann that a wetland permit needed to be obtained and that the conditional use permit needed to be modified. There has been no more filling that I'm aware of nor have I seen any evidence of any since that time so I think you may be right. There was a minor amount of filling that did occur which triggered the response from City Hall initially, or one of the triggers. wildermuth: I understand what the applicant is trying to do here but I really get the feeling that he's doing pretty much what he wants to do and the ordinances really don't make an awful lot of difference. That seems to be the theme that runs down through the conditional use permit, the wetland alteration permit and then this variance issue. I am in agreement, if Jo Ann remembers that she did say 50 feet, fine. Other than that it just comes down to one individual's word against another. If it comes down to one individual's word against another regarding the variance, it doesn't meet the test. It's a self created hardship and it doesn't meet the test. That's all. e Headla: The Planning Commission magazines, the Planners or whatever. They had an article this last time. I'm not trying to impress you that I read it all the time. I started to read this one article and in that article it mentioned how decisions we make, how that can impact the time on the staff. We can give them a tremendous load or really give them a lot lighter load and let them do a good job on what they're after. They've got limited resources. You've only got so many people and indirectly we can control how much they are going to do. I started thinking about that and I've been turning it over in my mind and I've decided that I'm going to look at two things this year. I'm going to go at the reviews, two things. If somebody tells me there's a sense of urgency, I'm not going to listen to them. We got some of them tonight that they want things approved because there's a sense of urgency, they got it done and how many times I think all of us in business, one of the best ways to get something passed, if you want to get it rolling, wait Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 36 e e until it's about midnight and just ram it through. I see that type of thing going and I think we've got to really look at that type of thing. The other thing you want to look at is getting stuff that's incomplete. We okay it and then we expect the staff to have everything ready for the Council meeting. I don't think we should do that. What we approve should go unadulterated right to the Council, period. If they can't get it to us in time, that's not our problem. That's their problem. An example of this, and I want to save this page because I think Jim had some good points here, the applicant shall submit a new site plan drawing that accurately depicts the location of the shade tree structures and all other buildings and features. Why didn't we get a good, accurate drawing to begin with? In no way am I, and I may be alone but no way am I going to approve something going to the Council when it doesn't accurately depict it to us so what we look at is going to be different than what the Council gets. Give us the real story to begin with. I don't like it where you had a neighbor, you had a real problem with it, maybe you weren't given direct direction to get it corrected. You knew there was a problem and even tonight you pretty well said, well he didn't do this or he didn't do that. I don't see where you ever took corrective action and I just don't think that's right. I think you created the initial problem, I didn't see where you did anything to correct it. The lift trucks going for a long time. We really, and Lyman Lumber did a good job in trying to be cooperative. When a neighbor complained abou the noise, Lyman Lumber listened to it and they really tried to take corrective action. I hope you'll look at that in the same spirit. What can you do to reduce the noise to your neighbors? I think there's a lot of room in there to work on. I think steve did a good job tonight looking up the definitions of what really a wholesaler is and that may help to solve part of the problem. On the field investigater Paul Burke, at the bottom of the page. The last paragraph, halfway through where he talks about the recent shoreline enhancement project at this site, most if not all of the recently sodded area was a wetland with characteristics so on and so forth. Apparently he went and sodded the wetland. Now there's a common theme here. You're taking and you're taking. I guess I'm frustrated because you keep nitpicking. You potato chip us and we can't ever go in and stop one little thing but the theme is you keep taking and taking and that's it. e Conrad: Okay, thank you Dave. Quick comments. For allowing the expansion, this is really close to a contractor's yard in my opinion. It's not called that but it's real close. To allow expansion I'd really have to concern myself with the neighbor's concerns. The runoff. The noise plus things that we've identified. Filling the wetlands and I haven't seen evidence that the applicant has worked with the neighbors. Maybe he has and maybe he hasn't. It's tough typically to judge on that but the runoff, I think Larry's got a solution to it. The noise appears to be a problem. I wouldn't want to live across from something that, if it's true, that machines are running and that we're actually bringing in material. I wasn't aware that we allowed that here but I see a whole lot of problems. I wouldn't allow expansion until those problems are solved. If we want to build it into approval tonight to make sure those problems are solved. The wetland filling is kind of a concern to me and obviously a concern for the neighbor in the area. We do have to help him out or at Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 37 e e least make sure staff and the applicant are getting together to resolve these problems. In terms of the wetland alteration permit, a couple things. I really do need to see, for me to look at it, I need to see an application form saying this is what we're doing and why we're doing it and how we're going to benefit the wetland and I haven't seen that, which I said to begin with. Number two, putting a ditch in a wetland is contrary to anything that I've ever seen. A wetland is supposed to filter and the B wetland filters for the A wetland. Well, running a ditch through there doesn't do anything. It totally destroys the purpose of the wetland that we've got there. I'd really like to see Mr. Burke or somebody review what the applicant is intending to do. I'm not convinced that this has really been done. That Mr. Burke knows what has been said and then I'd like to see staff recommend to us what, in terms of our ordinance and what we say about a Class B, what the benefit of this is based on our ordinance and I haven't seen that done. So I have a real problem with the wetland issue right now. I think the ponding, Tim I agree with the ponding. That there's some benefit down there. That we're conformning to the standards. I haven't seen the benefit. Then again, a lot of it goes back to there's no permit, there's no request here and I don't know what the information is. It's incomplete. The variance. Again, I would have a tough time approving a variance until I'm convinced that the other issues have been solved. The runoff. The noise and all that kind of stuff. If Jo Ann said 50, that's again, geez, I don't know that I can go along with that but anyway. I have some real concerns on this and I think there are ways to solve this tonight to get it out of here and to put the burden on staff to work with the applicant to make sure but I think just having a nursery across the street from a residential area and the fact that there's water problems created by that nursery, has to be solved. It just has to be solved. Period. Before expansion is granted, period. In my mind. Anyway. I would sure entertain a motion. Emmings: What do you thing ought to be done? Conrad: I don't know. I'm not making the motion. Emmings: No, but what is your opinion about it? Conrad: This should not have been here tonight. Emmings: Yes, it's incomplete. e Conrad: It's real imcomplete and it's partial data and it's sort of, I hate to put people through this from the public but we're kind of running with new staff and a whole lot of other things and we haven't met for a while so part of that is just the fact that we're getting things back together again and I apologize for not having it all together but I really would not have wanted to see this tonight until all the information was in and the applications were correct and staff made some comments so I don't like it. I hate to say it but I'd get it out of here tabling it or doing something with it. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 38 e Emmings: How do you feel about the fact that a large portion of the business seems to be trucking in and trucking out? Conrad: I don't like that. That's not the intent of what a nursery is in my mind. It's a growing area but I don't know. This gentleman across the street said there's noise at 5:00 a.m.. I don't know if that's true or not but if there was a registered complaint where we would have it on record in City Hall, we should go back and search for those complaints. If the gentleman called into City Hall, we would have it on record that there was noise at 5:00 a.m.. If not, it's a problem. We can't prove anything but if that's there, we would have it. I think the runoff is, a grading plan is great for the runoff but again, I would have liked to have seen a grading plan before we sent it to City Council so it's here. We're saying let's get it out of here and let somebody else do it but basically it's kind of an incomplete case that we're looking at right now. So it's up to somebody, one of you who wants to make a motion and do something with this. Emmings: I think in light of the fact, does delay in passing this screw up your plans in anyway Mark? Is this something that has to be started right now or can get started a month from now? Does it makes any difference? e Mark Van Hoef: The ponding has to be dug in the winter. Emmings: So we're talking about until when? Mark Van Hoef: The first of March. I would like to add one thing. There is an application for a wetland alteration. I don't know where it is. Conrad: It's not here. Maybe you turned it in and we just don't have it. It may not be your problem but there's just a lot of little things. Somebody said 50 foot and we don't know if it's 50 or 100. There's not a permit here and then there's some filling of a Class A wetland a lot of little things like that that I'd like to get straighten out. Things that bother me. wildermuth: I recommend that we table this entire matter until staff has had an opportunity to look a conditional use permit in light of either a nursery or a contractor's yard. Also, has an opportunity to get the wetlands package together more completely and clarify questions regarding who said what on the variance issue. Hanson: And the grading plan? Wildermuth: And the grading plan. Emmings: All of the comments that we've made. e Headla: I'll second that. Emmings: I guess I think it's appropriate. I'm up to number 9 in conditions on the wetland alteration permit and there's an awful lot of Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 39 e them that are, this has to be done before it goes to Council and that has to be done before it goes to Councilor that staff has to be satisfied. I think since that one was so far out of whack, it seems to me maybe we ought to just table the whole thing and come back and do it allover again. Wildermuth moved, Headla seconded to table action for North West Nursery on a Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit for additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hanson: I guess the one thing I would ask is, in the motion you just made it was part of the direction that the applicant address the conditions that had been presented and discussed? Conrad: I think it would be real wise? Hanson: I guess the reason I'm asking is, essentially you're asking him to provide some additional information so we have those items to bring back? I guess the question is more directed at the applicant that he'll have those revised plans in. e Conrad: quickly? There's nothing that's really preventing us from reacting kind of It's not like our next 13 agendas are filled? Hanson: No. Conrad: We can react as soon as the information comes in and the applicant gets back with a few of those things? Hanson: Is it fair to say that we're planning that that information has to be in about a couple weeks before? Conrad: It really should be. Hanson: I just don't want to be in the position of them coming in and saying here it is the meeting day. Emmings: they've you can minute. That's always true. If they want us to act on something, than got to get the information to you with enough lead time so that get it to us in the packet so we're not getting sheets at the last Hanson: I assume part of this is a referral back to Paul Burke and some of the other agencies? e Conrad: So Mark would you come in probably tomorrow and rehash this with Steve so you kind of get a game plan of what we just said over the last hour and a half which is not easy to summarize. I think that's a pretty good starting point. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 40 e PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 1551 LYMAN BOULEVARD, GEORGE DORSEY. Public Present: George Dorsey, Applicant Rick Dorsey Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Rick Dorsey: I just have one comment. The question being the shrubs on the upland side. We will do that if necessary but introducing something to the area that's not natural, we question the need for it. Ellson: Is that under one of the six conditions? Conrad: No, it's just under the analysis portion. Dr. Rockwell is really quite a good expert that we have a lot of confidence in. Any other public comments. e Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: I went on that field trip with Dr. Rockwell and Jo Ann. She spoke very highly of what they're proposing and I don't remember any discussion of shrubs at all. That's all I have to say. I'm highly in favor of it. Wildermuth: It's refreshing to see somebody creating a wetland rather than trying to fill one in. Is that a topographical map Steve? Hanson: Yes, it is. Wildermuth: On the north side of the pond where we're proposing that the shrubline be put in. Hanson: Let me clarify one thing on the shrub line. The reason I put that in the memo is when you look at the six conditions of the Fish and Game, there's a reference in there. The shrub plantings around it. I have not been privy as to whether Dr. Rockwell may have suggested that as a condition or not so either include it as just one of the standard conditions that they normally have utlized for that improvement. e Wildermuth: What I'm wondering is what's the difference in elevation between the surface of the pond and where the proposed shrubline would be? Hanson: The top surface of the pond is, I believe it's 889 versus 890 up here. Very shallow. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 41 e Wildermuth: If we did persist in requiring that shrubline in there, it would essentially block the view of the pond from the... Rick Dorsey: They would also probably die. Wildermuth: What's your feeling on that Steve? Hanson: My feel on it is, I put it in there because it's listed in our standard conditions and that's why in the recommendation I said pending getting that written response from the Fish and Wildlife on what their recommendation on how to those six standards would be applied to this particular case. What the applicant is saying is what they recommend, I don't have a problem with that. I'm not asking for something more. wi Idermuth: I'm not ei ther. Batzli: I assume that, is this the plan that you received from the applicant that we're looking at here? Hanson: Yes. e Batzli: I guess I'd like to see, typically on a wetland alteration permit we reference the plan with what they're going to do and I'd like to see that included either in any proposal or recommendation that we want to put that you're recommending approval of the wetland permit based on plans that we've got in front of us. I don't have a good feel at all for whether they need shrubs or not to be quite honest with you. I don't recall that being one of the six conditions. I know I see them there but I never recall seeing that one before so it surprises me. I guess I would leave it to the experts in this being the Fish and Wildlife Service saying whether they think it's required in this. If the person visited the site and never mentioned it, I say we can leave that one off but I would like to see that what they're going to do here is what we see in front of us tonight. ElIson: I'm pretty much in agreement with all these guys. I'll go along with what the experts say but it seems to be like some of the other things. I wish we would have had it as of now. Maybe we should be giving people dates as to when they get all their ducks in a row or what have you but here we are again approving something without the other thing again, but I could do that. That's about it. ' Emmings: This is the first one of three that your application doesn't say a damn thing. Conrad: Steve, it's not the right one. up. I wasn't even going to bring that e Ernmings: I like the reasoning though. Required by the City. It looks to me from the six conditions that if there's going to be any shrubs at all, they're actually supposed to be right down by the edge of the water is what it sounds like. Not up the hill but again, I'll go along with Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 42 - everybody else in that. I think it's a reasonable approach to run the plan by Fish and Wildlife. If they're satisfied that it meets their conditions, that's certainly fine with me. Otherwise, it looks like a fine plan. Erhart: I think it's a great plan. I also think that placing shrubs down there is an expense that's unneeded because in that area, what's going to grow is going to grow and what's going to die is going to die. There's so much vegetation there that it would quickly reseed itself and that will take care of itself and go back to it's natural state. Conrad: Yes, I like the plan and I don't think we need the shrubs. Is there a motion? Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-16 based on the plans stamped received, I'd like staff to fill in when they were received, subject to the following conditions and then the 1 condition that's set forth by the staff. Emmings: Second. - Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-16 based on the plans stamped "Received December 12, 1988" and subject to the following condition: 1. Written approval of the alteration plan from the Fish and wildlife Service that the proposal conforms to their six conditions for ponds. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DREDGE SILT ACCUMULATION FROM AN EXISTING CHANNEL IN A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH OF THE LOTS FRONTING ON WASHTA BAY ROAD, MINNEWASHTA MANOR CHANNEL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: Name Address Harry Niemela 2901 Washta Bay Road Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. _ Conrad: Does it meet our ord inance? Hanson: As far as the disposal area? ", - Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 43 e Conrad: Yes. X number of feet away from wetland? Hanson: In all honestly I have not gone through and verified all that. e Harry Niemela: My name is Harry Niemela. I live at 2901 Washta Bay Road so I am one of the property owners along the dredging area or the shoreline. I might say steve that we should probably be corrected on this. The fact that we are not the Minnewashta Homeowners Association that made the application but I think that the application was put into you correctly. It's just that we stand to say that we're not the Association. We are just the shoreowners. We have submitted that applications of course through the normal channels with the DNR and we've had a positive indication from them that we'll get approval for the permit from the DNR. We also made application with Watershed and all the other agencies and so forth involving this process of getting a permit for it. Everybody has been favorable to this point. I understand too with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the City to this point. All the homeowners are quite in favor of it as a matter of fact because from an environmental impact at this point in time. This winter with the water level of the lake really low, we are creating at least an environmental impact on the lake itself plus with the disposal site that we have found and what we believe is an approved site, will be the closest with the least amount of liability of trucks going out onto TH 7 which was the only other alternative that we have. They are really basically running along the shoreline of the lake. Not really out on the lake but close to the shoreline which is really right on the shoreline you might say almost, to this disposal site and the disposal site, I believe Steve, I would estimate it to be about 400 feet on the lake and then they're going right up to the site so it's not a long ways away from it. So it's a very capable situation for us and it is very important for us to this this winter. Otherwise, if the lake does go up, we're talking another 2 1/2 to 3 feet of water that they'll be operating off to get the job done and that brings in a very escalating cost factor to the shoreowners along with the environmental impact that it might have too. So we do need to have a decision on it as we are of course hoping for an... We need to start the work in February. Herb: I have a comment. I'm Herb...at 2050 Chan View. I'm also a property owner on the lake too. One of the side benefits of this, besides our own useable...about 10 years from now. Within the last 4 or 5 years, you know the water level has been what we would consider normal at some periods. The fish spawning hasn't occurred because of the depth. Hopefully this is going to correct that situation too and make Minnewashta a much better fishing lake. ElIson moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. e Headla: I understand there's some illegal activity going on up there. It seems like there's tree removal going on at night. The beaver corne up out of the water and cut down the people's trees. No, I don't have a comment. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 44 e wildermuth: One thing that is kind of interesting though, no where do we talk about how much material we're going to move, either in cubic yards or in depth. Brown: On the grading plan it does state that 4130 cubic yards will be removed. Wildermuth: That's fine. Batzli: Larry, you talk in your report about erosion control. Has that been provided to you? Erosion contiol shall be revised to reflect the City standard. Brown: They have indicated the precise location of the erosion control. The plan certainly has not been amended to show the Type II erosion control. We realize that the applicant, with all the information that we required, was working under a tight timeline and we were as well so I would ask for that prior to commencing with any construction. Batzli: Should that be a condition, compliance go with your memo? Brown: Yes. e Batzli: The only other thing that I had was I'd like to see again, whoever makes the motion, that we're basing this on a plan stamped December 16th and December 29th, 1988. ElIson: I have no problem with it. I'm just interested, how does this thing work? I can't picture how they do this. Is there a quick way to explain it to me. I just can't picture how this thing works. Is there a little Bobcat that goes in there? A water proof Bobcat? I'm all for it. I certainly want better fish quality and things like that. 11m sure if I lived there that would drive me crazy so lId be more than happy to help you clean up your part of the lake. Emmings: I'm a little bit familiar with this but this is the means by which you all gain access to your property I take it. Are you having problems getting back there this year? Resident: We can't get our pontoon out there. Emmings: I know. I have a pontoon on the same lake so 11m very familiar with what youlre talking about. Right now, when I look at this plan and I see this finger of whatever, coming up here as Outlot A, that's all lily pads and so forth isnlt it? Resident: Cattails. e Emmings: Cattails? open water? Then the area where this thing is proposed is all Resident: It's supposed to be. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 45 e Resident: At one time. Resident: It will be when it's done, yes. Emmings: Okay, but what's growing in there now? Resident: Muck. Emmings: Is it just muck or is there cattails? Harry Niemela: It's open water at the normal water level. In a normal year it's open water. Emmings: Okay, and this year it's? Resident: Mud. Emmings: I agree with Brian's changes. I think since these people are proposing to dump on another person's land and they're asking us to approve that, that we should have a letter from that person. Resident: We've got it. e Emmings: I don't care if you've got it. I think the City ought to have it as part of the application so get it to the City so we've got it. I'd add that as a condition. I have nothing more. Resident: Mr. Boyer was here earlier but he couldn't wait. Erhart: I think it's fine. I guess just as a condition, sometimes these plans tend to get reinterpretted once you get going. You may want to add a condition that says that in doing this excavation that you can not increase the size of this channel. Hanson: Other than what's shown on the plan? Erhart: The temptation always comes in later. Gee, we can improve this a little bit by eating away here and sometimes the things aren't, those kinds of rules are not exactly reflected on the plan. Since really the plan defines what gets... Headla: What about page 2 Larry? Brown: Page 2 does give the precise cross sections that are proposed so if it came down to a question of whether they were doing additional work than proposed, we'd be able to check on it. Erhart: I'm talking about changing the route of the 50 feet channel and the cross sections don't show that. That's it Ladd. e Conrad: My only comment is that I believe that this whole set should conform to our ordinances too in terms of our wetland ordinance. Distance away and whatever. Is there a motion? Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 46 e Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-17 based on the plan stamped December 16, 1988 and the grading plan stamped December 29, 1988 and subject to the following conditions: 1. One is approval of the disposal plan by the Fish and wildlife Service. 2. Identification of the access road. 3. A letter from the owner of the property on which the spoils would be dumped. 4. Compliance with all of the provisions of the City Engineer's report. 5. Subject to a check by staff of the City ordinances to be sure that all of this is in compliance with those ordinances. All voted in favor and the motion carried. HERITAGE SQUARE APARTMENTS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO BE MET PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. e Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Tom Zumwalde: I have one brief comment. My name is Tom Zumwalde, the architect. We're in the process right now of putting construction drawings together on this project and should be completed by the end of the month. At that point we'll be submitting them for final approval. The owners asked us to prepare and have alternate for this project for face brick, if the budget allows it. What I would like to do, if possible, if we get approval on this...if he's able to add the brick to the building, that we don't have to come back through this process. It's unknown at this point whether or not there's going to be room in the budget for it but if there is, he would like to do it. Conrad: better. I would see no reason to come back to us to add brick. Brick is I would encourage that. Tom Zumwalde: That's all I had. Erhart: Sidewalks. Post lighting material. Are we continuing the theme of the downtown? Approving the sidewalk material in the design. We're designing the curbs. All the wooden posts stained gray I think it is. Is that theme being carried through this? We're asking how it will be tied into the clock tower? The sidewalk. Are we carrying the downtown theme into the landscaping and the sidewalks and so forth? e Tom Zumwalde: block. I'm assuming the sidewalks will be just a standard concrete Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 47 e Erhart: Do we have any special standards on our downtown sidewalks Brad? Brad Johnson: On this particular case, the actual site plan for this whole area except for...will be done by the City as a public improvement which we'll cover better I think maybe in the next discussion. Erhart: I was referring to this plan. We seem to have a theme in the City regarding the sidewalks and the little posts and all the signs and everything and I'm just wondering if we can carry that theme into this site. That's all. Brad Johnson: At somebody's expense. Erhart: Well, we always have the ability to ask up here. To my surprise, most times they go along. Brad Johnson: That hasn't come up at a meeting of any. Erhart: I'm just suggesting, my reaction is that I'd like to see us carry the theme of the city into this site plan. Whatever standards we apply to the sidewalks and lighting and posts and so forth. That's the only comment I have. e Brad Johnson: block? What you're saying is you'd like to see lighting along that Erhart: If that's what we're doing downtown, yes. Emmings: It says the walkway along the rear of the building will be lit with a 4 foot high, some kind of lights I've never seen the word before in my life. Erhart: Okay, if that's the case, than I'd like to see us use the same ones, the same designs that we're using downtown. Tom Zumwalde: Brad, I'm not sure if any of those 4 foot bollards have been used in the downtown area. Erhart: In the park? Brad Johnson: In Heritage Park there's some. Emmings: I don't have any other comments on it. ElIson: The only thing I had is the materials are similar but colors have not been specified. I doubt the would give us a shocking pink or something but do you want to mention color? It would be nice to do a color. That's probably minor but I can't let it go by without saying something. e Batzli: I don't know how I can top any of these comments so I don't have anymore. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 48 e wildermuth: As I look under the recommendations, I don't see anything about the height of the street lamps or the lamps in the parking lot so I've added a fifth item there. They should be 13 feet conforming with the other light standards. Headla: They hit them all. Conrad: I have nothing unless we trade our sidewalk for brick in the front of the building. No comments. Emmings: Can we explore what Jim asked about a little bit? When we're talking about the light standards outside, reducing them from 20, did that include the parking lot? Tom Zumwalde: That's what I was specifically referring to was the parking lot. Right now on the plan there's 3 of them within the parking area and then there's another one up towards the entrance where you drive in. Emmings: And those are the ones that you're talking about? Tom Zumwalde: Yes. Emmings: Okay. e Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the detailed submittal facis, signage, lighting and so on with the four conditions listed plus the fifth condition that the lighting height be altered to 13 feet. That's the parking lighting height I believe. And item 6, that we continue the sidewalk design, sidewalk lighting signage theme used in Heritage Park throughout the site. 2. 3. 4. e 5. 6. Ellson: I'll second it. Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the detailed submittal of facia, signage, lighting and sound proofing standards for Heritage Park Apartments #87-1 PUD based on the plans stamped "Received December 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Increase sign setback to be 10 feet from property line and 5 feet from the driveway. Lighting for sign shall be permanently directed only on the sign. A lighted walkway added to align with the clock tower. Applicant shall work with staff to minimize sound transmission between apartments. The outdoor lighting height shall be altered to 13 feet. Continue the sidewalk design, sidewalk lighting~ignage theme used in I Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 49 e downtown throughout this site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 21,600 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING-PHASE I, ARVID ELNESS ARCHITECTS, INC. Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Brown: Point of clarification. There was a clerical error on the tail end of my memorandum. What appears to be page 2 is an arbitrary page. I'm not sure where it came from. My memorandum ends at page 1. Conrad: Brad, do you have any reaction that you want to talk about here? e Brad Johnson: I think Tom's prepared to answer anything on this site. I'd like to point out that we've been having meetings with the City and we've collected some comments that in general are pretty much being addressed and I think that has to be clarified. I want you to remember too that this is a four phase project. One phase is very important to get going and that's the first phase. The next three would deal with an extension and that overhang and the possible expansion east... We have a concept here that we'd like you to have you accept for all four phases. Tom will be go through 'and bring you up to speed on what we're asking for. e Tom Zumwalde: This is an original drawing that you would always see. It is...specific information. Part of the reason for that is because it covers about 20 parcels of property here and we have very limited information in terms of who owned them. How big they were and a number of other things. Also, part of the problem was that the City and the City's consultant was going to be doing a municipal parking lot so our biggest concern initially was to try and find what the extent of our work would be in order to put this building together and how much would be done by the City and by BRW. We had a meeting, I believe in December with Steve and Jim Lasher of BRW. Before that meeting I prepared a site drawing on a little larger scale so we could see what we're talking about. I started to focus in on the two buildings. This is 78th Street down here. phase 1, the two story building. phase II, a one story building...and then the proposed phase IV over here. This being the clock tower and this is Heritage Park Apartments. On this drawing I had arbitrarily laid out parking. Again taking it a step further than perhaps I should have but I wanted to feel reasonably comfortable myself that the building and parking... and so forth. In our discussion that day, the way it ended up was that basically what we are looking at is the building and the building pad and that BRW would prepare all the documents for the parking lot, for the sidewalks surrounding the building, the landscape plan, the grading plan and the utilities. They would also be getting the surveys and so forth. Everything else that was required. Out of that meeting that day, one of the things we talked about is, as Steve had mentioned, is pushing the building back farther from 78th Street and also shifting it over to the east a little bit so that if the Lawn and Garden Center stays longer Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 50 e - than, construction of phase I could begin before the Lawn and Garden Center is decided... What I did was again, taking a look at that site and prepared an updated one which I unfortunately didn't get done in time to get out to everyone but I did give Steve a copy today. On there, again it reflects our meeting and the comments from that meeting. I shifted the building back from the property line such that the protrusions that you saw... The extensions on the front of the building are 10 feet from the front property line and I shifted the building to the east 10 feet such that the Sports and Lawn Center, whatever. Hanson's property, would be left intact and there wouldn't be any problem crossing the property line there in the construction of Phase I. I then just laid out the parking... I suggested on here some landscape. Again, wherever one of the extensions of the building occurs, typically here, here, here and here, that eliminates the parking spaces. A little better on here. It made no mention of tree species or bushes or anything else. That's something that BRW will be preparing and we'll be working with them on it. I had gotten a report today with staff comments and I guess I would question a couple of them. One is phase IV. After the building suggests, you can see on here that I think the buildings as they're laid out on here, start to move away a little bit from the clock tower and leave the mini-park area there that we had talked about I believe in December. One of the problems with not including the phase IV is that Dr. McCollum's clinic is going to be on the first floor of this building in this area. One of his requirements is that initially he talked about a 6,000 square foot expansion. He's looking at about a 3,000 square foot expansion now. If we are hemmed in here or can't do anything, it's going to create a problem for him. The other part of the building on this side would be the Waconia Hospital so the entire floor, first floor would be those two tenants. When and if Pauly's is no longer there and that property is picked up, if there were 3,000 square foot expansion from the Phase IV to the building, it could be done in such a way that it would occur back in this area and I think still maintain that community park around the clock tower so that building wouldn't be encroaching... I know if we cut up the access, with direct access to the clock tower in this direction but when you look at it, visually it's nice. You'll be able to see the clock tower from walking down this path but realistically, you're directing pedestrians to this point. This is perhaps the worse area of town to try and cross the street. So if you directed traffic to this point and then over this lot, the impact of crossing 78th Street... I guess what I'm saying there is, we're going to need a phase IV, a provision for a potential phase IV of about 2,000 square feet. The other thing that concerns me a little bit is the fire department comment on being able to get a truck through here. If we look at 14 feet of clear in there, it throws it really out of scale I think with the rest of the building. We'll get into that a little more. I put together some color elevations of the three phases. We'll start with phase 1. What we're looking at picking up on the building is again a combination of the wood lap siding, the cedar shakes and some brick. Part of the problem with our firm doing several buildings on top of each other is trying to keep each one individualized. It's tough. It's kind of like a balancing act. I think we've achieved a little different look with this... I mentioned a combination of materials. These are projections on the building. They would be brick masonary and we pick up some grill work in some of these areas. You're looking at a small...type window to break e Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 51 e e up the large glass surfaces and the potential perhaps for signage on these lighter colored bands. Now this building would have a limited number of tenants so signage would be fairly minimal. On the Phase I building, we're looking at a one story building very similar in character, the same materials but perhaps a greater number of tenants. Some dentists. Perhaps some attorneys. Doctor offices. Things like that with individual entrances so we give each one an opportunity to have his own signage above the door. Third phase, the connecting lane, would be again the same material. It's basically brick but relatively open on the inside and perhaps...construction something like that. This is intended to be a metal grillwork that will pick up the same character as the grillwork over here. Also the grillwork over in this area and along the railings and so forth. If we go to 14 feet in there, basically we would be eliminating that and creating a very large and very awkward type of opening. Part of the problem when it gets that large is that everyone can get through there. You've got the potential for a semis and other things to try and get through there. I think it would keep it down on a smaller scale...on the overall proportions of the building. Secondly it will avoid the problem of people trying to get through there that weren't intended to go through there. As far as the safety is concerned, the Fire Department is over here. I suppose somehow or another they probably could get through there. I guess my feeling is that it's probably okay in height... When you put all three phases together, you end up with about a 448 feet of building in phase III here which is a one story...and two story over here as Phase I. I guess what we're asking for tonight is approval so that we can proceed with construction drawings for phase I. Dr. McCollum's lease runs out and there is some time pressures to kind of move it along. Brad Johnson: I'd like to just comment on a couple of things that are important to us. One is the timing of the project. I'm sorry you read that book before. If we don't accomplish our timeline which we are happily on, there will be no medical clinic in the community because his lease is done in August and his building will be at that time leased to somebody else. That's just a problem we're facing. We did not know that until November of this last year. First of all we had to go through the HRA and get them to approve this, which we did in November. Secondly, we do need expansion space to the east to live up to what is required by the clinic in their lease for some expansion space on the first floor that they can grow with. I think again, some of these issues as far as the parking and everything are either in the City's area right now and/or would come back into our control through a redevelopment agreement. For example, if the City doesn't do the parking lot, than we have to have the right to do that. That would come through a right that we would have with the HRA right now. The HRA has a redevelopment agreement. They are agreeing to deliver us a site to build on. Actually own the whole site and when the parking lot comes, we'll sell them that park. Should they not fund the parking lot by the time the building is open, than we'll have to build the parking lot to those standards ourselves so it's kind of catch 22. That's up to the City Council to make a decision whether or not they want to have a parking lot or not. They have passed in the past, is that not correct Larry? e Brown: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 52 - Brad Johnson: I think in the past it was approved but because they did not build it within a year, will have to fund it and that's kind of a sticky with us because we have a really tremendous time pressure on this particular project. Or at least on that one portion of the building. As Tom said, we're looking for concept approval of the building so we can start construction drawings. That's the most important thing. I don't think the final site plan is as important as the construction drawings and the process that we have to go through. Thank you. Erhart: In the first place, there's a lot of stuff here that we normally see such as the landscaping. When are we going to see that? Brown: If I can address that question. As you may have read in Gary Ehret's report from BRW, because we've overlapped the year deadline, we're going to have to go through the entire process once again. Public hearing. Feasibility study in getting these plans approved so you will have the comment period, if you will, to address the landscaping and grading and everything. It's a unique situation in that because this area was designated to fall within the parameters that we established with the downtown redevelopment district, the City at this time felt that the only way to control that was to do this as a public works improvement project. Unfortunately, once again, we're facing a big time crunch. I think the developer has...trying to work with the site plan while we work out the other details. e Erhart: So we will see it at some point in time? Like a month or so we'll see a landscaping plan? Brown: You will see the plans as the biggest constraints were the topography constraints basically and those that break out with the preliminary plans for the parking lot. I wouldn't expect that that would change much given the other constraints that are on it. Erhart: Going onto the...I had number 1 here on the conditions. The 10 foot setback. How is that going to provide a right turn lane? Hanson: The 10 foot setback is not going to provide the right turn lane. The right-of-way is where that right turn lane will exists. But without the additional 10 feet... Erhart: The right-of-way on what? The street itself? Hanson: The right-of-way line is right here. The area that's highlighted in yellow, to build the right turn lanes, that area is lost, if you will, for landscaping. Erhart: Yes. Okay, so that's where it would go? e Hanson: It would go here and the 10 feet what that allows you is an adequate distance to maintain landscape improvements to be installed along here. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 53 e Erhart: Is the are drawn in yellow so that if we decide to pull those out, the median and make it a 4 lane street, that's what the yellow is? Hanson: I don't know. Erhart: In a serious sense. Is there adequate space there? If the City 50 years down the road decided that it didn't want a median anymore and they wanted the new main street to be 4 lane, is there adequate spacing for that with this building? Tom Zumwalde: We got the dimensions here that they got from BRW. Up in the centerline of the right-of-way, the curb line now is 21 feet. This curb line. It's a 16 foot right-of-way. So if you took the center island out it would be...and if you were going to show a 12 or 14 foot drive lane, that would be 26 feet. Hanson: Move the curb north 5 feet, take out the center median and you'd have 4 lanes. Four lanes with no left turn lanes and no right turn lanes. Erhart: I understand that and that's within the area that's yellow? All I'm suggesting is that we preserve that option. I'm not suggesting that they...but reserve that option so if some future city government, we'll be all long and gone, if they want to be able to use the space... e Hanson: I would say you've got adequate right-of-way to do that. What the 10 feet does is allow that sidewalk to not be within the right-of-way. That's on private property. Also, the 10 foot was a requirement of HRA when they reviewed the plans too. Erhart: You're comfortable that we're okay there? We are going to get then to see the revised parking lot for the Riveria sometime? One of my comments even before, Tom you may want to respond there, I don't quite see why, given what the requirements to have a 14 foot drive thru there would do to the architectural design of the building, I don't understand why we need to do that. The Fire Department can come in from the east. They can come in from the west. It looks like they can also mayor may not be able to come through the alley behind Town Square Center and maybe even through the apartments. It just seems to me there's plenty of access there. In looking at the view of the building and changing that to a 14 foot requirement, really will add some...what he building will look like when you're standing on the street level. I guess I just don't think... What do you mean resolve possible separation problems with the Building Department? I didn't quite understand that. Hanson: I'm trying to remember what the separation problems were. One of them I know is located around Pauly's as far as separation here and the gas station obviously there needs to be separation... My understanding is that once we get final plat for the project, then that will be resolved. e Erhart: Pauly's, that's a gas station now? Brown: It's starting to click here. There's requirements in the building Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 54 e code that state, it had to do with the old store front situation that you saw. That if they were right up against the lot line, then you needed to build a parapet wall such that if one structure caught on fire, there was a barrier there. Now if we go through and replat the area and the lot line is no longer there and it's no longer a problem. Easy way to get around that. Erhart: Lastly, I generally agree that you ought to combine phase II with phase III. There's no reason not to do that. I also, somehow, I'm not sure if phase IV fits. Why can't the good doctor occupy with only Phase II? Use that 6,000 square feet over in Phase II area? That's really not, that's still up in the air? Tom Zumwalde: The additional space, that would involve having, a lot of that building... Erhart: You would be opposed to splitting that up? anything more about phase IV at this time. Well, I won't say Emmings: What's Waconia Hospital going to do there as a tenant? e Brad Johnson: They're going to provide physical therapy, sports medicine and primarily occupational health for the local businesses. The emergency clinic, if there is one, there will be an emergency clinic which we perceive will be near the hospital... So they won't have an emergency clinic. It won't be a 24 hour but 16 to 12 hours. Emmings: You've just got to be careful when you have your emergency. Brad Johnson: I think you'll hear mostly it's kids here. That's what they're doing. Through their support and with Dr. McCollum and ourselves, this whole thing is happening. We will get into the signage issues, special...signs. Good identification so we're going to corne back on signage. We want to conform to the downtown sign standards and it has certain standards that already are here. It's a professional area. You'll see a transfer of your signage requirements of professional now are starting to look like... We haven't gotten to the signs yet so that's why we haven't addressed it but we are going to have to identify our tenants. It's a choice of being on the first floor of Phase II, as tenants, with a sign on the main street and second floor of the current first building and give them a bite out of the square foot if they don't choose the first floor. They have a real big change now with how people perceive where a professional should be. ...have to deal with it every day... Signs are important. Right doctor? And these things are all in our lease. e Emmings: This is another one of these plans that we've been bombarded with tonight that are real half baked and that's no cut. I'm not being disrespectful. It's an important addition to the city and I think it's great to have that building right there downtown. I think it's a nice looking building. I like everything about it. I just don't know much about it. It's real hard to look at this but I think that I could very easily be persuaded to table this until we know actually what it's going to be. On the other hand, I think it's so important that, and I'm taking Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 55 e my coaching from Dave too. Not to rush into these rush situations but this does seem to be one. I think it's such an important addition to the City that I could just as easily be persuaded to put it through if I thought, if I could be assured that we're going to have a chance to look at these other items that we normally see at this time, at least in the near future. My other comments were pretty much like Tim's. I do strongly agree that these three should be made to occur with Phase II. If Phase IV is important, there must be a way to work it out. Even if it's offset to the north a little bit to give a little more room around the clock tower. It would seem to me there would be a way to do that but I sure wouldn't want, right now it's just a ghostly little thing down there on paper and I wouldn't be very eager to do anything that would indicate that we're approving that. Now the buildings are moved back a little bit, is that going to, do you think that's going to screw up the parking plan back there in any way? Hanson: That's part of the standards. Essentially the way it was laid out...I believe it was about a 3 foot setback on the front side. On the back side of the parking lot, we had enough room to do the parking... What we're having to do through that parking area and through some of the sidewalk and landscape areas, is essentially pick up 7 feet. e Emmings: But then, do we have standards for these parking lots in our ordinance now or do they come from something else? Hanson: The ordinance now, it refers to another standard. something out of a traffic manual. I think it's Emmings: And are we going with that standard or have we gone out and found a different standard because we need one there? Hanson: What we talked about was a need to reduce some of the, essentially deal with the situation we have with the amount of space that's there. When Tom and Jim Lasher and myself met, Jim said, there had been some recent standards and I have not seen the standards yet and I'm not sure who put them out? I don't know if it came from landscape architecture or if it came from transportation in here. So I haven't been able to verify what those standards are but they felt they could pick up space if they needed to to preserve that 10 foot setback on the front side through the parking. I don't know how short those spaces are. I don't know if he's talking 18 foot depth, 24 or 22 foot drive or what that standard is. He had mentioned that the overall width would go down to at least 58 feet. In all honesty, I don't know how you can get it down to 58 feet and make it work. e Emmings: I think that's a big item. We sure don't want to build any kind of substandard parking lot if it's going to, I feel like it allows it now and if it's less than what I'm parking in now, it's going to be awful. As far as the need for the fire department to get under phase III, we've got a Public Safety Commission right? I think those people ought to have some input into this. It would seem to me to make sense that you could get in from one end or the other but I think we ought to, somebody ought to ask them what they think is necessary. I think they like to get everywhere Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 56 e all the time but other than that, I don't have anything. ElIson: I don't want to look at it until I get a lot more. I think our City is pretty good about working with people and pushing things through but this is just way too much out. I think you're asking us to do a lot without anything here. One of the things I like is to look at all the things. I like to see the landscaping thing over here and how to make a decision tonight. If I know in November, I can certainly sympathize with you but I would rather see you working 24 hours a day to give me more information. I don't care about that side of it but I don't think it's fair to us or fair to the planner, fair to Steve to have to write up every single exception that's missing and try to cover his bases and ask for us to approve it that way. I'd want to see it tabled until we get a lot more. e Brad Johnson: Can I answer that question? That is not our problem. It's the City's problem. We would have it all done but we have to live within the City's process and the process is you have to have a public hearing. It's about a 3 month thing. It's going to come back to you. You're going to see everything. It's going to be like what they did before which was already approved and had gone through the City. This whole parking lot was approved once before. There shouldn't be no real major changes. It's just not within our control. That's what we realized about a month ago. It's not within our control to propose anything there. We're building on a pad which the City is going to provide. Now we can't go out and design something and then have it redesigned by the City. I would prefer to try to figure out a solution to that problem because you have the controls. First of all your own city staff is designing it and we'll probably meet all the standards that you've set. I think if that is a major issue, we'll just have to back off and not do the deal and you're going to lose this project. That's it. We can not miss, I'm not trying to force anything through but what we're saying is, we've got two months. We need to get our working drawings going. Okay. site plan can wait a month or two but we can not proceed and invest $60,000.00 in the building. The timeframe, a site plan can be done from an architect's point of view, pretty quickly. It's th~ process that we have to live with in the City. We need, that's what I said in the beginning, an approval of the building so that we can proceed with what is the longest part of this whole thing and that's the plans and specifications of the building. We can come back, we'll be back before the City is going to be coming back with the site plan. I don't know when. I've got a meeting with them on Friday. I know they've been busily working on the whole thing to try and get it done but that's our problem. I hope you guys can address the problem because we've got, I think quite a bit here. As much as we always have relative to the building. And we are building on a pad. It's not our parcel. e Batzli: Being somewhat at a loss as to how to respond to that last comment, I'll read the comments I had previous to it. Regarding Phase III, I guess if the fire department actually needs it and it doesn't fit in aesthetically, I'd say get rid of the whole thing rather than having it be an eyesore. I might myself have reservations about the rush nature of this, etc.. Notwithstanding what you just said, I would like to see us provide, and we are going to get a chance to review the entire thing down Planning Commission Meeting Januany 4, 1989 - Page 57 e the road, I would like to see us have a medical center. Medical clinic in town so I guess with the provisions that we have and the conditions, I'd like to see us move on tonight. Wildermuth: Agree. Headla: I don't go along with the time constraint. I bet they haven't even tried to negotiate a 90 day extension. This is a tremendous clout that they've got with these threats. Oh, I figured out. If they would line the fire truck up in the Dinner Theater parking lot, I bet they could get it right through that pass. Go over that center piece. I think that's got to get resolved. What I was thinking on this is, I don't want to see it go to a motion that we approve anything but I think it ought to be considered as information only. We certainly can put in our comments and let it get to the Council and let them comment on it. They've got to get the job done. At least they would know which way the wind is blowing on it. From what I see, yes, I think it's a good start. But if we approve it, what would we approve? There's 18 conditions here that they want. Basic conditions so I'd suggest we make the vote on it as information only and we like what we see so far. Conrad: My thoughts. Under lCe). That seems to be an interesting point. phase IV. Steve, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to create a park at that point? What are we trying to do? e Hanson: I guess what I would label it as a pocket park. It's not an area, an active park. I think what you're trying to do is, you've got the clock tower out there and you want to allow enough open space out there to reinforce that element that you put there and not have it lost against the front side of a building. I think you've taken the step of saying, this is an identity for the downtown area and what we're suggesting is we need to reinforce that element that you put up there and not have it get lost in the other things. I think that can be accomplished in several different ways. What I'm saying right now, I have no idea if it's going to become lost or not. What they submitted is, they want to do an extension that way and as an extension of the existing building coming out with the same kind of footprint, I don't think it's going to work if we really want to maintain that as an identity. It's not to say that some extension couldn't work but I don't think we have enough detail to say, to put our blessing on it at this point in time. The other thing I mentioned is, what we're looking at is an approval for just the first phase at this point in time. Conrad: In terms of the 14 foot clearance, I guess I don't know how to react to that one. We're being told by the fire department that they want it. Whether it's essential or not. e Brown: If I could comment on that. I guess everyone has seen comments come through here from the fire department. They look at it and you say, is this a valid comment or isn't it? Hopefully, all of them are valid and withstand any sort of criteria that we can put up against them. I offer this as a suggestion. Between the time, if you decide to have us go to City Council, bring this back to the Fire Marshall and Fire Chief and take Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 58 e a look at this and have them either reinforce it or deny it. I guess I myself would be at a loss, looking at this. I don't fight fires and I don't know, I don't have any standard from my profession to base that on. Conrad: I guess I need to know if it's critical or not. Based on what Tim is saying, it looks like they can get to the whole building from almost anyplace so to have a shortcut through, I don1t know that, I'm not sure that the shortcut is necessary. Yet if they say it1s critical, then I think we have to pay attention. Emmings: I just wondered, is the median, if the fire truck is going east, are they going to be able to turn in there anyway? They can't turn in there anyhow and that1s where they're going to be corning from. Brown: The other reservation I have is, why go under a burning structure. Conrad: Okay, moving along. Those are my comments. Phase IV seems kind of nebulous. Brad, I'm not sure, I know Dr. McCollum needs additional space or may need it. I think it's probably important for you and I don1t know how contractually you've tied into that but on the other hand, it doesn't look like it's been solved at this point in time. e Brad Johnson: In your ordinance, on that particular project, we can build right up to the line. According to the ordinance so we would build anytime in the CBD area, there's no setback so you'll have to buy that property. The City doesn't own that nor do they own Pauly's so you've got a budgetary thing that the HRA hasn't spent. You're talking $100,000.00 to $130,000.00 for a park. I'm just saying, it's an issue that first of all the HRA has to agree to purchase the property. Conr ad : I don't have a problem reacting to the Phase I right now. Brad Johnson: We just looked at the ordinances and said well, we can build right up to there. Don said don1t build over Pauly's so we pulled it back. Then we had a problem with space. We have a lot of requirements from the clinic as to what we can do...so we felt it was within the ordinance that we were living up to that. We had not thought about what Steve mentioned...but that is phase IV. It's an issue that, it may not get done today. Conrad: But it's there and Mr. McCollum needs to know that there's expansion, right? e Brad Johnson: Yes. Well, there's still this meeting that has to happen with you guys and that's the meeting with BRW to finalize some of these questions they raised. All of these questions about the site plan. One of them will be, how this is all worked out and I think that's what we're, we're going to one side. We have to have 3,000 square feet. We're restricted in this particular project, it's been delayed a year so far in getting going. The problem simply is Bernie Hanson. Otherwise we wouldn't have any of these kinds of problems. We wouldn't have this big...and all those kinds of things so we've reached the point now. Dave can speak to that, we tried to extend his lease. He can't. That's the Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 59 e problem. Conrad: And I wasn't even addressing that. I'm addressing Phase IV which seems to be a little bit of a problem as I look at it right now. Brad Johnson: yes, and we don't have a solution. It's all part of that site plan. Conrad: But I think we have to come up with a solution real quickly for a lot of different reasons. But anyway, those were my only two comments on the 14 foot height and I think we need further clarification from the fire chief on that issue. Then just a comment on the Phase IV. I agree with combining phase II and III. I think that's probably something we should do and most of the other comments. I also think we should push this through. I think we need a fine medical clinic and I think we need the hospital coming into town. You've seen the Commission react to a lot of problems similar to this tonight so this is just right in line with the other things that we've seen. Brad Johnson: My question is, is there someway to do this that would assure that we come back with the things... Conrad: I think you are. I'm pretty comfortable that you're coming back. ~ Brad Johnson: We have no choice. We will be back. ElIson: And boy you better be ready if you do. Emmings: And you want to too don't you? Conrad: Is there a motion? Head1a: Let me try my idea on for size if there's anybody who agrees? I make the motion we approve this as information only and we viewed it favorably. Conr ad: Is there a second? The motion dies for lack of second. Erhart: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary Site Plan for phase I of the Chanhassen Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received December 12, 1988" with the provisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 as listed in the staff's recommendations. I'd also like to change item 3(d). I would like to leave, plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector and add, that staff would again review the requirements for bringing through phase II overhead entrance. And to emphasize that the Planning Commission feels that it shouldn't be done unless it was absolutely required for safety purposes. Were there any other changes? e Batzli: Do you want to right-of-way to l(a)? right-of-way. You're talking about the Hanson: No, we're talking about the setback in the existing right-of-way. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 60 e Batzli: Correct. We want to add that we're talking about West 78th Street right-of-way. Conrad: Is there a second? Batzli: Second. Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Site plan for phase I of the Chanhassen Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received December 12, 1988" with the following conditions: 1. Submittal of a revised site plan prior to City council consideration of this item which at a minimum contains the following changes: a. b. c. e d. e. A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street right-of-way. Dimensions to identify location of the building and parking areas. Parking aisle near building needs 25 foot drive. Revision of main entrance to provide wider drive lanes or pull off. Revised parking and access at the Riviera. Adjust or eliminate phase IV and provide park site extending north from the clock tower and across the parking lot to Heritage Park Apartments. f. Revised circulation between phase IV and Colonial Shopping Center. 2. Prior to issuance of any permits for construction, detailed plans need to be approved by Planning Commission and City Council for the entire area from Town Square to Great Plains Bouelvard in accordance with Section 20-107, Application Site plan Review of the City Code. 3. Submittal of revised plans shall address the following specific conditions: e a. Revised parking and circulation for Riviera. b. Plan III should occur as part of Phase II. c. Revise main access to accommodate traffic flow if area is to function as a drop off. Minimum height clearance of 14 feet is to be provided. d. plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector and that staff will again review the requirements for the Phase II overhead entrance. The Planning Commission feels that it shouldn't be raised to 14 feet unless it is absolutely required for safety purposes. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 61 e e. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned to flow properly through all properties. If parking space sizes are to be reduced from normal standard, information needs to be submitted to justify reduced standards and address possible impacts. f. Setback of 10 foot along West 78th Street for all strcutural elements of buildings. g. phase IV plans, elevation and use or eliminate. h. Resolve possible separation problems with Building Department. i. Detailed facia plans, signage and lighting and landscaping. j. All mechanical to inside buildings and service boxes screened. k. Submittal of revised plat for the entire area. 4. Compliance with comments of the attached referral letters. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. e Headla: Lack of adequate information. WOODCREST NEIGHBORHOOD - DISCUSSION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. e Bill Eggert: Thank you for everybody being here at 12:30 tonight. Larry's been very helpful on this project in bringing it to the attention of the Planning Commission. I just want to state a couple of things before I give you some of the details here. I know several of you viewed the site personally before it even came to the Planning Commission. There was an interest, Annette, you're a resident in the area so you have a personal interest in it. David you were out and looking primarily at the wildlife and had concerns about the water control and that type of thing and you exhibited a genuine concern about our interests in the area and the interest of the City of Chanhassen. Unfortunately, things didn't go according to plan. We felt it was necessary to bring it to your attention. Perhaps at this point in time anything to be done might be a moot topic. There's probably nothing that can be done to correct the situation but perhaps in the future, if somebody can benefit from what occurred in our area. So what I'd like to do is just walk through, and Larry's already capsulated a couple of things. The agreement was 140 foot covenant from the back line of my property. I'll just mention that I'm directly behind the property up on the screen and that was the agreement with the developer at that time. If I can indulge in your patience for just a few minutes. I'll quote from some of your Planning Commission meeting notes. From May 4, 1988, Roxanne Lund was assuring all of us that Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 62 e e in the Covenants that we have proposed, City ordinances, no building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within the 140 feet of the back line. My question about the Covenants. Her statement was, what we're saying is that we're approximately 140 feet from the vacated dot to the back line. What you have to do is basically some clearing of the underbrush which makes it more environmentally sound and I believe there was a forester out there that said some of the underbrush needs to be removed to make the trees more healthy. I'll pass some pictures around in a few minutes of the clearing of that underbrush. Ladd, you made comments to the effect that there had been some cases closer where trees had gone down and I think that caused a major concern and that's why we're enforcing a little bit of knowing what trees were going down on property. That these things are assets to our community and we're fighting for those assets for our community. Barbara Dacy stated at this same meeting that the staff condition is that they submit a tree removal plan along with their building permit application. Staff would also enforce that grading limit line as identified as part of a plan. That we would not allow tree removal beyond the grading limit line that's indicated on the plan and the Restrictive Covenants can be a condition of approval and will be recorded by the applicant against the property. David, you asked specifically if this was an enforceable requirement and Barbara's response was, I think it's some good tools that we've implemented since some other subdivisions in the past, the tree removal plans have really helped staff enforcing them. The private restrictions are enforced by the homeowners in that 5 lot subdivision so you've got a couple of tools that... I think that the real intent here was to try and protect everybody's interest. In fact, Brian you made it a point in your comments, as a general point I'd like to see the Covenants included. Annette, you mentioned that you were positive because you thought that now we've got to think of the neighborhood and although they're not required...they didn't have to put a covenant in there, but they are and they don't have to leave those trees, but they are. I have some suspicion about what their intent was from the beginning. Okay. David, you expressed a concern later on in that hearing on what, to quote you, it says, I like what's written there but I want to cover it more for what happens in 3, 4 or 5 years. A tree removal plan as it's stated here doesn't cover that does it? And Larry's response was, that's correct. In relying on the advice of the City Attorney, we have very little control of that with the exception of the Covenants. That is the control that we have. That's it as far as the Planning Commission meeting and my comments on that. I also have, and I believe you have the statement from the Department of Natural Resources. From Alan E. Olson dated 7/27/88 commenting that the existing tree cover consists mostly of sugar maple, basswood and oak trees that are 6 to 8 inches in diameter. Also, extracted from his comments at that time, it says next, trees which will require either soil added to or removed from their root zone will have to have wells built around the trees in order to preserve the health and vigor of the tree. Thirdly, the paths used by the heavy equipment operators needs to be kept to an absolute minimum to minimize construction damage. A little care exercised by the construction company will go a long way in maintaining the good health of the trees in this area currently enjoy. Then there's a comment that the house located at the top of the hill seems to have been built with minimal impact on the forest and e Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 63 e e I would hope that this project would achieve a similar conclusion. What I would like to show are you some rough pictures of a home that has been constructed in the area and the results of the clearing in the area. If I could just pass this along please. As you have an opportunity to review the pictures, what you'll see in sequence is, first of all the new home that's being built in the area with notations where the structure is actually built in relation to the 140 foot covenanted area. As indicated by Larry, it's encroached in that area. It's hard when we're looking at a plat map or a proposed building site to envision what it has done to the environment but I think a picture tells a thousand words in that respect and it's fairly clear that it's encroached rather significantly into that so called protected area. In addition, the design of the home wouldn't necessarily have to put that 12 foot extension into the protected covenanted area. It's also my impression from, in fact the owners of that home are present here this evening. It's my impression that they were not aware specifically of what the covenant was until they closed a couple of days ago and was informed that it's now been changed from 140 to 100 foot covenant. There seems to be some question in that too. Also, in the pictures being circulated, you might note that Lot 1, which is the lot directly adjacent to the new horne, is still wooded. The pictures aren't very good but it gives you an idea of what kind of woods were in the area before the construction took place. Number 1 has not been cleared at all. Number 2 had the least amount of damage and I think largely due to the influence of the owners of the home who were having the home built. Lot 1 is already staked out with stakes 120 feet from the back lot line so I would suspect that that will encroach at least by 20 feet on the 140 foot covenant. Also, in the group of pictures is the cutting, clearing and grading efforts on Lots 3, 4 and 5. As you can see, it's substantially more than the clearing of underbrush to help cultivate the growth of the trees. I guess our efforts here tonight, or at least my efforts here tonight are those first of all, to bring it to the attention of the Planning Commission. There may be some people who felt that through the Covenants and Restrictions we did have recourse if there was a violation. It appears that there is very little recourse at this point in time, is the position of the City Attorney. There may be some recourse among the property owners within the five lots of the development. However, it appears that at least the one home in the development right now, the home that's been constructed, is not on the board determining the covenants and restrictions and they have already altered it from 140 feet to 100 feet without any of their input. So I have a concern that the developer is kind of running rush odd over everyone's intentions here. The Minutes that came from the City Council meeting, express the same concerns essentially that were expressed here at the Planning Commission level. I would like, and I wanted to bring it to this commission first but I'd also like to bring this to the attention of the City Council after we've had an opportunity to look at it here tonight too because I think that everyone in this room and the people who sit on the City Council are trying to act in a responsible, concerned manner for the residents in the area and I'm not so certain that the developer in this situation had the same intent. One other issue that may help us, at least, the trees have not been removed from Lot 1 and there is a provision in the approved development plan that there would be a tree removal plan submitted with any building plans. There's the possibility then, if there's any deviation from the e Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - page 64 e grading plan or any trees that are being asked to be removed by the builder, that the City could enforce approval on that before it's done. I guess that's the sum total of my comments. Conrad: I appreciate that. Just some comments on my part. We've got to figure out what we want to do other than noting your concerns. Is the City doing anything right now Larry or steve? Brown: We do not have the power. wildermuth: They can't do anything through the building peimit process? Brown: The only thing that they have violated at this time is the Covenants and Restrictions. Conrad: And that's theirs. Brown: And that's a binding contract between the developer. Conrad: What was the development contract that we entered into with them? It had no stipulations in terms of these things? e Brown: The development contract is essentially a contract between the developer and the City. Now the developer, the specific condition was that a snow fence be installed immediately south of the proposed grading as indicated on dated plan... In fact the developer did do that and the contractor reasonably complied with that barrier. Now all of a sudden the contractor/developer has met that criteria and performed by it. Now all of a sudden we change hands to a builder. When the builder buys the lot or a homeowner buys the lot... Conrad: setback. So what was our mechanism because we wanted this 140 foot What was our mechanism to make sure it happened? Brown: We don't have that mechanism. Conrad: But that was our intent but it didn't get in because it was put in the Covenants that apply strictly to the lot. I'm sure that's what staff was thinking so that the property owners would specifically know that there are restrictions. I see the idea. It sounds right but what is our assurance that it gets done? There was none right? So therefore, it was sort of a folly. It was really naive thinking that we could go from the City Council saying there should be 140 foot setback to the situation where the Covenants and Restrictions don't include that. There's no way to get those into the specific property restrictions. Absolutely no way so basically the bottom line is, this is a stupid way to do it. Is that right? Brown: Yes it is. Ie Hanson: What happens a lot of times in the heat of the debate you might say, when the issue is corning before you and you're looking for some type of a mechanism to put it in and quite often people view it as, from a Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 65 e developer's standpoint, it's easy to say yes, we'll put it in our Covenants and Restrictions. In fact, we'll give you a copy of them. Then when it gets down to having to make a sale, make a deal somewhere, if they haven't sold it out and you have a lot of property owners that are aware of that, it's easy to make that change because we as the City are not a party to it. I think a better way to deal with that is to put a plat restriction on the plat which you approved so it's something facing the plat, it's a legal document that the City is a party to. But the Covenants, you really don't, you've got nothing to stand on, come back to and even though your intention at the time... Conrad: And there's no way to put it into the development contract? That it could pass down from the developer to the builder. In this case had it been specifically in the development contract, would we have had recourse to go after the builder? That just seemed like the logical, I remember this quite well and it seemed like the logical thing to do but obviously I didn't catch it and maybe it's not the right thing to do. Brown: We impose plat conditions that are routinely incorporated into a development contract and the development contract is then recorded against the property itself. Again each lot so I would say that platting conditions run with the property. We do that routinely. I think as Steve mentioned, maybe in this instance, this was a classic example of where the developer stands up in the heat of the moment and says, I'll put it in the Covenants and Restrictions. e Conrad: You know what would be good, as this goes up to City Council, when will this go? Brown: It will not be this next one because the agenda has already been published so it would have to be the following. Conrad: I think it's really good that staff provide a recommendation in terms of, hey this is not the way to approach this one and this is how we should do it in the future. Steve, I think that's really quite important. Setting direction for the future I think is key and then come back and explain it to us so we understand. The second thing is the recourse at the current time. I guess that will be up to you and I don't know that we have any mechanism right now to help you with the situation. Unfortunately it happens a fair amount of time. Dave got surprised on a parcel close to him. Whether it was clearcutted or whatever, things happen that way. You try to button it up. It appeared to me that we had it buttoned up and it didn't happen. e Bill Eggert: It appeared to all of us that way I believe too. Maybe one thing that happened from the official planning or at development, the initial covenant called for 120 feet and the developer was anxious and eager to offer an additional 20 feet in the covenant and came back at that planning session and said we'll go 140 feet. If nothing else, coming away from this, my thoughts to you would be, if this particular developer came in front of me with another project, I'd look at him with a jaundiced eye. At least make every effort to help those people in the immediate area. t' Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 66 e Conrad: And for sure that will happen but that's no help to you right now. Obviously we've got to be concerned with a developer that breaks their word. Headla: Who should control that? When you issue the building permits? Conrad: That's kind of what I'd like to have staff come back and make some comments on. There was some good logic for put~ing it into the Covenants and Restrictions. It seemed logical at the time. Brown: I think the direction is very clear. The only vehicle that we have is development contracts which will be recorded and runs with the property. Therefore, I guess it's just reinforcement. I know I felt as much as anyone did. Any conditions or concerns that we have, have to be incorporated into that development contract. It's good education the next time a developer stands up and says Covenants and Restrictions. We can say, forget it. It's in our development contract. e Batzli: As I recall, we've had this issue arise since that time where people have been concerned about water drainage and we have requested that something be recorded against the property. That they can't adjust drainage swales or some kind of contours. I don't know how we've done that in the meantime but I'd be curious to know how many times we've attempted to do something about it since this because I do recall personally making a condition saying something like this was going to be recorded against the plat or something. Ellson: I remember somebody saying, against the plat? That's so much work. I think you should just do it this way. I kind of remember that. Batzli: It would be real interesting to know what we've done in the meantime because I know we didn't do it in a covenant but we tried to do it another way as well. Emmings: Are we sure? From your comments and from the comments he read, are we sure that we didn't make it, either a condition of approval or that it wasn't recorded against the plat? Has staff looked to see that we didn't do it? Brown: I reviewed that and every indication that I found at the time, it didn't come out as a specific condition because we had, we were so wound up in approving this grading plan that only called for grading within the first 100, the front 100 feet. It really gets down to a sticky issue. How much can you tell a landowner that they can or cannot do with their land? We may have already or don't have control to be quite honest. If somebody wants to go out and cut down a tree, do we have an ordinance in effect yet that protects us from that? I don't think that we do but I will review those conditions one more time and Minutes. e Emmings: And review the plat conditions too because it may be, there were comments that he read out of the Minutes that sure made it sound like people were trying to do that and Brian has a recollection of that. If we did it, let's make sure that we find out in a hurry so we go out and make Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 67 - sure they're doind Lot 1 correctly if it's staked. Because once the house is built, you're not going to do anything. ...put that house there, nobody's going to move it anywhere but if it's just staked, you can do something about it. hurry. Conrad: Thanks for coming in. We'll see what happens. Stick with it. We appreciate your comments and looking out for the future too. I think that's something you should get on in a APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 16, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m.. Submitted by Steve Hanson City planner - Prepared by Nann Opheim e