1989 06 07
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 7, 1989
-
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and
David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette ElIson and Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND FOR A CATCH
BASIN AND DUCK POND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND
LOCATED AT 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY, ALAN LENHART.
Public Present:
Mr. and Mrs. Alan Lenhart
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
e
Conrad: Thank you Jo Ann. The point of the permit is simply to create a
pond period. And staff's opinion with Rockwell and Burke and whoever says
that will benefit the wetland.
Olsen: If it's done with to the conditions or recommendations of the Fish
and Wildlife.
Conrad: And who monitors?
Olsen: They will have to be receiving a Watershed District permit, a DNR
permit, a Corps of Engineers permit and we review once they...
Conrad: During construction who monitors, just out of curiousity?
Olsen: I know we monitor it.
Conrad: The building inspector or who would do that?
Olsen: It would be building inspectors and most likely the engineers. The
engineering techs would be going out.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Alan Lenhart: My name is Alan Lenhart and I live at 6575 Pleasant View
Road. On page 4 there, you've got a few things on there like this 12 inch
a pipe. Well I don't think that's a 12 inch pipe in there for an apron.
~ That was an old drain tile from back when still the farmers farmland that
was draining from up above. They put a new drain tile in going out of the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 2
e east, out of the upper wetlands. It's way up back behind again and there's
not too much that comes down that anymore and like I say, I don't think
it's a 12 inch pipe. It's probably about an 8 or a 10 at the most.
Conrad: How can you respond to that Jo Ann?
Olsen: The reason that they referred to it as a 12 inch is because on the
plan it shows it as a 12 inch pipe. We can work with, the engineers could
go out there and determine the size and how much drainage comes through and
if it really is necessary to have the apron. It is also for his benefit
but if the cost is such, we can work with him.
Alan Lenhart: And then the other one I had, the item (b) in there it was
asking for a topsoil of muck from an existing wetland to be filled back
into it. Well there's going to be muck left in it because I'm not going to
dig it down that deep. If you take muck from another wetland, is that the
same thing as taking a bog from another wetland and sticking it in another
wetland?
Olsen: No, you are right. You have already had that muck there.
for when somebody is creating a wetland they have to provide that.
won't have to be providing that. It's already there.
Th i s i s
You
Alan Lenhart:
they mean by a
e water out. Is
water level?
Oh okay. Then the item (e), I didn't quite understand what
culvert or raised pipe, etc. at the other end to let the
that a pipe that has to be x many feet above a surface of
Olsen: No and again, in discussing with the engineers we would be working
with you probably just to have like a little swale going out when you grade
it. A pipe, you don't have enough depth for a pipe but a swale would do.
Alan Lenhart: Then one of the reasons to create the duck pond and stuff is
for the view of the wildlife and stuff like that so like along the north
edge of it where they were saying to let the grass grow back up and stuff,
I would like to keep that down at a lower portion so we can view the duck
pond and have the animals come in there because we still have deer and
pheasants and a lot of animals that do come in there. Now like this spring
it was down low and stuff and we had a fox come through and a deer and
ducks were landing on it and stuff and we got to view that. If the grass
grows real tall on the north side, it will block that view and we won't get
to see as much. In the DNR rules and stuff they were saying that they only
need 30% of grass around the edges of the pond for wildlife. Like the
whole east side and south side would still have, over half of it would
still have the cattails and the grass and stuff growing on that portion
so I'd still like to be able to go down on the north side pretty close to
it. I can only get too close and then it's going to be too close to go any
further.
Conrad: Were you talking about grassing it down to the wetland?
e Alan Lenhart: I'd probably basically leave it to the natural grass that's
already growing there and I'll probably just mow it. I probably would put
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 3
e in a blue grass or pine grass that would be there.
the natural but I probably would mow it.
It probably would be
Conrad: I think the problem is that we're trying to let the wetlands do
what they do best and that's in your case, you're right next to Lotus and
make sure that the fertilizers aren't going in. If you start putting grass
in there, that's not a real good filter. It's not a good filter so if
you're fertilizing your yard and you've got low, if you really are grassing
to the wetland, you're maximizing an impact on the wetland and reducing the
effect it can have on keeping Lotus Lake clean.
Alan Lenhart: Like right now there's grass down to it but it's not the
regular lawn type grass. It's the wetland dig bladed grass that's there.
That's what's there right now and I probably would not change that. But
like I say, I would probably mow down to where I mow at least now anyhow.
...fairly high up to the yard like just about at the edge of the pond and
stuff there is a row of trees there that I would leave in there that I mow
down to right now and I think they're below that footage level that they
showed. Then like the other thing that I had a comment on.
Conrad: Let's not lose this one. What do you see, is there a solution to
this? Jo Ann, I guess I'm not sure what the benefit or...
Olsen: We can go back out and look at it and see if what's there now, if
he maintains that.
e
Conrad: The trouble is, we're not really going to be monitoring in the
future you know. I'll wait for other comments later on but... Then your
last point is?
Alan Lenhart: On the disposal site, he was asking to be sodded within 10
days. There might be, is that my only alternative that I have to sod it
because there might be a portion of it that I might to put like like rocks
over it to make a garden on it with rocks with evergreen shurbs and stuff
like that to grow there too.
Olsen: That's fine. As long as there's some sort of vegetation or some
sort of cover.
Alan Lenhart: Okay. Then I guess that's all I had.
Conrad: Any other comments? Any other public comments on this public
hearing?
Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla: Ladd is that the end of the lake where it's heavily loaded with
loosestrife?
e Conrad: Used to be. I don't know about right now. There used to be a
fair amount down there.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 4
e
Headla: I think his intentions are good and what he's doing sounds good.
Overall I'd say yes, I'm certainly in favor of this. I guess I'd kind of
like to take this as an opportunity to reinforce that they've got to
control loosestrife on anything that they do. You've got to pay strict
attention to that, especially until new grass comes up. I was trying to
place it exactly and it seemed like that's where it was. I'd like to see
something worded in that that would pay attention to loosestrife. That 12
inch pipe, I think if we just say drainage pipe. I don't even think that's
pertinent information. It's function is a drainage right on that item 5?
You're talking a 12 inch pipe to spend all the time and money doing that,
going out and looking at it, I don't think the diameter of the pipe is
pertinent at all. The other one is, I would tend to favor not allowing
cutting right down to the pond. The reason is you don't get that much
wildlife activity in the middle of some of your foliage, etc.. In the
spring, fall, winter, the foliage is down. I don't think we'd be
inhibiting your view very much of some of the life. Now yes maybe on the
actual pond you wouldn't be able to see some of it. Maybe something can be
done to cut down the heights of some of the weeds but I certainly agree
with Ladd and the function of the wetlands is the filtering. Maybe we can
work out some type of compromise but cutting right down to a pond, I don't
think would be appropriate. That's all I had.
Batzli:
896 and
e Olsen:
Jo Ann, how far, what kind of distance are we talking between the
897 elevation here?
It's not a lot.
Batzli: I guess isn't that the part we're talking about whether he's going
to be allowed to let it go back to a natural state?
Olsen: Right.
end right now.
strip.
The 897 isn't necessarily right where the grass yard does
It's close to that elevation so it's not that big of a
Batzli: From the way the applicant spoke, it sounds like to me that he
mows down to the willows and the willows run between the 896 and 897. If
he's going to dredge this down to, or the top of the pond is going to be
896 about, so he's going to have a portion, if he left it as it is right
now which is kind of what's being discussed I think, there's going to be a
portion of it that's mowed down to the pond and a portion of it that's got
cattails and a portion that's prairie grass or whatever's there.
Olsen: We just wanted what is the willow, the prairie grass and type that
is there now inbetween those areas, we do want to try to maintain.
Batzli: But do you want him to actually get rid of that and let it go back
to cattails or isn't it going to be that low right there? What part are
you actually telling him to let go back?
e
Olsen: When they come in here, this will be altered and...just around the
fringe but it's acceptable also to have areas of it opened. We've allowed
that before. I know the Fish and Wildlife allows that but a lawn that's
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 5
e well maintained and fertilized right up to it we don't like to promote.
That's something that we can work with. It's not, that's not flexible.
Batzli: Well I live a short distance away and I'll agree there's a lot of
wildlife down there and I think he's actually doing the area a little bit
of a favor for it in general and I guess I'd like to see us work with him
to have something like this done. I don't see it as a big deal what size
the pipe that drains in there if there's not a lot of drainage in there.
He had a comment about water level control, culverts, riser pipe, etc. and
all you were asking for there was like a swale or something?
Olsen: Something that allows if there is one of those big rains, that it
doesn't just flood over all the edges. We have to allow some of the water
to be able to run off so if there are habitats around it, that those don't
get flooded out.
Batzli: Okay. Then I think it's just more a problem of us including the
Fish and Wildlife Service criteria verbatim in there.
Emmings: I don't have any trouble supporting this thing in that it sounds
to me like the issue about the grass around the edges and whether it should
be mowed or now seems to me to be kind of a technical issue. If it's
important for Lotus Lake or for the wetland that there be left a strip that
is not mowed, then he shouldn't be allowed to mow it but if it's not
important to the wetland, then I can see that he doesn't want to have an
a obstructed v iew and if it's not important, then he shouldn't be able to mow
~ it as far as I'm concerned but that and some of these other issues all
sound more like technical issues where we ought to have some, you hate to
spend a lot of time on kind of a really small deal but we ought to check
maybe with Fish and wildlife and say is this important to this wetland. If
they say it doesn't really matter, then I think we ought to go ahead and
let him mow it but I can't decide that because I don't know really how to
think about it. As far as the apron is concerned, what is the material of
the apron? Is it just rock or is it concrete or what do you expect them to
do there?
Olsen: They've got different designs and it can be just rock and rip rap
or whatever engineering terms are. What they showed in here was a real big
major one but what engineering is requesting is just something similar to
that that disperses the water.
Emmings: Okay, so if he puts some rock down at the end of that pipe, and
that's something that he can talk to the engineer about so that it's
appropriate to whatever water flow might be coming out of there, again that
sounds to me like a technical issue that ought to be taken up with the
engineer and between the engineer and the applicant. I don't really have
any other comments.
Erhart: I pretty much agree with everything that's said. My preference
would be only to make it bigger. If you're going to spend the money to do
a this and you could actually make it a little bit bigger and more productive
~ but in the past I've generally favored these things. I think there's a few
technical words that we could change in a motion maybe to help clarify some
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 6
e things for the applicant. Mowing, I think my concern would be, if we mowed
more than 25% of the shoreline but looking at the shoreline, it doesn't
appear that that's possible in any way. As long as 75% would remain in
it's natural state so I guess that's the only comments I had here.
Conrad: My only comment is that we minimize any nutrient runoff into the
wetland from the adjacent grass or properties so based on the technical,
whatever is necessary Jo Ann. I don't think the height of grass matters.
I think it's more of what it is and how thick it is. I could be wrong but
I'm not concerned with height but I am concerned with runoff. From that
end of the lake, there's so many nutrients from the old farms that have
gone in there that I'd prefer to keep as much out as possible.
Erhart: Should we be looking at things like restricting fertilizer within
certain distances? Is that the kind of runoff you're worried about is
nitrogen?
Conrad: Pretty much yes, and my thought would be yes.
Erhart: Do you have a distance in mind?
Conrad: I don't have a clue. It would be an arbitrary, if I made
something up Tim, it'd be real arbitrary. Tough to do. I'd prefer that
there were certain fertilizers not permitted at all within 100 yards of any
lake but it's arbitrary type of thinking right now and I think I'd trust
e the staff in terms of...
Olsen: Actually the pond is helping that.
Alan Lenhart: The pond is about 600 feet away from the lake so there is
still a big area of cattails and grass between the pond and the lake
itself.
Conrad: Yes. Any comments? Is there a motion?
Erhart: Yes, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as stated with the following exceptions.
Item 4 add, as an alternative the applicant shall install a method for
preventing erosion of spoils within the 10 day period. Clarifying that, in
other words, if you can provide staff an alternative to sod, you still need
to do it within the 10 day period. Change number 5 to, the applicant shall
provide a rock apron at the end of the existing drain pipe instead of the
12 inch pipe and remove the 12 inch from all of that line. Clarify that
item (d) that he can use muck from the basin if it's already there. Item
(e), add in the parenthesis, an overflow area. I've seen some of these
small ponds built, you don't need a culvert specifically as Jo Ann stated.
Just a flat area on one end, on the outflow end that's got good grass
cover. Will serve to control the water level. And I'll just add number 8
is to minimize the drainage of fertilizer and chemicals into the wetlands
more or less as a request I guess.
eBatzli: Second.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 7
~ Conrad: Good motion. Under discussion, Jo Ann do you agree with what Tim
said for item (e)? An overflow?
Olsen: Yes.
Conrad: You're comfortable with that. Dave brought up purple loosestrife
which is a problem. I don't know how to work that into this thing. What
we're doing is really not purple loosestrife. I don't know how to resolve
the problem. It's a really valid problem but I don't know how to make a
connection between the pond and purple loosestrife. Do you see, is there a
connection?
Olsen: Disturbances to the wetland can promote purple loosestrife so we
just have to keep a good eye.
Conrad: So disturbance too?
Olsen: If there is purple loosestrife where they're dredging, then you
have to dispose of that in a different way.
Headla: Remember what Ms. Rockwell said about loosestrife? Disturb it,
you break up the roots, you just create more and more of a problem. I
remember the way I was telling her I was pulling it up and tossing it off
and letting it dry. She all that's doing is making the problem worse. I"
guess that tend to make me a lot more sensitive to that and it seems like
~ this might be an ideal opportunity to control it more.
Conrad: What do you suggest? What are you thinking of?
Headla: One of the things she said, you ought to burn it but on here...
Conrad: You're thinking of disposal then?
Headla: The way we dispose it and I think what he was suggesting is a
garden. Now he's not going to let loosestrife grow in his garden. He's
going to control it so I'm all in favor of that he moves it up. I think
that's an ideal situation but the rest of it, if I understand it correctly,
that depth on there, we may be propagating it. putting in ideal conditions
for loosestrife. I guess I'm with Steve, it's kind of a technical thing
and I just don't know that much about it except an alarm went up.
Olsen:
that to
Friday.
what we
I've got information on purple loosestrife and I could just give
the applicant and talk with Paul Burke. He's coming out again on
This does have a lot of purple loosestrife in that area and see
can do.
Headla: Is that the same information you mailed to us before? Okay. Your
8, Steve made a good point that we're probably not that technically astute
on runoff. Steve I think made a good point that maybe we should get a
little technical help on it. It does make any different or doesn't it? I
~ don't know which appropriate group would be Jo Ann but maybe if we could
.., just get a comment on it. From the north, it's going to run right into the
pond. If they say, well if you leave it up an inch or 2 inches, that all
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 8
~ you need, that's fine but I certainly don't have that knowledge and I guess
I'd kind of like to see something worked in where the people technically
knowledgeable on it would comment on it.
~ 3.
e
Alan Lenhart: One other comment I have, if you're there in the spring, you
can tell which way the water runs down through to get to that wetland. It
comes down through and it enters just south of where I have the spoils,
where I want to put it and it runs halfway across my yard and then down to
the pond so like the runoff is stopped from the hill and the other two
neighbors and stuff, goes across my yard first before it turns and goes
into the wetland anyhow. Then it enters more to the east end of the duck
pond than anyplace. So a lot of it filters down through my lawn and grass
before it gets there.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan
dated May 8, 1989 subject to the following conditions:
1.
The applicant receive a permit and meet any conditions from the DNR,
Watershed District, Corps of Engineers and a grading permit from the
City prior to any dredging of the Class A wetland.
2.
The applicant shall provide Type II erosion control between the
proposed duck pond and Lotus Lake prior to any dredging of the wetland.
The area between the proposed duck pond and the existing grass yard
(897 contour) shall be allowed to return to it's natural state.
4.
The disposal site shall be sodded within 10 days of placement. As an
alternative the applicant shall install a method for preventing erosion
of spoils within the 10 day period.
5.
The applicant shall provide a rock apron at the end of the existing
drain pipe in the pond.
6.
Dredging shall not occur during breeding or spawning season as
determined by the DNR.
7.
The six recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service shall be met
as follows:
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting
birds.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1
for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife
feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 9
e
of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby
increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation.
d.
The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from the existing
wetland being filled) on the bottom on the basin to provide a
suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. The applicant may use
existing muck in the basin if it already exists.
e.
The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe,
overflow area, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the
wetland.
f.
The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
8. The applicant shall minimize the drainage of fertilizer and chemicals
into the wetland.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ONE ACRE OF
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R
AND LOCATED IN SOUTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION, MICHAEL CARMODY.
e
Public Present:
Name
Address
Bobbie Kussard
Judi podevels
Eunice Peters
Jeanette Lappen
Judy Schmieg
Michael Carmody
Paul Struthers
7604 South Shore Drive
200 South Shore Drive
7660 South Shore Drive
140 South Shore Drive
200 West 77th Street
Applicant
Architect for the Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Don't we have a zoning district called PUD?
Olsen: That's the zoning and this is the Comprehensive Plan.
Conrad: So back in the Comprehensive Plan, that is not carried forth?
That is still broken down into the other categories so a PUD does not over
ride a Comprehensive Plan?
Olsen: What it is is you just want them to be consistent.
e .
ChaIrman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 10
e
Conrad: This is a case where the zoning is there.
zoning. In essence we are allowing high density.
Comprehensive plan back into sync.
We have changed the
We're now bringing the
Emmings: I'm curious why the City isn't the applicant on this. Why do the
property owners have to go through this? This is a housekeeping thing for
the City really isn't it?
Conrad: But the City is not the owner.
Emmings: Yes but the City is the one who's concerned about the
Comprehensive Plan being coordinated with what it's done with it's zoning.
It doesn't matter, it's here but I was just surprised that it wasn't the
City and I'm surprised that there's a condition on it too. I don't quite
understand that but anyway.
Conrad: This is a public hearing, are there any comments?
Jeanette Lappen: I just wanted a clarification? I live in that area. Are
we talking about one lot to be zoned high density or two lots? 3 acres?
Olsen:
It's the outlot that is 1.5 acres.
Jeanette Lappen: Okay, so we're just talking about one lot? Then all the
e other lots are zoned residential low density?
Olsen: They're all zoned PUD-R. Planned unit Development but the
underlying, the Comprehensive Plan, the land use is low density.
Bobbie Kussard: That means you can't have multi-unit dwellings?
Olsen: No, you have a certain number of units per acre that you can have
and it comes out to I think 3.4 units per acre. with a high density we're
talking about 12 units per acre and that's where you need the high density.
Bobbie Kussard: So right now they don't have that density so they can't
build those 14 units until they get the high density?
Olsen: Technically they already have approval of the zoning.
Bobbie Kussard: That's what I mean, what are we doing here?
Conrad: The zoning takes precedent and the zoning was achieved basically
the last time when we reviewed this issue and we allowed the townhouse
units there. What we're doing right now is saying okay, the zoning was
already approved. Now this little master plan, this theoretical plan that
we give to the Metropolitan Council, we're trying to put that back in sync
with the zoning that we've already granted. We try to just keep those two
in sync.
e Bobbie Kussard: They don't have to go back to the City Councilor
anything? I mean they're approved and everything.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 11
e
Conrad:
tonight.
This is really a formality than anything else that we're doing
Olsen:
It does have to go in front of the Council.
Conrad: It does go to the Council but the fact that they have agreed at
this point in time with the zoning, with the townhouses, that is what the
City follows and that's the law basically. The Comprehensive Plan is this
ivory tower little document that we're now adjusting to reflect what we've
granted already. I know it's not easy for me to communicate what's
happening.
Bobbie Kussard: Then you guys made a boo boo. It shouldn't have been
approved until...
Conrad: No, that's not true. We gave it, that whole area to be a PUD. We
said in that area we'll let it be a PUD and when you allow it to be that,
then you can do exactly what they did. You can have some high density over
here and some low density over here. So no, we didn't make a boo boo. We
knew what we were doing and now we're just trying to sync things up. There
are a lot of mistakes we do make. This was not a case where it was bad
planning.
Bobbie Kussard: When I first looked at the site development and selected
~ by lot, there wasn't a little picture of 14 little squares up over there so
.., to my knowledge there wasn't going to be 14 little square up there. So I
assumed we were probably...and it was low density. Originally I thought
there was going to be a couple houses up there and not 14 little things.
Conrad: It's a real valid point and yet you almost have to know, I'm sure
when you bought your house you would have had to come into the City and say
what are we zoned and somebody would have said, well you're zoned PUD. And
you probably wouldn't be, and this is not a criticism, but you wouldn't
know the right questions to ask. You wouldn't say well could there be high
density across the street from us.
Bobbie Kussard: No, but I would have said can there be 14 little squares
across the street from me. That I would have said.
Olsen: And they would have been told yes.
Jeanette Lappen: I'm not sure, is the whole area PUD so that means any lot
in that whole 30 lot area can be zoned for multi-unit dwellings?
Olsen: It's already been, the PUD had a concept plan originally. That's
where everything was approved. What could happen. The only way that they
could change that would be to come through with an amendment. Again, this
outlot was approved for 14 units per acre.
Jeanette Lappen: And was that the only one in that area?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 12
~ Olsen: We had some duplex lots but those are there. That was the only
high density.
Emmings: And you should understand, if my recollection is correct, when
they showed us the concept plan, the lot on which the townhouses will sit,
were intended for high density right from the beginning as I recall.
Jeanette Lappen: I think then as a secondary issue that has nothing to do
with you is, well in a way it does, is the fact that when we looked at this
beautiful map of our area that the real estate agent gave us, or whoever
gave us, it showed parkland. It showed supposed swingsets and supposed
tennis courts and supposed houses and all the lots had little houses drawn
on them but 10 and behold, that one square that will have 14 units on it
now, showed this big square that looked like it was a continuation of the
park. So in a way it was, I feel like we were intentionally misled so if
someone knew what they were doing and there was nothing on it that would
ever lead you to believe that, in fact it was...led to believe that that
was part of the park.
Emmings: Now you're talking about the honesty of the developer.
Jeanette Lappen: Well I wouldn't say that.
Emmings: I think you are. You're talking about number one, whether it was
misrepresented to you or not, I don't know but part of the sales pitch may
.. well have been intentionally constructed to make you feel that way so that
.., you wouldn't ask what's going here. I don't know if it was or wasn't but
that's not unheard of either.
Conrad: It's a tough issue and it goes back to how forthright usually
realtors are in communicating that and sometimes they don't know
everything. They know they have some land to sell and they're not sure how
the rest of it's going to be developed. The point of a PUD is hopefully a
valid point. We allow them and in many cases it allows some of the land to
be put to different uses. We break rules in PUD's where we feel that if
you have a significant amount of land, you can cluster some houses and put
higher density and then give other houses a much lower density. In many
cases it's really fine planning. It's what you wanted to do and we've been
trying to encourage that over many, many years here. It doesn't always
work out. The Planning Commission typically has different standards than
the City Council on what a good PUD is. In fact we very seldom, we don't
always agree on what a good PUD is. On this particular one I can't
remember if we agreed with it or not but anyway.
Erhart: More importantly, what did we get in return for the high density?
Usually an area like this that was zoned RSF and we provided high density
in one area, we had to get something in return for the neighborhood.
Olsen: There was a transfer of land for parkland.
~ Erhart: So there was some addi ti.onal parkland that we picked up.
.., Unfortunately it wasn't, was it in that neighborhood?
"~
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 13
e
Conrad: So the City got the boat launch is what it got out of this land.
The neighbors didn't want the boat launch but it got something.
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: My only question is why there's a condition on this. What
happens to the land, don't we want to amend the Comprehensive Plan anyway?
Olsen: The only reason I can think that it wasn't done originally was that
in case they did come back and go through the amendment and then use it as
single family or low density.
Emmings: Right now we know that this piece is going to be some form of
higher density. We're not going to give them low density on this so why
wouldn't we amend our plan anyway?
Batzli: They could come back in and redo their PUD if they decided not to
build the townhomes there.
Olsen: That's the only reason I put that condition is just to, it's not
that necessary of a condition. We know that they're going to go through
but once they do plat it into those 14 individual lots, townhome lots, then
we know that it is going to pretty much go through.
e Emmings: It's not worth anymore. I'll go along wi th it. I don't feel
strongly about it.
Batzli: Well he asked by question so it's okay.
Headla: I asked the question before on the previous thing and I lost so
I'll go along with this one.
Conrad: I have no comments.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #89-1 to change 1.5 acres Residential
Low Density to Residential High Density with the following condition:
1. Final plat approval of the 14 townhome uni ts.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ARGUS DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE EAST OF AUDUBON
ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD
ADDITION:
eA.
B.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35.79 ACRES INTO 55 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 14
e publ ic Present:
Don Patton, Applicant
Ray Brandt, Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Jo Ann, you mentioned that there would be grading of Outlot A but
I don't see that in the recommendations. Is that bundled in someplace?
Olsen: That should have been under the park.
Don Patton:
I think it's on the PUD concept.
Olsen: It's already in the contract that they have to do that. We could
add that though.
Conrad: Whatever you think.
Olsen: It is on number 1. I'm sorry, I'm reading the Park and Rec one's.
Yes, we should probably add that to be consistent because I've added...
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
~ Ray Brandt: I'm Ray Brandt. I don't know how I did this. The right-of-
~way for Heron Blvd. is platted 60 feet wide and way back 2-3 months ago
when I was putting in the dimensions, I put in 25 feet... One of my
earlier preliminary plats I erased it but I didn't erase it on my computer
so it's drafted at 60 feet so the lot areas and that are correct. Then
that one lot that I have 12,900 and some, that's just an oversight also. I
don't think there were any others. Oh yes, I guess what I was thinking on
that wetland, what we're going to do is encroach, our setback is going to
encroach but now that I read the report I've got to put a ponding area in
there so that will have to come back and change that.
Conrad: Okay. Any other comments?
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla: I'm glad to see them putting in hackberry. I don't know if you
read the Minnesota Volunteer but they talk about the pine bark beetle that
hit Woodbury last year. Part of their conifers are taking quite a beating.
Stay away from all conifers. Use deciduous and I'm very glad to see you do
that. Will you explain to me again the rationale for a 90 foot frontage
that we just insist that all the builders have?
Olsen: With the PUD you can go down to 80 feet and that's one of the
e benefi ts of the PUD. Why we have 90 feet though?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 15
4It Headla: We're so unforgiveable with that 90 feet with all our builders and
now we come in and there are several 80 feet. This doesn't seem to be
consistent at all.
Olsen: That was one of the benefits of a PUD. Smaller lot sizes.
Narrower lots.
Headla: Aren't you saying that's the way it is period if that's the case.
I take a look at a 90 foot frontage as not being a rigid rule but certainly
can be negotiated in the future. It's hard to believe that it's got to be
this for one place and another place, ah, we can lose 10 feet. It won't
make any difference.
Conrad: Well we do have a minimum.
Headla: It's 90 feet but they allowed 80 feet here.
Batzli: That's in a PUD.
Headla: But it's still in a development. You've got homes here, you've
got homes here, what's the difference? I'm not going to be that hard nosed
on 90 feet when I can see it used so often here and I'm not saying 90 is
the magic number over 80. I'm looking at more consistency in our reasoning
as we say yea or nay on more people in the future.
~ Batz~i: Isn't that just part of the whole PUD plan though that we're
.., gettlng something in return so we're being more flexible.
Conrad: Is there a minimum Jo Ann for our frontage?
Olsen: In a PUD?
Conrad: Yes.
Olsen: It's 80.
Conrad:
It is 80. So normally without a PUD, what's the minimum?
Olsen: 90.
Erhart: But remember if it's not PUD, in RSF it's 15,000 square foot
minimum. In a PUD, it's 12,500 square foot minimum.
Headla: That part I can buy. I think there's some pretty good rationale
for that because they compensate in other areas but when I see so many 80
foot wides, I don't think that our 90 foot has that much substance to it.
It's a good guideline but to hold to it, I think we should look at it a
little bit different. That's over a 10% change. On recommendation 1, you
refer to having a minimum of 12,000 square feet and provide block numbers.
What's a block number?
e
Olsen: It's when you have Lots 1-3, Block 1.
just another little technicality.
Lots 1-10, Block 2.
It's
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 16
e
Headla: Oh okay. That's all I had.
Batzli: Dave got me thinking on this 80 feet. Lot 3, which is 2 to the
east from the lot that's below 12,000 square feet. You see where I'm at?
We have a frontage at 79.96. Not to be picky or something but.
Olsen: I was picky on the 11,900 so yes, that's just, when the final plats
come in, the lot lines always adjust a little bit and we check those.
Batzli: Just curious. I think this is an interesting plan in that we have
several lots which are enormous compared to lots on the southern end here.
I'd be personally kind of interested in, and I don't know that I was really
here for the entire PUD concept plan for this. I'd be really interested to
know why we have several lots that are so big.
Erhart: That's where that pond is going.
Batzli: All the way around there?
Erhart: That's a low area.
Olsen: It's wetland, yes.
Batzli: So that's going to be back, well we don't have block numbers,
~ okay. One other just idle curiousity note here before I get to my one real
~ question. Is this 20 foot strip out to Outlot A from Heron Drive, did I
miss something? Why is that in there?
Olsen: That's access to the park.
Batzli: Is that down into the park or is that going to be...
Olsen: It will be part of the outlot.
isn't it?
I believe dedicated to the City
Batzli: Is the outlot dedicated to the City? Is the City going to be
maintaining that?
Conrad: Was that your real question?
Batzli: No. This is my real question. In item 11, the right hand turn,
will that affect any lot sizes over in that corner? Are you going to be
moving the road over actually?
Ray Brandt: It's all within the right-of-way.
Batzli: It's all going to be in the right-of-way? Okay. That was my only
real question.
e
Emmings: I have a couple of questions. I don't know if they're real or
not but I'll ask them anyway. Over on the left hand edge of this thing,
there's Lots 4, 5 and 6 on that one cul-de-sac that looks like they're
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 17
4It double frontage. They front on Audubon and that street. Do they?
Ray Brandt: Are they double frontage?
Emmings: Yes.
Ray Brandt: Yes. Actually 7 is too. They really front both ways but I
would imagine that there won't be any access on Audubon.
Emmings: I assume that's what you're doing there but I know that in the
past when we've had this situation, just to make it crystal clear, I don't
think that the County would let you do it anyway.
Olsen:
It's a city road.
Emmings: It's a city road, but I think maybe we ought to just put that
down that all access for those lots will be on the interior streets.
That's what you plan to do anyway but just so it's spelled out. Then the
other thing I have on those double frontage lots is I have a recollection
and I've been feverishly searching through the ordinance here and maybe
it's not in there or I just couldn't find it but it seems to me that we
always do some things with...
Olsen: You always have to have an additional depth.
4It. Emmings: Where is that in the ordinance?
Olsen:
In this new codified ordinance, I can't find it.
Emmings: Yes, I couldn't find it but there are things that apply to double
frontage lots and I don't know if these double frontage lots were evaluated
in terms of whatever those provisions are.
Erhart: There's an extra 10 foot setback.
Olsen: Yes, and they definitely have the depth. There's also additional
landscaping. I can't remember right off hand where exactly it is but I
know when we were looking at the PUD concept, we were looking at the
additional depth for that.
Emmings: I guess I'd just ask that between now and the City Council that
that be checked just to make sure that all of the provisions are being met
and if there's any problem, that it be brought up to the City Council.
Then the only other thing I wonder about is, right now there's nothing
developed to the south of this property correct? Yes, that's correct?
Olsen: Yes, there's nothing.
Emmings: And how about to the east? Is that the first subdivision?
_ Olsen:
First phase.
----
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 18
~ Emmings: And how are these lots on the east edge matching up with lots
that have already been platted to the east?
Olsen: They've all been consistent with the concept plan.
Ernrnings: That's all I've got.
Erhart: Jo Ann, why do we request a developer to pave sidewalks but yet
not the trails? What's the thinking behind that?
Olsen: The trail easement?
Erhart: Yes.
Olsen: I'm not exactly sure if that was a condition between the Park and
Rec and the PUD contract. Maybe Don can fill you in on exactly why?
Erhart:
I was just wondering what the rationale was?
Olsen: I think it's along Powers it's going to be improved and it depends
on when all of the improvements for the road will take place. The
developer might not...
Erhart: Powers, what 4 lane all the way? When?
4It Olsen: In the next 2 years. 4 years. They're planning on it now.
Erhart: That's right. Going down to the railroad bridge it is 4 lane and
it looks like it's a temporary jog there. Okay. The thing I might suggest
when you're doing a wetland thing, in order to react to Brian's concern
about those large lots, they're putting a conservation easement on a
significant portion of those lots so we should try to keep them wild if you
think that fits. After studying that in detail, if you think that fits.
Olsen: We usually put a conservation easement along the 75 foot setback.
Erhart: In that sense making it a pseudo public area because it's a lot
of...maybe you could help me Dave but what's wrong with pin oaks?
Headla:
I looked at that and couldn't figure out why they changed?
Olsen: The DNR forester said the pin oaks grow real fast and get brittle.
They're fast and the mature tree really sooner but it wasn't as long
lasting.
Erhart: I don't know why they don't just use red oaks instead of pin oaks.
The PUD ordinance requires, is the 1 tree per lot on just the PUD ordinance
or is tha tin. . .
Olsen: That's in all our ordinance.
;tIt Erhart: That's in all our ordinances?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 19
e Olsen:
It's always a condition of any development contract.
Erhart: On Audubon Road there where we have those nice evergreens that
we're putting in, is that going to be also bermed or is that just going to
be level with existing?
Olsen: It showed a grading plan. Again, Audubon Road, there's some
improvements being made to that too. There are plans to continue that all
the way down to Lyman.
Erhart: Yes, I'm aware of that one.
Olsen: The grading plan, it shows slight berming.
Erhart: I think that's real valuable to take a double fronted lot like
that when the rear abuts up to a major street or arterial like that, or a
collector, to put a berm in addition to the trees but I guess I'd ask that
you consider that in the final plan of this thing because it does, it
really provides some immediate screening but it also provides somewhat of a
barrier for kids running in the back yard and running out onto the street.
Ray Bradt: The street, Audubon Drive, the existing elevation is at it's
lowest point is 946. That's about 12 feet higher than the backs of the
lots.
~ Erhart: So I see a berm would really be useless. Okay.
~ all I had on my list.
I think that's
Conrad: Okay, good comments Tim. I was not an advocate of this as a PUD
and I still am not. I do have problems with lot configurations as certain
lots back into the sides of other lots. I just find that that forces
fences and is not good planning. I have no other comments.
Headla: Can I make a couple more?
Conrad: Sure.
Headla: I've got one real comment. On number 10, the sanitary sewer shall
be jack-bored to the west right-of-way. I know what jack-bored is. Is it
appropriate in this type of situation that we require it? My real concern
is this is appropriate in this type of condition, that's all.
Olsen: I'm sure the engineers have reviewed that and that's what they
determined.
Headla: Well it was in their comments but does it fit in here? To me
that's a question if that's appropriate. The other one I have is that
these dedication fees. Where do they go? I've never seen any of that
money spent west of CR 117 or south of CR 18.
e Olsen:
Conrad:
That's not Chanhassen.
It's not supposed to.
That's the law.
~
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 20
.
Headla: Let's change that to eastern Chanhassen? I had to get that shot
in.
Batzli: Jo Ann, just following up on Dave's point, they're going to start
a watermain down along Audubon Road there right?
Olsen: Right.
Batzli: And also the sanitary sewer down there as well so what they're
doing is basically putting it over there for if and when they do start that
project?
Olsen: Which project? The Lake Susan?
Batzli: No, aren't they going to make some improvements? utility
improvements down Audubon Road there?
Olsen: Correct.
Batzli: So you're just asking them to jack-bore it for when the
improvements are put in that it will have already been done?
Olsen: Yes. To loop everything.
.
Ernmings: I found one thing on double frontage lots. There's a prov ision
under Section 20-908 that says the required front yard has to be provided on
both streets.
Olsen: That's not it. There's another one.
Emmings: There may well be but I found one and I'll just bring that to
your attention.
Olsen: I know the other one too but just where it is in this new one I'm
not sure.
Batzli: I'm sorry, did you say the frontage has to be provided on both
sides?
Emmings: No, required front yard.
Olsen: Two front yards and two side yards.
Emmings: Yes instead of, you don't have a back yard on a double frontage
lot so you have two front yards.
Batzli: So is that just for setback purposes then?
Olsen: Yes and what can be placed in it and stuff like that.
~ Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 21
.
Headla: I thought Steve had one comment in there that I can't remember
what it was now.
Erhart: Yes, I've got it. I'll move the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the preliminary plat #89-2 PUD dated May 12, 1989 with the 15
conditions cited by staff plus a condition 16 that all access on double
fronted lots shall be from the interior streets only.
Emmings: Access to all lots should be from interior streets because there
are some on corners too I guess.
Erhart: Yes. Did I miss something?
Batzli: I'll second it for discussion purposes. Are we going to talk at
all about conservation easements?
Conrad: Or grading the outlot?
Erhart: I think that's going to be part of the wetland alteration.
Olsen: The easement would be.
Batzli: The conservation easement but grading the outlot is going to be
part of the wetland alteration as well?
.
Erhart:
No.
Olsen: The conservation easement around the wetland would be part of the
wetland. I don't know where the edge of the wetland is yet.
Erhart: Now you're talking about grading Outlot A for a park? I thought
I read it in there as one of the conditions already.
Olsen: The Park and Rec Commission put it in.
Erhart: Then let's add that as number 17. Further discussion that was in
the report.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #89-2 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat
dated May 12, 1989 with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide an amended preliminary plat showing Lot 1
to have a minimum of 12,000 square feet and provide block numbers.
2. The applicant shall provide staff with an amended landscaping plan
prior to final plat approval replacing the pin Oaks with Hackberry.
3.
The applicant shall install 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the
north side of Heron Drive.
.
e 4.
113.
11.
-'2.
13.
14.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 22
The applicant shall provide the 213 foot wide trail easement along the
west side of Powers Boulevard.
5.
The applicant shall receive 513% credit on park dedication fees and 11313%
credit on trail dedication fees.
6.
Approval of wetland alteration permit.
7.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the
proper installatin of these public improvements.
The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
8.
9.
The sanitary sewer located within Heron Drive shall be held at a grade
of 13.413% throughout the run to Audubon Road.
The sanitary sewer shall be jack-bored to the west right-of-way line of
Audubon Road for future connection and service along Audubon Road.
The right-of-way for Heron Drive needs to be 613 feet in width to
conform with Phase I construction and a right turn lane included at
Audubon Road to meet anticipated traffic demands of the area.
The storm sewer sytem needs to be modified so that it drains to the
wetland pond provided on site and eliminate the storm sewer/parkland
development conflict as outlined in the PUD report.
Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations
for sizing for the roadway and utility improvements shall be submitted
for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans and tie cards
will also be required upon completion of the construction.
Appropriate utility easement shall be provided over all public
facilities.
15. A feasibility study should be considered to facilitate the looping of
watermain along Audubon Road from the railroad tracks to Heron Drive or
incorporation of this work into the Audubon Road improvement project if
initiated this year.
16. All lots shall have access from interior streets.
17. The developer shall be grade Outlot A at the same time as grading of
the lots occurs.
-
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
tabling of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-4 subject to an amended plan being
submitted to the city staff for review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 23
e
RECOMMENDATION OF OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TH 101 RIGHT-OF-WAY, FRED HOISINGTON.
Fred Hoisington: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief with our presentation.
For the most part the Planning Commission has seen the alignments. The
alternative alignments. One of those, Alternative 1 has been selected for
consideration for official mapping by the City Council. That was with a
great deal of input from the neighbors, the folks who live along the
alignment, the owners of the land along the alignment. If you recall we
brought this matter to the Planning Commission, the matter of selecting an
alternative and while we did not vote formally, it was an unanimous choice
for Alternative 1 at that point. What we didn't know then and what we do
know now is that considerably more right-of-way will be required to
accommodate a roadway section that we're talking about here than we had
originally expected. It's primarily because the road goes up and down a
lot and the present road doesn't. The present road is at least reasonably,
it just goes this way and what we're going to do is we're going to replace
the road that has a very bad horizontal alignment with one that has not bad
vertical alignment but simply one that has considerably more up and down
than what you see there presently. In order to do that, there has to be a
number of cuts and fills along the alignment and rule of thumb is that you
don't necessarily have to acquire all of the right-of-way to cover cuts.
That whatever is in the cut slopes can be credited to density or whatever
and in fact, the adjoining length will be graded down so you would in fact
use that area. So you normally don't have to have quite as much right-of-
4It way in cut sections as you do in fill sections. Fill sections, MnDot and
the folks who know recommend that you take all the way to the ends of the
fill slopes. Now what we've done in this case was originally tried to put
150 foot right-of-way on this and we were going to bring that to you in the
way of a recommendation and take our chances on the slope easements and so
forth later. What we decided to do instead was to come to you with 200
feet of right-of-way for official mapping and then at the time, whenever it
seems appropriate to build the roadway and the design occurs, it's possible
that some section or some parts of that will be less than 200 feet, which
will be a savings for the City or whoever it is that's going to acquire.
The value for us in official mapping is that there will be development
throughout that corridor between now and let's say the turn of the century
when we might expect the TH 212 to be built and this will be built pretty
much in conjunction with that so we've got to protect the right-of-way
during that interim period. So all we're recommending to you is that you
recommend to the City Council the official mapping of 200 feet of right-of-
way with one small bubble and that bubble happens to be just a little ways
north of the creek. It goes between the two lakes and that happens to
correlate with not only where the future roadway or I should say the
existing TH 101 will tie into the new TH 101. There will be some geometric
problems accommodating that but also because the fill is almost at it's
maximum through that 150 feet section so that's what we recommend to you.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have in that regard.
~-
Erhart: Fred, on the lots that would be between TH 101 and the 200 foot
right-of-way then, what is the distance there?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 24
~ Fred Hoisington: Tim, the depth is about, I think we were trying to get
180 to 200 feet of right-of-way.
Erhart: So it would be adequate for a 15,000 square foot lot?
Fred Hoisington: Yes, and then on that side we had talked to you before
about this concept of kind of an expanded right-of-way. What we're able to
do is raise that within that 100 feet on that one side. As you can see
from the section we will be able to do some berming and some landscaping to
kind of protect those single family lots.
Erhart: But this is a four lane?
Fred Hoisington: It will be four lane.
Erhart: Okay. So another 25 feet really isn't going to adversely affect
putting 15,000 square foot lots along TH l0l?
Fred Hoisington: Those will be substantially 15,000.
Erhart: Just to Dave's point, if I can excuse the subject here a minute,
regarding the 80 foot frontage Dave. If we take a 15,000 square foot lot
and divide it by 80 foot frontage, you get a lot that's 188 feet deep. I
think that's one of the problems with that is you get a real narrow long
lot. Where if it's 90 feet, it's only 160 feet deep. I think that's sort
~ of on the side Fred. Again, as I stated at the last meeting, I think it's
.., real exciting from the prospect or for something living to the south the
prospect of having this done maybe in my lifetime someday. I've got a
couple more questions Fred. The 25 foot median is what, concrete or what?
Fred Hoisington: It would be a grass median. The possibility still exists
that there could be some sort of shurbery type material in that median but
we're still looking at that.
Erhart: Or a rubber tree.
Fred Hoisington: Anything you can drive over or bounce off of.
Erhart: Let me ask you this, the City, we do not have the official mapping
of TH 212 yet adopted in the City?
Fred Hoisington: No. But we do have the maps here and they're in the
process of being reviewed and so about a month from now I think we'll come
back with those.
Erhart: And that puts this whole thing, that takes us through that step?
Fred Hoisington: Yes.
Erhart: Then after that, if somebody comes in and wants to do development
~or building, we have the option in 6 months to buy that?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 25
~ Fred Hoisington: The good thing is, if nobody comes in or if the landowner
does not come in and request a building permit, of course it can go on
indefinitely or never have to worry about it. But yes, if a person comes
in and wants a building permit, you can say no. Your building department
or your planning department will say no because it's officially mapped. It
will have to go through the process whereby the City makes a decision and
has 6 months to make that decision to acquire or not. If the decision is
not, your Board of Appeals will actually the permit or be charged with that
and they will be compelled to do so.
Resident: Can we ask one question so we can go home too?
Conrad: Sure, go ahead.
Resident: with north of TH 5 approved and everything on TH 101, that
choice made. You had a couple choices for north of TH 5 also to choose.
Fred Hoisington: That is not part of this request.
Resident: This is just mapping for future.
Fred Hoisington: Right and only the portion to the south of TH 5. The
portion north, there were several different alternatives considered as well
and the one that was selected was the one that comes through the apartment
building. Takes the apartment building and comes down right at Dakota. In
~ other words, leaving the intersection exactly where it is today. Some
~ reconfiguration of Eden Prairie's. That has been selected by the City
Council as the alternative that is to be...and fortunately we think we have
the dollars also to begin the project except the Governor did veto the
spending bill which has our bill in it or our provision in it. We think
that's going to stay in September when they go back but yes that's the one
we're working on. All the rest of them on the north side was addressed.
Conrad: So those are State dollars. Does the City contribute to that at
all?
Fred Hoisington: No, what it is, on the north side those will be tax
increment dollars. They'll come from the extension of the economic
development district by 3 years. What that will do is raise a certain
amount of additional money and it will all be spent on TH 101.
Conrad: So it's not State funds?
Fred Hoisington: Some state dollars will be spent there but most of those
will be from that tax increment district.
Erhart: What's the right-of-way going north on TH 101 up to the Eden
prairie line? Is that 200 feet now?
Fred Hoisington:
~ Eden prairie and
.~ limited roadway.
it's a dangerous
No, no.
Chanhassen
Two lanes
road.
TH 101, there's a common roadway between
is only 66 feet I'm assuming. It's very
of course and then it has ditch sections which
~
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 26
4It Erhart: It would be difficult to upgrade to four lane going north.
Fred Hoisington:
divided roadway.
lanes.
It's going to have to be upgraded. It will never be a
It will be comitted to probably just to be lucky to get 4
Erhart: You visualize it being 4 lanes?
Fred Hoisington: Oh absolutely Tim. That road is going to carry, it's
already carrying more really than it can accommodate and it will be
carrying 15,000 to 20,000 in the year 2005.
Erhart: When would you expect something would be done to make that four
lane going north?
Fred Hoisington: Well there's going to be for some period of time a
question about that stretch that the City is trying to build right down to
TH 5 and up to, is it TH 7 or TH 12. I guess it's TH 12 where all of TH
101 north of TH 12 has been turned back into Hennepin County and all of
that stretch between TH 12 and just north of TH 5 is very much up in the
air. It's a temporary state trunk highway and nobody is coming forward to
try and do anything about improving it there. It takes a special approval
of the Commissioner... Very difficult problem.
Erhart: Yes, the tone of your voice it sense me there's something eminent.
4It Fred Hoisington: Not on that stretch. The eminent projects are, assuming
funding stays intact, the north leg will be built, I'm guessing 1991.
Conrad: The north leg of?
Fred Hoisington: This portion of course is under construction now north of
Lake Drive and then this section down to a temporary connection here will
have to be going in 1991 as well because once we commit to move TH 101 onto
the new alignment and take it off of 78th and Great Plains, we're committed
also to make a connection here at Market to existing TH 101. So what you
see here is the ultimate and what will happen inbetween is an interim
connection. TH 101 will just tie Market Blvd. into it.
Erhart: Let's say Al Klingelhutz comes in here with a development which
you're probably going to see. Are we going to respond to that by making
this change then instead of when they build the freeway? Is that a
possibility to find the funds to do that?
Fred Hoisington: No. What Al will have to do is to set the right-of-way
aside and plant around it. Incorporate all of his access so that it works
with the new future roadway. One of the good things is, because of the
availability of utilities and everything, they will be able to develop all
of the properties along it and that's why it's so critical that we do the
official map. For the most part, all of them will set the right-of-way
_ aside. I don't think you'll have any difficulty with that. The only
~~ question that will arise will be seeing when are you going to buy it from
us and if they press the issue, you will be forced to have to do that.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 27
~ Maybe sooner than you want to do it.
Erhart: Well there's another issue. The other issue is trying to plan
around the future abandonment of that TH 101 section down here.
Batzli: That's going to have to almost delay development in some cases to
the west of the road there because you're going to have to stay out of the
right-of-way but you can't stay in the current right-of-way.
Fred Hoisington: Everything in the vicinity of the interchange itself, the
people who own that land realize that they will not be able to do anything
and the way it was planned that we showed you as sort of an illustration
there until it changes as well, there's no reason to have it until the
interchange is built. Otherwise it's single family residential and they
don't want to do that.
Erhart: Just eliminate the jog that's all. That's about three-quarters of
a mile?
Conrad: So this southerly portion, we're increasing the right-of-way Fred
and basically there's a cost implication but that is, the funding source
for this for purchase is from State funding?
Fred Hoisington: No. The only things that are certain right now Ladd are
we know that when the north leg is built and we assume the funding is in
~ place for that so we know, and of course this stretch of Market corning up
.., to TH 5 is already in the process of construction very soon and will be
partially assessed. The right-of-way was dedicated in that case and it
will be partially covered by I forget...but whatever the non-local share or
non-local road share...the City is picking up the tax increment here. This
stretch down here, then the temporary connection we're acquiring that land
now through condemnation the same way we're...to the north to make that we
can make that temporary connection. So that will probably be taken care of
and paid for now. Everything however beyond that temporary connection in
through here, we have no funding source right now at all for that. But
what I've learned over the years is when you have to have something,
somehow or another it works out and you will end up getting it when the
time comes and hopefully it will be delayed as long as you can delay it and
you won't be against the wall to have to acquire it sooner than you want
it.
Jeanette Lappen:
...north of TH 5 will not be started until 1991?
Fred Hoisington: The construction of that section north of TH 5, it's
possible it can start before that but at least the way we're looking at it
right now, it probably will start in the summer of 1991.
Jeanette Lappen: And it will be 2 lane or 4 lane?
Fred Hoisington: Just to the north it will be, immediately north it will
~ be kind of a transi tional. It will be 4 lanes at the intersection and then
c~ it will taper back to 2 lane.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 28
tit Jeanette Lappen: And has there been any consideration for pedestrian
safety along TH 101 at all?
Fred Hoisington: Along the north side there?
Jeanette Lappen: North and south.
Fred Hoisington: Part of the consideration in the course of all of this
was what those pedestrian connections should be. I can't even remember now
what we discussed in the way of alternatives up along TH 5. The things
we're doing here are really not related to that. There we kind of have a
funding source and we can get the right-of-way...
(Fred Hoisington and Jeanette Lappen had a discussion regarding speed limit
on TH 101 at this point that wasn't completely picked up on the tape.)
Conrad: Jo Ann, do you recall what our trail system that we thought we
were going to implement, is there a trail that goes down TH 101 in the
plans?
Olsen: Yes.
Conrad: On the western side so it'd be on the South Lotus Lake side?
Would there be a trail crossing there?
e Olsen:
Conrad:
of town.
I believe so.
Well it's a sidewalk.
Trail is a real strange word for that part
Emmings:
Prairie.
It'd have to be on the west because on the east it's Eden
Conrad: That's a good place, we can have them fund it.
proposed down the west side?
Is there a trail
Olsen: You mean on the south side of South Lotus Lake? I believe there
is.
Conrad: That's really more the issue in the plans than this particular
highway configuration. There is a need for pedestrian service there. Just
absolute. In fact the whole TH 101 is just a real disaster in terms of
pedestrian right-of-way.
Jeanette Lapin: I guess we're looking for guidance. Especially for the
speed limit. I think something is needed.
Conrad: That's really, and Mr. Hoisington was saying that's a tough call.
I don't know if he gave you any direction on that but he might have given
you, I think what he's saying is boy, good luck. It's really a tough one
.e to get changed.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 29
4It Jeanette Lappen: What about TH 101 within our downtown Chanhassen? You
have no control whether it's 55 mph or 30?
Olsen:
...they don't have any control.
Batzli: One question, well this first one isn't a real question.
RALF funds. What is a RALF fund?
Fred Hoisington: Maybe you've heard, the other term it goes by or used to
go by is the Schriver Bill funding which is set aside by essentially the
Metro Council sets it aside and that money can be used for either emergency
acquisitions or hardship acquisitions. Hardships are strictly residential.
In other words, if you have a person who has to get out of their house for
some reason or another and they can't sell because of being in the
right-of-way, then those funds can be used for that purpose. If there is
eminent development also within that right-of-way, somebody comes along and
wants to develop something, they can also be used for that purpose. What
it is is it's an interest free loan provided by the Metro Council to the
City who buys the land, holds it and then when it comes time for MnDot to
purchase it, they get their money back and the money goes back into
revolving RALF fund pot.
Batzli: Okay, so you're saying since we're not sure that this is going to
be a State trunk highway, we're not sure the RALF funds would be available?
e Fred Hoisington:
Batzli: Because
eligible?
That's correct.
it would only be for a State roadway that it would be
Fred Hoisington: Because it's, and I shouldn't use the temporary in the
sense that I did there Brian because it has since 1940 been a temporary
State trunk highway.
Batzli:
I thought all trunk highways were temporary.
Fred Hoisington: No. This one is and it's a very unusual thing and I
don't even know why it was but probably because it's so terrible that
nobody wanted to take responsibility enough to maintain it. But I don't
think it's because it will be turned back or turned over to the City or the
County. The County might be the ultimate recipient of this roadway. We
don't know who's going to be the owner of it and we don't know for sure
that RALF funds will be available. I guess all we're saying is, it is a
funding source. It may apply but it may not because of the temporary
nature of the roadway.
Batzli: The other question I had was, since we haven't done the official
mapping, I don't think we have, of TH 212 yet, is this right-of-way that
we're doing here going to be impacted at all by the final result of that
mapping?
e Fred Hoisington: It could be just slightly impacted. We understand this
, bridge in the alignment that was established with this alignment, puts a
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - page 30
e
little bit of a curve, just a slight curve in the bridge itself. MnDot
doesn't like curves on bridges so what they're trying to do is they're
presently trying to straighten this out. It will have a slight impact
through here but by the time we're ready to describe this in a meets and
bounds description, that will be resolved. So what you're looking at is
something that's very close to what's going to be right in it and it could
shift let's say 5 feet, something like that but it's going to be a minor
change.
Conrad: Anything else? What do we need? Is this for our note Jo Ann?
Olsen: You need a recommendation.
Conrad: We do need a recommendation?
Olsen: A recommendation of the official map.
Conrad: Is there a motion regarding the presentation on the mapping of TH
101?
Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
official map as proposed in our packet for right-of-way to be described and
recorded at the County Courthouse as officially protected TH 101 corridor.
Headla: Second.
e
Emmings: I just want to be clear. Maybe I missed something here but is
what we have in our packet, this is not the official map?
Fred Hoisington: That Steve is not the official map.
the official map as soon as the Council approves it.
descriptions and everything will be prepared for it.
Emmings: But right now you're not asking for approval of the official map.
You're asking for authority to go ahead and prepare the official map?
That map will become
The legal
Fred Hoisington: We're asking for the approval of the official mapping of
something very close to what is on that map. The 200 foot right-of-way,
the 250 foot bubble and that alignment is very close.
Batzli: Let me amend my motion to say that we're recommending approval of
an official mapping in conformance with what we've perceived here. The
concept received here.
Emmings: Okay, I think that clears it up for me.
Batzli moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of an official map in conformance with the concept presented by
Fred Hoisington for the right-of-way to be described and recorded at the
~ County Courthouse as the officially protected TH 101 corridor. All voted
,., in favor and the motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 31
e
Olsen: We're close to coming to finalization of, this is where Kenny's is
and Colonial Center. We just wanted to bring it in front of you to let the
Planning Commission look at what the site might be like and to provide your
comments now. It will be going out for bids when?
Fred Hoisington: It will be going out for bids on the 20th.
Olsen: So we just wanted to let you get your shot at it now.
Conrad: Bids for what?
Fred Hoisington: You have to understand, this one is a bit different in
that the City is involved. I guess I shouldn't say the City, the HRA is
involved in this case with the design and development of a new facade for
Colonial Center. The way that's all going to be done is that the land for
the parking lot will essentially be a compensation. We're going to swap a
parking lot in front for the facade improvements and then we're going to
improve the parking lot and improve the front of the building so the City
or the HRA has a very big involvement in it. What they've done is asked
Jack to design the facade treatment for Colonial Center. He's been working
with the owners of the building and I hope you're real close now to having
some agreement. This is the facade that they would like to have.
Conrad: So the City gets the parking lot?
tit Fred Hoisington: The City gets the parking lot.
Conrad: Why are we looking for the parking lot?
Fred Hoisington: Because all of the parking on the north side, the
Colonial Center parking and the Cenex which will be gone, and all of the
parking associated with the Medical Arts building, plus a good share of the
parking at the Riv, all will be city parking lot.
Conrad: So this is consistent with what's going in?
Olsen: Yes. We wanted to let you have input.
Jack Anderson: I'm Jack Anderson, project architect with EOS. I'll give
you a little briefing of the project that we'll be working on here. This
is the Colonial Center and Kenny's Market is located here. What we're
trying to do here is a very economical budget, do something that blends in
with the city developments that have been done and some of the existing
things. Then work it in with codes and so forth in working with the
existing building. The existing building, this is showing it in brick,
face brick which is a red face brick back here, we're encapsulating the
existing canopy and moving the signage above that. We're coming off of
that with a gabled...then it has gabled ends that accentuate certain
portions. Those correspond with the present entryways.
Conrad: So the gables come out this way?
tit Jack Anderson: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 32
tit
Conrad:
Is there any covered walkway?
Jack Anderson: Yes. This would still be, this is a side view of it. Both
an east and west elevation so this would be covered. The existing canopy.
We're just putting a sloped top on it.
Erhart: You're not putting a roof on the building?
Jack Anderson: No. A roof on top of the canopy essentially is what we're
doing.
Erhart: Yes. The building is still going to be a flat roof when
essentially all of the other new buildings in downtown are going to have a
steep roof. What you're trying to do is somehow from an appearance
standpoint in one direction make it tie in?
Jack Anderson: Yes. This is quite a large building itself and this is a
way to give it a store front that blends in with some of the new
developments. We've got, as far as materials, we're reusing and cleaning
up the brick. We're veneering the columns and putting a new brick face on
them. The fronts would be wood. This would be a wood lattice material
here. Wood siding and wood trimwork. We have signage insets located as we
show there. Then the asphalt shingles. Then the underside of the canopy
would be wood also with the recessed light. Down on the sidewalk we
~ removed the existing corresponding with development of the lot out here and
... then put in a new sidewalk with...
Erhart: What's the roofing material of the medical arts building? Is it
cedar?
Olsen: No, it was asphalt shingles I believe. Heavy duty ones.
Erhart: That's the building that's going up right next to this. Whereas
the Dinner Theater is all cedar.
Jack Anderson: Well this would be a timberline type asphalt shingle which
would be a gray color very similar to the cedar. The Timberline shingle is
like, it's a better quality shingles and it does have that look but has the
durability of course. As far as cost, it's about the same cost.
Erhart: More durable than what?
Jack Anderson: Then the cedar. Less maintenance.
Erhart: Cedar is supposed to be the most durable roof that there is.
Batzli: What's going to be right across the street?
Erhart: Where Pauly's and them used to be?
4It Olsen: I don't know that they're going to be torn down. There's not any
immediate plans to tear those down.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 33
~ Batzli: Are they going to do anything with those right now?
Olsen: What the immediate plans for those are, I'm not sure.
Batzli: We looked at concepts last year. I was wondering if that's going
to blend in at all with what's going on here or if this is going to be,
vice versa, if this is going to be blended in.
Erhart: Which building are you referring to?
Batzli: Pauly's. That group of buildings right to the west of the square.
Erhart: Have we looked at anything on those?
Olsen: Just some facades.
Batzli: Facades and things.
Erhart: Oh yes, that's right.
Jack Anderson: We are going to take as an alternate and see if we can get
it in on the budget and that is to redo all the windows and doors.
Headla: When I look at that and I think about it as you go west, the north
side, it's early American. On the south side it's western. I'm not sure
~ they're all that compatible.
Fred Hoisington: Well David, when the original plan, the architectural
plans were drawn by Arvid Ellness for CHADDA, what they were proposing was
sort of like exactly that. A western theme on the south side because of
the Dinner Theater such a major force there, takes up so much of the south
side. On the north side it was proposed to be very contemporary. Very
much different on the south side.
Headla: That was the plan huh?
Fred Hoisington: Yes, almost contrasting totally with one another.
Unfortunately, we don't think we're going to get enough of that original
concept on the north side. We'd like to see a contrast, we'd like to see
some life on that lower side and we're still struggling for that. However,
things that are proposed here are a substantial improvement over what's
there and by the time we get signage and so forth on there that's
appropriate to this building, it's going to look a lot like Retail West.
Not like it but at least consistent with Retail West or the Town Square
shopping center building which is going to be so much better it's
unbelieveable.
Erhart: What's it going to look like from the east end?
Jack Anderson:
~ there blending
e
We have proposed a paint, exposed concrete block that's
color.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 34
e
Erhart: It's too bad we don't have the money to put a roof over the
building.
Headla: Do you think that's what will happen in time Tim?
Erhart: That's the only way you could really tie the building in would be
to put a roof on it.
Fred Hoisington: It would sure be nice if we could but the number of
dollars we're talking about here and the additional rents the owner
actually has to get to support this improvement plus..., we think they're
willing to accept that or very close to an agreement. Probably Monday or
Tuesday. probably will not do a roof here for a long time. It's not in
the cards.
Conrad: A number of shopping centers have, the Retail West, is there a
canopy out over the walkway Fred?
Fred Hoisington: Yes. The Retail West, yes.
Conrad: These canopies just go up to the parking lot.
Fred Hoisington: They cover the sidewalk.
Conrad: They do cover the sidewalk?
~ Fred Hoisington: Yes, this is covered.
Conrad: Anything else?
Erhart: What about a partial roof facade just behind that?
Jack Anderson: What do you mean? On the existing?
Erhart: On the existing roof.
Jack Anderson: Well you see you run into real code problems. We were
limited on our height here. We would have liked to have gotten a higher
pitch on this but we can only extend by code 3 1/2 feet above the existing
roof line or else we'll have to, we run into snow removal problems. We
have to reinforce the entire structure.
Erhart: Because it traps snow in there?
Jack Anderson: Yes. Theoretically the snow will come in the back and
could cause snow drifting. So the code addresses that. That would be a
substantially more expensive venture.
Erhart: You've just thought of everything.
e
Conrad: What kind of landscape are we putting in here?
landscape plan for this area?
Do we have a
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 35
~ Olsen:
I haven't seen one yet.
Jack Anderson: Our charge is not that aspect.
Fred Hoisington: You have reviewed site plans. When they were brought to
you a month ago, most of the discussion, I wasn't here but I guess most of
the discussion centered on the walkway and the rear portion of the site
plan. They were showing the landscaping plans and everything at that time.
Olsen: That was for the north parking lot.
Emmings: That was only the medical building.
Fred Hoisington: The landscaping and the walkways and the lighting and
everything is part of this public improvement project which includes
everything from this site down through the Riveria building. They really
should review what was...I thought they had already done that.
Conrad: without landscape here, you know you're dealing with a limited
budget so it's hard to really critique this. It's clean and fine and we're
not, I don't know how we can give you any other comments. I really am
interested in landscaping for this area however because that can soften it
up and it can tie it together with other parts of the downtown and I think
we need to see that.
~ Olsen: I'll get copies of those and bring them in for you to review.
.., just wanted you, so if you ever saw this improvement you'd know...
We
Erhart: What about wrapping the canopy around the ends? Have you
considered that?
Jack Anderson: One side here is not even' owned by this property. The west
side. In fact we have to get a variance even for this little bit of work.
The property line is right on the building line.
Erhart: Who owns the parking lot then? Who owns west of that then?
Jack Anderson:
It's in the process of being purchased.
Erhart: By the City?
Jack Anderson: The City's trying to purchase it.
Erhart: It might do the job of covering the building if you could go
around the canopy and go around the east and west side I guess. What is
it, 3 feet? 3, 4, 5 feet from...
Jack Anderson: We're extending out about 10 feet there.
Erhart: My concern is that it will come out obvious that someone tried to
~ cover up the building and obviously that's your profession to try to avoid
,., that with a limited budget.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 36
.
Jack Anderson: Yes. I think this is the type of project that, as a
designer you have to look at where it came from. It is substantially
improving the existing building there.
Erhart: But like you say, if you're spending a buck, if you spend a $1.10,
could you get another 50% return I guess is the kind of thing I'm searching
for.
NEW BUSINESS.
Conrad: Under the new business category I'd like to bring up something
that I suggested last time and Jo Ann I need your advice on that. I think
the Eckankar project brought it up because of community interest and it
brings up tax issues and a whole lot of things related to financial aspects
but what I'm interested in is knowing what the impact of the planned
residential development is in Chanhassen for the next 5 years and that
impact on taxes in Chanhassen. Obviously where that goes is, I'm just
plain interested year by year. As we build 100 new houses, is there an
impact good or bad to an average house? But once we find out that
information, it may be able to be converted into well if there's a negative
impact taxwise because of services, then I think there's an implication for
residential commercial. The City's agressiveness to develop and also the
ability to have enough land to maybe offset some of the costs of
residential growth. Right now I know nothing about those impacts. I don't
~ know if there are plateaus and then all of a sudden you grow and have to
.., add a whole lot to tax increase. I don't know how schools are impacted. I
don't know how...so what I'm asking and if the Planning Commission thinks
it's worthy of time. I'm asking for you Jo Ann to give us a recommendation
how to go about looking at this issue. And it maybe something as simple as
Don Ashworth could come in and with his computer he can tell us what he
thinks the growth implications are for the next 5 years and how residential
growth impacts the city and the average taxpayer. On the other hand maybe
it's a subject for a consultant to map that out. I have no idea but I'd
like you to talk to Don and if you understand what I'm saying and advise us
next meeting so that we could forward that recommendation onto the City
Council. Anybody else interested in something along that line? Is that
just a me concern or is that a concern for...
Erhart: Your concern is that we provide adequate space for commercial
development?
Conrad: My biggest concern is what's new residential costing us out here?
What I've been saying is typically a new residence and typically what they
say in planning is a new residence that comes into Chanhassen is costing
each one of us money. It's not benefitting taxwise me or you because of
the services that have to be provided to that new residence, it's costing
us. The things that keep cost down for that is a corresponding or an
incremental increase in commercial/industrial growth. So I'm just kind of
interested in what all the residential growth that we've got on the books
is going to cost us and to see how the commercial growth that we've got is
off setting that.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 37
e Erhart: I heard that we were going to indefini tely grow the si ze of the
city staff through continued sales of building permits. Actually that's
kind of funny. Obviously you can't have an indefinite set of building
permits but the odd thing about it is, a major portion of the city's income
in the last few years has been from building permits.
Conrad:
Is that right? I'm not aware of that.
Erhart: I think I would like to know that too. What the net contribution
is of commercial versus residential property?
Conrad: And where it leads us, or leads me is I feel better about new
development coming in, residential or commercial. Right now I don't have a
clue. I don't know.
Headla: I think that would be an interesting analysis. We could probably
learn a lot from it.
Conrad: And it will get back into
commercial? With Eckankar out of
really don't know what I'm asking.
not a science but I think we need,
that issue.
some land use issues. Do we have enough
the picture is that good or bad and I
I really don't know. Obviously it's
at least I do some kind of guidance on
Emmings: You're really bringing financial planning into the land use
~ planning to see how land use affects it and how it affects land use.
.. Obviously they're very closely linked but it's an area we've sure never
been into before and I don't know if somebody is looking into this things
in the City and is coordinating them but it'd probably be Don if it's
anybody. But it might be nice to have him talk to us about how he thinks
about these things.
Erhart: I would have to believe that at sometime before we were on this
group that that was discussed when they first put the zoning map in place.
Conrad: Not since I've been here. We've never touched it. We've just
sort of said, here's a blob over here. Let's make that commercial. There's
never been a tie to finances and I think if the Mayor and some of the new
council people, they've always been concerned, at least in their campaign
about minimizing tax increases, I think this is real relevant information
and most of what I get is hearsay and it's not scientific or it's not even
based on relevant data in Chanhassen.
Emmings: In fact we've heard here not only do the new residences, not only
are they a net draw on city resources, but that remains true for their
entire life. Somebody has told us that here.
Batzli: I think it was Ladd.
Conrad: No, it wasn't me.
e Emmings: I think it was Steve Hanson. If that's true, that's very
significant.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 38
e
Erhart: In addition to that, I guess I'd also like to see some data then
that shows us what the lot size affect and that is. It goes back to my
argument that 2 1/2 acre lots are even a real net loss to the city because
essentially a 2 1/2 acre takes the same amount of taxes as a 15,000 square
foot lot but you've got to maintain 200 foot road frontage and the other
city services. Public safety and stuff like that.
Emmings: Pack them in, you get more efficient services like that. I guess
the paradime or the graveyard would be to stack them up 3 deep.
Erhart: Again, I've heard some people say that well gee they're expensive
and if we're going to get data, it'd be nice to get a little bit more
accurately on what that really is at the same time.
Conrad: So could you come back next meeting and advise us, so basically
what we have next meeting is we can make a motion to City Council that we
recommend something that staff studies, consultant be hired, Don Ashworth
presents, whatever makes sense to you guys.
Batzli:
I'll bet you 10 to 1 that it's not staff studies.
Erhart: This is the kind of thing that Don really is good at.
Conrad: Don is. Literally, I don't personally need an absolute graph that
e says here is total forecase for the next 10 years but...
Emmings: A general idea.
Conr ad : Yes.
Batzli: That would also help on our long range goal of maybe getting more
industrial park. We're filling up.
Conrad: Okay, is there any old business?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 17, 1989 with the
following changes: Brian Batzli had changes on page 24 changing the word
"half" to "have" and on page 11 changing the word "ever" to "never". All
voted in favor except Headla who abstained and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Conrad: Anything on the City Council Update? That was a good report Jo
Ann by the way. It was fun to see.
e
Emmings: On the City Council update, Dave Stockdale's not on here.
he in front of them?
Wasn't
Olsen: He goes on next Monday.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 39
e
Batzli: For all of you who didn't attend the City Council meeting last
time, I would like to report that I attended and they actually asked me
questions as a Planning Commission representative. It was exciting to be
there.
Emmings: Did you know any answers?
Batzli: I knew 50%.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Emmings: The temporary conditional use permits is the last thing.
Batzli: Yes, the temporary use permits. That was interesting.
Emmings: Now do we have to draft an ordinance?
Olsen: Yes. We got this at the last minute but I threw it in and yes, if
that's something that you would like.
Conrad: I think so.
Emmings: It would go under the conditional use chapter and would allow us
~ to apply... Are we only going to allow the conditional uses we already
~ allow and say in a certain district. If they're all conditional use, are
we only going to allow that use on a temporary basis in some conditions or
is this for all kinds of things even if it's not now listed as a
conditional use?
Olsen: Right. I think that's how it could be used.
Batzli: It would be more flexible that way.
Emmings: I think it should be kept as general as possible. I feel like it
ought to go under the conditional use chapter just to say that this is one
alternative to, there are conditional use permits and there are temporary
conditional use permits and leave it that vague as to what we apply it to.
Batzli: In other words, we could make a conditional use temporary under
your, unilaterally on the applicant?
Emmings: Yes.
Erhart: Can we arbitrarily assign that or do we legally have to show
something consistently? Like all retail nurseries in the A-2 area are
going to be a temporary conditional use.
Emmings: I think as long as you present, if we do it on a case by case
basis and present some rational cases for limiting it to time. The
4It interesting part is going to be defining the end and they put that right in
the law that you have to be very specific about it and that makes a lot of
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 40
~ sense and that's going to be the tricky part. But like Tim suggested
before when we were talking, you might take a use that's going into the A-2
and say this can stay here in the A-2 until such time as it becomes
residential. If at some future date this property is ever zoned RSF, it
has to get out of there and that's kind of neat idea I think. There might
be some kinds of things you'd want to do that to.
Batzli: Like a contractor's yard.
Emming: But there might be all kinds of different reasons to terminate it
or define the end.
Erhart: I can think of an example and I'm not proposing but an example
would be, we discuss from time to time the idea of allowing, we have some
wholesale nurseries, in fact we have Halla which is more or less
grandfathered in as a retail nursery in the rural area so it's really a
non-conforming grand fathered use but you could make it conforming by giving
that guy now a temporary conditional use permit to do that. Say you can do
retail, which he's currently doing, until such time as the area is zoned RR
or RSF. I'm not proposing that we do that but I can see that would be an
application.
Batzli: Well who's going to study and recommend how we implement this?
Olsen: When we did it before it was real general. Like when we had Bryan
~ pike, the pastor from the church, we allowed him to have a temporary
~ conditional use in the lOP district. In fact he's still there but we did
it illegally because we did not have the basis to really do that. Now this
would allow us to do things like that.
Erhart: The other example was with Jay here up at Lotus Nursery. See he
wanted to build out on TH 5. We had no mechanism to say okay you can build
there until we go residential. We turned it down and I always felt that
that was a good use of that land on a temporary basis and that's where this
would apply nicely.
Olsen: It would be real general unless you wanted it more specific. I'll
bring something back real general.
Ernmings: wait a minute. We had a temporary conditional use permit
provision in here that we deleted at one time.
Olsen: Because we did not have the Statute to back it up.
Ernrnings: Can't we just resurrect that?
Olsen: Sure.
Conrad: I don't know if that's good or bad.
e
Ernrnings: There are a lot of specific conditions under the legislation too
that have to be addressed. That's right.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 41
~ Olsen: But Roger could work that up.
Conrad: Okay, what's coming up two weeks from now?
.
Olsen: Mike Gorra is coming in to get his land within the MUSA line. Do
you know where his property is? It's west of Lake Ann Park and that's
going to be coming in.
Emmings: What can we do about it?
Olsen: You would recommend approval to amend the MUSA line to include his
property.
Batzli: We have to do that before he can go to the Met Council.
Olsen: Plus where the Natural Green was, their property is coming in along
with that too. The Legion wants to buy that and put the Legion out there.
We're getting a lot of pressure... Oak View Heights is coming back with
R-12.
Batz1i: Is anything being done to include in the MUSA line that area kind
of north and south of TH 5 out past where the MUSA line now runs? I recall
seeing in the villager the week that Steve Hanson resigned something to the
effect that we were applying to the Met Council to adjust that MUSA line
and include a big portion.
~ Olsen: Where was that?
Batz1i: I don't know. It was the big article in the Villager and I was
kind of looking at it saying, golly I never heard of that before. He was
quoted as saying the City was applying to adjust the MUSA line to kind of
square off that corner where it goes up and down.
Headla: On TH 5 and TH 41?
Batz1i: I don't know. It was going to be north of TH 5 and kind of west
of Lake Ann towards TH 41. You don't read the local yocal paper?
Okay, I'll get you a copy.
Conrad: Yes, Steve made a lot of comments that I hadn't heard before.
Erhart moved, Head1a seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m..
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Asst. City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
e
,