1989 05 17
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
~ MAY 17. 1989
Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings,
Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City planner and Todd Gerhardt, Asst.
city Manager
Wildermuth moved, Conrad seconded to amend the agenda to move item 6 to the
first item. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 AND TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO.
2-1, CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Gerhardt: I appreciate you amending your agenda so that I can leave a
little earlier. Item 6 on your agenda is a modification to development
District No. 2 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1. The
modification is to include approximately 20 acres of Development Site
subdivision. You saw this on your May 18, 1988 agenda which you approved
. as industrial office space south of the McGlynn site. Modifying this
~tistrict would allow the district to use monies to write down the cost of
public improvements for Audubon Court, the cul-de-sac road to the
development and that those monies solely be used for that road construction
and public improvements to that road system. Tonight you're to review the
plan to see if the subdivision meets the zoning requirements and planned
use for this area is what the resolution is passing. I stand to answer any
questions that you may have on this proposal.
Emmings: Let's just go around and see if anyone has any questions. Jim?
Wildermuth: I don't really have any questions. I'm glad to see that we're
adding to the industrial park. I wish we were adding about 5 times the
land area.
Gerhardt: We're quite fortunate to get Met Council to approve this
additional land into the MUSA and it will be a nice addition to the
industrial park.
Wildermuth: That's all.
Batzli: The only question I had was whether the ponding site of
Development Sites Ltd, that's not going to turn into a wetlands is it?
That's just for a 100 year storm there?
Gerhardt: Yes, and tonight, there's no consideration for development on
~this site. The Planning Commission is to review this as if the land is
~oned properly for industrial and that they want to provide assistance to
the industrial business in this area. As the lots develop, each individual
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 2
a si te plan will come to the Planning Commission for their approval. Tonight
is just a formality to modify the economic development district to include
these lands within that area that tax increment monies could be used to
assist in writing down the special assessments for the public improvements
to the land.
Batzli: That's my only question.
ElIson: Nothing from me.
Conrad: Nothing.
Erhart: Todd, on your last page, this one right here.
economic development district and it appears the black
way down to Lyman Blvd. and closing everything west of
northwest 1 ine. Is there something to that?
You show a proposed
line extends all the
Aubudon and the
Gerhardt: I guess in our planning of it, if monies were available down the
line in that district to look at upgrading Aubudon Road to a 9 ton age road
all the way down, it would give us the opportunity to use those monies
solely for upgrading Audubon Road to a 9 tonage road or urban section down
to Lyman Bl vd . .
Erhart: Is the intent in that area that that would be rezoned industrial
at some point?
-- Gerhard t: No. Just for roadway improvements and by doing that you would
not incur those assessments back to the property owners. That money coming
off of the McGlynn site and the new subdivision to the south of McGlynn,
that they would be used to upgrade Audubon Road in that area.
Erhart: Okay, so there's no intent to rezone that area?
Gerhardt: No intent and that land is out of the MUSA line.
Erhart: Alright. The Met Council has already approved this inclusion into
the MUSA line so this is totally just a formality?
Gerhardt: That's correct.
Erhart: Okay, that's all I've got steve.
Emmings: I don't have anything different.
separate actions that are required on this.
rezoning from A-2 to lOP.
It looks like there are 3
A land use plan amendment,
Gerhardt: No, just the one item. You took action on the rezoning.
Emmings: That's the old one. We've already done that. Okay.
_Gerhardt: I just included that in the packet to see what your last action
.,was on the property.
L
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 3
e
Resolution #89-1: Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning
Commission adopt Resolution No. 89-1 finding Modification Development
District No.2 and Tax Increment District No. 2-1 consistent with the plans
for development of the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor except Tim
Erhart who abstained and the motion carried.
Erhart: I'll abstain on all these issues. Our company is looking at one
site in that area as a future site for building.
OAK VIEW HEIGHTS, PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS
BLVD. APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, CENVESCO:
A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140
INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND
AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 150 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
4It Emmings: Does the applicant want to add any comments to the staff report?
Dean Johnson: Not to the staff report. I guess as the discussion goes on
between the commission members, we'll be able to add, show you some
different drawings.
Emmings: Well if you've got something you'd like to present, why don't you
show it to us.
Dean Johnson: I guess I'm not sure when we met last time, I know...HRA
Board...but that's the elevation of the building. I just wanted to show
you want they do look like. I guess the reason I bring it up here is so in
the design of this building and the type of unit that we're going to use...
private complete with rents is something they can move into for the same
amount of money of rents and then actually be cheaper for them by the time
they get their interest credits, property tax deductions and all the
different things like that. This is the type of unit that we come up with.
I know that you talked about putting double car garages on it. It's quite
hard to do on a unit like this just by virtue of the fact that the whole
front end is garage. That's something that comes out of the design. It
comes out like this to get front elevation. It gets the front door and it
gets open areas and patio areas. Just to show you a detail of what the
area would look like under this proposal, I guess this is the layout to
scale. We opened up the center area here. Saved all these trees that are
in this area here. Moved the totlot area which again was something that
~ staff recommended or thought was a better place than where we had it over
"here. We were able to adjust this building as to get it totally out of
this area here so it became an advantage to the site. We increased more
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 4
e
area inbetween the buildings and just generally took units away. We end up
now with 132 units and we ended up with 70 units of parking area. I
instructed by engineer to make up this dimension. Jo Ann basically showed
you a rough one of just dividing the lots up with what it would look like
in an R-12. I asked my engineer to take and draw this drawing using my
unit or the unit that we had designed, keeping within all the R-12
criteria. We ended up with the 3,600 lot minimum. We ended up with
actually more than the 150 foot frontage. We ended up with a 35%
impervious surface with this project, with this layout. The units are
slightly less. Rather than the 202 to a unit, it's... This one is 196.
In the process this becomes a public road... Everything, the densities,
the impervious surface, the frontages, all work... with the building that
I've designed for it. The other thing that they showed you or the thing
that you have in your packet was just something done for what types of
quantity of units per acreage. This is taking it a step farther and saying
geez, we have the building. Let's see what that building can do on this
site.
Emmings: Then the R-12 scenario, these would all be rental units as
opposed to owned units?
e
Dean Johnson: Owned units. Remember we spent a lot of time talking about
the point that I had was the zero lot line to the condonized. This would
be selling condos to the homeowners. They would own air space. Okay? The
other project is zero lot lines. They would actually own the ground that
they sit on. Hence comes the ordinance problem with the 3,600 square foot
lot.
Emmings: As far as the marketplace is concerned, is this a legitimate
choice for you as a developer? Is the market the same for each type of
property?
Dean Johnson: It's the same product. The problem comes in, as I stated
before, is that you're increasing the price. The fact of selling it as a
condo causes, processing condonizing each separate piece becomes it's own
plat so every time that you file this, you file these individually so your
filing fees virtually go up times 12. A condo is sold as air. In other
words, a surveyor after the building is framed, comes in and surveys
literally from sheetrock to sheetrock and does a description. So many feet
high, so many feet wide and basically what they want is a cube of air.
They have the rights to everything in that cube so you have an extra
surveyor's cost. I threw out a figure that we've used that we've studied
and looked at. It's approximately $1,500.00 more per unit to condo this
project than the zero lot line. Now we felt if we zero lot lined it, we
were able to offer the customer more product for the same cost.
Emmings: Would the buildings look the same with the R-12 approach as they
would. . .
Dean Johnson: What would, as a businessman, as a developer, what would end
~ up happening is I would have to make the choice of whether to market,
,., sustain the $1,500.00 more or whether it'd be better to you know, lessen
the product. That's a real hard decision quite honestly. I could sit here
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 5
4It and say, geez no. I have to cheapen it down. I don't want to be so
definite. I could see that happening realistically and the reason is is
because of mortgage amounts. Because of what they're mortgaging and what
it would increase them and what that would do to competition with the
rental units and the type of person that would be doing this. The project
before was rental units and I mean the project the Durand Company brought
in front of you in September of 1988. They were rental properties. They
were virtually the same square footage. They were different here and I
have that too. I don't know if you remember this project. These units
were 8-plexes. They had problems with impervious surface also...got a copy
of the Minutes and that was one of the things put on theirs. But in their
project, these buildings were 8-plexes. They had what they called the
legacy trim, I don't know if you've seen it. It's kind of a paper covered
trim. The doors were of cheap material and they covered it with literally
printed contact paper. Siding on this project was masonite siding.
Windows were not thermal panes, they were 2 individual slider units. A
less expensive window. Those types of things were done for them to keep it
in the potential market. As owners, we'd like to go after that market.
We're trying to build...sell to owners. They're trying to go after that
market and I'll try to get every advantage I can. If zero lot lining this
is an advantage, then... Other things that come in as it becomes a little
hard to get totlots in on this area...and make the unit a workable project.
The totlot would be hard to squeeze in. We did have a hard time saving the
trees on a project like this. I know that the trees up here, the forester
~ mentioned and I think Jo Ann mentioned it again, that they might go anyhow
,., just because of the activity going on around the trees. Even thought on
our first project or proposal here, we've got some distance. We can cord
this off and the elevation of this, which is, what is it? 910 or 1010. I
can't remember the elevations. 1010. And the units around it, we're
looking at 1008 so we're going expecting to have to do any mass grading of
this area. It's one of the things that with the design of this plan we
were able to work in... Other things that this plan gives over this one is
just, as much as we know, we have a grading problem here. We're going to
have to make better use of this site and consequently keep units closer to
Powers Blvd.. This one it's squeezed in bringing this tighter in together.
We get 270 feet of distance away from Powers Blvd. I guess in thinking
about the things that you brought up last time with the spaces, we added
quite a few more with the open area. with the dropping down in density and
getting within the R-12, density, we thought...we feel that we've given you
some reason to look at it as a PUD. Any questions?
Emmings: I guess this is not a public hearing but is there anybody else
here that came to comment on this project? Alright. As far as comments,
Tim, do you want to start?
Erhart: What variances are we looking at here Jo Ann? with this proposal,
what variances would be required?
Olsen: Since it's a PUD, there would be no variances.
~ Erhart: So it's just a matter of us getting something in exchange. So the
"'differences from the ordinance that they're asking for is the increase in
impervious surface, the lot sizes. The reason our ordinance really didn't
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 6
4It take into account these kinds of zero lot lines, therefore our ordinance
calls for 3,600 feet and these lots are running 1,200 feet?
Olsen: For individual units.
Erhart: Am I still in the same meeting? Alright. Do you expect the
people that are going to purchase these things are going to be young
fami 1 ies?
Dean Johnson: I expect quite a variety. We took a closer look at another
project that I mentioned that was already up and we found younger families.
We found single parent families. We found elderly. We found quite a mix
in this type of thing. We found the retirement I'm sure because of the
cost of the units in keeping their budget down. We found quite the variety
actually. It'd be hard to say what the exact percentage was because these
are...types of things outside the units. Let's say what one group would
use over another age group but there is a mix.
Erhart: What's the park facilities available for this site?
Olsen: Across the street, Chan Pond and there's a walkway around that.
Erhart: Passive park?
Olsen: And then the school facilities.
e
Erhart: That's somewhat difficult to use that during the weekday when the
kids are there.
Olsen: And there are some facilities up in Chaparal.
Erhart: What neighborhood park? How do they get to that? They'd have to
go out on CR 17? Cross it at Kerber Blvd.?
Olsen: There's trails on Kerber and there will be a trail on Powers.
Erhart: On the east side or do they have to cross the street?
Olsen: I know that there's a trail on the east side.
on the...
I think there's one
Erhart: Isn't it on the west side?
Olsen: I think it's on both sides on Kerber.
ElIson: It's on both sides of Kerber.
Olsen: On Powers it's going to be on the east side.
e
Erhart: Okay, so children could, where they could go would be north on a
trail along CR 17 or Kerber?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 7
e
Olsen: They could continue down Jenny Lane to Kerber.
connected.
That will be
Erhart: Yes, and then go up Kerber. How far is that?
Olsen: About a mile. So they wouldn't go by themselves.
Erhart: I guess the concern I have is probably somewhat the same as last
time. You've just got a lot of people packed in a small area and kids are
going to want some space to be outside in and a totlot might be interesting
for a small kid but if you get any 6 year olds to they get their car, where
do they go? It's hard to tell how many are actually going to be in that
area but if there's 200 and some units, it could be a fair amount of kids
in there. I guess I'm wondering, with that density, is it more difficult
to get some playground area than say the kids living in the single family
area or is it the same?
Olsen:
It depends on how close they are.
Erhart: The southwest corner is not wooded currently. Are you planning on
putting any trees? Yes, the area that you're leaving green essentially.
It'd be south of Jenny Lane and next to CR 17.
Dean Johnson: We can, yes. We don't have it on the plan obviously. I
guess it's just a matter of...
4It Erhart: Yes, I understand that but I'm just trying to see if there's any
way you can make this thing the most liveable with the density that you
have.
Applicant's Architect: We didn't feel a buffer was needed there of plant
materials.
Erhart: I'm not suggesting a buffer. I'm just suggesting an area where
the kids can go out and kind of do what kids want to do.
Dean Johnson: What you're basically talking about is, it's a townhouse.
It's hard in townhouses to get large open areas. It's not like a single
family area where you get 5 backyards...
Erhart: Who owns Outlot A and B then when we're all said and done here?
Olsen: If it's a PUD, it's under the Homeowner's Association.
Erhart: So the individuals own the lots but there's an association.
Dean Johnson: Right. The maintenance on the exterior of the building
becomes the association's responsibility.
Erhart: And until the future apartment building is done, you are
. maintaining ownership of Lot I?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 8
e
Dean Johnson: That's correct.
in the recommendations.
That's the reason for the deed restriction
Erhart: I don't know, I guess I'll just pass my discussion on this along.
You may want to come back and look at it some more. I'm still trying to
get comfortable with the density. I think the northern area looks much
improved.
Emmings: I don't know if you're ready to comment on this or not Tim but
one of the things we looked at last time was whether or not this project
fits within the definition of a PUD at all. I don't know if you want to
comment on that. Last time I think we felt it didn't and I don't know if
you feel like it's changed enough so that now it might fit.
Erhart: I think it's changed a lot. We've taken 1 building away but we
redistributed the units to some degree. I note that on the plan you showed
up there as just an R-12 is that there's 10 buildings and there's 11 here.
I don't know, the numbers indicate, if you take the apartment out which you
really can't look at. The numbers have changed by 8 units and I don't know
if that's what we had in mind. Why don't you go along and maybe I'll have
some more comments.
Conrad: Are these units going to have basements?
Dean Johnson: No they aren't.
e Conrad: And you're still designing them, some with 2 car garages but most
with 1 car garage?
Dean Johnson: One third with 2 cars, two-thirds with 1 car. The units
that the same people before, Durand, those didn't have basements either.
Those are the same type of unit.
Conrad: What kind of covenants would this group, there wouldn't be
covenants. They would be covenants? So what do you vision for outside
storage? What kind of covenants would...
Dean Johnson: For outside storage?
Conrad: Yes. Boats and trailers.
Dean Johnson: They have to be enclosed. Either they have to take them
outside of the storage facilities or they have to keep them...if they have
parking stalls outside of their garages which is the way it was in the
other townhomes, the apartment project.
Conrad: You increased your visitor parking and kind of decreased the owner
parking. Two weeks ago we saw a similar proposal for zero lot line and for
maybe a group that had one-fourth as many units as you do. They have
probably 50% more visitor parking than you do and because we don't have an
~ ordinance that really governs or dictates the amount of visitor parking,
~basically are we assuming that Jenny Lane is going to take overflow type
for parties? What's the thought? We still don't have a lot of visitor
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 9
e
parking and again, we don't have good standards here for requiring parking
spaces. Based on what we saw 2 weeks ago, you're way, way different than
what they're offering for visitor parking. Like not even, it's not even
comparable.
Emmings: And all of those units had 2 car garages.
Conrad: They all had 2 car garages.
Dean Johnson: What was the price?
Conrad: They're higher but not by much. Maybe $15,000.00 higher. I'm not
dealing with price. I'm just dealing with where do those cars go? I'm
just curious, is it just assumed that Jenny Lane is going to take overflow
parking or where do they go?
Dean Johnson: In the project that I built before called Creekside of
Plymouth, we don't have anymore parking that this. I think probably the
reason for it is that being the type of unit it is and the size of the unit
and the restrictions of parking, people don't normally throw parties like
that. It's not like in your neighborhood with single family where they've
got a large backyard where you can set up the volleyball court and have
maybe 30 to 40 guests over. We don't see that type of partying. In the
Creekside of Plymouth project, they've never had a problem with that type
of stuff. People use it in the manner that they are allowed to use it.
e It's something that just isn't done. There's restrictions by the type of
thing I guess is what I'm saying to you. You're dealing in a townhouse,
almost an apartment. You're not going to be inviting 40 friends over to be
at your house and have the parking problem.
Conrad: But let's say they did, where would they go?
Dean Johnson: The same place they would go when there are single family
houses which is on the street. But it would be no different than a single
family project.
Conrad: Each family, the families with the 1 car garage, how much driveway
do they have to park additional cars?
Dean Johnson: One more space.
Conrad: So they would have 2. And storage for that family would have to
be in the garage.
Dean Johnson: Again you're getting into townhouses and a person that has
that type of stuff, the person is probably looking at a home or, which is
very common is people use...
Conrad: What's the building material for these units? Is it primary wood
exterior? It was metal siding.
4ItDean Johnson: Metal or vinyl siding...soffits, clad windows, steel doors.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 10
e Conrad: Jo Ann, in terms of having an outlet, a second outlet for
Jenny Lane, you're not uncomfortable? I didn't see in the staff report
that this will not go through when this is built. You're comfortable that
one entrance in there is just fine?
Olsen: I guess I'm not following what you're saying.
Conrad: In essence it doesn't go all the way through to the east right?
Olsen: Yes it does. It goes all the way to Kerber.
Conrad:
It does. Okay.
Emmings: Connecting with that other project that's already in.
Olsen: with the townhomes that are there. That's private right now but
they've got the right-of-way.
e
Conrad: As I look at this and I take a look at the different ways we can
develop this site and then I compare it to the PUD guidelines, to be very
direct and not to prolong this, developing this under the R-l2 district as
I see the applicant, there looks to be, to tell you the truth, I like that
better than I like the PUD. There seemed to be a little bit of flexibility
or creativeness in that more so than I see in this particular PUD.
Therefore, I feel that it's a more comfortable, more open feeling which is
what I'm looking for. I'm not really looking for reducing units as much as
I'm looking for making sure we have some open space which we kind of like
out here for people. You can do that open space by clustering and doing
some things. I feel therefore that the R-l2 district has merit and I'm not
prone to a PUD simply because when I look back at the ordinance for PUD,
there's some intent statements and the first one says variety. I don't
think this shows variety. The second one says sensitivity. This one shows
some in that we're saving some trees but more than likely we can't save
more than a few so I don't know how much sensitivity we're showing. We do
have a wetland and a steep slope but we're really not looking at that right
now. We're looking at the rest so I'm not sure that sensitivity is a
factor. Efficiency is an intent statement and I think for the developer,
it is efficient. Density is a factor in our intent statement and basically
in density, you look at transferring units so you can open up one area and
increase the density in another area. This is not doing it as far as I
see. We're not protecting anymore than what our ordinances are already
protecting. There's another one called district integration and I don't
think that's really applicable here. The sixth one is parks and open
spaces and other than the totlot is fine and that's okay but the wetlands
and the steep slopes, that's protected already so I don't know that, and
then we don't have any major parks so I guess the bottom line to me is, I
think the developer can do a good job in an R-l2 district. I don't think
this constitutes in my mind a PUD because it's missed maybe 4 of these
factors that our ordinance calls for. I haven't been persuaded at this
point in time that individual ownership is, I like that factor but I
haven't been persuaded that I can give up some of the intents of our PUD
ordinance. I think they still are valid and I don't think that we meet
them in this particular plan. I also feel that the R-l2 district does, and
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 11
e
the way the developer showed it could be developed, it looks very flexible
and it looks like to me that there are a lot more open spaces for people to
walk around.
Emmings: I think what I'd like to do at this point is get some sense from
the rest of the commissioners as to whether or not, before we spend a lot
of time on each person commenting on the individual things and there are 18
conditions here to look at and everything else, I guess I'd like to get
some sense because if people feel that this shouldn't go forward as a PUD,
we might want to just act on it without spending a lot more time on it. If
on the other hand people are of the mind that they feel the spirit of
the PUD and the intent of the PUD ordinance has been met, then maybe we
want to go into more detail on it.
Ellson: I don't think it's being met right now but I think this plan could
still be worked on to meet it.
Batzli: I have a hard time looking at this without envisioning the
apartment building in there. I think if the apartment building ever went
in there it'd be great. It'd be swell. You clustered everything in the
lower corner and the rest is open and regardless of whether the wetlands
and the steep slope and that type of thing, you really have to be
protected. I would kind of like it then. It's interesting but right now
thinking that the apartment is going to go in there and the densities that
we have, we really haven't done much of anything and I actually agree
e with Ladd that when they put the R-l2 concept up there I think I like that
better. I don't know enough about it but that was my initial reaction as
well. I really don't think they're providing a whole lot of open space
here or creativity or the other factors that are discussed in the PUD.
Wildermuth: I'd agree. I'm not persuaded that we've satisfied the PUD
requirements and I'd like the R-l2 approach better just on paper. Just by
this for instance.
Emmings: Tim, I don't know, did you get to address this question? I think
you did but do you want to do it again?
Erhart: I guess I sit here and keep looking at this and the common
alternative to this is just simply an apartment complex. I question the
value to a person to purchase these townhouses from an increased equity
standpoint. I'm not too sure it's a good investment. I'm not sure that 15
years from now that the site won't be more valuable to Chanhassen as a well
planned apartment complex as opposed to a townhouse. I might be completely
wrong but I keep struggling with that same question. I realize it doesn't
answer whether it's a PUD or not but maybe it does in the sense that if you
want to look at it as a PUD which gets us out of this other approach, there
should be something more. Some amenity there for the people who are going
to live there because I think you can get more amenity in a well planned
apartment complex.
e
Emmings: There seems to be a consensus up here. I agree that to me this
is not fit under the PUD and I'm kind of sorry about that because I like
the townhome idea. I think the problem with it to me is that it hasn't
-
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 12
e
e
really significantly changed from last time. They've done a lot of work
here to make some changes but basically they shifted units from the north
side of the road to the south side. I think the north side is better than
it was last time. I think the south side is worse and I keep going back to
the fact that when we wrote, or revised the PUD ordinance, the whole idea
was that the City was supposed to get something to allow an increase in
density. Now the density isn't that much different than an R-12 but R-12
is not the only other option in the world either. If it fits under R-12
and they want to develop it as R-12, they've got a right to go ahead and do
that. I'm real concerned about the parking. I don't think any of these
units should be built without double car garages. I don't think anything
like a PUD like this should be allowed without some provision for overflow
parking space for visitors and I don't see those kinds of things being
provided and I don't see that the City gets a heck of a lot out of this.
In fact I don't see that they really get anything at all. So I guess at
this point, and I don't see any reason to go in any more depth unless
somebody else does, I don't see any reason to go into any more depth on
things like the wetland alteration permit or even the site plan review and
I think what we'd have to do at this point is, I think maybe what we ought
to do is have a motion on the planned unit development concept which
obviously would be turned down here if everybody votes the way they've been
talking. That would at least give you the opportunity to take it to the
City Council to see if they agree with us. The last big PUD we had in town
we turned it down and the City Council turned that decision around and
allowed it. That way you could test the people that make the final
decision but then it would have to come back for the other items. So it
necessarily will involve more time. I think your alternative here to
having us do that is simply to ask us to table it while you work on it some
more or while you decide to submit a different type of plan. We can
accommodate you in that regard but I think those are the alternatives that
I see for you at this point.
Dean Johnson: If I'm understanding this right, all other recommendations
that staff has done, the other 15 or 16 or 17.
Emmings: 18.
Dean Johnson: All you're turning down is one? I have to come back?
e
Emmings: No, let me explain. We're looking at 3 things on this. The
first is the planned unit development concept and development plan. Second
is the wetland alteration permit and the third one is the site plan review.
What we're saying is to us this does not meet the City's criteria for a
PUD. So what we would do is simply act on that issue. We'd say it does
not because that's what people have said in their comments here. We'd turn
this down as a PUD. You take that up to the City Council to see if they
agree with us or they don't. If they agree with us, you're going to have
to do something else. If they don't agree with us, the plan would come
back essentially with instructions from the City Council that they agree
it's a PUD and we should then look at all of those 18 conditions. Do the
site plan review and look at the wetland alteration permit but they would
then take that decision away from us and we would just go forward with it
as a PUD.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 13
e
Dean Johnson: Why don't you act on the other two points then so we don't
have to bring it back?
Emmings: Because we're not interested in taking a lot of time to look at
all those conditions since it doesn't look like a PUD to us.
Dean Johnson: I put something in front of you and as much as maybe you
don't agree with the one, to sit there and cause me two months of delay
which will effectively kill the project for this year doesn't seem quite
fair either. I realize that I've taken up your time and I realize you
don't agree with the PUD but to make it so that I have to come back in
front of you and if I get a yes vote out of the Council and waste another 2
months, not waste but use another 2 months is going to make this project a
next spring project at the earliest.
Conrad: I don't know that it has to come back here though Steve from the
Council.
Emmings: So we simply forego any discussion on the wetland alteration
permit and all of the conditions on the site plan?
Olsen: It would depend if you tabled the other items, it would have to
come back. If you denied them all, it wouldn't come back.
e
Emmings: Alright. I don't want to cause you any delay. It seems to me, I
think the best thing is that it does go to the City Council at this point
because it's pretty much a stone wall here, it would appear and I think you
ought to go and find out what they feel about the project.
Dean Johnson: I guess I don't have a problem with that but I think the
other thing should be looked at and if they have merit, I don't think that
I should have to go in front of the City Council with all 3 no's in order
not to come back to you with a wetland alteration or the way you talk about
the grading project because whether it be a condo project or whether it be
a PUD project, it's going to be very similar. The other is a site plan
review.
Emmings: We can't sit here and review a site plan when we don't think the
thing fits the criteria for the site plan that's being reviewed. It's
doing it in the abstract. It's doing it with a false premise and I don't
think we should do it. Now if people up here don't agree with me, they
should let me know and we can go around and take comments.
Ellson: I think the idea of applying for both at the same time was
basically set up that, normally you'd think, okay first you get the PUD and
then you look at the two things but we allow people to apply for both at
the same time. Especially if you do agree on the PUD, you then can do it
but I think it's true intent initially to have all 3 here today was to try
to help developers if we approve the PUD, we could then within the same day
look at the other two things but that's not happening here.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 14
e
Emmings: If it will help to speed things along, I think we should act on
all 3 of these and the City Council will know, to the extent that you feel
that we turned down all 3 will weigh against you at the City Council, they
have a verbatim transcript of our proceedings here and they're going to
know that the reason we voted no on those other 2, if that's what winds up
happening, is because we're disagreeing with the PUD concept at the outset.
So they're going to know the reason. I think you probably would want us to
do that so that it will prevent you from having to come back. I think it's
probably in your best interest. Would you rather have us act on it or
would you rather have us table it for you to do something else?
Dean Johnson: No, I don't want it tabled. I would like to know...in
talking about having... If this plan didn't have a swamp on the one part,
we would be able to put more area in this so what in essense is happening
is because of the fact that there is some natural drainage, granted it be
hard to develop it and the City would want to, nor would anybody else want
to see it developed. You're basically penalizing the open area because of
existing terrain of the land. Is that what I'm reading from you people?
Emmings: I don't know. You say just because there's a swamp there, well
there is a swamp there. It is a wetland and it is protected and you have to
work with the site as it is. You could call it a penalty or you can call
it an amenity. I don't know.
e
Dean Johnson: But if it's an amenity, it's open ground that I am providing
for the property. If it's a penalty is I don't have enough space for
children to play.
Emmings: Folks have very different maps of reality. Yours is a lot
different than mine, and that's fine but I just don't think that, it's
pretty apparent from the comments we're getting up here that nobody up here
agrees that this fits within our PUD ordinance. For us to spend a lot of
time reviewing all of this stuff or looking at it any further seems to me
to be a waste of your time and ours but I think you should go up to the
City Council and test their map of reality. It may be a lot different than
ours. If they agree with us, you're going to have to do something
different. If they disagree with us, they'll look at the rest of the stuff
and you'll go along on your way to developing this project like you want
to. Does anybody else have any other comments on this?
Batz1i moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights as shown on
the plan stamped "May 8, 1989". All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: Now there are no recommendations or motions for the Wetland
Alteration Permit.
Olsen: They're still in the original report. I didn't pull that out.
tt Emmings: Maybe in an effort to let them take everything before the City
Council, does someone want to make a motion that the other items, the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 15
~ wetland alteration permit and site plan review simply be denied so the City
Council can consider the project as a whole without it coming back to the
Planning Commission.
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 dated "March 30, 1989" for development
within 200 feet of a wetland and storm water discharge into a wetland. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: I think it should be noted that the reason we're voting it down is
simply because we haven't studied the issue in light of the fact that we
have turned down the PUD request.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of Site Plan #88-15 as shown on the plan stamped "May 8, 1989". All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: Steve, could we attach a note to the City Council and try to
summarize our feelings. Maybe they can get it out of the Minutes but on the
other hand, maybe it would be good to send them some brief statements as to
why we didn't consider this a PUD and any other concerns we may have with
the site plan as we see it. If I could, I would start off with my comments
~ that as I read our PUD ordinance, the PUD that has been presented does not
meet 4 out of the 6 intent statements. Other problems that I have with
this PUD is that it doesn't address visitor parking. It doesn~t address
storage properly or 2 car garages. It still seems like a very high
impervious surface when we consider the townhomes alone. Those are my
comments as it relates to the PUD. If there's anything else.
Emmings: Do you feel the City would be getting anything back for it's
conferral of the PUD?
Conrad: The developer has made an attempt to save some trees and to
provide a totlot but I don't think that again, as I read what we would
like, I don't think that those are, they're very small in relationship to
what I would like to see on this space.
Emmings: Does anybody want to add anything?
Ellson: I think the only point I'd like to make is it's still at this
stage it's not big enough open space. It's not enough parking. I'm not
saying that I'd never say a PUD would go here. I'm just saying the plan as
it is right now with modification #2 doesn't meet it but I think if we had
fewer units. If we had more parking. If the park got a little bigger or
something, that I would again look at it as a PUD so I'm not saying I don't
want to look at it ever.
e
wildermuth: I think in view of the fact that the wetland is present,
whether you want to look at it as a problem or an amenity, the site as such
simply can not stand that kind of density. That would be why I would be
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 16
e
opposed to it. I think there would have to be some very creative and
unique things done on that site to quality as a PUD using the contour of
the topography.
Conrad: Just one last comment. I find the R-12 district to be totally
adequate for this proposal. I will take exception to Jim's comment. I
think it's not density. My issue is not density as much as it is open
space. Like Tim, I thought this was a good property for apartments where
the density was stacked and where we could still keep open space for people
to play and walk. This proposal is really packed together. It's back to
back apartments. Back to back townhomes and that's not what I had
envisioned for this district.
Emmings: I want to go on record as adopting basically all of Ladd's
comments just to keep it short. Anybody else got anything else on this one
then?
e
Erhart: Yes, I'd just like to say my biggest concern is when you get all
of it done is that what's going to happen is because they're new, they'll
sell. Obviously they know how to market the things. My concern, with that
density, you're walking the fine line that the values would go down. If
you have a complex like this where the values go down, we will then own a
tragedy in the City of Chanhassen. I just don't think the amenities,
there's something lacking to keep people interested in rebuying the units
and at least the value goes up at the rate of inflation to take advantage
of the tax advantages. My concern is that it's not there. It"s going to
be a diminishing value peice of property and that's bad for Chanhassen.
Emmings: Can you tell them when this will go to the City Council?
Olsen: June 12th.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF A TEMPORARY OFFICE, SHOP AND
YARD FOR EDGEWORK BUILDERS ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
AND LOCATED AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD, DAVE STOCKDALE.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Steve Emmings called the public hearing to order.
Dave Stockdale: Basically just to summarize a little bit. In the past
process I was, I'm sure you remember, I was denied at the Planning
Commission level and approved at the City Council level, my other project.
Emmings: That would be comforting to the people who just left.
e
Dave Stockdale: Even though my conscience tells me that a site like this
is more appropriate because of the zoning situation. I had some concerns
with some of the recommendations. Again, when you review Merit Heating's
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 17
e
approval by City Council, it's my interpretation that the final
recommendations for asphalt only, no curb and gutter of any kind and I
wonder what has changed that I would need to follow that.
Olsen: Just maintaining the required improvements.
Dave Stockdale: I'm kind of on the same premise that at some point in the
near future when sewer and water becomes available and I'm required to hook
up to it, any additional costs that I incur now will be undermined and
circumvented by physical installation of the sewer and water. ...the
blacktop, I would just as soon not have to go to the extent of curb and
gutter at this point. One of the reasons for curb and gutter is that it
brings the water into the storm sewer. There is none so I do not
understand this point or the need for that.
Emmings: What is the reason?
Olsen: It's for directing the drainage but it's also just for
stabili~ation. For snowplow removal. It maintains, it keeps the site
manicured longer.
Erhart: Is it required by the ordinance?
Olsen: But exceptions have been made.
e
Dave Stockdale: I guess I'm asking for an exception. On the same lines of
the engineering report, their checking the sewer and water might be
available in 1990. I'm not going to take possession, if this goes through,
until October of 1989 which means that if I do blacktop up to the Audubon
Road access, because the connect to the farmhouse is on the backside, to
avoid damaging all those mature spruce trees, the sewer and water line
would go down the driveway that if it is blacktopped... On the other hand,
if you're sure it's going to be available in 1990, any postponing for the
blacktop would be addressed in some contractual arrangement to be put in
immediately after the sewer and water connects. I'd like to have that
considered. If on the other hand it's not going...
Emmings: What do we know about that?
Wildermuth: Is sewer and water going to be concurrent with what Scott was
in here? Isn't that part of what that was all about? The extension.
Olsen: Oh Todd? Well that's going down. It's not all the way to that
site. It's just to where the public works building and it's in that
location. Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition, they're still industrial property
inbetween. I don't see us, maybe engineering knows something I don't know
but I don't see it happening. This would be where Lake Susan Hills would
be here and then you still have all this industrial in here.
e
Dave Stockdale: There'd be no motivation for the City to come out and to
join it unless there was more development next to me?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 18
e
Olsen:
Right and if you requested it.
I don't know if 1990 will happen.
Dave Stockdale: Well I just saw it discussed in the packet. Also, did you
have the drainage plan?
Wildermuth: Unless I'm reading this map all wrong, it's going right across
the street?
Batzli: It's on the other side of the road.
Emmings: It's south of the tracks where that other stuff is north.
Dave Stockdale: The other question I had, they were requesting a grading
and drainage and erosion control plan. I'm basically not changing what's
there now and I'm wondering what erosion we're talking about that's
different than what's been happening for whatever number of years.
Olsen: You had stated that you'd be, there'd be some grading like for the
outside storage and just for the paving.
Dave Stockdale:
I thought I had shown that on this.
Olsen: The erosion control?
e
Emmings: I think what they're saying is that to the extent you're doing
any grading, they want to know how you're going to control the erosion to
the areas you're grading. They want to know what you're planning to do to
control erosion until it's stabilized on the areas that you are grading.
That's all.
Dave Stockdale: The only other thing I noticed the difference between mine
and theirs was there wouldn't be any recommendation or request for them to
provide a second drainfield site. Basically I expect I'll be using about
50% less than is being used... So if this is working for 6 people, our
work is 4 people...
Olsen: I think that was meant to be a condition and it's not.
Wildermuth:
think.
It's not a condition this time around and it was for Merit I
Olsen: It should have been.
Ellson: It's pretty standard that we at least tell you where it's going to
be. Not use it but.
Olsen: Yes, we always have to have, just for our protection, your
protection, we always like to know if there's a second site available so
that should have been a condition.
e
Erhart:
We do that on subdivisions, not on conditional use permits?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 19
4Itolsen: Well anything that's using a septic system we always like to know
that there is a second site for emergencies but if you don't feel it
necessary, that's fine.
Batzli: Good planning practices Tim.
Erhart: I'm not saying it's bad.
Olsen: And they'll have no problem finding another site.
Erhart: I just don't know if this is the proper time to require it.
Emmings: I don't recall doing this previously. Whenever somebody wants to
plat it or bring in a plan for a piece of property but I don't recall ever
seeing this when somebody's going to use something that exists. Have we
ever done that before?
Olsen: I don't think we've ever had a site like this. Your other
conditional use required you to have two sites on there.
Dave Stockdale: But there was no precondition saying that one site was
good and one was bad. We have a site where the drainfield site is still
good.
Olsen: We've always, whenever there's been septic systems, we've always
4Ithad a secondary site.
Dave Stockdale:
Heating.
I don't see the record of that happening for Merit
Olsen: It might not have.
Dave Stockdale: So not always. You haven't always done that.
Olsen: Obviously not.
Dave Stockdale. So again to me that implies a certain historic...that I
don't think needs to be done.
Emmings: Okay, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who wants
to be heard on this?
Erhart moved, ElIson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Wildermuth: I like your landscape plan. I'm sure it will be a good one.
I guess I'd be inclined to waive the requirement for curbing as based on
how solid the plan is for sewer and water. I'd be inclined to waive the
requirement for a paved roadway if we know that water and sewer is corning
.. in 1990. Other than that I agree with the recommendations less the curb
.., requirement.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 20
e Emmings:
How do you feel about the second septic site?
Wildermuth: I don't think locating a second septic site is a big deal.
What are we looking at for expense?
Dave Stockdale: $1,000.00.
Wildermuth: Really?
Dave Stockdale: They do the borings and everything else. It's in that
range.
Erhart: What do you do if you can't find one?
Emmings: How many acres is this?
Dave Stockdale: 7.4.
Wildermuth: Somewhere there's going to be another septic site.
Erhart: That's the point. You're not going to change your decision on
whether you find one or not so I think it's sort of moot issue to require
it.
~ Wildermuth: In view of the fact that he's going to have fewer employees
,., than there were residents in the place, I guess I wouldn't really be too
upset.
Batzli: I assume that you're going to give up your other conditional use
permit if this is approved? Is that what's happening?
Dave Stockdale: That was my intention.
Olsen: I believe they are only good for a year if there has not been any
improvements to the site.
Dave Stockdale: ...it's one or the other.
Batzli: I agree mostly with Jim's comments. That would be my only
question.
e
ElIson: I think it should have all 5 conditions including the second
drainfield site. I think that it's nice of us to be concerned about how
much it costs him to locate that sort of thing but that's not what should
make up our mind. Well, if it was only $20.00 then we'd all say go ahead
and find your second drainfield site. That doesn't seem very reasonable.
I think that what's best for Chanhassen is to have a backup site.
Something could happen if there is only 4 people in that thing. The thing
could pollute our ground water or what have you and I don't want to be the
one who didn't have a backup site there ahead of time. I think if curb and
gutter is what we require in other areas in the lOP, then I'd want this to
have it too. So I'd like all the 5 conditions plus one about the
drainfield.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 21
e
Conrad: In our conditional use permit Jo Ann, basically the site cannot be
utilized more than what the applicant has described in this request right?
Olsen: Right. If he expands it, he'd have to come in.
Conrad: And you're really not doing much to the site right now is my
understanding.
Dave Stockdale: Filling in a couple of low spots and flattening out.
Other than that there's no physical change...
Conrad: It's real minimal. Especially to the north. Most of the stuff is
closer to the south of the property. Is that right?
Dave Stockdale: The southwest corner.
Conrad: And just out of curiousity, do you have longterm, when sewer and
water comes, what do you think you're going to do? Any thoughts?
Dave Stockdale: I'm still in the early stages of that. I saw the previous
discussion that Merit had proposed... My impression is that it showed up
right at the last minute...industrial park. Probably two phases.
Developing the part to the north first so I can continue using my buildings
with the intent of moving my business in an approved fashion in that area
and then redeveloping the south portion.
e
Conrad: As this site has sewer and water, and it can be fully developed,
if we don't ask for curbs and gutter now, when can we ask for them?
Olsen: I was just thinking that. You can make it a condition that once
sewer and water is placed on the site that as part of the improvements that
applicant or whoever owns the property at that time would have to install
curb and gutter. I'm just wondering if that would get lost along the way.
That condition but that would go with the conditional use permit that would
be recorded at the County. That's one way to do it.
Dave Stockdale: My first concern with that is...It may take a while to
accomplish that. There's a minimum time period in which to put the curb
and gutter in on pre-existing blacktop that you know in 3 years in the
cycle of development that that whole portion of blacktop is going to be
redesigned...As soon as sewer and water is in, that you're asking a game
plan for total development.
Batzli: Wouldn't it make more sense to require it at the time that it was
developed further?
Conrad:
It might.
e
Batzli: If he modifies it or expands it, he's going to have to come back
in anyway and we could take a look at it so whether he develops the site or
expands his business, we're going to see it again.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 22
e
Conrad: I just want to make sure we have the control so when it does get
developed, we bring it up to specs.
Dave Stockdale: I would certainly, in the broad picture, when I develop it
as an industrial park, I would expect to meet the same...
Conrad: Other issue on the second drainfield. Second drainfield? Boy, my
tendency is to require it but I don't know. Somebody can persuade me.
Dave Stockdale:
If a family of 6 moved into it.
Conrad: Yes, but it's an industrial site now. You've got an industrial
use on that site. What do we want at this point in time? This is the only
chance we have to talk to you. If the site 1 fails and we allow you to
develop it or use it as an industrial site, well you can continue. This is
the City's chance to make sure we have other alternatives. Jo Ann, is that
site, are we suspect of the site? But we're really following city
standards?
Olsen: Right.
Conrad: Okay, I'm through.
e
Erhart: Dave, the 4 people that you're talking about there. Are they
going to be on site during the day or do they go off site and work on a
job?
Dave Stockdale: I've got a full time office manager. Full time...
got myself and a field supervisor that are...
I've
Erhart: So in a sense it's both a contractor's yard and an office?
Dave Stockdale: Right. The existing house will be used as an office.
Erhart: I'm trying to be consistent with my position on the Merit Heating
proposal. I was adamantly opposed to that because I viewed they were
putting a manufacturing company in the industrial park and I felt they
should live within the same standards that all the other people in the
industrial park live by. I'm looking for an exception why are you
different than Merit Heating?
Dave Stockdale: I don't have the same...
Erhart: No, but Merit Heating didn't either and I was adamantly opposed to
giving Merit Heating a conditional use permit.
Wildermuth: That had quite a few more people though didn't they?
e
Erhart: I think that's the difference. If I remember that one, we were
talking 10 or 15 people and it was a production facility. That's different
than what I've got in the industrial park. The other thing that's changed
since that time is apparently we've changed the ordinance that the only
place for contractor's yards is industrial park?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 23
e
Olsen:
I think it's still in the business fringe.
Erhart: No, we took it out there too. I'm trying to be, as a result of
that, trying to be a little more lenient in my thinking. If this is truly
a contractor's yard in the sense that you're really a construction company
and I would tend to say that I think what you're trying to do here is
pretty good. It's different than what Merit was proposing so I would go
along with, in that light, go along with the proposal. The problem with
the sewer thing, and that is, maybe it's because of my farm background and
so forth but over the 3 years I've been on here I have failed to understand
why everybody is so anti-septic system in the city. Maybe not anti but
they fear septic systems.
Emmings: Because they're not maintained and they're not put in properly
and they're not maintained. That's what we've found.
Erhart: We have an ordinance now that requires that septic systems have to
be inspected periodically and when they aren't operating it's not the
ground water that the problem is, it's the surface water because overflow.
The number one problem is the toilets don't flush. They over run, it's the
surface water. It's pretty obvious they're not working.
Wildermuth: If it's any time of the year at all, the building occupier is
~ the first one that wants to get it fixed.
Erhart: Yes, and I don't understand why we got a lot here that's almost 8
acres, why we want to rush hooking this onto the sewer system when in fact
a properly operated septic system is the most ecologically correct way to
do this as opposed to running it in the river and adding chemicals and
going through all the energy to pump water and going through all that.
Secondly I would propose that when we tie this into when the property is
subdivided or a major building improvement is made, that we then require to
hook up to the city sewage system. Maybe there's some other hooks but the
idea of just saying because the sewage system is at the end of the street
you have to hook in when your current system is working properly, to me
that just doesn't make any environmental sense to do that. So I guess I'd
like to propose that. I'd also like to in exchange for the curb and
gutter, I don't know if it's reasonable to ask Dave to relinquish his other
conditional use permit because I was adamantly opposed to that too, and in
exchange for relinquishing that giving up on the curb and gutter. I think
you've already stated that you're not going to exercise that conditional
use permit. In fact, I believe you had it for a year and it's already
delinquent or no?
Dave Stockdale:
I've got 3 months.
Erhart: 3 months?
e
Emmings: Are you asking us to transfer the conditional use permit you have
to a different piece of property or is that even possible?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 24
e
Erhart: I don't think he's asking but I'm just saying in exchange for a
variance on that curb and gutter we would, as a condition that the
applicant would give up his other conditional use permit that he already
has which he apparently intends to do anyway.
Wildermuth: So it will run out in the fall?
Dave Stockdale: Unless I act on it.
Ellson: There could be 2 sites for all we know.
Erhart: That's just it.
I'd 1 i ke to...
Ellson: Only have one?
Erhart: If possible.
Dave Stockdale: I'd be willing to work in that direction. I like your
idea...whereby I didn't have to hook up to sewer and water until my
development is established.
Erhart: Well obviously I know you'd like that
one out for the other planning commissioners.
tying in the other conditional use permit with
curb and gutter. Those are my comments.
one. I'll just throw that
If they have any interest in
granting the variance on the
e
Ellson: Jo Ann, remember we had a thing on contractor's yards, they had to
be within 1 mile of another. You didn't really mention that in here. Has
that been dropped because...
Olsen: That was a specific condition of the conditional use in the RR
district.
Batzli: You can half a million of them in the lOP.
Olsen: We didn't have a specific condition for the lOP, industrial
districts.
Emmings: For my comments, it seems to me that if this was coming in as a
development proposal for this piece of property, I think I'd be looking at
it a lot differently than I am. There's something there that exists and I
think it's pretty apparent that what's there now will not be what's there
once the industrial park fills up. I think this property is going to
change sooner rather than later and rather significantly. I agree that the
curb and gutter, there ought to be tied to further development of the
property because again there just is not that much being changed here. I
agree as far as the second septic site goes, I think Tim's comments are
good ones. First of all I don't see any reason to require hook-up just
because it's available if he's got a working septic system.
e
Batzli: What about water?
your water requirements?
Are you going to need a lot of water?
What are
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 25
e Dave Stockdale:
Very little.
Emmings: I guess I don't know what the issues there are as to why the City
requires to hook up to water as opposed to sewer.
Olsen: I believe that there's an ordinance that if you're within like 100
feet or 150 feet of sewer or water you have to connect. Why, I don't know.
I think anyone that once they get hit with that assessment will be
improving the property.
Emmings: I guess the other thing I have to think of, I guess I tie that to
further development of the property also. The other thing we could do is
to simply say that if he can't find a second site, if he has a problem with
the site that's there and he can't find a second site, then he'll have to
put in a holding tank and pump it until there's sewer and water available
and just see how that plays out because I think sewer and water will
probably be available. It's hard to imagine that on that 7 acres he
wouldn't be able to find a second site. Otherwise I'd be in favor of tying
them to further development also. The Fire Inspector actually made a
recommendation on this about a dumpster or something and I don't see his
comment over on the conditions.
Olsen: It didn't get in.
Batzli: Not being within a certain distance or something?
e "
Emmlngs: Yes.
Olsen: Right, he had to be separated there.
Emmings: Should that be a condition?
Olsen: Yes it should.
Emmings: Have you reviewed that one Dave? Is there any problem with that?
Dave Stockdale: No. On my site plan I've got it within 5 feet of the
building.
Emmings: Are there any other comments? Does somebody want to make a
motion?
Erhart: Yes, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #89-2 shown on the plans dated April 28, 1989 with
conditions 1, 2, 4 as shown on the staff report. Also, the condition made
by the Fire Marshall as an additional item. Another item, at such time
as public sewer and water is available to the site, the appropriate fees
and assessments will be paid. However, actually connection to the site
will be required at the time the property is subdivided or a major building
improvement occurs on the site. Just summarizing that means if the water
~ goes past, you have to pay the assessments just like any other project. To
.., hook up, if the site is improved, obviously you probably would do it if
your system failed or so forth. The last item, all parking areas shall be
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 26
e
paved. However, curb and gutter will not be required assuming that the
existing conditional use permit that the applicant has runs out at the end
of it's period.
Batzli:
I think what he's trying to say, can I interpret?
Erhart:
I brought it up before. I didn't get any laughs.
Emmings: I just didn't understand what you just said. What I'm saying is
as long as the other conditional use permit's going to run out, not require
them to put in the curb and the gutter.
Batzli: Why wouldn't you ask him to actively relinquish it?
Erhart: If you don't feel comfortable with that, we can leave that out.
I'll make that motion and if somebody wants to amend it so I stick with
what I said.
Emmings: You're making the...
Erhart: The condition that it does not require curb and gutter on the
condition that he relinquish the other conditional use permit that he
already has in the city for a contractor's yard. I'll make that motion.
If other members feel it's inappropriate, make an amendment to take it out.
That's it.
e
Emmings: Okay, is there a second?
Wildermuth: I'll second it.
Emmings: One thing that I forgot to mention during my comments and I'll
take this opportunity to do it, is that the City is getting something here.
Assuming that he does relinquish that other one, we're getting this thing,
since you were here the last time, the City Council has acted to ban these
things in anything but the lOP. The City is getting something valuable
here in that we're going to get one out of an area we don't want it and
into an area where we do want it. Is there any other discussion to Tim's
motion?
Conrad: Tim, you don't want to require curb and gutter when the property
is developed?
Erhart: I guess I didn't include that because I assume that's going to
happen when it gets developed.
Wildermuth:
It has to come back again.
Erhart: It's going to be subdivided. It's going to come back in and it's
going to be building plans, unless I misunderstand that.
e
Conrad: Does that make sense Jo Ann? By not requiring curb and gutter, do
you see any potential for drainage or erosion problems?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 27
4It Olsen: There's always potential.
Conrad: But we are requiring an erosion control plan.
Olsen: That's just during construction on the site. It's definitely a
benefit to have curb and gutter but if it is going to be removed in a year
or so, I can see the point too.
Emmings: Could there be a condition such that curb and gutter would not be
required if he relinquishes the conditional use permit he holds on the
other property unless experience shows that there's an erosion problem that
needs to be addressed with curb and gutter to prevent erosion.
Batzli: I think that sounds like an excellent friendly amendment
personally.
ElIson: Who's going to go out and check that? We're not going to have
someone going there in 2 years to check that out? I don't think it's
realistic.
Emmings: But if there's not a problem.
ElIson: Who's going to say there is a problem or isn't, that's what I'm
saying.
e Emmings:
ElIson: Then it's worthless. Maybe you want to tie it into an inspection
in 2 years or something like that.
I don't know.
Emmings: No. I think erosion on the site is not a problem. It's only his
problem. It only becomes a problem if it affects something off site and if
it's affecting somebody else's property, they'll bring it to the attention
of the City.
Batzli: Then if there's a condition that he has to do something about it,
that does put a little bit more teeth into it.
Erhart: The problem with curb is it's going to direct the runoff to I or 2
or 3 spots.
Conrad: The sheet flow, sometimes it's better not having curbs in. We
don't know. We simply don't know.
ElIson: We tell all lOP's that they need curb and gutter and we said we
want these in lOP's.
Erhart: But they have storm sewer.
Wildermuth: And they generally cover a large amount of the surface area
e with impervious surface too.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 28
~ Emmings: Right and they're going in and they're changing the whole
characteristic of the site and that's not what's going in here. They're
going in and grading and putting in a building and doing landscaping and
he's taking an existing site. I think it's a real different thing. Also,
in the IOP every time they're directing it to storm sewer. They're
directing it either into the street to a catch basin or something else. We
don't want the sheet flow there but on what's essentially an agricultural
site, sheet flow makes probably more sense.
Conrad: Do we want to have the City Engineer take a look just to make sure
we're not creating an erosion problem by not requiring gutter and curb?
Wildermuth: Knowing the way Dave has kept his other property, I think if
there was an erosion problem, he'd probably be out there correcting it.
Ellson: Well it's not just him, it's the next owner or whatever might have
it and it's the next one that comes in and wants to be in the IOP that
doesn't want to curb his because he doesn't have the money for it right
now.
Batzli: How many IOP areas are there that are unsewered?
Olsen: This is it and the adjacent land.
Batzli: Yes, there's not going to be another person unless it's the one
~ piece of adjacent property that has this.
Emmings: Okay, how about I'll suggest an amendment to Tim's motion that
curb and gutter. Let's see. Your condition was that curb and gutter would
not be required if he gives up his conditional use permit that he presently
has.
ElIson: That's a weird tie in. Should we just require them to turn in the
one anyway?
Emmings: I don't know that we can do that. I'm even a little
uncomfortable.
Conrad: No. It's not going to make it through.
ElIson: You have to relinquish a right that you already have.
Emmings: This is highway robbery. But I think Dave is basically in here
representing that he's not going to put his business at his home. He's
going to put it on this property and I wish he'd come out with a little
more concrete statement to that effect but I'm not going to ask him to do
that. I would amend that simply by saying, unless the City Engineer
determines or experience demonstrates that curb and gutter is needed to
prevent an erosion problem. I'm only adding to his condition that he
wouldn't have to put in the curb and gutter if he gives up his present
~CUP unless the City Engineer determines or experience demonstrates that
~curb and gutter is needed in a specific area to prevent an erosion problem.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 29
e
Erhart:
I'll accept it.
Conrad: I'll second it.
Emmings: Anything else?
Batzli: I think when he made his motion, we're talking about sewer and
water when it has to be connected and the wording was when there was
development or major building modificaiton.
Erhart: Yes, was subdivided or major building construction.
Ellson: Who's going to define that?
Batzli: Rather than have the word major in there, what are you looking for
in building? Any building construction? What's major building
construction? I have trouble with major.
Erhart: Let's say if he added a garage or something I wouldn't consider
that major but if you add a permanent building where you were going to
increase the number of people there.
Batzli: Rather than major building, don't you want to talk about expansion
of the use or something?
e ~rhart: Okay, expansion of use I think that's okay. If that's defineable
1n your mind, that's fine.
Batzli: I think that makes better sense than major building.
Erhart: Okay, I'll agree.
Emmings: So you're going to amend your motion to that?
Erhart: Yes, I'll amend the motion.
Conrad:
I'll second it.
Dave Stockdale: My interpretation of expansion of use, if I have another
truck sitting there, is that expansion of use?
Batzli: I think expansion of use ties back into you have to corne back in
and get a modification of the conditional use permit.
Dave Stockdale: You define it as increasing the occupancy load?
Erhart: Have you listed the number of trucks in your conditional use
permit and the number of people?
Olsen: The number of people.
eDave Stockdale: No I haven't other than I've talked about the office
staff.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 30
e
Erhart: I think Brian hit it right on the nose. Essentially saying, if
you have to come back in for another conditional use permit amendment, then
that would be reviewed at that time the way that reads.
Emmings: I don't know that we define that anywhere but the basic notion is
that if you're use becomes more intent in any way than what we approve,
you've got to come back in and get an approval for that expansion of the
use. Whatever it means. Alright, is there anymore discussion on this?
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit *89-2 as shown on plans dated April 28,
1989 with the following conditions:
1.
All outside storage shall be totally screened within the outside
storage area.
2.
The driveway shall be constructed a minimum of 16 feet in width and
shall be paved.
3.
The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage
and erosion control plan prior to final approval.
4.
e
Dumpster shall not be placed within 5 feet of combustible wells,
openings or combustible roof eave lines.
5. At such time as public sewer and/or water is available to the site,
connection to the municipal system will be required and appropriate
fees and assessments paid. However, actually connection to the site
will be required at the time the property is subdivided or expansion of
use occurs on the site.
6. All parking areas shall be paved. However, curb and gutter will not be
required if the applicant gives up his present conditional use permit
unless the City Engineer determines or experience demonstrates that
curb and gutter is needed to prevent an erosion problem.
All voted in favor except ElIson who opposed and the motion carried.
ElIson: I think it should have all the conditions that any other lOP
permit should have.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OUT LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED DIRECTLY
SOUTH OF 64TH STREET AND WEST OF HWY. 41, REED'S ORCHARD RIDGE, GARY REED.
Public Present:
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 31
e
Name
Address
Mr. and Mrs. Gary Reed
Roger Zahn
Ben Gowen
2461 West 64th street
HSZ Development Company
6440 Hazeltine Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Gary Reed: I guess as far as the fence goes, I'm not interested in putting
up a fence. It is a natural tree line because the old fence that's still
intact, just from the barbed wire fence...and so the trees growing up along
the fence line and it would be difficult to put in a fence in the first
place because there is a lot of natural vegetation. I would rather see to
add some to that than put up some sort of a board fence and have to
maintain it. I also don't see it as my responsibility in paying for the
fence. Ben's been operating with a conditional use permit on his property
and this is residential...I shouldn't have to have all the burden of a
fence on my property. We have two residential lots abutting there. It
doesn't seem that a fence is necessary with all the trees there...there are
some other mature trees.
Emmings: Have you seen the other conditions that the staff have put on?
Gary Reed: The other 9 conditions that were on there?
e Emmings: There were 5.
Gary Reed: I think we already approved the two outlots and the cul-de-sac.
Is that correct? That's all been approved and I'm altering it by
requesting the plat for lots. The replatting.
Emmings: I just wonder if you've seen the conditions that the staff have
put on the approval. Staff is recommending of this thing and there are 5
conditions and there are 5 conditions and I wonder if you have any comments
on those?
Gary Reed: Well most of them I think are conditions that are required by
putting in the sewer and water. Is that right?
Emmings: I don't know. Whatever they're required by, do you have any
problem with any of those that are down there?
Gary Reed:
putting in
obligation
utilities.
Well I think I have an agreement with Mr. Zahn that he's
the street to replace the street we're losing so it's his
to provide any information then as far as the street and the
Emmings: Okay but that's an agreement between you and him and these are
conditions that if. What I'm getting at here is, if we follow the staff's
~ recommendation, we're going to be recommending these 5 conditions and I'm
"'wondering if you have any comments on those. If you have any problems with
those that you'd like to bring to our attention.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 32
e
Gary Reed: I guess the conditions are not a problem. I don't know about
the first one. Outlot B can not be developed until it receives preliminary
and final plat approval and I would presume that would have to happen
anyway. The rest of them, as the developer dedicates the utilities, that's
kind of a given isn't it?
Emrnings: It's a given because it's attached as a condition to the
approval.
Gary Reed: Is that not a usual condition?
Emmings: Sure.
Gary Reed: Is that going to impact me?
Emmings: If you develop it, you're going to have to dedicate the
utilities. You're going to have to do all these things as a condition so
yes, it impacts you.
Gary Reed: And I presume that you'll have to get the plans...that are
going to be done as a condition. The fourth condition is the Watershed.
The reshaping of the pond. I think that's another condition that's going
to have to be met by Mr. Zahn and myself when we get the street in there
because as it is now, the pond is kind of encroached on where the street is
4It supposed to go so we have to reshape the pond a little bit. I think most
of them are conditions that are going to impact the street and Mr. Zahn and
his development of the street.
Emmings: Okay but I just want to be sure, I'm kind of saying the same
thing over and over and I don't mean to be beating you over the head but
these are conditions that are on your subdivision. They're not on Mr.
Zahn's. They may be his obligation because of agreements between you but
that's nothing to us. You understand what I mean?
Gary Reed:
I see, yes.
Emmings: Do you have any other comments or any other things you'd like to
bring to our attention on this?
Gary Reed: The only other comment I have and I don't know if it's
appropriate at this time but is that the ponding site is going to need some
type of berming. Not berming but landscaping or something to keep it from
eroding.
Emmings: Now that's the ponding site that's in Outlot A you're talking
about?
Gary Reed: Yes.
~ Emmings: And that's being constructed by HSZ but that's being constructed
.., on your property though?
_.~
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 33
e Gary Reed: That's correct.
Emmings: Now do we consider problems with stabilizing the slopes on that
around that pond on this application or did we look at that when we looked
at the HSZ plan?
Olsen: The pond has changed a little bit since the HSZ plan and when they
come in with the plans and specs, they'll have to stabilize it. He has to
put in vegetation.
Emmings: But the pond is on the land that we're working with right now.
Olsen: Right and those plans and specs will be coming in with this
development.
Emmings: Okay, so consideration of that ponding site will take place at a
later stage in the development of this property that we're looking at now?
Olsen: It's already started. The pond is.
Gary Reed: The pond is in. It's not complete though.
Emmings: But when will we?
Olsen: You
e Gary Reed:
before.
won't see that.
The street and the pond and that has all come past this board
Emmings: I know we looked at the street before.
Gary Reed: But the street has been altered some because of setback
requirements and getting the lots so we had to extend it a little bit.
Emmings: Is the City aware of those changes?
Olsen: They're minor. Everything is still fine.
Emmings: Okay. Anything else?
Gary Reed: I guess not.
Emmings: Okay, this is a public hearing. Mr. Gowen, do you have any
comments to add?
Ben Gowen: Well I was looking for a fence but apparently they don't want
to have it. I run a commercial, semi-commercial garden there and it's not
a conditional permit as so stated. It's not a conditional permit. It's a
grandfathered in and I do have some storage things there that somebody's
going to complain about if we get 7 more houses back there. And I would
~prefer that they don't have the complaints, I would like to see a fence
,., installed there as a condition of this proposal of 7 new houses. As for
the pond, to me a pond is something that's not drained. This thing's got
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 34
~ about an 18 foot hole in the ground and about 40 to 50 feet wide. It's
eroding rapidly right now. It's got a drain hole in the bottom of it
there. That doesn't make a holding pond in my book. I think there's
something missing in this particular pond. It's a big hole in the ground.
It's not a pond. I would like to see the council here propose, I do have
the rights of having a fence installed as far as a condition of the permit
to add 7 houses to the area.
Emmings: What you're asking for, do you care if it's a fence or a natural
screening? If it was evergreens?
Ben Gowen: The natural screening is a bunch of brush that's in bad shape.
It's an unsightly mess.
Emmings: What's there now?
Ben Gowen: Yes. It's just brush and stuff. It's probably some areas 40
feet wide and some areas not at all. It's not a natural blind by any
manner or means. I dispute that.
Emmings: I think what I heard him say was that, and you can correct me if
I'm wrong, is that he'd rather do some, if there are additional plantings,
he'd rather do it with planting rather than something like a fence.
Ben Gowen: Of course the something has to be specified before we start.
~ Gary, you're talking about a street. You mean cul-de-sac don't you? That
is a cul-de-sac not a street?
Gary Reed: Yes.
Ben Gowen: Is that a settlemend pond?
Emmings: I don't know about the pond. I guess I'm a little surprised to
hear it's got a drain at the bottom of it.
Olsen: Right and I've spoken with Mr. Gowen about that before and were you
talking with engineering about that?
Ben Gowen: No, I just heard. I've been to these meetings before when HSZ
was proposing this and it was a settling pond to take water off of his
parking lot which doesn't exist yet. It's got a big drainage into it and
there's a big drainage out of it. The drainage is just the bottom of the
hole. I think it's worth looking into whether it meets the requirements as
stated back in October.
Emmings: Is that something that someone could go out and look at?
Olsen: Sure. We can check that.
e
Ben Gowen:
fence.
I don't have anymore to say except I'd still like to have a
Emmings: Is there anybody else here who wants to be heard on this?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 35
e
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: In the engineer's report, he says it should be noted that the pond
constructed on Outlot A needs to be reshaped to allow for a buffer. What's
this buffer?
Olsen: One of the conditions of the HSZ plat was that there'd be a 5 foot
buffer between the pond and utilities.
Erhart: So this is not an ordinance requirement, this was a requirement
that we imposed on the developer at the time of HSZ.
Olsen: We're carrying that on because the plan does not show that buffer.
Erhart: Maybe it's something new that slipped by me in an ordinance. Let
me get this straight. The HSZ, are they making the cul-de-sac or are you
paying for it? The developer is paying for the cul-de-sac or HSZ is.
Roger Zahn: We are.
Erhart: Which is HSZ. I guess the real unusual part about this is that
Lot 1 and 2 really aren't flag lots. It just happens the house faces the
e wrong direction. In other words, it could have access off of Oriole Avenue
as opposed to this driveway easement. The problem is, the house on Lot 2
really faces east doesn't it?
Gary Reed: Yes, that's the existing house on the property and you have my
son's house, we got a variance for that. I guess there are 3 houses...
Erhart: We generally have discouraged flag lots and I was trying to think
of any other way to lay this out to avoid it but the real thing is that in
one sense they're not a flag lot because they both abut Oriole Avenue yet.
Both existing houses, at least the one on the south actually faces east so
it'd be difficult to access of Oriole.
Gary Reed: We went through all this before when we got permission to use
it. The natural trees...and that was one of the requests that we replat...
Erhart: On the house on Lot 1, where does his driveway come in from then?
It's not shown on there. You show a blacktop driveway for the house on Lot
2 but you don't show how outlot...
Olsen: That's the same, they share the driveway.
e
Erhart: Same driveway, okay. The only thing with the trees, I might
suggest a restricted covenant that says like 10 feet along that border that
whatever the owner of that property has to maintain a boundary of woodlot
and then also ask the developer to add evergreens in those areas where it's
open because I think it is a potential problem to the south. I want to say
a restricted covenant until such time as the land to the south is converted
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 36
~ to residential as a suggestion because I think it is a potential problem in
that someone would come along, remove the existing wood boundary and then
either that person or another person who would come buy that house later
would then come in and complain about the existing use to the south. I can
easily visualize that happening. Jo Ann, could you see some kind of a
covenant protecting a wood lot boundary there?
Olsen: They have to provide a development contract. I think it should be
put in that seeing what's happened with covenants and restrictions. We
don't have any control.
Erhart: Whatever. Some kind of legal, something that goes with that
property that says until that is redeveloped as residential, that they have
to maintain the existing woodlot boundary there. And perhaps ask the
developer to add some. I don't know if I interpretted it correct but did
you volunteer to put some? I don't know if you did or if we put those
words in your mouth.
Gary Reed: I guess you have to know what you're volunteering to do and
I can't afford to come in...maybe add a fee trees along the boundary
line... There are a lot of mature trees there that are quite large that
don't provide a lot of sunlight to get in there so I think...
Conrad: I have no comments.
~ ElIson: I have a question. Now if this cul-de-sac isn't approved, this is
like the condition of the whole development on the corner. How come I see
something being built right there right now? It looks like the Super
America or whatever is going up right now?
Olsen: That's the HSZ site and part of that whole site was to close off
West 64th Street which is what's happening with this right now and that has
been closed off.
ElIson: Okay, the other question I had was about the Outlot B. We're
saying that it's being separated for future development. Any development
will require a replat and access permit. In other words, we're basically
saying that Outlot B can't even be developed unless they can get out on
TH 41.
Olsen: The way it is now it doesn't have.
ElIson: And haven't we looked into that TH 41 kind of thing and we already
know they don't want to do that? I mean are we landlocking them or are
they creating their own hardship if they come back and say, we've got to
have it?
Olsen: I tried to get in touch with the Highway Department on this one and
they didn't call back in time but I don't know, since they closed off the
one street, I don't know that they would deny access.
~ Gary Reed: I think that's in the notes of some of the previous meetings
that Barb Dacy had looked into it with MnDot and I didn't want 64th Street
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 37
4It closed off if I couldn't get out on Highway 41.
so at that time and it's in the Minutes, she had
had granted that that access could be utilized.
The old house up there...
looked into it and MnDot
Olsen: This had always been a separate lot that was during the whole
process.
Gary Reed: We also had to agree with Roger Zahn to have an access going
into their parking lot from that particular piece of property.
Batzli: From Outlot B?
Gary Reed: Yes. And I guess, I don't know whether I can address Jo Ann
about Outlot B but I would like to separate Outlot B from the rest of the
property with a meets and bounds description at this point because...
surveyers anyway, it's going to take some time and maybe some quit claim
deeds to establish the frontage along the highway so if we could just
separate everything that's going to be platted as meets and bounds...it
would just read so many westerly feet of Lot... It would help until I can
get through the survey on the highway department... At some point when we
go in for platting of that particular lot, then we could straighten that.
Olsen: We can talk about that. I don't really understand. We can discuss
that later.
~ Gary Reed: It won't change the plat any.
Batzli: I had a question about all these conditions that we had last time
that we platted this. Things like 25 foot trail easement over proposed 8
foot bituminous trail. Vacated 64th Street right-of-way, etc. etc. etc.
The Council did back on August 8th. Do we not need to do any of these
things again? Is that what you're telling us Jo Ann?
Olsen: Yes, those have all been met. The easements have been obtained.
Batzli: Yes but he's replatting. Are the easements on the proposed plans
that he gave us again?
Olsen: No.
Batzli: Then why don't we need them again then?
Olsen: The easements are on the northern, on the HSZ site.
Gary Reed: The trail easement would start from the curve of that
cul-de-sac and go past the holding pond.
Batzli: So it's all north of this plat that we're looking at now?
Olsen: Yes.
4It
Emmings:
What was the answer to his question?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 38
e
Olsen:
That it's on the HSZ property.
What's already platted.
Emmings: It looks to me like what he's looking at here is the subdivision
#88-17 that created one outlot and 2 single family lots in the West 64th
Street cul-de-sac. That sounds like it's this property.
Batzli: That's when I read that I thought that was all this property.
Emmings: That's on page 38 of the Council's Minutes from August 8, 1988.
Olsen: Let me just find that real quick. It was my understanding that
that included the HSZ site and when I confirmed it with Lori, she said it
was not on this property as far as the easement. I'm still not finding the
section.
Emmings: The trail easement may well not be on this property.
Batzli: But there might be some of these conditions that are was my only
point.
Olsen: Well I went through them but I can double check them again but the
trail easement was taken care of. 2 is the same. 3 is in there. 4 is in
there. 5 doesn't apply. We're taking care of number 6. I went through
these. I just don't see.
~ Batzli: I just wanted to make sure because I didn't know where that trail
was.
Olsen: I'll double check that if the actual description is still on this
site and an easement has to be again recorded with this new property. I'll
double check that but Lori had said it didn't but I'll double check.
Batzli: What about 10? Showing the adequate building setbacks and such.
You're happy with that one now?
Olsen: They've shown that.
Batzli: I note that they had little boxes on, I guess they do have one on
Lot 6. My only question I guess is if in fact MnDot denied an access
permit to Outlot B, would we let them do anything with Outlot B by going
through a driveway into the parking lot or what would we do with that at
that point?
Olsen: It depends on what's being proposed. I know in the past you talked
about a commercial site. possible rezoning of that and it's hard to say.
Most likely they would have to maybe improve that. I don't know how large
the easement is. Do you remember how wide?
Gary Reed: I guess I would feel more comfortable if I had something in
writing with MnDot.
~Olsen: They won't. You'd have to apply for the access permit to get
something in writing.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 39
e
Batzli: I just remember in looking through this packet that it was kind of
telephone calls to MnDot and kind of loosey goosey, well yeah, we'd
probably consider it but we don't have any guarantees that they're going to
allow it.
Gary Reed: We never received the document stating that we had the access
. . .
Batzli: I don't think you can. I think that's the point is that you don't
know until you apply. Actually apply for it.
Gary Reed: The access is there. It's used. It's always been there.
Ben Gowen: It's a fixed item. I don't think there's any problem.
Emmings: It was there for the drive-in right?
Ben Gowen: That was very important when we cut off 64th Street.
Gary Reed: It would be nice to narrow it down a little bit... They did
state that it was far enough away from HSZ's site, entrance. It met the
qualifications.
Emmings: That was the whole point of having the intersection further
e north. I think the people up here are concerned that you may be taking a
risk in this regard in landlocking this parcel but I think you're aware of
that aren't you?
Gary Reed: I just don't know if they can take something away that you've
had since over 40 or 50 years without a fight.
Batzli: I was going to ask a lot of questions about the pond but it sounds
like you guys are going to look into that. The only other thing is this
fence thing and I think if he's willing to plant some trees, that would be
a lot more attractive to start with but I would suggest we consider adding
something as a condition.
Wildermuth: Is the pond a natural pond or was that a completely man made
pond?
Olsen: Man made.
Wildermuth: I don't have anything further.
Emmings: I don't have any comments on this. It sounds like the only issue
is some screening between the properties. Between lots 6 and 7 and the
property to the south and it sounds like I guess I'd agree with Tim's
proposal that there be something in the development contract to maintain
the existing, what's there and have the developer fill in any open spaces
~ with some kind of evergreens or something like that that would block the
"'view of those properties to Mr. Gowen's property to avoid any problems.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 40
-
Erhart:
Is that all mature trees in the south end of your development?
Gary Reed: Yes, the ones that are there are all mature.
Emmings: What kind of trees?
Ben Gowen: There are 5 oak trees that are mature trees on about 700 feet.
Gary Reed: There's more trees than that.
Erhart: If you do plant a screen there, there's enough sun that they would
grow?
Ben Gowen: Oh yes.
Erhart: I mean it would be silly to plant evergreens in there if it's a
complete canopy.
Gary Reed:
shade.
There are some mature trees on the south side that produce some
Emmings:
on this?
I don't have anything else. Does anybody else have any comments
If not, does someone want to make a motion?
Batz1i: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary
4It Plat #88-17 as shown on the plat dated May 8, 1989 with the following
conditions. 1 through 5 as set forth in the staff report and condition 6
stating that the applicant shall provide screening between the southerly
lots and the Gowen property. I don't know if there should be any emphasize
on type of screening. Leave it at that and listen to comments.
Conrad: I'll second it. I think staff should do that. Make a
recommendation on screening.
Erhart: Your recommendation essentially leaves it open to some kind of,
what's the term you use? The development contract or staff can finish that
off.
Ben Gowen: Don't I come into this picture at all as to what I want?
Emmings: You've asked for a fence and what we're saying is there should be
some screening so people on those lots can't, you kind you can't look
across the boundary line.
Ben Gowen: Yes but you guys are asking him what kind of trees on 600 feet.
You don't ask me what trees you want on 600 feet. There's a difference in
opinion here.
Emmings: Yes, but whatever kind of trees might be there or if there are no
trees there, we're giving him, we're placing the burden on him to put some
.. kind of screening in there. If it's screened enough. If the staff thinks
.., it's screened enough so that people can't see through there now, it will be
left alone. If it needs additional screening, he'll be required to put
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 41
e
that in.
Ben Gowen: My request is stated as traversing also. Can't screen...
We're talking about 25 to 30 more people there. For instance, just for
instance. Last Sunday the renters in the small house had a hi fi on so
loud that I became very annoyed by it. I went over there and nobody was
around. I couldn't find anybody so I went home and called the police. The
police came over and found the guy sleeping over in the grass about 40 to
50 feet away from the house. But his hi fi was on in the house and he's
out in the yard sleeping. So the next day Monday, the same situation. I
went over there and asked him if he could run it down a little bit and he
says, oh is it bugging you? I said I don't really appreciate listening to
your music. He's laying out in the yard 20-30 feet from the house with the
hi fi going in the house. I think this is indictitive of what 7 or 8 other
homes are going to create there. I'd like to have a little more security
than what's been offered.
Emmings: I think the problem is on that theory, we'd require fences
between, on all lot lines between all houses and we just, I don't think
anybody is prepared to do that. The other issue you've got with a fence is
maintenance. I think if I were in your shoes, if a guy put up some natural
screening, ever.greens and bushes and things like that, that would be
preferable to me but maybe you don't feel that way about it but I think
it's a better screen.
tt Ben Gowen: I've had my say.
Emmings: As far as neighbors being a problem, that's a problem we all live
with. That's just a fact of life. I know when you moved in there and
I know what it was like when you moved in there because you've told me but
the City's developing and there are these kinds of conflicts allover the
place.
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #88-17 as shown on the plat dated May 8, 1989
with the following conditions:
1.
Outlot B cannot be developed until it receives preliminary and final
plat approval; any site plan approvals if necessary and receive an
access permit from MnDot for access from Highway 41.
2.
The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the West 64th Street
right-of-way to the City for permanent ownership.
3.
Detailed construction plans and specifications, including calculations
for sizing the roadway and utility improvements shall be submitted for
approval by the City Engineer. As built mylar plans will also be
required upon completion of the construction.
e 4.
The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District for reshaping of the pond.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 42
e 5.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the
proper installation of these public improvements.
6.
The applicant shall provide screening between the southerly lots and
the Gowen property.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE ADDITION OF 2,920 SQUARE FEET ONTO AN EXISTING
PRIVATE GARAGE (BEDDOR), ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND
LOCATED ON LOTS lAND 2, BLOCK 2, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, FORTIER AND
ASSOCIATES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Emmings: Daryl, do you have any comments?
Daryl Fortier: I'm Daryl Fortier with Fortier and Associates. We are
pretty much in agreement with the staff report. We hope it's a brief
report for you tonight. The additional landscaping, point 2 on the staff
recommendations, we would like to simply see the provisions for caliper
inch per caliper inch basis deleted and say that we will work with staff
and the DNR forester for appropriate replacement. Our simple concern here
4It is that if the owner wishes, as he's expressed, to keep the center of the
site free, we are losing 6 trees in this area and we've already proposed
landscaping around the edges. If it's caliper inch per caliper inch, we
would have to be putting in so many trees, we think there's a real crowding
problem. We would rather simple say let's look at the actual trees and
meet with staff and the DNR forester rather than make the provision that it
be caliper inch per caliper inch. We're not objecting to replacing trees.
We are proceeding with the replat that Jo Ann suggested. The issue of
outside storage, I think she suggested, that's actually located right at
this location. He has a flatbed trailer which is about 24 inches high or
so to haul his vehicles to different shows and different events. Parking
and driveway curb and gutter. I'm sure that's fine... previously this
portion of the building was built and there was an exemption from curb and
gutter. The curb and gutter for the property is along this portion of the
driveway and is all along the south portion of the driveway right up to the
building and that channels water to storm sewers in this location. The
remainder of the curbing was deleted specifically because the center of
this site is used for auto contour shows. Mr. Beddor has two automotive
clubs that he operates out of his garage. They do not store their cars
there but he does invite them there for display and car shows. Only one
that I know of that I've attended so I really can't say that this is
frequent but I can say that there are a number of cars. I think last time
there were about 60 cars that showed up and they are parked on the grass
and they go out in an array pattern with a main tent, their hospitality in
this location. Curbs would be very difficult to drive over, especially for
~a bulk of the cars. They simply wouldn't do it so the provision of curbs
,., in this case would be defeating his purpose of having a specific facility
for automotive display and car shows. The second reason we want to keep
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 43
e
the center of the site open is that one of the vehicles they're storing
there is now a helicopter. It is a safety problem to land a helicopter on
a curb. Of course they have to land on skids. They don't necessarily have
wheels and after you land you have small wheels that drop down from the
skids. You can think of it as a horse drawn sleigh if you will. The
runners are about the same size. The wheels are attached to the runners
and you snap lock them into position. They are about 2 1/2 or 3 inches.
You then have to push the helicopter. It is a small 2 person helicopter.
You then have to push the helicopter into storage. If you drop is over a
curb of course you're subject to damaging your equipment. You can...when
you jar a fuel line loose or whatever the problem would be. The second
thing is that pushing the helicopter back up the curb, once you're in the
garage and you try to push it over a curb, it's a real tough problem. You
simply can't do it with 3 inch wheels when you have a 6 inch curb. The
runners would prevent you from pulling the helicopter into position unless
we were to make a special asphalt helicopter landing pad. That would be
the only alternative and it would have to be large enough so of course you
have some safety margin and that's the reason we're requesting no concrete
curb and gutter. The final point I'd like to clarify is the applicant
shall submit for approval by the City a drainage and erosion control plan.
This is a little more complex. There are actually two proposals before you
tonight. One is for drainage improvements in accordance with the previous
engineering plans for all of Park One which envisioned that at some time we
would connect from Lyman Lumber's overflow with an underground storm sewer
pipe to the public system. This could never be built as part of the Park
One improvements because it's on private property. It's a private
improvement and we cannot spend the funds for it. We're now intending to
do that. It's this reason that we'll lose trees. The issue of ponding and
so forth has been raised by the engineer but it's already been addressed.
The 20 acres in the northerly part of Park One has created a very large
outlot down here. Part of the Ver-Sa-Til project contains this large duck
pond that we've created in the site and maintained trees. Create a natural
site. That's intending to drain all of Park One. It's been appropriately
sized for settlement and contains...so we would not have individual holding
ponds in small lots. The lots were simply too small so we've already sized
them and did all the engineering...public funds partially and partially
project funds and it's been assessed against the property so we'd like to
point out that a greater amount of impervious surface here has already been
calculated. ...as parking lot so that's the basis for the calculations and
we are not even approaching anything near that for runoff capacity.
Secondly, a grading plan. There is literally no grading involved with the
exception of excavating for footings on the garage. The site does not
require any grading. It's already perfectly flat. Our survey has been
submitted. The reason the engineer doesn't see any grading changes is
because we're not changing grades by more than a couple of inches and our
surveyer cannot be that accurate. Neither can our contractor so he may
have missed the grading plan but it is indeed there. The issue of erosion
control has been addressed and again it may have been overlooked but it is
actually being addressed as part of the storm sewer line. We have asked
for silt fences and we have asked for 5 cubic yards of rip rap to be placed
at this location. This is the very same standards we use in the
construction of all the improvements in Park One including the City's
public improvements so we think that's adequate and since it's the same
e
e
Planning commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 44
e
standard that the engineer has participated in approving as well as the
city's consulting engineers, we feel that should be adequate on the present
plans as we've requested. with those comments, we have no objections to
the staff report.
Conrad: What do you agree with?
Daryl Fortier: We certainly agree that, I'm not sure why, it's a large
issue, we are not imposing utilities for this. It is intended to be
essentially dry storage for this if you will. There is not intended to be
any maintenance but I'm not sure why we want to put a condition suggesting
that they never do maintenance. If it's going to be approved as a
commercial permanent structure which is what the Council wanted, I'm not
sure why we're limiting it. He has no intent of doing repairs but I'm not
sure why we are limiting it.
Olsen: Because we got into all those traps.
Daryl Fortier: If we put in drainage, then we have to worry about pumps.
We put in sanitary sewer connection onto the building as previously
requested. We did that immediately during construction. It has flammable
waste traps. It has oil separators. It has a hydraulic lift. It has a
parts washer. It has solvent recovery. It meets all the requirements. It
has testing facilities and where the fuel tank can be monitored on a weekly
basis if necessary. Yearly by the State Inspector. I think we're in
e full compliance with absolutely all the concerns previously listed for this
structure. One of the concerns is whether or not it drains. If we put in
drains...all the protection. In this case there are no drains. No
proposals to hook up plumbing whatsoever so the ability to do those types
of repairs to provide water just doesn't exist. I'm just not sure why
we're making it an issue. We certainly agree with replacing of the trees
for the forester, point 2. We certainly agree to proceed with the plat. We
agree no additional outside storage should be permitted. It's an
industrial use. We would ask for an exemption for point 5. We think the
curb and gutter should be deleted for the reasons I mentioned. Not for
economics but for other hardship reasons and we would agree that we will
discuss or we will consult with staff concerning grading and so forth but
we believe we've already submitted sufficient information and it perhaps
deals with mutliple plans that's been overlooked. That's all unless you
have questions.
Emmings: Let's see if there are any comments here. Jim, have you got any
comments?
Wildermuth: No.
Batzli: How do you feel about the curb and gutter?
Wildermuth:
second time?
e ElIson: Ah ha.
guy. You'll ask
We didn't require it the first time, why do we need it the
There's that precedent that you just said about the last
him the next time he comes in but as soon as he does,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 45
~he'll say but I didn't do it the first time.
Batzli: I was going to talk about condition 1 a little bit first of all.
I guess my question was whether we would allow maintenance or repair of
automobiles anywhere on the site or were you only trying to limit it in
that new building?
Olsen: The reason that I put that condition in was if they do start the
repair and maintenance then we get into the other things that the other
garage had to do with the traps. That's the only reason I had that
condition in there was so they would not be doing that work in there
without having the accommodations for it.
Batzli: Okay, so the garage and the new facility are the same thing?
Olsen: Yes.
Batzli: So really what you're saying is, you're only going to use the new
facility as a garage and if you use it for anything else, you've got to
talk about it. That's what you're trying to say?
Olsen: That's what I'm trying to say.
Batzli: I think I would go along with landscaping being done on a staff
approval basis. I think that the curb and gutter, there's a certain amount
~Of logic to it but I think that you can make a little ramp or something. I
don't think it's the kind of thing where you eliminate all of the curb and
gutter throughout the entire site because you're going to drive some cars
on the grass. Finally I think condition 6, if that is the case then I
think the condition should remain but add something to the effect that
these things only have to be submitted if required after consultation with
the City staff.
Emmings: Now Annette. What about curb and gutter?
ElIson:
right?
This doesn't have it because originally this was never required
Not because we gave them an exemption at one point?
Olsen: I don't remember. I don't know if we even required it.
Wildermuth: Curbing was waived right?
Conrad: The first time it was waived.
ElIson: That really doesn't matter now but...
Conrad: It really appeared at that time that it served no purpose.
ElIson: Then why do we have it as an ordinance? Then maybe it should be
looked at on a case by case basis but if we write it in there that
~ everything around here should have it and yet we use it and enforce it on a
.., case by case basis, then it's stupid to have it in there so I'd just as
soon follow what the ordinance says. Like Brian said, like have a cut out
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 46
e
for a driveay to actually help the wheels get down. It might be easier
than on the wet grass or something like that to have a little concrete ramp
or who knows what that's connected to a curb. I would be satisfied if Jo
Ann said the tree replacement is good enough, then I go along with her
saying. If Dave were here though I know he'd want 1 inch for 1 inch, an
eye for an eye.
Erhart: What happens if it's a 12 inch tree?
ElIson: I know. That's just it. We're going to have to decide that.
I think there's some merit to the reason we were going to that is because
we really lost something once and never returned so I'm giving Jo Ann that
leeway. But I want the curb and I think number 6 should stand. If they've
got it in, then just show it to them that it is here. I'm done.
Conrad: I thought this was a simple deal but now that we get into it and
Daryl doesn't like most of the staff report, I think we should table.
There are too many technical things that I just don't understand. I think
he had a comment. It showed me that the engineer is not looking at what is
there and I'd like the engineer to comment to me about the issues and I'm
not smart enough to figure out whether we should or should not require curb
and gutter here. The engineer said the grading plan yet Daryl says hey,
we're not doing anything. Something's askew and it's not for me to make
up. I think I would recommend tabling it.
e
Olsen: The engineer does understand that he wants to still drive up there
and stuff.
Conrad: He's still saying that. But I hear from Daryl, I heard some
comments from him that it didn't sound like there was communication and
maybe some different points. Maybe that's not the one but others. I don't
know. I don't know whether curb and gutter should be required here. I
know we slipped it the first time through.
Olsen: Again, we were waiting until the mini-storage and further
development.
Conrad: Daryl, just one other comment. The trailers are now being stored
outside. Is that taken care of? The staff comment to us was that existing
garage is used for storage/maintenance. Site is conforming to the request
and conditions of the site but there are trailers being stored outside
which was not anticipated in the beginning. So is this new plan taking
care of that? They're saying we're storing one trailer between buildings
but what about the trailers that are currently outside now?
Daryl Fortier: I'm only aware of one trailer that's outside right now.
There may be more. If there are more it's probably because we pulled them
out of storage so he could do something in the garage. There is presently
room in here. They do store a trailer inside but he recently purchased, I
understand, a larger trailer which sits in here. That's the only trailer
I'm aware of which is too large for the structure.
e
Conrad: Staff is saying trailers are being stored outside.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 47
e
Olsen: The day that we visited, there were 2 or 3 on the lot.
Daryl Fortier: I think that could be much like saying cars are stored
outside. He had brought these out and put them out here...
Erhart: I visited the site this evening and it's a very neat site.
Regarding, well let's take one at a time here. Not having maintenance in a
building. What's this trap you're referring to Jo Ann?
Olsen: I believe the first time they went through they had to have a
special trap for the fuel oil.
Wildermuth: For spills.
Olsen: There was a lot of discussion on that.
Erhart: Any building in any industrial, in any garage a guy can pull a car
in and maintain it.
Wildermuth: But with that original garage I think there's a floor lift and
a wash station and all kinds of areas for working on cars.
Erhart: The problem with this condition is that, then we ought to apply
~ this condition to everybody. Everybody that's got an overhead door in the
~city ought to have this condition applied to it.
Emmings: My recollection of this Tim, and I don't know if it helps or not,
is that what I remember us saying when we considered this is what we're
creating here is essentially a service station. The same kinds of
consideration ought to be given to this building as would be given to a
service station because that's essentially what it is. It's private rather
than...
Erhart: But someone doesn't come in with their car to have it fixed that
he charges them does he?
Emmings: No but he's got the same equipment and doing the same kinds of
things that would be done down at the Standard station.
Erhart: I do that at my home too in my garage.
Conrad: Not everyday. Not multi-cars.
Erhart: I don't think anybody feels strong about condition 1. To me it
also seems pretty much over control.
Batzli: This is a commercial area and you're not. This would be a
permitted use in this area.
~ Erhart: I could pull a car into my industrial plant too and tear the
~engine out, there's no one that says I can't do that.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 48
e
Ellson:
They wouldn't like it though.
Olsen: If you're going to do it, we just like to know that everything else
is taken care of that needs to be done as part of it.
Ellson: He didn't seem to have a problem with that one. He had a few he
had a problem with, that wasn't one of them.
Erhart: Let's move on. I agree with him it seems a little bit over
control. The next one on the landscaping. Essentially the line where that
ditch is right now, essentially is just grown over and to go in and measure
which trees are caliper per caliper basis could mean that you have to move
the, you might have to just literally that whole edge of the lot to replace
caliper to caliper so I don't know. I'd be just satisfied to say
additional landcaping shall be provided as required by staff and just use
good judgment on it because it's very difficult to use a technical approach
to it. The outside storage, in other industrial sites there's outside
storage and then the whole thing has to be screened right and here we're
allowing an exception essentially by allowing one outside.
Olsen: It is essentially screened on 3 sides.
e
Erhart: Yes, the whole area is pretty wooded. I guess I don't have a
problem with 4 leaving it the way it is even though technically I supposed
it might be not in accordance with our rules. The next thing is the curb
and gutter. I think in this case the specific intention of the use of this
owner here, in the first place there's a lot of asphalt there now for the
small lot and none of it's curbed and gutter so to go in and require curb
and gutter on this new section would mean you have about 20% curb and
gutter and 80% just like your home driveway which would really look out of
place. Now how I can justify in my mind allowing this building owner not
require curb and gutter is that he has a specific requirement that he needs
his driveway tailored in the manner in which it is. The Level of the
asphalt is level with the green grass and I think we're not setting a
precedent. Somebody else would have to come in with a specific need to
have their asphalt driveway the same level as the grass ~o I guess I don't
have any problem in extending essentially the same rules on that.
Batzli: Can I interrupt just for a second Tim? What did we do with, was
it Lyman Lumber that had the asphalt strip and then behind it they had a
bunch of piles of rock and stuff and they were going to use, I don't know
if they were going to use forklifts or frontend loaders or something. Did
we make them have gutter? I think we did.
wildermuth: The unusual part about this thing is that the applicant is
going to use a commercial location in an industrial office park location
for a non-commercial use. I don't know if you've been in there but a lot
of houses that are built look like the inside of this garage.
Erhart: The exterior is definitely, it's definitely an industrial
e building.
Wildermuth: Yes right.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 49
e
Erhart: It's a good quality industrial but it is an industrial building so
it fits in from that standpoint. Lastly, where is this grading thing in
these conditions? Is that in here?
Conrad: The last one. Daryl is saying there's not much grading to do.
Erhart: Okay, I think we should just leave 6 the way it is and let the
applicant and the City hash that one out and I guess I'd like to pass this
on to Council. I think it's ready to go.
Emmings: I'd like to ask you about the helicopter. I wonder if we knew we
had an airport in town and can you basically have a helicopter anywhere you
want to?
Olsen: We don't have any restrictions against them. We have had
complaints about the helicopter.
Emmings: This was proposed and approved as a garage for automobiles. I
know I don't know what's going on with the helicopter or if there are any
safety issues or noise issues or anything else.
Olsen: But we are getting complaints. We're working through public safety
on how to address it. We don't have any definitive answers. The zoning
~ ordinance doesn't regulate them and we're working with public safety to
..,possibly regulate them. I know that Prince has one on his site too and
they just have to meet the FAA.
Emmings: They'd probably pre-empt anything we'd do.
for something like noise or something.
I don't know except
Erhart: I would venture to guess that cities would have ordinances which
we ought to look at that would have some kind of space requirement. Some
distance requirements from a landing pad to a building and to the next
person's property. I've just got to believe that that would be common in
an ordinance regarding helicopters.
Olsen: What we're working on now is we're telling the resident that when
you hear the noise or whatever, try to get somebody out there to test it.
Use the noise ordinance and it's not going to work.
Batzli: Did we have a noise ordinance?
Olsen: Yes.
Batzli: The beefed up one didn't pass but we have a noise ordinance?
Olsen: It's more of a nuisance ordinance rather than a noise ordinance.
So we have no way to deny them.
e
Ellson:
Hours of operation maybe.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 50
e
Emmings: I don't know if we should table it or pass it on. I guess I'd be
comfortable in passing it on but I think there are things that need to be
worked out between now and when the City Council gets it. Things like
traps and stuff, it seems to me you only worry about a trap if you've got a
drain and there aren't any drains so I'm not that concerned about number 1.
Number 2, I agree with everybody else that it should be done by the staff
and we don't have to worry about a caliper inch by caliper inch. That's
because Dave's not here and that's the only reason I have the courage to
say that. I don't see any reason now to impose curb and gutter. If we let
it go before looking for some kind of a reason we thought to be valid at
the time, I don't see any reason to impose it on this small section. I
think we should keep in number 6 and you should just discuss your
differences with the city engineer prior to going to the City Council.
That's all I've got. Any other discussion on this? If not, is there a
motion?
Erhart: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan
#89-3 for the construction of a 2,920 sq. ft. garage facility as shown on
the Site Plan dated April 13, 1989 with the conditions as follows. Number
2, change to additional landscaping shall be provided as required by staff.
3 as stated here. 4 as stated changing the word "the transport flatbed" to
"1 transport flatbed". Number 5, all parking and driveway areas shall be
paved period. And 6 as is. And that's it.
e
Batzli:
Did you delete number I?
Erhart:
Yes.
Olsen: And number 5 I changed just to say all parking and driveway areas
shall be paved.
Emmings: We could do that one like we did on Stockdales. You could say
unless the City Engineer determines.
Erhart: Ours is a recommendation so if the City Engineer carne to the
Council.
Emmings: I mean unless the City Engineer determines now or in the future
that curb and gutter is necessary... Just a suggestion.
Conrad: That's a good way to do it.
Ernmings: Alright, we've got a motion. Do we have a second?
Wildermuth: I'll second the motion.
Batzli: I'd like to see condition 1 in there and I would also at a minimum
like to see your proposed...
ElIson: Gutter idea?
e
Batzli: Gutter idea but the problem I see is that, the only reason I
really agreed on the guttering last time is he's not in a sewered area
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 51
e
and it didn't make sense to me. To me gutter is directed to a storm sewer
as well as maintaining erosion, or keeping erosion at bay. I think if we
do this, we might as well be doing it on everyone that we do from here on
out.
Wildermuth: But have you seen the site Brian? The initial portion, 80% of
it isn't going to be guttered.
Batzli: That might be true but I can't help what they did before. Maybe I
did it before. Maybe I didn't know any better.
Emmings:
I think it was your motion.
Batzli:
However,
Maybe it was but I guess the argument was somewhat appealing.
I guess you can do it by other means.
Wildermuth: This is a unique situation. It's a non-commercial use of a
commercial area.
Erhart: The only problem is if the guy sells the property to somebody who
then wants to use it for a commercial use and it doesn't have curb and
gutter. If you're starting fresh from the site, that's probably a good
enough argument to require it and it probably should have been required.
e
Wildermuth: Initially?
Erhart: Yes. The fact that the site is already 70% developed.
Ellson: Then isn't that exactly what's going to happen when Stockdale
expands and we just put that in. We'll want him to put that in when he
expands and now we'll have the same viewpoint.
Wildermuth: He has to come back if he expands.
ElIson: I know like they're coming back with the idea that we curb and
gutter as he got bigger which is the idea behind Stockdale and we're not
doing it now we won't do it then. pretty soon we'll have 50-50. Half have
it, half don't.
Emmings: I don't think that's a realistic danger at all because when
Stockdale's place gets water and sewer, as part of the lOP, everything
there is going to be torn down and that place is going to be redeveloped
and that's different.
Wildermuth: Not a comparison.
Emmings: But it's funny we get two of these on the same night. It makes
it so hard that you have to justify so many things.
e
Daryl Fortier: Maybe I can help...with curb and gutters. One of the
differences first of all on this plan is that ever since Frank first held
out these two pieces of property for personal use, it was because such a
use at his other residential lots would have been inappropriate and after
-
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 52
e
talking with staff we had to put it somewhere. You earlier had a proposal
in here for townhomes and the object is, where do they store their boats
and trailers and you said well they'll rent a space. Where do you do it
when you've got multiple vehicles? Not in a residential district so we
wind up here. ...that this is indeed the best use, ever since though
however, why didn't he just set aside one lot? He's been following a
master plan and that master plan is still being reflected and eventually it
will have another driveway connected here. That's exactly why the storm
sewer has been located by the City and by the developer. We are following
a pattern. It's not a haphazard development. It is a master plan and it is
proceeding in accordance with the original designs. The curbing has been
stopped here. It has been extended over this side. That is along the
perimeter of the property. It will be continued along the perimeter of the
property including this portion thus all the perimeter of the property will
be paved, curbed and guttered in accordance with the ordinance even if it
were to be transferred to someone else. It would be fully. That will
still keep the center portion of the site open. It will contain already
water and runoff. It will serve all the purposes of being curbed and
guttered. The future owner mayor may not paved this or mayor may not do
something else with it 5 or 10 years down the road but a better idea may
well be to support this since this is following a master plan, all
perimeters of the property will require curb and gutter to serve a
permanent statement or a compromise position and that's, whenever he makes
any additional cuts in here or adds to this perimeter area, he would indeed
have to add curb and gutter.
e
Emmings: But we're not seeing any perimeter work on this plan so I don't
think it would make sense to add it as a condition here. When he adds that
driveway over there, would that come back to us or would it just go to the
engineer?
Olsen: Are you talking like the mini-storage?
Daryl Fortier: Right. He's already proposed the second driveway in here.
Olsen: If he just put the driveway in, no but if they come in with a site
plan for mini-storage, then yes we would see that.
Emmings: If he put the driveway in, where does the driveway go?
Daryl Fortier: The driveway goes right in front of this future building
and connects from here to here.
Olsen: It would be part of that mini-storage addition.
Daryl Fortier: That's correct.
Olsen: Then you would see it.
Wildermuth: What kind of a mini-storage addition is this going to be?
e Daryl Fortier: Mr. Beddor seems to becoming a collector of things. Some
of them look like, I noticed that he's looked at some Jaguars recently and
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 53
4It he may well become a vintage car collector in which case it would be
private mini-storage. He also has a few friends who would say they would
like to store their vehicle here so he stores all his own vehicles but if
he ever wanted to invite personal friends to also store or other members of
the car club, he would undoubtedly put them in these mini-storage. It
would again be for vehicles. That's the best I can predict at this time
but you're fully informed at least.
Emmings: I'm glad somebody has a master plan.
Daryl Fortier: That's part of what the previous Council and Planning
Commission was based on. There is curb and gutter along this area. Also
along both sides of the driveway to make sure that any runoff coming from
the site is funneled in this storm sewer. It was not a blanket statement
saying no curb and gutter required.
Emmings: And the site isn't being changed. Are there any existing
problems with runoff or erosion or anything else?
Daryl Fortier: From this area, all the erosion and runoff would go
immediately to this small area where we have erosion control measures and
this new holding pond is going to happen because we cannot prevent it.
It's a low lying area that it will fill up if there's an unusual amount of
rain and that's in addition to the previous pond for siltation and erosion
control. So it's well covered that any possible injury by not having curb
4It and gutter is just a miniscule possibility. Aside from any injury on his
property but to the public benefit there would be virtually no affect. I
hope that helps somewhat.
Emmings: It just doesn't look like curb and gutter is going to make any
difference here. I guess if the City Engineer, if the motion passes the
way it's schedule, if the City Engineer has a different opinion on that
when he gets to City Council...but the site, all of it seems to have been
taken care of on the site.
Ellson: But your motion you still didn't put number 1 in right?
Batzli: And you didn't accept Steve's friendly amendment about the adding
it at a later date and that kind of thing?
Erhart: I'll do it if somebody wants it in there, I'll agree.
Batzli: Do you agree with that amendment?
Wildermuth: Sure.
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site plan #89-3 for the construction of a 2,920 sq. ft. garage
facility as shown on the Site Plan dated April 13, 1989 with the following
conditions:
e
1. Additional landscaping shall be provided as required by city staff.
-
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 54
e
2. The applicant shall receive a replat of the site to combine Lots 1 and
2, Park One.
3. There shall be no outside storage other than one (1) transport flat bed
which shall be stored between the two garages.
4. All parking and driveway areas shall be paved and surrounded by
concrete curb and gutter only if now or in the future the City Engineer
determines that they are necessary.
5. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage
and erosion plan prior to final approval.
Erhart, Emmings, Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor of the motion and
Conrad and Ellson voted in opposition of the motion. The motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 2.
Ellson: I want number 1 in there.
Emmings: Annette wants number 1 in there. Ladd wants to table it.
e
Conrad: I think it should be tabled. There were 4 out of 6 points that
were disagreed to by the applicant versus staff and I think somethings, I
would have preferred to have the engineer look at. I'm also very concerned
about future owners and what this property looks like and I don't know that
that has been incorporated as a sale could occur.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 3, 1989 as presented. All
voted in favor except Batzli and Wildermuth who abstained and the motion
carried.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Emmings: Do we want to add airports to our on-going? I was outside
watering my garden this morning at about 6:15. A helicopter was out going
over TH 5 and I think it was probably one of the traffic reporters.
Conrad: The one that was out by our house had the ability to spray. Had
the big tubes on the bottom.
Emmings:
It was incredibly loud.
Batzli: Is there anything in the City ordinances about landing airplanes
with pontoons on them on the lakes?
e
Emmings:
that.
Yes.
Minnewashta is the only one that we've got that they can do
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 55
. Olsen:
Riley.
Emmings: Okay, I'm sorry.
issue?
I didn't know that. Now who decides that
Olsen: That was a water surface. That's under the Water Surface Useage
Ordinance.
Emmings: Does the City allow it or does the State allow it?
Olsen:
it.
It's a City ordinance.
It had to go through and get approval on
Emmings: Amazingly enough, when I first moved onto Lake Minnewashta I
thought this is just awful that they're allowing, and at that time we had
about 5 planes that were permanently stationed on the lake all summer. Now
there's only like 2. It's gone way down with Leeches leaving. The resort
leaving. But it really is no problem whatsoever. The problem would be
when somebody has an accident but that could happen with some of the big
planes flying over too I suppose but there's no conflict really on the
surface for the use of the lake with the planes and that amazed me.
Conrad: If you ever make a change to that, you'll have about 30 people in
this room. For some reason everybody flies a plane. Lake Riley happens to
be a real core for that type of airplane.
4It Batzli: But it would seem to me that if we could regulate airplanes
landing on lakes, we could regulate helicopters landing.
Erhart: Why not find out what othere cities have ordinances.
Emmings: Let's put helicopters as number 16.
Wildermuth: How is the City able to keep them off Lotus Lake? Not long
enough?
Emmings: I don't know. I supposed it's just that it would be dangerous. I
think it's long enough it's just narrow and there's a lot of traffic. On
this ongoing issue sheets, let's all keep these.
Olsen: I'll just keep printing them out and like heliports, what I would
do is just have that printed or I'll highlight that so you know that's a
new one.
Emmings: You know what, date them.
copies, then put the date on them.
criteria. I did not read that one.
If you're going to make multiple
Then the Fire Marshall plan review
What's it about?
Olsen: That's what Dave wanted.
So that's what they review.
e
Batzli: Did we ever determine what the public safety department looks at
in order to decide if a second exit is needed off of a cul-de-sac?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 56
e
ElIson: That was the fire thing I thought he was concerned about.
Concerned about the people getting their vehicles in.
Batzli: I didn't know if the fire people decided that or public safety.
Olsen: They're all the same department.
Batzli: Is that part of this review?
Olsen: We always look at that. I just thought it was always standard that
we always provide that.
Batzli: I thought so too until recently when we didn't or we have kind of
but in the memos back to us, those people haven't.
Olsen: I haven't specifically asked them that I guess whether we'll make
that the standard.
Erhart: What's the status of the Planner? What are they going to do with
the Planning Department?
Olsen: The Council decided just to reinterview the other applicants but I
don't know what's happening.
e
Erhart:
They're going to open it up then?
Olsen:
No, they're going to just reinterview the people.
Erhart: Two remaining applicants?
Olsen: One of them...and the third one they didn't like at all so I don't
know how they're going to choose. The Council decided to interview the top
three candidates from before which really only one.
ElIson: Are they still interested?
Olsen: He is still interested from Minnetonka. Paul Krause. Eckankar,
as you know, is coming up again on Monday and the Manager wanted us to
review whether or not to do a referendum. They wanted input from the
commissions to see if they felt that the whole property would be required.
ElIson: What do you mean? Required for what?
Olsen: For public purposes. Schools, parks or if you're satisfied with
just a portion of it.
ElIson:
I don't want a referendum.
Wildermuth: If we fiddle around with this issue long enough, we're going
to get our socks sued off I think.
e
Emmings: There's the other side too where you get to pay the other side's
attorney's fees when you lose and that's not very attractive.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 57
e
Ellson: No, not the whole site.
Emmings: I hope that they make a decision one way or the other. That's
the first thing that I'd like to say about Eckankar, not that they have to
listen to what I say but I think a decision ought to be made. On the
referendum, I don't know.
Ellson: Do you think there's a chance the City is going to spend
$10,000.00 or whatever a referendum costs just over this one issue? That
would make me so angry.
Emmings: Everybody I've talked to has said I'm not interested in spending
my tax dollars on buying that property period.
Ellson: Let alone if you buy it we don't have any money to do anything
with it because we just spent every last dime.
Emmings: It sounds like from what I hear, at least in my neighborhood, a
referendum would be soundly defeated.
ElIson: But it's the cost to us to run one. If we had $10,000.00, we
could fix a park. We could do all kinds of things. Instead we're bringing
people to a voting booth...
_Erhart: I think Jo Ann you're asking for a serious response and I think we
ought to decide whether we should give a serious response.
Ellson: Do we think that the City needs the entire property or do they
need any of it?
Emmings: I think they should not have a referendum. That's my opinion.
ElIson: Mine too.
Batzli: It was my feeling that I think that the park needs some expansion
and I think the city should look eventually at acquiring for expansion
but I don't think anyone, at least that I've talked to is interested in a
referendum or purchasing the entire parcel.
Emmings: Besides no matter how you count it, how you phrase it, it looks
like an attempt to prevent this church from coming here and I don't like
that appearance. I agree with Brian, if we're interested in that land for
the park, how come we weren't interested 6 months ago and how come we
weren't interested a year ago? It's because of the church and the church
is only taking up 2 1/2 acres. They can look at the land 2 months from
now.
Wildermuth: A good portion of it will probably be available after the
church is built.
e
Emmings: If they want to sell it or if they want to take part of it.
front edge of it or something like that.
The
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 58
e
Olsen: The other one was just convenience stores. That moratorium. I
know that Steve brought that back up that he was doing some research on it.
Elison: It kind of sounded like it was ended. Basically we can't do a
whole lot because most convenience stores are on corners like that.
Olsen: They got somebody really impatient on the Legion site who wants a
convenience store there. The moratorium, there has to be a decision made
by July 1 which is a Saturday. As part of that ordinance was that a study
was going to be performed. Are you anxious to get that study going to have
some restrictions? That kind of did get put on the back burner but we can
bring it up.
Emmings: We need one like we have on contractor's yards.
Conrad: Our understanding was pretty much that Steve was running that.
Looking at other cities to see what kind of restrictions and he got that
kind of stuff back to us but he was doing some more work. I think what
you've got to do is bring it back and say here's what I've found and
somehow get our direction in terms of what we believe. If there should be
any sort of restrictions.
e
ElIson: I remember him saying the reason they're located where they are is
because of the people going to work and coming back and it's not unusual to
have four on four corners of a street.
Olsen: I remember him saying just let them be. They will regulate
themselves. I was just wondering if you wanted to see a possible
regulation or should I bring that up?
Conrad: I think there should be items to review. I'm sure his
communication was that it doesn't look like anything's going to, that we
can do too much but I still think we should take a look at what the
alternatives may be.
Erhart: Are you just looking for a consensus here or are you looking for
individual statements?
Olsen: For Eckankar? No, he just wanted general consensus.
Erhart: Well I don't know if we can make a consensus. Let me make a
statement for the record on Eckankar. I believe that Eckankar is very
dangerous to the City both socially and fiscally. The City ought to do
everything that it can do to prevent that group from establishing itself
here. However, I do not agree that buying them out is the way to do it.
And that we ought to as opposed to purchasing the property at some
exorbinate, 15 million or whatever it is, we ought to use whatever legal
means or other means to encourage them not to establish themselves here.
As far as the stores, I think we do have a consensus, maybe we don't have.
I don't think we ought to be in the business of regulating convenience
stores.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 59
~ Emmings: Religions yes but convenience stores not.
to open a convenience store?
What if Eckankar wants
Erhart: If they pay taxes on it, then I don't have that much of a problem
with it. There's two issues. There's the 174 acres or whatever not paying
taxes and the other issue.
Emmings: There's no taxes on it now.
ElIson: There is taxes on it now?
Emmings: No, there is not.
ElIson: They said they've been paying.
Emmings: They did until they achieved their tax exempt status a short time
ago but they won't now as long as they hold the land. My feeling on that
is, I think it's ridiculous that a tax exempt organization can own 174
acres and build on 2 1/2 acres of those and not pay any taxes on any of it
just like I think it's ridiculous you know, there are whole blocks of
downtown that are owned by churches that are commercial property. They're
run as commercial property and they don't pay taxes and I think that's
wrong. There should be some kind of a restriction, the amount of land a
church can own and have, I don't care if they have 5 or 10 acres tax
exempt. That'd be fine but for them to own more land than that and have it
4It tax exempt but I don't think you can do that. I think that any tax on a
church would probably be illegal but I don't know so if you could limit
them to some reasonable amount of land and say you pay taxes on the rest
just like anybody else, that would be fair. I don't know if it could be
done but.
Erhart: But the problem is, they may not have to pay taxes on this 100
acres. The problem is they can potentially consume all of the city
services to that 174 acres. Fire and street so it's very unfair.
Emmings: Couldn't they develop along TH 5, develop it as commercial
property, lease it out to commercial tennants, collect their rent and not
pay any tax? Again, consuming city services and that just, to me that
makes absolutely no sense but I think that's probably a system that we're
pretty well stuck with.
Batzli: I recall reading somewhere that the City Council wanted us to
pursue whether we could have an ordinance regulating the number of acres a
church could own. Did you recall seeing that?
01 sen : Yes.
Emmings: You couldn't regulate the number of acres they can own.
e
Olsen: And that was a comment in the last report that Steve presented and
I just read that again today but I don't think that that was something that
they were still actively pursuing.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 60
~Batzli: Did our City Attorney look at that and see if that was something
that we could regulate?
Olsen: It seems like we could but I'll look into that. If you have a city
ordinance on it but it's just how do you determine that amount? The way we
were looking at it was not just churches but there's other universities and
other things that aren't taxes and where do you draw the line? Like the
Arboretum. Then you wouldn't be able to have a nice university facility
that maybe employed 500 people out here so there's a lot of problems with
it and I don't know if you can separate tax exempt types of land.
Emmings: You're walking on real thin ice here. That makes a real abusive
system. You don't want government messing with those kinds of institutions
I don't think. It still doesn't make any sense.
Conrad: Has the Council given staff direction to look into land use from
the standpoing of having enough property available? Now that Eckankar is
taking a whole bunch out, the issue of looking for, in my mind I have a
concern that we should have enough land for commercial/industrial. Have
they taken any kind of a, given staff any direction on that?
Olsen: No, it hasn't gone beyond that specific issue.
Conrad: I think based on what they do Monday night, we have to take some
~ steps. I think that's going to trigger a whole bunch of things. In my
~mind Eckankar taking that property probably is a blessing because
residential costs us money anyway. Now that's a gross statement and I
don't know how bad a statement that is but every time you add one house
here, it costs taxpayers more money. Me, you and everybody. By Eckankar
coming in, we're probably benefitting but I think that's probably a real
gross statement. I'd like somebody to tell me why that's right or wrong. I
really would be interested but I think we need some kind of a financial
plan in this community to say hey, we shouldn't encourage. Everybody says
it's so great to encourage residential growth and that is an invalid
statement to my knowledge. I think we should spend some money with a
consultant to help us or staff spend some time to help educate us on what
kind of growth does improve the taxes. My knowledge of the City Council
ran on a low tax, no tax increase and they're turning down some proposals
but on the other hand they don't seem to be doing some tax efficient
planning. I think we need to get into that business pretty soon. I want
to know if my taxes are going up because of some of the decisions that are
being made and if they're going to go up, then we have to know how to add
to the commercial/industrial and where that's going to be. So I personally
want to take a look and see what they do on Monday but I think that we
should start stimulating some stuff. I really was assuming City Council
was going ahead on some of that because there's some major impacts here.
Olsen: The only thing that we've looked at is the amount of parkland that
we'll need. Mark has done a study on that and do we need the whole 174
acres.
4It Conrad: And I think it's got to go beyond that. Whether you get park or
school or commercial or industrial, I think the big fallicy is everybody
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 61
e thinks it's great to add more residential and that, to my knowledge, that
ain't the truth and I think that's something that we have to take a look
at. So anyway, that's more of a statement than a direction but I think I
want to stimulate some of that and put in some money towards that end.
Maybe it's staff time. Another comment on the notes that you got back on
approved and disapproved from the City Council. I think that's an
acceptable format Jo Ann. I know it's easy for you to do it. I would
appreciate more comments as to how they commented. We're interested in
what they liked. If they approved it that's great but it's also good to
know the whys.
Olsen: I'll do that. I just pulled out from all the backgrounds and then
I'm going to start doing it.
Conrad: My only other comment on that is under administrative
presentations i.t says 1989 planning goals and planning director didn't give
direction. That's real irritating. Why didn't they give direction on
that?
Ellson: Too many priorities or something like that?
Olsen: They kind of just went through the list and it was late I'm sure.
They all kind of went through the list and said, well yes this, this. And
then somebody else said this, this.
e Conrad: And they had nothing new to add?
Emmings: Or to prioritize.
Ellson: Or prioritize what I heard from Steve. He basically told me
there's 15 things and we tried to number what's most important and they
said everyone so get on all 15.
Conrad: They said that?
Ellson: That's what he told me, yes.
Conrad: Well, that's absolutely lousy direction. We need specific, if
it's in Minutes or whatever, they have to give us the direction. Now it
should go back to them Jo Ann. In other words, I would like you go back
and say, Planning Commission understood you noted what we're doing and that
we understand that you didn't have anything to add but do you have
priorities? Otherwise the Planning Commission will have it's own set of
priorities.
Ellson: That's another thing. Go to them and say these are what we think.
Are you in agreement with it?
Conrad:
I'm sure they just didn't spend much time.
e
Batzli: Speaking of priorities, today for instance on the Reed
subdivision. Talk about blending. You've got a 36,000 squafe foot lot
next to a 15,000 square foot lot. Did that make any sense and if we had
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 62
4Ithad a blending subdivision, should that have affected that? Things like
that might be kind of interesting to know whether City Council thinks about
things like that. If they want us to do anything about it.
Olsen: That's where it came from I think. The blending ordinance came
from Bill Boyt.
Batzli: But I mean that was a year and a half ago.
Olsen: I gave it to Mark and we're working on it.
Batzli: I know and I'm not saying, but what I'm doing is saying City
Council should tell us if that's a high priority.
Olsen: But that's what happened. Bill Boyt pointed out that's one of his
but then Jay had different ones and they didn't put the time to confirm
what they really want. Like I say it was late.
Conrad: But that's the classic thing that they do so based on that, we
need you to go back and say the Planning Commission basically got no
direction from you so they will, unless they do get specific priorities,
they will be setting their own agenda.
Erhart: I think that would be very well if we did have some direction. I
think you also have to keep in mind however that it's nearly impossible to
~proceed in any of these things until we get a stable staff in the planning
department. That's the real reason I think we haven't been able to get
anything done the last 12 months is the turnover in staff.
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m..
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant City Planner
prepared by Nann Opheim
e