Loading...
1989 06 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 1989 -- Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner, Gary Warren, City Engineer and Mark Koegler, Planning Consultant PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE 3RD ADDITION INTO ONE LOT, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, QUATTRO ADDITION, ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED ON WEST 77TH STREET, FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Ernmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Just in general, I won't go around the Commission. Any comments? Anything? -- Emmings: I would change one word in the recommendation where it says the final plat should provide the typical front, side and rear easements. I would just change typical to required. Typical, I don't know what that means. Ernmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-2 to replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition as shown on the preliminary plat dated May 25, 1989 with the condition that the final plat provide the required front, side and rear easements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE FILLING AND DREDGING WITHIN A CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLAND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE, SOUTH OF HWY 5 AND NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Ernmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted _ in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 2 e Headla: The purpose of this wetland is it to help Lake Susan to have better quality of water going into Lake Susan or is it just vegetation right in those wetlands? Olsen: Which wetland? Headla: Any of those wetlands you talked about now. Olsen: Currently they do provide areas for water retention prior to entering Lake Susan. Headla: Okay now, are we degrading the water quality going into Lake Susan the way it's proposed? Olsen: with the mitigation, that's one of the purposes of that and no we are not. We are still providing for the same amount. For the runoff to still be contained prior to it entering Lake Susan. Headla: I don't understand how you're providing the same amount. You aren't planning to include the Eckankar effort now are you? Olsen: Well some of the mitigation also includes wildlife habitat and vegetative areas that are being moved. e Headla: That doesn't help Lake Susan. I'm more concerned about the water quality going into Lake Susan. I think we have to have the road and I'm questioning, is it appropriate to spend more money to keep the water quality equal to what it is now going into Lake Susan rather than... Olsen: That was one of the reasons we were working closely with that mitigation area just north of Lake Susan and we feel that we are still providing the same amount of protection. Headla: That's all I have. Wildermuth: Is there any change that will take place as a result of item 4 Jo Ann that is not reflected on the map that we currently have for Wetland #4? Olsen: Oh for Wetland #4? Wildermuth: And 5. Olsen: Wetland 4 might, that won't be changed at all and again that's the one that's already been totally altered anyway. Number 5, that's the one we're trying to work at to even remove it further from being impacted so that will result in Market Blvd. being shifted somewhat to the west and it might also result in Rosemount's access drive being shifted to the south. The Lake Drive that currently shows kind of going through that Type V wetland, that's not going to, we're going to work on moving that completely ~ out of the wetland. Either to the south or to the north of it. That will ,., not stay where it's shown now. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 3 ~ Wildermuth: Why wouldn't we table this until you've done that? Olsen: That's not part of this extension or what we're approving right now. The Lake Drive that is going through the Ward property, that's not part of this. Wildermuth: The number 5 wetland is part of this consideration? Olsen: Right. Wildermuth: So why wouldn't we table this until you made that final determination? e Warren: The number 5 wetland is the one that the consultant and I went out in the field with Fish and Wildlife and we looked at it, it was the one that kind of came up at the last minute so to speak. Even in the field it was determined that the actual boundary of that wetland is subject to a lot of judgment as to where the westerly boundary of it is and we're waiting for the Corps of Engineers to actually help us with that field determination. If anything, the impacts will be better from what we're proposing because we'd be moving the road west if we can at all. We've got some tough geometries with the alignment of TH 101, which will be ultimately TH 101 once the trunk highway is realigned, that restrict us a little bit in just how far we can move it but we are trying to get it as far away as possible at this point. So the alterations and the mitigation that has been looked at are looking at it under the current alignment and this is what the Fish and Wildlife has given us the reading that since we are on the perimeter of that, sort of that marginal area of the wetland, that the mitigation areas, they felt comfortable with could be done in the mitigation area 2 or mitigation area 1. Wildermuth: It looks like the extension of the old TH 101, it looks like Wetland 4 and 5 could be, you could eliminate going through 5 all together by just continuing Lake Drive over to where the current TH 101 is. Is that something that you're looking to? Is that an option? Warren: As Jo Ann was trying to address, Lake Drive, I don't know if you have an overhead Jo Ann that might show it but Lake Drive East from Market Blvd., which goes right through Wetland 5 is not in this current proposal and that alignment is subject to re-evaluation. When the Ward property is interested in developing, that's when that roadway would be built. That is really not a part of this project at this time. The original proposed alignment for that roadway was to follow on a continuous alignment with the current Lake Drive without having that off set. In fact there was quite a number of transportation studies done to evaluate if it was negative impact to separate that intersection but actually we found that if anything it improved the traffic in that area. But that element, that piece to the east is not a part of this application and is something that will definitely be given close scrutiny to mitigate the wetland issues at that time. 4ItWildermuth: So technically the number 5 wetland is not part of this at all? That would come up when that little stretch. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 4 e . .. h Warren: Market Blvd. IS nIppIng t e westerly edge of number 5. I don't know what plan sheet maybe would show that for you the best but it's in this transition area that's hard to define and we are recognizing and have conceeded to the Fish and Wildlife that we are willing to take whatever mitigative measures that they are willing to enforce upon us here. Wildermuth: It just looks like a shame to impact the best of the wetland areas there at all when there's an opportunity to avoid it all together. Warren: I think the best of the area will not be damaged. If a current alignment of Lake Drive to the east were built as it's shown on this plan sheet, that would definitely be a problem. That's where we're saying we're going to have to take a good hard look at that when that road comes in and see if that can't be located some other place. I'm looking at Figure 1. That presents the best picture. Wildermuth: Right now Figure 1 shows it going right through the middle of it. Warren: But that's not a part of this project. Maybe I can just show you on your plan. This project right now is this roadway. This is not a part of it. And it may end up this alignment will come back to here, completely avoid that or go south of it. In all likelihood it might go south of it because the Ward's are interested in preserving this for a developable site ... for the commercial site. But to run it right through here is not a part of ~ this project and it probably would not be allowed. Wildermuth: That's all I have. Ba tzl i : I think it might clar i fy the issue, Jim's issue, if we some how specify in one of the conditions that that is not part of the permit because I don't think it's clear from our recommendation or the conditions here and I think part of it is probably due to the fact that it was a late breaking item. Either exclude it or modify exactly what portions we are approving of wetland alteration I guess. My question Jo Ann was, do we own the mitigation #1 area right now? The City? Warren: Number 1, yes. Batzli: That's already on park property? Warren: Correct. Batzli: And the mitigation area #2 is Eckankar but as I understand it they're negotiating to purchase or condemn that portion. Warren: Condemnation has been authorized by the Council. We've exchanged correspondence with Eckankar. We believe that we will be able to settle it without having to go through condemnation. 4It Batzli: How many acres are we talking about purchasing there? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 5 e Warren: For the Eckankar? Ba t z 1 i : Yes. Warren: Approximately 23, a little over 23 acres. Batzli: And what's going to become of that site other than a wetland area? Warren: A wetland area is a big part of it. Then future extension of West 78th street, if you will, as a frontage road on the north side of TH 5 is in the long range Comprehensive Plan ultimately to continue with the frontage road concept west to the Lake Ann Park. Batzli: But there's no plans for a city park there or anything else? Warren: Well there have been several things talked about as far as ultimate and I'm sure you're maybe well aware of them. Ultimate civic center and schools and other things in that southern part of the par~el for Eckankar that could be added on and worked with around there but seelng as we've got Lake Ann Park just to the west, there's no proposal here for a city park. Batzli: That's all I had. Ellson: Brian brought up the question I already had with his answers so I e don't have anything. Emmings: I don't have anything addi tional. Erhart: Precisely what is the plan for mitigation site I? We show an area here but what exactly are we going to do? Olsen: There's one other plan that shows it. In addition to that they would have to give all the basics. Comply with the Fish and Wildlife. Warren: Page 6 too of Gary Ehret's report specifically lays out 8 items. Olsen: It gets into the types of vegetation that will be provided. Erhart: What's the design depth? Warren: It varies. Basically we've taken the Fish and Wildlife's criteria that's been requested in the past. Erhart: And is that supposed to be Class A or Class B when it's finished? Olsen: It will be a Class A. Erhart: Open water? The total size of that was about 3 1/2 acres? Okay. In putting the street in, if a developer puts in things we require that we ~ have a tree removal plan on improvements. When the City puts in a street, ,., is there any equivalent process that we require or should consider? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 6 e Olsen: It's always something that we look at prior to locating the street but no, I don't know that we really do. Usually when...we have the boulevard landscaping along with...individual calipers. Headla: I can't hear you Jo Ann. Olsen: I'm saying that we usually have like a landscaping plan along with boulevard plantings for replacement and when we look alignment of the road, we also look at the existing conditions. know that we use a caliper per caliper for the roadway. that goes at the I don't Erhart: I assume we don't do any tree replacement at all when we put streets in? Warren: The Lake Drive and Market Blvd. sections do call for, I don't remember the exact dollar amount but I think it's maybe $70,000.00 worth of streetscape improvements, trees, plantings, low level shrubs, of that nature. Not the intensity of the downtown but there is a planting plan as a part of those construction documents that I think could be looked at as some form of replacement if you will. Erhart: Okay, and that's going to be done prior to any of the land being developed? That is going in as part of the street improvement? Warren: That's part of the construction document package, that's correct. ~ Erhart: Okay, in the future I guess I'd like to see that as part of the, when we review these kinds of things although I guess this is simple a wetland alteration. I think it's important to some degree that we maintain, the City maintains similar standards as private developers. I wonder about that. I'm very pleased that we're doing that. One last thing, I guess somehow I didn't make the connection of this plan to the mitigation. I'm very pleased to see that we're substantially improving the wetlands. I think that's something. In the Chanhassen area we've got a lot of Class B wetlands that even having a smaller area by improving them can improve the overall wetland situation that we have. Applying that same thing to number 5, I guess I'd prefer to see us use some mitigation and improvement of the wetland if there's not a problem with the trees as opposed to trying to put an unusual design in Market Blvd. and tight curve. I'd like to see you open up some of these Class B wetlands with permanent open water for nesting. That's the end of my comments Ladd. Conrad: Okay, thanks Tim. that right now? We own it. wetland now? The mitigation area Jo Ann on site 1, what is It's part of the park property but is it a Olsen: It's a real marginal Class B wetland. Conrad: Okay, so we're improving a marginal wetland. Warren: It's been farmed quite a bit in the past and this is also the area 4It where the Lake Ann interceptor project was part of the wetland alteration for that. They came right through the middle of this area also. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 7 e Conrad: Wetland What are we losing in the other wetlands Jo Ann in your mind? 2, 3, 4, are we losing anything there as we put a road close by? Olsen: 4 is already gone. It's part of the Rosemount. That'~ just a holding pond now. Numbers 2, is the larger Class A wetland. It's really just taking a northerly portion of it. It will be cutting away some of the vegetation that's surrounding the wetland but it won't be impacting it enough that it will be destroyed or anything like that. Conrad: So you're not seeing a drainage issue, if 4 is draining into 3 isn't it? That's what we're letting them do. Warren: 4 will backflow into 3. Olsen: Right. And number 2, the one north of Lake Drive is not. Number 5 is the one we're really going to try to work on and as we stated, the westerly portion isn't the better part. It's a hardwood wetland so the reason they don't want it altered is because it's impossible to replace. It takes 50 years to replace that so that's where, we will not be impacting that center where the hardwoods exist now. It's just the edge. But again, we feel comfortable... Conrad: And you think there's a net gain? Again, when you tamper with the wetland, I think the City, we always talk about Fish and Wildlife and all ~ th: ot~e~ regulatory agenci:s but our ordinance really talks about "'malntalnlng a zero degregatlon of what we've got. It sort of sets the standard as the city does something with wetlands, it sets a standard for how we uphold what the developers do. Very similar to what Tim was talking about and I want to make sure that you're very familiar with wetlands. I just want to make sure we're real comfortable that we're setting a right standard. We're saying it's beneficial to put these roads in for transportation purposes but we're also saying at the same time that we're getting, the Chanhassen residents are maintaining a wetland quality here and it's at least equal to what it used to be. Olsen: I'm comfortable that it's equal and the two real important wetlands out there are not really being impacted much. They have been worked around. And the other ones that are being altered are being improved or mitigated so I feel that it's an improvement. Conrad: So what kind of precedent? When we set a 1:1 offset ratio and we've adhered to it almost, it appears 1 to 1. Is that our standard for mitigation for future? Does this set a standard? Olsen: We try to get that and not all the times we do. This time we really are. They are doing 1:1 and they've really... Conrad: Who is they? tit Olsen: Conrad: We. The City and then working with BRW as the consultant. So that's sort of what we're saying to future developers l:l? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - page 8 e Warren: I think it depends too Jo Ann on the wetland class. For example Paul Burke from Fish and Wildlife in the wooded upland wetlands where they're more valuable than say your Class A's, then maybe you're looking for 2 or 3 to 1 type of a mitigation so it depends really on what type of environmental issue, type of wetland you're working with. He felt comfortable...compliment to the City in the fact that they were willing, the Fish and Wildlife was willing to take the City's verbal agreement that as far as the wetland V issue was concerned, that we would be making this further restitution in 18 months on some of our other projects. He said that's a testimony to the track record that the City of Chanhassen has here in enforcing our wetland ordinances. I think it really comes down to looking at each wetland and what you're damaging and whether it's a 1:1 or 2:1 or more. Conrad: But it always seem easy Gary to make a change for habitat. We can move this wetland over and the ducks will follow it but I'm never confident in terms of water quality that, it's real debateable whether you can create a wetland, a new one that really does a job for water quality. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't but it's easy to justify it for habitat rationale. I just get a little bit nervous, especially because this is an area where we're paying attention to and there's a lot of money and the newspaper's kind of tracking some things in terms of the quality of the water in this whole watershed from Lake Ann through Lake Susan and Riley so I get a little bit nervous when we start pushing wetlands around but it e looks. . . Olsen: We're really not pushing too many around. Conrad: To a non-technical person it looks okay to me. I guess all I can say is I just hope that we are holding the standard that we feel comfortable measuring other developments by. My only other comment reinforces what we said before in that I'd hate to see a connection from going right through and we're not responding to it tonight apparently but the wetland 5. I'd hate to see even on a plan like this that a road is going right through the center of the wetland. That kind of bothers me so I would hope that any, especially since it's a Class A wetland. I can accept B's being moved and altered a little bit but Class A's I don't like. Anyway, those are my only comments. Batzli: Are you going to be done realigning Market Blvd. by the time this gets to City Council? Olsen: I know we looked at some options. Warren: This will be on the Council's agenda Monday night so no. Olsen: We're already in the process of looking at some alignments to see if it will work. ~ Warren: Construction is scheduled to start July 10th if the Council awards ,., Monday night. Bids were recently opened on the project. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 9 ~Batzli: So Council won't even have a chance to look at your final alignment before approving it? Warren: Council has seen the final alignment as it shows here and any modification that we would propose on that alignment would go back to Council and we would expect to bring this, it's an important issue obviously because we have to be construction staking for the roadway for the contractor so it's something that we are working on as we speak here. Batzli: You also said something about down the road in 18 months you might improve other wetlands as part of the bargain for cutting through number 5 there. Is that accurate? Warren: That's written right in the conditions here, if I remember your condition right. What it relates to is the Eckankar pond site. To pick up on a comment earlier about the actual water quality benefitis, with the Eckankar pond and the City's West 78th detachment study here, we actually are taking runoff that used to come directly through the Burdick property here at CR 17 and TH 5 and run under the road and straight across country into Lake Susan and now when the improvements are done with that project which should be this year also, we'll be diverting a lot of that flow to the Eckankar pond which will be a 2 pond system. From there into the City's business park ponds west of CR 17 and there into the creek into Lake Susan. So that should be a significant improvement on water quality in addition to the improvements that we're going to be doing on mitigation ~ area #1 so I feel very comfortable that we've done some good improvements .., here to the hydraulics especially. Conrad: Anything else? Erhart: Yes. I'm probably about as enthusiastic about wetlands and wildlife as anybody and for your comfort Ladd I think one acre of Class A wetland is worth many, many acres of Class B. More importantly from the standpoint of staff and Planning Commission, I guess I'd be extremely disappointed if in any mitigation proposal that we see in the future we're destroying a Class A wetland on a 1:1 or any ratio for another wetland to be created, any created wetland has to be Class A because of the value of the Class A and the fact if you're in doing construction anyway, the creation of the Class A wetland is very inexpensive if you already have the equipment in place. I guess that's the message I'd like to leave. That's probably what you're already thinking so and that's what we're doing exactly here. Conrad: Footnote is A's are well controlled by everybody else. Our ordinance really has it's hands on B's which is outside of what other regulatory agencies have control over. The only thing that our ordinance really did is say Chanhassen, we can take a good look at what's being done to the B wetland and if we can take a B and make it an A, that's outstanding. Anything else? Is there a motion? e Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-5 for the construction of Lake Drive and Market Blvd. with the following conditions 1 through 4 set forth in the staff report and Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 10 ~ including a sentence on the end of condition 4 which says, Lake Drive East, as depicted extending east of Market Blvd. on Figure 1 dated, whatever this is dated, is not a part of this application. ElIson: I'll second it. Headla: On the first area, did we negotiate to try to get that to an A? Gary already said it's been farmed and taken away and taken away some of that area already. What we're looking at is greatly reduced and now we're reducing it more. Emmings: They're making it into an A. Warren: Mitigation area 1 would actually be an A. Ellson: So they are trading up so to speak. Batzli moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-5 for the construction of Lake Drive and Market Blvd. with the following conditions: 1. The mitigation areas #1 and #2 as shown on Figure 1 will provide the criteria as recommended on Page 6 of letter from Gary Ehret dated June 14, 1989. ~ 2. The mitigation area #2 would be initiated within the next 18 months and a separate storm water retention basin shall be used as a two pond system to absorb the most severe impacts from water level flucuation and roadway contaminants entering the adjacent wetland. 3. The applicant must receive permit approval from the Corps of Engineers and the Watershed District. 4. Staff will work with the alignment of Market Boulevard and Lake Drive to reduce the amount of impact to the #5 wetland. Lake Drive East, as depicted extending east of Market Blvd. on Figure 1 is not a part of this application. All voted in favor and the motion carried. - Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 11 e PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 100 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON TANADOONA DRIVE, WEST OF HWY 41 AND NORTH OF HWY 5, KURT LAUGHINGHOUSE. Public Present: Name Address David Getsch John Getsch Mr. and Mrs. W.C. Getsch Craig and Barbara Freeman Martin Jones Thomas Kordonowy Linda Oberman 7510 Dogwood 7500 Dogwood 7530 Dogwood 7431 Dogwood 7321 Dogwood 6100 Apple Road 7450 Hazeltine Blvd. Conrad: Just a point of clarification addressed to Jo Ann. We have reacted to this application before and so has the City Council but the applicant has not carried it out I assume so therefore the applicant is back. There's no timeframe for when the applicant can come back with a new preliminary plat? Just for our information. ~Olsen: He never went through the whole process. It got as far as the Council and then they had that street. Conrad: So the applicant decided it didn't like what the alternatives were based on the Council's... Olsen: At that point it was determined by the public that they didn't want to have Dogwood improved. Warren: I think the applicant withdrew and the neighborhood also did not want to pursue the street ownership transfer. Mark Koegler presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Kurt Laughinghouse: I'm Kurt Laughinghouse and I am representing the owners of, there are now 3 different owners of the property. Mark Koegler's introduction is exactly right. The development of this plat and what is turned in as a plat and submitted to the City has grown over the last month in fact. Initially our intention was just to come in with the 20 acres that comprised the three lots that you see there and then we decided to hold the entire 100 acres. Just yesterday I learned that, and I think I can better explain this, just yesterday I learned that we need to ~move what shows up there as Walter Zimmerman, we intend to move that 5 ,., acres in fact to the east 100 feet. So we want to add that to the plat. Plat that property. Clear up all these descriptions. We actually have a third application. We don't have that third applicant in writing who owns Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 12 e that property so therefore I just wanted to introduce these two changes to you this evening. Maybe make some points. The public had already been notified and I know that some of the neighbors are here who may have comment and then I would ask that you continue this until July 5th. So if I may use this overhead. The plat that you received in the mail and were studying, the differences here are almost indetectable to you but there are two. One is that this large parcel to the center of the property which is 80 acres was marked outlot. It is now marked Lot 4. Then secondly, we have added this Lot 5 and that is yet another applicant. This property was not included in the application which I turned in a month or so ago. So those are the two changes. They're substantial enough of course that the staff should react on them and I wouldn't ask you to react without having some time for staff input. One of the major changes, one of the major effects is that any plan to put a road through the middle of this would not work and that was one of the recommendations I believe of the staff. Wanted a road through the middle of this large property so that's going to be something we're going to have to work on. Conrad: Why would it not work, just out of curiousity? Kurt Laughinghouse: The owner of this property is Mr. Tom Kordonowy who is here this evening and he intends to put a house in this vicinity and also a barn and live on the entire 80 acres so it is, in effect is not going to be developed. It's going to be one homestead as will be the case with the ~other three lots. Of course this lot is in effect already in place. So as Mark Koegler suggested, the biggest issue is the road. I guess I should talk about that. Currently, there are three issues that I'd like to introduce and answer questions on and then you can do what you choose. The City currently owns a 20 foot right-of-way that runs along, that is Tanadoona Drive and then is Dogwood Lane all the way down to this point and then there's a quarter of a cul-de-sac on this 17th lot here that is owned by the City. Now this is a plat from 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps longer. Nevertheless, that is the physical and legal situation. This proposal suggests, we propose to dedicate an additional 40 feet of right-of-way and cul-de-sac here in this area so the City would have the appropriate 60 feet of right-of-way in this area. Now, that's the dedication. We also have a special situation here. You notice, it's not clear to you perhaps but there is a dotted line that runs this way. Now when this property, the Zimmerman buildings were separated from the whole parcel several years ago and is now a separate parcel. The City did not take a dedicated right-of- way here. The City took an option to purchase this 40 feet and that's why that's outlined like that. So we left that remark there to remind us we've got to deal with that always. Then secondly, we put an outlot here, we'll call it Outlot A and that's the 40 feet in front of the property here at this point. That's to remind us we've got to deal with road right-of-way dedication or something at that point. We would like not to dedicate any more right-of-way. That's certainly going to be the point of contention. In effect we are adding 3 more dwelling units to the end of this Tanadoona Dogwood road and that, as is suggested, as stated in the engineer's report, ~ is essentially a mile long cul-de-sac and people living at the end of ,., cul-de-sacs have all the problems of potential weaker fire protection, weaker police protection. They understand that. The people who have purchased this lot, contingent of course, this lot and this lot understand Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - page 13 e that situation and that's agreeable to them. They are not expecting a paved road. Nevertheless, that is one of the biggest issues. Now, the second issue, not the same as dedication, is paving. About a year ago, let me stop myself and say this. This line depicts a power line that comes up from TH 5 and is the source of power for all of these properties and that actually goes out here to the farm buildings. Last summer Minnesota Valley Electric Coop came in and cleared a 50 foot or greater swath along the entire power line. Going right through the mature maples and oaks and everything. They were reacting to the fact that there had been storm damage to trees that had cut the power so they reacted strongly. You all may visit that and see if I'm overstating that. I'm understating it quite a bit. Nevertheless, shortly after they finished that work there was another storm and another power failure because they didn't get all the trees. Maybe that proves they should have taken more. Nevertheless, here is our dilemma. We have here a 50 foot swath right through the trees with a power line into the house. If we pave in here, in the right-of-way, we will have to cut another 40 or 50 or greater swath of trees out. We simply ask your authority not to do that. If we have to pave anything, we can perhaps put temporary easements along the power line in favor of the City and pave those if that's appropriate. If we need a cul-de-sac or an area big enough to turn fire trucks around and oil delivery trucks and Dayton's furniture trucks, which I would guess have gotten down there anyway and gotten out but we do need that kind of a space we can also do that here in the vicinity of the power lines or not. We can also pave it. We ask not ~to pave it. So roads in one issue number one. Paving is issue number two. And the third issue is trail easement. We thoroughly agree with the City's plan to have a trail network around the city and around lakes. The City owns, when Crimson Bay was platted down here, a 20 foot easement was brought up to this property line. To our south property line. The staff report calls for a 20 foot easement around the entire property to get back here to Tanadoona. We request that we cut that easement back to a 20 foot easement around the back of these properties to get back to Dogwood here. Now I don't know what the plans for the entire city are in terms of trails but it seems to me ultimately you want to get from here to here and go around the lake. I don't know that so that's certainly disputable but if that's the goal, this is a shorter route. Further, Mr. Kordonowy and his family are going to put a barn up here and run horses. His question to us, to the City I guess, if we have to have a 20 foot easement around the entire property, that amounts by the way to almost exactly 4 acres of property. Where does he put his fence for his horses? Does he put it on this old fence because they city is not going to develop this easement for many, many years or does he put it 20 feet inside that line? That's the dilemma that's created by putting a trail easement here that in effect is not going to be used for a long time. Not going to be developed for a long time. We think that the purposes of the City can be served by putting that easement around the back of these lots. 10 years from now, 30 years from now, as was indicated in the other...that was up here, this is all open farmland now. It's got corn growing on it. 30-40 years, whenever sewer and water arrives at this site, something else may happen to these ~ properties. Roads are going to be different. Park trails are going to be ,., different. I think it's premature and that's part of my argument, to plat all those things right now. So that's my presentation briefly and I'd certainly be happy to answer questions but we might also might want to see Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 14 e what the people have to say. Koegler: Mr. Chairman, just two other items. Kind of really reminders from what happened a couple years ago. Mr. Laughinghouse referenced Crimson Bay to the south and there was a review at the time of making a street connection to the south to Crimson Bay and it was just determined that literally topography precluded it. It was given really a good thoughtful look and was determined totally to be infeasible. The other thing is the difference between the plat now and then is the plat that would have been approved back in 1987 did show dedicated public right-of-way 40 feet all the way around the west and north sides of that property. So had that preceeded and had the road issue have been resolved, that would be right-of-way today. Now they're proposing not to include that as right-of-way so there are just some subtle differences between the two plans from 2 years ago and the one current. Conrad: We have a choice. We could table the item for future considerations and to take a look at what Mr. Laughinghouse has presented or we could listen to input from anybody who has come here tonight. I guess my preference is to listen, maybe instructive for any staff review or our direction to staff so if that's acceptable to everybody, I think I'd like to conduct the public hearing and we can continue the public hearing also until the next time. Would there be any comments related to the ...presentation tonight? Mr. Laughinghouse or anything that the staff has ..,talked to us about. Any public comments? John Getsch: I'm John Getsch, 7500 Dogwood. ...the road easements and the discussions along those development plans, still presents a problem on what is going to be the long term plan for the road and the easement for any improvement of the road. The way it stands right now, what's presented, there is no long term plan for any improvements of the road and that's a concern. Right now it's a 20 foot wide, almost single lane all the way in and that presents a problem... Conrad: Let me interrupt and see what kind of reaction I can get from Mark or Jo Ann on that. What are the City's responsibilities at this point in time given that the property is, the applicants do not really want to develop fully. They want to put a few houses there. What's the City's responsibility in this case in requiring an upgrade to a bad road? We've treated it in the past as it's the only time we can require that when there's something happening. So what are our options I guess. Future options. Mark, do you want to tackle that? e Koegler: Yes, I'll address that and perhaps Gary will want to join in the chorus on this one. Just very briefly, the feasibility study that was done a year or so ago looked at a series of alternatives. This was Option A, which I believe if I remember right was the lowest cost option. It was the one that was recommended at the time. I think primarily due to the cost factor. What it resulted in is a street that does not meet current city standards in terms of width. The reason for that primarily being the mound treatment system that sits right there. The positioning of that relative to the lot across the street just really make it impossible to get anything wider than I think it's about a 18 foot road section through that Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 15 e particular area so there is a constriction here that had to be dealt with and that was the way that was done by building a road that did not meet current standards. The second alternative that was looked at was a variation that brought the road in past the Zimmerman parcel and then turned and went across and then it came back up serving kind of a hammer head cul-de-sac arrangement off of either side. Again, you had the constriction here regardless. That was another alternative that was looked at. Option C was similar... Once again you still have the constriction of coming back however. Finally, Alternate 0 that was looked at brought the road on the interior alignment and this was partially due to what I guess you'd term as kind of a ghost plat that was done by the developer at that time for informational purposes only and it was indicated as such. Then it actually showed a potential for a lot arrangement that radiated off of this reflecting that 75 acres ultimately being developed into I think it was initially 10 acre parcels. It was again, I think it goes without saying, we still had the 18 foot roadway right there. You ask a question that is really difficult to answer because the proceedings of the Planning Commission and Council ultimately on this item will probably be the answer to the question that you pose in terms of where do you go with providing street on this. It's my understanding that the City's practice over the last 2 years since this originally surfaced was to require a minimum road improvements for all rural subdivisions. You in your own mind can say where is the threshold? We're adding 1 house, 2 houses, 3 houses, 4 houses ~ to an existing bad situation. Where do you draw the line? I don't know ..,that any of us have a definitive answer for that but the general staff consensus though is that, as you indicated Mr. Chairman is that now is the time when the subdivision is being approved that perhaps the most leverage is evident in terms of being able to accomplish some improvement of that area. Whether it's a full improvement or whether it's securing the right-of-way or whatever that's defined as. Conrad: All the alternatives were real expensive. Koegler: They really were not tremendously difference in cost. They were to some of the individual parties. They ranged, as I indicated, from about $250,000.00 to $300,000.00 and that was about a year ago so those numbers are still reasonably accurate but the actual assessment to some of the various parties did vary quite a bit under that scheme depending on where the road alignment went. The assessments that didn't vary tremendously probably were to some of the existing homes that are on Lake Minnewashta and I think as a ballpark those ran from I'll say $1,500.00 to $4,000.00 depending on lot frontage. Warren: I might add Mr. Chairman, Mark has summarized it I think pretty well. It's a difficult issue no matter how we look at it here. Some properties are in advance of being ready to be developed because of the City not being able to provide adequate utilities. Adequate roadways and some of this nature. I think that at sometime has to be addressed. That maybe they're a little bit ahead of their era so to speak. This is in the a next area for the move of the MUSA line and we all I think are very ,., familiar with whether that's the 1990's and it's hard to believe that 1990 is almost here or whether it's a 2000 line or someplace in the middle so I really think an eye has to be kept to that because we're not that far Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 16 e away from this area being further eligible to subdivide and it's the ability to further subdivide lots that would make the distribution of the cost for a roadway of this nature more palatable. More lots able to be subdivided. I look at it almost as there's somewhat of a self-imposed hardship here in that this total property I believe would sustain 10 building units and in the application we've seen prior to this one, it was the developer's choice only to plat 3 units basically. If they were to come in and take all 10 units for example, then there's 10 units to help defray the cost of the roadway. So there is sort of a self imposed issue there that is, take it for what it's worth. When we have looked at these in the past as far as rural subdivisions, it has been I think a very strong line with the City's part to upgrade roads to full rural standards and we do have a rural standard versus an urban standard to recognize that we don't need curb and gutter necessarily and that expense in some of these roadways. In addition in this issue, we have existing access that I think even the existing residents would chime in, as was mentioned earlier here, that is a less than desireable access. In general I think everybody would like to improve if we could get some reasonableness to the dollars here. The section that was proposed for the existing roadway, to sneak by the 201 community system out there, I think did recognize that we were trying to be sympathetic to local conditions in a certain regard and were willing to accept an 18 to 20 foot road section instead of the city standard rural section. I guess I throw those comments out for some of the things that ~really have gone through our minds here on what's right for the property ..,and the property owners to have to put up with. Conrad: I'm going to throw it back to you sort of later in terms of, I don't think it's our job to force a developer to develop and require them to put in maybe $300,000.00 or $200,000.00 worth of road improvements forces them to develop so it's a difficult situation. It is a public hearing. I wanted to respond, you asked a question and I was trying to get some comments back from the staff on that. Go ahead with other questions. John Getsch: That is the issue on the road. The other thing is what Kurt has brought up and that was where the power lines come through. That really created, up until there was solid woods for probably a third of the property that went along parallel to the lake. That now has been 50 foot, 60 foot wide swath is cut right through there and cleaned out so there's kind of a natural area that is no longer wooded. That's something that needs to be addressed. Kurt brought it up and I think it's noticed by everybody that has gone in that road during the last year. It has changed significantly and that needs to be recognized as some way to preserve the forest or whatever you want to call it and that needs to be recognized. Conrad: It is embarrassing what the power company did there. I just can't believe that they could go in and take down what they did. John Getsch: They sprayed again in the last couple weeks to kill anything that was growing back. tit Conrad: Yes, that's just amazing. Koegler: Kind of a follow-up to that. The feasibility study that was Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 17 e published in June of last year was prior to the time the guy showed up with chainsaws so that's a new piece of information that was never considered as a part of these alignments and that's certainly something that should be looked at as a part of this. The feasibility study when it laid the alignments in there, took great care to try to minimize tree removal. That was one of the major issues of making alignment through there so it's kind of embarrassing to sit here a year later and find out there's a corridor through there now. That needs to be taken into account. Barbara Freeman: Barbara Freeman, 7431 Dogwood. Could you give us some idea of your long range plans on the trail proposition that Chanhassen has through that area? Conrad: Jo Ann? Olsen: That was part of the Park and Rec Commission's recommendations and Mark might be able to address that a little bit better. Koegler: The City's Comprehensive Plan is shown as a series of trails basically going around and connecting major points within a community and the Minnewashta Regional Park would be one of those. It's not specific to say exactly how you would get from Point A to Point B other than to indicate that it's a desire to make the connection. For example the trail ~perhaps in some areas may run along TH 41 and then may go back into the ~park or it may run through the property and go back into the park. That's not been determined yet but again, back to 2 years ago when this was approved, the easement that Kurt Laughinghouse described was a part of the approval at that time around the perimeter of this site to accommodate that movement. The City has gone out with 2 referendums over the last few years and I'm sure you're aware it has not been approved and certainly that has had a major impact on the feasibility to build those trails so realistically, as I think Kurt eluded to again, those trails are quite a ways off in the future but the right-of-way generally is trying to be secured now for those to bank that if you will for future development. So the alternative that again was just raised is another one of those factors that will be looked at over the next couple of weeks prior to the time this comes back to see if that has any validity compared to the original improvement that occurred on the south and east sides. Conrad: Other comments? Linda Oberman: Linda Oberman, 7450 Hazeltine. We own the land adjacent to the outland area, the 80 acres. Can you show you on that map, I didn't get your name, Mr. Kordonowy? Is that right? What land did you purchase and what are you planning to do with that, farming? What areas? Tom Kordonowy: My name is Tom Kordonowy and I'm acquiring this property for single family home. The 80 acres I'm acquiring is everything other than this 5 acre section here, the old Zimmerman homestead and these three .4It lots are being divided for Mr. Foster and I guess someone else so I'll be owning the balance of the property. Tanadoona to Dogwood, back up and back. The house I'm proposing to put in will be located here right where this number is in front of the tree line. The reason for the addendum or Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 18 e change to the plat, the 100 foot segment we've asked, the Bergen's home is 5 acre piece is the only logical place for my road to service my single homestead is, this starts to get quite low. The topography is rising through this little wet area substantially to the highest point in the area which is here so I plan to come in with about a 9 9 in topography which is the same as what's here. That encroaches on what is now the Bergen homestead so we're simply swapping a 100 foot parcel for this piece for this piece like that. That's the purpose of it. It benefits Mr. Bergen because the farm where he's actually farming is very, very close to his living room right now. It's to his advantage to actually move that way over. This lower area is a little west of us so these options, and I haven't seen these options, our household here will be pre-empting I'm sure any roadway going through here. We have no interest in that. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have and I appreciate your direction at this point so several weeks from now when we come forward we may resolve this. I'm moving my family into a condominium which I'm not very anxious to do for the period of time it takes to build this house so the quicker I'm able to put a shovel in the ground and make this my home, the happier we'll be so any input at all from the Commission would be most gratifying. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Linda Oberman: ...farming that? _Tom Kordonowy: It is now a farm and it is really appalling this tree swath that goes through there. Wildermuth: If the road were to follow that utility easement, that swath that was cut through there, how would that impact you and your plans to build your home? Tom Kordonowy: It would go through what is going to be my house. Kurt Laughinghouse: There's a two part answer. One is, along here that would be desirable more or less but then the power line goes straight through here and this is approximately where the, the power line doesn't show up on the other may but this is approximately where the Kordonowy's home will be. Then the wooded area runs out around here also. You had another question and I didn't quite get it. Is your home one of these two homes right here? Linda Oberman: Right. I was just wondering if he was going to farm that land or... Tom Kordonowy: I personally will... Linda Oberman: Would you be open to selling 5 to 10 acres of that? Conrad: Other comments? -Dave Getsch: My name is Dave Getsch, 7510 Dogwood. Certainly the neighbor's preference and I speak for the neighborhood. At the last meeting I was voted to be a representative to speak to the Council and Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 19 e Planning Commission on this. Our preferences obviously are to keep property as close as possible to what it presently is in it's present state. Certainly we're very much in favor of someday wanting to use 80 acres for basically the same purposes as it's presently been used for and also as much preservation of what stays there and what is a gorgeous, gorgeous area. We want to work at all possible to maintain what's there. Certainly to try to improve the road somewhat but not lose some of the uniqueness of what's there. We certainly want to turn it into a thorough- fare. That's just our preferences. Conrad: Other comments? Okay, we'll close the public hearing for tonight. Erhart: I'll move to close the public hearing. Emmings: Well continue it to the next meeting so they can react. Erhart: Okay, I'll move to continue the public hearing. Conrad: That's a better motion. Emmings: Second. ~Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to continue the public hearing until the ..,next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: I think what I'd like to do right now, let us go around the commission briefly but kind of give some direction to staff so that when it comes back to us, we may have a clearer idea than I currently have of what we want to do here. Again, I don't know that we want to belabor it tonight. I think we want to more than belaboring issues is give staff some direction to explore alternatives for us before it comes back here. Tim, comments on what we've seen tonight and directions. Erhart: I guess the way to look at this is if the road didn't exist. One of the ways to look at this is if the road didn't exist at all and the developer was attempting to subdivide 3 lots off on the extreme end of the property from where his access is and in that case what are our requirements? Private driveway or does it require a 60 foot easement to get in 3 new lots? Olsen: You could have a private drive but we would most likely be requiring the 60 foot right-of-way. Erhart: Right, so normally we would require the easement in that case so I guess again, without having full discussion, my immediate reaction is to go back, I think which is what we previously, didn't you state Mark that's what we ended up the last time was just requiring easements to get in there. I tend to think that was probably where we were going to end up tltwith this again, but not to improve it at this time. Emmings: Building on what Tim said, can you have a private drive with this many houses on it? I thought there was an upper limit on the number of Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 20 e houses that can be served by a private drive. Olsen: Three lots you can have. The other ones, no you can not have. Resident: What was the answer? Emmings: The answer is no. What is the maximum? Is it 5 or 4? Olsen: It's 3 and then in the rural standards it states that you can have 2 so there's some discrepancy there. Emmings: Looking at the Code, on the subdivision code under Section 18-39 it says that in order to approve a preliminary plat and a final plat, the City Council has to find that the proposed subdivision is not premature. One of the things that makes it premature is if there's a lack of adequate roads. If I remember, I was here a couple years ago when we looked at this thing at that time and everybody agreed that the roads in there were inadequate. At least that's my recollection of what happened back then. I think there should be a 60 foot easement going all the way in. I can see that maybe some allowance is going to have to be made for that spot where the mound system is. I think things like that can be taken into account for something like this but the easement we should have. How much construction of the roadway should be done, I think is we can talk about ~but I'd probably, if this is the best opportunity we're going to have for ~cleaning up what's a bad situation. It's a very long cul-de-sac. We don't like that. As a matter of policy, we don't like the long cul-de-sacs. Whether people agree to submit to the extra lack of fire services or the potential for not being able to get any emergency services or not, that's not something that's just in the hands of the landowners but it's a concern of the City too and I don't think we can... Martin Jones: The fire trucks can get in there now. Emmings: I know. Mrs. Getsch: An 18 wheeler was in there last week. Resident: It's still there. Emmings: I'm telling you what I think. W.C. Getsch: I know but we can tell you what actually happens... Emmings: Reality doesn't interest me. This is theoretical. Martin Jones: I've driven the fire truck down the road many times so I know it goes down and it comes back out. Emmings: What is the reason that we have roads like we do and the reason ~ 4Itthat we don't like long cul-de-sacs? Olsen: It's public safety. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 21 e Warren: Secondary access. Emmings: That's all I have. Ellson: I think that we should probably do some sort of minimum standard roadway improvements at this point. I also think that the reservation of the trail easement should be left as was recommended. That's it. Batzli: I guess taking what I consider to maybe the easier issue first. I think the trail easement, I think Park and Rec if they didn't consider why they were going around the back end. If they just thought we did it this way last time, let's do it again, I guess I'd like to see them reconsider whether they really need it around the entire parcel or if it would make more sense to jog it back to Dogwood there and not knowing their reasoning for what they proposed, I don't have a good basis on which to judge that at all. I don't believe I was here to consider this last time around but as far as the roadway improvements but I kind agree with Ladd, or his earlier comment anyway. Maybe he's not really in agreement. Maybe he's playing devil's advocate but the question as to whether we should force the developer to develop the road at this time. I don't know that it's the inadequacy of the road is going to be further exacerbated by the addition of 3 lots when it appears that the reason that it's inadequate is due to the existing lots currently in there. But on the other hand, I do think ~due to public safety concerns, there should be some sort of upgrade or at ..,least planning for the future and it looks like the only way we can do that at this time is to get some sort of easement and perhaps minimally blacktopping it or something else. It seems to there was some sort of discussion about whether you go in and build a 60 foot road or just kind of blacktop it now and upgrade it later. I don't know. Wildermuth: I guess my thinking is, with the addition of 3, 4 lots or parcels there. One being the 80 acre parcel. We're not looking at that much greater load on the existing roadway and the upgrade at this point probably ought to be up to the people who live on the road. But I think the easements should really get some consideration this time around. Headla: As far as the trail goes, I would assume that the Park and Rec wanted to go from Point A to Point B. If I understand the proposal, the trail will go from A to A-. It never even gets to B+ so I sure would want the Park and Rec to look at that. Look at it closely. As far as the road improvement, if they all agree, they don't want to improve it, they've got the problem and a lot of people back there have been happy for many years so I guess I'm inclined to say let it be. Conrad: My comments. I agree with getting the full easements at this point in time. I think we really don't know what's going to happen but we have to get the easements so if that's the 60 foot easement that we need, that we have to get that. I don't want to force a developer to develop a property I think right now yet I want them to be able to use it and I don't ~mind the way they're dividing it right now. I think we do Mark, as you ~suggested, we've got to look at that power line as they've cleared it out because it's a big new piece of information and I think that plays a role, at least in how do we get access to those particular 3 sites. The trail, I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 22 e think that should go back to the Park and Rec for their comments. I guess my only other concern right now is, if there future potential to continue to split off? When the MUSA line goes out there. Back up. I'm comfortable allowing the subdivision as we see this yet I'm still uncomfortable at what point we can say no, you can't add one more house to this. Based on the zoning right now, can they add additional, how many additional could they add? Olsen: You've got 100 acres and you can have 10 units. Conrad: 1 per 10 so they could literally 7 more? Warren: They could add 5 more. He's platting Zimmerman as a lot. Olsen: Right, and that's something that we have to determine if we would have to determine if we would consider that one of the building eligibilities. Since they're including another one. Conrad: So they could put 5 more there. Okay. It gets kind of difficult to know what to say. Those are my comments but I think that we need the easements. It's a difficult situation but I think if we get those easements, at least we have our options open but I personally don't think we need to, the neighbors are saying don't develop. Well, I'm not sure what the neighbors have said. They're basically saying to me we don't _want any assessments. I'm not sure what they think of development or improvement of the roads but my impression is they're happy living the way they have lived there and I don't think 3 more units or 4 is going to disturb the balance out there so I don't feel that we need to force any kind of road development in at the current time other than making sure that we have our options open for the future and that probably means to me covering our options and getting as much property for easement as possible. Anyway, those are my comments. Tom Kordonowy: If the Commission were to acquire an easement around the entire property, if they saw that to be appropriate, wouldn't it be, insofar as I'm taking this 80 acre portion for a single family house, wouldn't it be appropriate...on the west side of Dogwood to take the entire right-of-way or easement out of this parcel. However, this parcel is not being developed, it wouldn't be a fair arrangement to take half of what would be the required right-of-way from here should this develop and take the other half on the other side. If at a later date, I as an owner here were going to develop this, then I would think it would be appropriate for the City to say you've got to dedicate additional right-of-way... I'd be concerned that the City now has the easement or right-of-way and they say we're putting in a blacktop road and you're the benefitting party, you're paying this portion of it. That would be a burden. W.C. Getsch: I don't think Camp Tanadoona is going to hold still for that. ~Tom Kordonowy: They wouldn't be taking the easement from them at this "'time. They'd only be taking half an easement. - Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 23 e W.C. Getsch: I'm talking about any assessment or anything else. They're in bad enough shape as it is. Conrad: Right. No, we understand that. There was a lot of logic in what he just said. Is there anything that would contradict that logic Jo Ann? Olsen: I'll let Gary answer that. Warren: Thank you Jo Ann. The comment about Camp Tanadoona I think is a reality as far as if at some time in the future, if that's the way you're going to look at this, if you're going to want to build that road and want to build it to city standards, the City would have to go through considerable expense to probably condemn, if you will, the portion of the right-of-way that we would be deficient. Now whether that's from the Campfire property and actually my recollection, the topography out there is, you talk about trees and you talk about some tough topography. The further to the north from that roadway, you get into some real difficult topography. Conrad: So the situation would be, if we only required half the dedication of the easement on the property that's now being looked at and platted, basically what, if we only required half of it, then what we're saying to the current residents is we probably can't. If nothing else happens on ~that property, we're probably not going to upgrade that road for a long ..,time. That's basically what we're saying. If we only require the half of the easement for rural road or whatever that we'd like to have, the options of improving that road for the current residents are neglible until the big parcel develops. Warren: They're certainly restricted as to what you can do and quite honestly what I prefer about Alternate D, putting cost aside for the moment, is the fact that to pursue the alignment along the current roadway as we're all aware, when you get down to the northwest corner there, the bottleneck, the sharp right angle turn, that is a very undesireable alignment and in the alternates that we showed and the feasibility study we showed cutting across that meadow land area which actually is a beautiful meadow land area. You still have to deal with the bottleneck at the community mound system whereas if the road is brought in through the property, we can deal with reasonable geometrics to put in the proper access and then you only have a compromised road section for the piece that goes to the north, the hammer as Mark calls it, and the other three quarters of the roadway is a full city standard roadway. That's what I guess is attractive from an engineering standpoint about if you're going to take easements, if you're going to follow the existing alignment, then you're locking yourself into the future probably about trying to upgrade with that existing alignment. Whereas if you take another easement, maybe if you're going to restrict it to not using it for a while, I don't know what kind of restrictions we could put on but at least get the easements where you ultimately might want to build the full city section. tltconrad: I liked the D alignment. In my mind that was the right way to fly yet that may not work with the owner's plans. He's got a house that's probably he's situating and that probably doesn't work but conceptually Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 24 e you're right. Kurt Laughinghouse: I think what you just said argues against taking any interest for roads as follows. If there's one person owning this 80 acres and it is platted as lot, the only way it can be further subdivided is to come back to the Planning Commission and Council and then the whole game is open again for roads. So if this plat is approved as we propose it, and there is dedication here so there's a full 60 feet available on the front of these lots, but there is no dedication around the rest of the property in effect unless we deal with this in here. In that situation, the City controls. If anybody wants one more lot, then the City says okay then now we need the road here or we need a road here. We need something else. And, and if water and sewer corne this far, to this edge of the lake, Camp Tanadoona will not be able to resist the amount of money that will be offered for that property...and that will probably be developed too and a Campfire camp will be built 30 miles further west in another more secluded wooded place. Then this sewer system is no longer needed. If and when there's any redevelopment, either because of the water and sewer or because this low owner of Lot 4 in this case decides they don't want to have the horse farm anymore, the City controls. If the City needs easements, they take easements where they need them so really what we're doing, although welre going through a platting process which is an urban process, we're really dealing with 5 and 10 acre lots. This is a rural situation forced ~into an urban process. I think we ought to... Conrad: Mr. Laughinghouse, you're right yet it takes the power away from the City and the power away from the neighborhood right now that are currently living there under your direction. Now's the time in subdivisions that the city can make improvements and what you're suggesting is don't do anything right now and basically the power will be left with the individual who owns the large parcel there, when they want to develop and the City is locked out of improving road access to the current neighbors. Yet I have heard the current neighbors say some things that say maybe they don't mind that. Dave Getsch: We might want the road corning down the hill before the hammerhead, we might want that widened a little bit. We certainly want to have easements so we can do something like that. Conrad: But youlre comfortable the way things are today arenlt you? Dave Getsch: Yes but we don't necessarily, there are times when it's less than desireable trying to get in. For instance when the frost goes out in the spring and you park your car on top of the hill and walk in. That's less than desireable. After a good gully washer is less than desireable but what 11m saying is that it has a certain charm to it...we certainly want the easements. Warren: The City can always vacate easements. lid rather get the bird in 4Itthe hand and give it away in the future if we don't use it. Conrad: I think youlve heard a lot of comments. Is there a motion to table this item until, what do we table it for Jo Ann? For staff review of Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 25 e the new information? Olsen: That would be best. Batzli moved, Ernmings seconded to table acition on the p~elimina~y plat to subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots and one outlot for Kurt Laughinghouse until staff has reviewed the new information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE MUSA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 140 ACRES INTO THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE AREA LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF LAKE ANN, 1680 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, MICHAEL GORRA. Public Present: Name Address Mike Gorra Leander Kerber Bernie Schneider Applicant 1620 Arboretum Blvd. P.O. Box 103, Chanhassen e Mark Koegler presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Bernie Schneider: Chanhassen Legion. you on that. Mr. Chairman, I'm Bernie Schneider. I represent the I'm not quite clear what this...I didn't quite follow Koegler: The City is in the process of updating it's Comprehensive Plan at the present time which a review of the MUSA line is a part of that effort. That effort has been underway for some time and we feel that within 60 to 90 days the planning aspect of that will come to a close and a lot of the documentation that will be needed to support this application with Metropolitan Council might be available at that time. For example we'll need to provide them with some information on how the property ultimately is going to develop. What the sewage flows will be so they can consider what impact that has on the regional treatment systems. So what I guess we're saying is it's a very complex issue and the documentation that will make that issue perhaps a little more clearly discernable is going to be available in 2 to 3 months. It's not available as we sit here tonight. Conrad: Bernie, it's my guess that with the information that the staff compiles, you've got a much better case than going in there right now without it. Other comments from the public? Anything else? 4ItKOegler: I want to emphasize I guess on the record that the kind of comments that I just made assume that the plan to a certain degree will support this application and we don't actually know that tonight. I guess Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 26 e that's what will be verified within the next 2 to 3 month period. I don't know if Mr. Gorra is here. I did speak to him on the phone and discuss the possibility of this recommendation which ultimately then did occur. He was apprised of the potential for a recommendation on some delay. I don't know how he feels about the 2 to 3 month time line. Conrad: Any other comments? Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: What information is available now that wasn't available when the Baptist Church tried to get the MUSA line changed? I see a lot of support now trying to get it changed but I didn't see any support for them and they had about the best argument I think I've seen to get it changed. Olsen: They didn't actually make application for that. That was just part of the site plan, their conditional use permit. They were saying that they wanted to connect to it and we explained to them that they would have to make application to proceed with that but in speaking with the Met Council, this is different. This really could be acting as an extension of the MUSA line. They were just in the middle of, I mean you had a lot of land inbetween them and the MUSA line. They had the interceptor going through their property but the MUSA line was nowhere near them. It is a lot 4Itdifferent than this property and the bottom line is they didn't actually make the application for that. Headla: I see the village giving a lot of support to this where I don't think they really gave the church any support and I thought they had an excellent case. Conrad: David, Jo Ann's point was that it's almost like spot zoning. It was like a parcel way away. Head1a: I understand her point. I still think they had an excellent case. I guess I really want to see a plan on this thing. I think we're just potato chipping this thing and kind of random hit so I'll go for your table or denial but I think tabling is the reasonable way to go. Conrad: What's potato chipping? Headla: Take another piece here and another piece there. Wildermuth: Mark, in 60 to 90 days, what would you recommendation be? That we go after a much bigger parcel to include in the MUSA line rather than coming back to the well again later? Koegler: You've summarized the major concern. That how many times can you go back to the well versus taking a very big bucket the first time. I _don't know that this piece, if this piece was recognized in the 1982 Comprehensive Plan as being one that should be serviced in the near future. Presumably that is to occur. I don't know that that means this is priority number one or maybe there's another piece somewhere else that still should Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 27 _ be priority number one. That's what we need to determine but our position is that it needs to be looked at in a larger scale then simply focusing on this one 140 acre piece. Wildermuth: So you might want to look at a 500 acre piece? Koegler: precisely. Wildermuth: I'm in favor of tabling. Batzli: I'm also in favor of tabling it until we can take a larger picture and look at it. ElIson: Same. Nothing new. Emmings: Same thing. Erhart: I think the developer is agreeing to wait 5 years to development, waiting 90 days to get the thing run through smoothly as opposed to a fight makes a lot of sense so I guess I'd be in favor of tabling it. Conrad: I agree with tabling it. The guideline Mark that you're using to determine what the needs are for the City. As you update the Comprehensive _Plan, that update is to take us through what? Koegler: Through the year 2000. Conrad: So what you would come back with in 60 to 90 days is a MUSA line change that would take us for our current needs up to the year 2000? Koegler: I hedge a little bit on that answer because as far as the Comp Plan goes, there's a couple of areas that go to 2010. Transportation has certain projections in element that go out beyond the year 2000 and I believe the comprehensive sewer policy plan may also, just in terms of looking at flow projections and so forth but essentially we're still targeting the year 2000. Again, we won't be looking only at the MUSA line but the City's entire development structure of which that's a major component so I think that time the information that will be available will be a little more clear in terms of how you address this issue. Wildermuth: It's really going to be complicated by where the 212, where that lies right? Whether you go south with the line to bring in more territory or you go west of TH 41. Koegler: Yes. To a certain degree Mother Nature has provided some very discernable physical barriers in Chanhassen and to look at the comprehensive sewer policy plan that's there now, if you take the map behind you. Essentially everything that's outside of the area that has different zoning categories, the A-2 will require a Bluff Creek interceptor ~to come up from kind of the southeast portion of the city diagonaling up to ~the northwest to effectively service much of the southern area of the community. That's not true when you get into the northern portion because the Lake Ann Interceptor has the ability to provide service to some of Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 28 e that. So essentially I don't anticipate that there would be any major change in the thrust that certainly the northern part of the city is still to see the development first with it being phased in over a longer period of time than the south. Conrad: So you're going to take us through the year 2000 in the Comprehensive Plan. I'm trying to digest what you just said. ElIson: Possibly a little longer. Conrad: In terms of land use, you're taking us through the year 2000. We will go to Metropolitan Council, we are updating the Comprehensive Plan right now. I don't see any timeframe for turning our Comprehensive plan update in because we've been playing with it for 2 years so obviously there's nothing, no hammer over our head to get it updated right? So they're not expecting this? Koegler: They really still are. They, if they is the Metropolitan Council. Conrad: Yes, they are. Koegler: They are because in the context of the Lake Ann sewer agreement, ~there were changes called for. The changes that were submitted were ~somewhat of an interim nature until such time as the City could go through more of a wholesale review of the plan and an upgrading improvement of the plan so you're correct. I can't even sit here tonight and tell exactly what the final adoption schedule will be but I certainly can tell you that I'm comfortable that within 90 days we'll generate all the land use data that will allow you to make a decision to say yes, we want to approve this and see what happens or no, we do not. I think that's the key ingredient in the whole thing. Conrad: And when we do that, we take that into Metropolitan Council and do they have to react to it? Koegler: Certainly. There really are two ways that this could be approached. You could approve Mr. Gorra's application and basically let him carry the flag into the Metropolitan Council and try to sell it or you could upgrade the Comprehensive Plan update and take the entire document in of which his property potentially is a piece and say here's what's in the best interest of the City as a whole and it just happens to possibly be consistent with Mr. Gorra's goals. Conrad: Okay. Jo Ann, remember 2 weeks ago, I'm real concerned about financial implications of growth. I'm not real interested Mark in dedicating land for residential if it's going to increase tax burden because we really haven't dedicated enough for commercial/industrial. And I'm not sure that your going out there looking at, you're looking at needs ~based on units. Maybe some trends but you're not out there looking at "'financial impacts of we need so much industrial land to grow to compensate for the new neighbors that are coming in that are going to increase our tax base. I'm real interested in the 60-90 day process. One, to be educated Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 29 e by Don Ashworth or the City staff on this but two, to somehow merge some of these concepts and I know it's not going to be an exact, this is not a science but I'm real fascinated by the fact that I just don't think we need to be out there dedicating residential growth areas when we may not have the commercial/industrial to compensate for some of the cost factors. Can you respond to that Mark? Koegler: Yes. We are addressing that and have addressed that preliminarily. Not exactly from the same slant that you just referenced. If I understood you correctly, the thrust of your remark was you want to look at it from a financial context of what types of land use carry various types of burden if you will that relieves the residential taxpayer or spreads it more equitably and looks at the community more in that context. I think your underlying assumption is that means there will be more commercial and industrial land designated than perhaps is presently here. Conrad: I need an appropriate amount, whatever it is. Koegler: We have been approaching that from a little difference tact in not necessarily saying what's the financial implications but do we have enough commercial and industrial land even if the growth rates parallel what they are today. If you recall we had a discussion that probably occurred 6 months ago that cast serious doubt on that fact that there is ~enough land designated right now in the plan to accommodate both commercial ~and industrial. We've gone through some very brief scenarios in the industrial park and looked at what had been absorbed over the last 10 years and what might be absorbed over the next 10 years just with even a straight line growth projection and there were deficiencies there so my answer to your question is we are going to be supplying some of that information but not necessarily with the same slant and you may want to add that slant and hopefully we'll end up at the same place. Conrad: I'm hoping we can add that slant. Olsen: Yes, Don has been... Conrad: And I hate to belabor this but the thing that concerns me Mark is sometimes cost don't increase linearly. They increase in steps and a major cost becomes school. You build a school out here, I don't know how that affects taxes. Sometimes we might even be able to plan to make sure we have enough industrial in place and to a degree restrict residential development until there's enough industrial in place or commercial to help ease... Anyway, we need a motion on this item. Wildermuth moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends tabling action on Land Use Amendment Request #89-2 due to the fact that at the present time the City of Chanhassen lacks sufficient background information to fully support approval of the request. All voted in favor _and the motion carried. - Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 30 . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18.93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED R-12, RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS (BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BLVD., NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET), CENVESCO (OAKVIEW HEIGHTS). Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Mary Cully: My name is Mary Cully. 11m with Hedlund Engineering and represent Cenvesco. As has been stated, we have been before you on this particular parcel with the same product essentially but we were asking for a PUD which was not designated zoning for this parcel. We are now coming back with a similar product. We feel that we conform with the R-12 intent of the zoning as Jo Ann mentioned. We met all the impervious and the density. The densities are much lower than the 12. Generally they are 9 to 10 range with an average of 10 units per acre. The tree issue, this development has the removal of 9 large oak trees. The landscape plan shows the replacement of 120 trees of different types, varieties and granted smaller size caliper inches that will be removed are a little over 200 and we are replacing them with nearly 300 caliper inches. In the project prior to this, the Durand Corporation, the DNR forester did come onto the site with staff and it was their viewpoint that, and I'll read it. Staff is on .site with the DNR forester Alan Olsen and determined that there was no way to preserve any of these trees with a proposed...Staff and Alan Olsen reviewed the proposed landscape plan, this was the old landscape plan and asked for an increase and variety of plant materials. So just for the record I wanted to show that this site has been visited by the DNR forester and it was his judgment that unfortunately these trees cannot be saved. They're trying to save whatever we can and there may be a possibility of 1 or 2 more trees being saved. We feel that they can with a lot of precautions. Itls not a guaranteed thing but from my interpretation of the DNR's feeling is that is what he's saying that they just can't guarantee... Since we all know the project well, it's probably appropriate that I answer questions considering the hour and time limit. Conrad: Okay, when we get back here for our comments, I'm sure we will have some questions of you. It's a public hearing. Any comments? Additional comments? Batzli moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: My overall comment is that again I think parking is a serious deficit in this plan as it was in the other plan. Again, the only parking that's being provided is the garage space and the space immediately in _ front of the garage for guests and events and things and I'm probably going ~to vote against it just on that ground alone. Otherwise, I don't mind the "'plan. I think it certainly fits better than anything we've seen before. With respect to the preliminary plat, subdivision, I think we should add a condition that the approval would be conditioned upon compliance with all Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 31 e the conditions of the site plan and the wetland alteration permit. I think the number of curb cuts should be reduced out to Jenny Lane. Particularly when you consider that the sidewalk is going to be going along that south edge too. Not only is there an awful lot of curb cuts but the sidewalk is planned for that south side of the road. Mary Cully: The north side. Emmings: That's not what I just heard. Olsen: When Gary was discussing it, he was saying the south though. I can double check that. Emmings: I know the difference between north and south, I just don't know where this thing is going. She said south. Mary Cully: Oh, I apologize. Olsen: Yes, it says the south side. The Park and Rec. Emmings: And that's where a lot of these curb cuts, that's where the over abundance of curb cuts seems to occur although there are some on the north too but anyway the number of curb cuts onto Jenny Lane I think ought to be .-.reduced. That would be an important thing to do. They're quite a bit ,.,under the impervious surface limit and I think probably something could be worked out, at least try to. I don't have any way to judge whether the landscaping is adequate or inadequate and it's something I'm very concerned about when I see that the site plan asks for an amended landscape plan to address that. I assume that will then just be, the staff will determine whether or not it's adequate and I'm willing to let staff do that. Number one I think the staff has the right idea about requiring more and number two, judging from what the City Council has to say about those oak trees, they're going to be taking a greater look at that as well. I would again modify the conditions on the site plan to add a condition, site plan approval is conditioned upon compliance with all the conditions of the subdivision approval and the wetland alteration permit. Again, just to tie that back and forth. Under the wetland alteration permit, I think we've got the wrong number. Under the wetland alteration permit it should be 89-14 instead of 88-15. 88-15 is the site plan so that first number under the recommendation should be 89-14 and then condition 3, it says approval of PUD concept and development plan. All that's gone by the board so that shouldn't be in there. Number 4 says approval of site plan 88-14 and I think we should just strike that out because it should be 88-15 but let's just strike it out and just put in a third condition that says that approval would be conditioned upon compliance with all the conditions of subdivision and site plan approval. That will again, tie them all together. Other than that I don't have anything else right now. ElIson: I'm just as concerned about what I was the first time and that's .the trees. I don't even recall now how many total there are. They're removing 9. How many trees are not being removed or are trying to be saved? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 32 e Olsen: Two are trying to be saved. ElIson: And their chances are, we don't know but basically 9 out of 11 are being taken out and are most of them in this double frontage lot area or a good portion of them? If I recall it was kind of stretched up. Olsen: Yes, they are up in this area. In the double frontage. Batzli: I don't mean to interrupt but if you go with the Alternative A and turn the townhome there, are you then wrecking all of the trees? Olsen: I haven't seen it but I would assume you are. It's real doubtful that these are going to survive with any type of grading around it. This doesn't actually show the tree line but, the drip line is what they call it and it leaves about half as much would not even touch it... Because they're oaks, they're real susceptible to disease. ElIson: I guess I'm still concerned about that and I don't know that we have a whole lot of power but. Not only do I recall reading about how the DNR said that we'd probably have to remove them but that's what the plan as it is or as it was then, but we've also stated and it's also been discussed by the new Council that we want to start designating protected tree groves around the city and I think this should be the first one. I don't like ~that many being gone which is probably 100% and whether it's 300 trees or ~3,000 that are 1 inch round or 2 inches compared to 1,100 year old oaks, I think we really lose out on that. I think that we come out on the short end of the stick. I had a question on the double frontage lot. That's basically something that we don't recommend or this is something we don't allow? Olsen: The subdivision ordinance does not allow it unless it's on a collector or arterial. ElIson: So if they took that building out there wouldn't be a problem? Olsen: Well it's still a lot. ElIson: I know but it's like 10 units or whatever. I was thinking well maybe some of those trees are in there. Take the building out and you'll save 5 of them or something. I guess I'm not convinced that we'd have a solution to this problem that we don't allow them yet we're going to allow this one. I don't see that we have a good reason for allowing this one but you know she's trying to find a solution but it still kind of designates it as a double frontage lot and I don't know that we have a good reason to say okay, this one we'll let go. Those are some of the concerns I have. Mary Cully: Can I just say something about the trees? Also it is the grade of the trees to develOp any kind of road, it would be hard to save them because there's a change in the grade of 10 feet so you have to 4Itconsider grade in addition to location. ElIson: But we had one option last time where we saved more. Not as many as I would like but a few more. I don't know. I. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 33 e Batzli: Just getting back to Steve's comments. The Park and Rec's proposal did say the trail should be on the south side of Jenny Lane so that is going over all of the curb cuts and I agree that that's probably not the best place to put that. One of my questions, and this is a real question by the way, where is the appropriate place to say, or not say, when we're looking at potential expansion of the site. For instance, everywhere on every page we see plastered a future apartment building which in theory is not being considered tonight, isn't that correct? Olsen: Right. Batzli: Should that not be one of the conditions that we are not considering that and not approving it at this time? Olsen: Yes, we could say that. Emmings: Why do we have them on there? Why do we have something that we're not considering on the plat that we're looking at? Olsen: It's always up to the option of the applicant to show that. It seems like when they don't show it. tltEmmings: Then we want to know what it's going to be. Olsen: So I had said, yes show it. Yes, that's right. Emmings: I think you're right actually. I think I'd probably like it on there. I think I've said that in the past. Batzli: I like to see it on there. It's just I think I'd like to state and make it clear to the applicant that we're not approving that at this time. Olsen: We can have that said as a condition because we've had that before where it's in the report and we know it but somebody else in the future might not. Batzli: My next question was regarding the 300 inches which replaces the trees that are being removed. Is that in addition to the landscaping requirement required under the landscaping ordinance or is that just the trees that are required under the landscape ordinance? Is this in addition to or just a part of? Olsen: Additional landscaping we're requesting? Batzli: Yes. Olsen: Right. In the landscape ordinance they require berming and ~screening between vehicular areas and units in the development and the ~landscaping plan does not provide all of that. They have, I just saw today an amended landscaping plan that they are providing those requirements so it's not necessarily additional landscaping just to replace the trees that -~ Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 34 e are being removed. There are other sections in the ordinance that are being met. Batzli: There was some things in the public safety questionaire stating that they needed more information. Water supply calculations. All this kind of thing. Has that been submitted? Olsen: I don't know. I don't believe that has yet. Batzli: So we really don't know what the outcome of this middle building is. We don't know where the improvements for park are going to be. We don't really have a good idea about the curb cuts. I think if it was up to me tonight, I'd move to table this. Wildermuth: I agree with Brian. I think we've got to table it tonight because of the curb cuts. Because of the double frontage on Jenny Lane. I guess I have to be very honest and confess that I wished we hadn't zoned this the way it was zoned because I don't like to see a project like this this close to the City Hall. Conrad: Well let me respond. We're trying to put high density. I've never been against this project because of density and obviously you're not talking to me in your comments right now but you've never listened to me ~before but the point was to put a high density close to city so you could ..,walk. If we were going to have high density, this was not a bad location to do it. Wildermuth: I understand that. I'm just looking at the other high density areas around the community and it isn't a pleasant prospect. I hope this one is better. In terms of construction materials. In terms of basic design but at this point I would agree with Brian. I would table it or be in favor of tabling it because of the curb cuts and double frontage on Jenny Lane. That's basically it. Headla: If we didn't do anything with this property, you're probably one of the most knowledgeable on this, how long do you think those oak trees would last? ElIson: What's his question? Conrad: How long do oak trees live? Headla: Based on this area, do you think they'd live 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Koegler: You've asked a very difficult question to answer. The answer is if they're in their undisturbed state as they've been for basically a 100 years with the exception of some farming operations in that vicinity, presumably they could stay healthy for another 50 years or 100 years. 4Itolsen: That's what the forester said too. Headla: They could survive? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 35 e Koegler: in 1965, Pending natural disasters like tornadoes like that went through sure. Headla: Okay, the reason I ask this is, even if they did take them down, in 10 years if they've got over 100 trees planted, 100 trees would in 10 years and I think they made a pretty good choice in trees they tried, would we be further ahead. Today we wouldn't be but in 10 years, do you think we'd be ahead in the aesthetic value of trees? ElIson: That's a personal opinion. Conrad: Mark's mouth is quivering. Koegler: Talk about objective questions, that's really one. 10 years, I think the largest tree I saw on there was 2 1/2 caliper inches. In 10 years that's going to grow to 4 inches, maybe 6 inches if it's an Ash if it's something that grows faster. You judge it with your own aesthetics. Is a mature crown oak the same as 100 4 inch trees, 6 inch trees? To some people it probably is equivalent, to other's, perhaps not. I can't answer the subjective aspect of your question. Headla: I guess I didn't expect you come back that they could live ~.50 years. Okay, thanks. One thing in going through here, I didn't ..,inspector had different comments in here. I didn't see any of the inspector's comments put in the recommendations. another see the Olsen: The building inspector's comments? Headla: Yes. Olsen: They were more relating to just to let the applicant know that they might have to be sprinklered and things like that. It's really when they come through with the building permit, they have to meet those requirements so that's why I didn't put it in at the time. The one that should have been put in was the Public Safety and I don't think I got that. I did miss that one. It should refer to his memo. The building ones, those will be taken care of later. It's just to let them know. Headla: That will happen when they get the permit? Olsen: Oh yes. They're quoting the UBC Code. Headla: On that Jenny Lane, will there be no parking signs there? Olsen: I don't know that that's been determined that they won't. Emmings: with all the curb cuts there won't be any place to park anyway. ~. . Headla: Would that be, I'm guessing but I would suspect it's going to "'lot of problems in the days when people come out here. People want to on the streets. They'll have to park on the streets. Will that solve problem or would that create more of a problem by having no parking? be a be the Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - page 36 e Street parking? Olsen: The design of the street, I don't know that it's going to allow parking on either side. It gets into engineering again but if it's designed that it can handle the parking on one side or the other, then it shouldn't be that much of a traffic problem but if it's not designed in this, it will be a problem and it should be signed no parking. I think what they usually do is leave it no parking and if it becomes a problem, then they sign it if that's what they felt was appropriate in this case. We've been through this so many times, at one point we were going to have it no parking. Headla: I think this is a big improvement over what they put in before. It's like when you're designing something and things go together good, you feel real comfortable and I don't think the design is quite here yet. I really would like to see him go back and look at it again with all the curb cuts and the way that road goes through there. It seems to create a lot of problems. From my point of view, I guess I'd like to see you go back and solve that loop problem with the road and curb cuts and add more parking. That's it. Conrad: Okay, thanks Dave. Quick comments I guess. consider, the road that loops off of Jenny Lane, did ~making two cul-de-sacs off of that? Is it important ..,continuous road back there? Does that make sense? Did you ever you ever consider to keep that a Mary Cully: We got feedback from the Fire Department that that's the way they wanted to see it. Dean Johnson: They did not want cul-de-sacs. Conrad: I'm sure you'll get different feedback even up here. Yes, I know. Was that ever of interest to you to do some cul-de-sacs going back in there? In other words, and I'm not trying to redesign your plat right now but would that have benefitted let's say trees? Lessen the amount of road? Mary Cully: It probably...probably be worse. Conrad: I'm not a planner, not a professional planner but if you just kept the same configuration of road there and just basically didn't connect it, you're going to end up with maybe 40 additional feet or something between the two cul-de-sac spots going in. Still accessing the same buildings. Mary Cully: The length of cul-de-sac... Conrad: Does it exceed that 500 feet? Would that do that? Olsen: I don't know that we saw plans of cul-de-sacs so I don't know. 4Itconrad: Would you advise them not to do that? The cul-de-sacs? ElIson: They already said the fire people did. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 37 e Olsen: I don't know, no. It never was shown so I don't know that it's a preference or that it wouldn't have been permitted. Conrad: If there were two cul-de-sacs there we wouldn't have double frontage lots would we? Olsen: No. It would remove, well you could possibly have. I don't know how it would work if you had a cul-de-sac going like this. Conrad: So what would that mean? It would still have double frontage? What would we have? That's another option is one cul-de-sac. Olsen: It's something we could look at. Conrad: You're comfortable Jo Ann then in solving the double frontage issue simply by splitting that lot? Olsen: It's the way... Conrad: Meet the intent of the ordinance is what you're saying? What are the negatives of having, if we allow a double frontage here and we set a precedent and a rationale for that precedent is what? Is there rationale? The applicant wanted to do it that way? How do we allow that? Basically 4Itwe can't unless we divide it the way you're saying. Olsen: Right and even then in looking at it, you could still define that as a double frontage. The ordinance...it's a front yard if you're facing. The front yard is where you have street frontage so that lot has street frontage and then if you split it in half, it has two lots with 3 front yards so you could still, the way it's defined now, I guess it's confusing but you could still look at it as a double frontage no matter what you do because you've got streets on all sides. The way that you orient the building really doesn't... Conrad: One of the double frontage restrictions is what? Olsen: Just so that they do...you accommodate that. I think the reason was so that you didn't have a street or existing lot and then another inbetween that. The back was facing the front yard kind of like an alley situation. The way that it's written is so if you do have double frontage lots, that you always have the front of the homes facing... Conrad: So it's really out of respect to the neighbors? Olsen: How it's going to work overall. I think double frontage was mostly used for single family. For large lots with individual units on it so that's where you get into, there's nowhere in the subdivision ordinance where it doesn't apply to this but really that's where it was for was for single family. ~conrad: Does it apply to this? Yes it does. Olsen: Yes, it does. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 38 e Conrad: Philosophically, do you think it applies to this? Olsen: I think you could get by with that being with berming and landscaping. Conrad: So really the precedent that we set is not a negative precedent because maybe we should, maybe double frontages is not negative in this particular high density zoning district? Olsen: We prefer, you always prefer not to have it. We just don't know, I guess the best alternative is like a cul-de-sac but the way, if you want that looped, then there's really no way to get around it unless you just delete that whole lot or have it an outlot that can't be developed. Conrad: What do you think about my thoughts for the cul-de-sac scenario? Do you like them or don't like that idea? Olsen: Well I'd like to see it. It's hard to comment when you can't picture it. Conrad: But we haven't advised the staff other than the fire department advising the applicant that they didn't like cul-de-sacs. We haven't ~reallY directed them to a different design? Olsen: I don't know that they were told that they couldn't do cul-de-sacs. In my conversations and with the public safety it was always that this would be designed to accommodate wide enough, this is back when it was going to be a private drive and it was going to be narrow, that it be at least 20 feet or 24 feet wide to accommodate the fire trucks so cul-de-sacs did not get discussed. Mary Cully: On the double frontage lots, it does also say that if it can't be achieved, getting away from the double frontage, that you could add the 10 foot and require that that extra 10 foot be bermed and landscaped. I guess that's the interpretation I took. The one road that parallels Jenny Lane is almost like a frontage road and we use that... Double frontage...single family is to have somebody's backyard against a road but with this product you really don't have a backyard so we provided 25 feet setback all around the perimeter of that lot where normally you'd have a 10 foot setback on the side but to compensate we put it at 25 around the entire perimeter. It could be appropriate that one of those setbacks should be 35. Conrad: Would it upset you from a sales standpoint to have one long cul-de-sac? Cutting off the eastern access, bringing up the road to service the three units north and to the west, is that something you just wouldn't want to do? Again, I'm thinking maybe there are trees, there's some concern with trees and I thought our cul-de-sac length was 500. We '-'just looked, I'm not sure where we are on cul-de-sacs anymore but what's ~the negative of having one long cul-de-sac there Jo Ann? Might it save some trees? I'm talking about not having the eastern connection. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 39 e Mary Cully: I think the diameter of cul-de-sac would be 100 feet and the pavement would be 80 so you're talking pavement where the trees are so you have to maintain the western entrance for the eventual apartment. Conrad: I'm not worried about the west. Mary Cully: I'm saying with the possibility of the cul-de-sac there, it would mean a wider expansion of pavement. Olsen: I don't know if the trees would be saved. Also, when you talk about that high amount of people living in that area, they could possibly, public safety might corne back and still want a secondary access even out of that cul-de-sac. Conrad: Why? Olsen: It's just a lot of times whenever you have a cul-de-sac there, it's a lot of... Conrad: You get 2 1/2 units exiting, half of the center deal are exiting right on Jenny Lane right so we don't have that many individuals that we're servicing up there Jo Ann. ~Olsen: I picture if you're going to have a cul-de-sac corning in there, ..,trying to get everyone to get off of Jenny Lane. It's hard to talk about it when you really can't even picture it. Conrad: Right. And obviously I don't know if we're saving anything. A lot of people like cul-de-sac living and it keeps it away from the thoroughfare. I don't know that there's a benefit to having two access sites in there other than I'm sure the fire department will say yes there is but we've been ignoring, we've got a lot of new development going in out here and for some reason we're pretty comfortable that long cul-de-sacs are not real negative. We're allowing them but again I would make that trade. It'd be a trade-off and I think the developer would want to, it's obviously in their interest, they'd be interested whether their property is more marketable or whether there's some negatives to that but that just looked like a solution to me that maybe we have ignored. Generally I find this better than the PUD concept and maybe it's sort of a shell game but there sure, it's just better looking in general. Don't know how to solve the double frontage issue and Jo Ann, without your guidance, I think it's tough for us. This is a planner's deal and I guess without your specific saying no it can't be done, my guess right now is I would go along with allowing it because we'd set a precedent in this district and I don't mind setting a precedent in this district. I simply don't mind it so basically ignoring our guidelines. In terms of the preliminary plat, I think it's better. In terms of the site plan, curb cuts are too many. Flat out. There are just plain too many. It's not good planning. There's a trade-off. Impervious surface for curb cuts and I don't know what the trade-off is right now so I 4Itguess I could back on my word and say I'd like 17 curb cuts if we have to put in a whole lot more parking area or road area but at this point in time, it's probably worth using up some of the impervious surface that we haven't used to get your curb cuts there. It also makes sense to have Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 40 e fewer simply because we've got a trail there unless we moved the trail to the other side which seems logical to me but I guess as long as we've got it on the south, we'll keep it there. The parking, geez, we continue to talk about parking for guests and we don't have any standards to enforce so the planning staff basically, Jo Ann you haven't given us any guidelines on this in the report. You're just saying it's no different than before and therefore it's up to our whim basically whether we like it or not. Mark, do you have any standards for parking for visitors for a development like this? You work other areas. The City has no guidelines. Koegler: You're not alone. A lot of cities have a 2 1/2 car requirement for multi-family, one of which has to be covered. That 1 1/2 is commonly taken up in driveway area and it's only when you have a PUD or you have some conditional use or something that you have a little more leverage to require guest parking or suggest strongly that it be added to the plan that that necessarily occurs. It's certainly plats of this nature that, I've been involved in reviewing for other cities, we have tried to obtain guest parking. Conrad: The City has no leverage right now, right? Olsen: Technically, no. We'd have to amend the ordinance. eEmmings: Conrad: Why not? No standards. Emmings: We don't have standards but this is a site plan review and you're saying that we can't... Conrad: We don't have an ordinance that speaks to the problem. Emmings: Well it's simply not addressed but if we see it as a deficiency in the plan, what do we do, just ignore it? Conrad: You can kind of negotiate with the developer and see if they can solve it. Headla: We don't have a limit on curb cuts either but we're sure pressing that one. Conrad: I think there is a safety issue in curb cuts and I could feel real comfortable talking safety. No doubt about it especially when you've got a trail going through there. You've got 17 curb cuts and every 35 feet you've got a curb cut and you've got more traffic than a single family unit going out of there. I don't have a problem with that one Dave. Not at all but parking, I don't know. Batzli: It may be a safety issue as well. 4ItHeadla: I think you'd have a problem because not everybody would agree on the appropriate number. So in your own mind you wouldn't have a problem but overall there would be. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 41 e Conrad: The development to the east of this, they don't have any parking do they for guests? Olsen: amount, I can't remember off hand if they do. It's not a significant no. That was a big discussion when they went through too. Conrad: They do have some but it would be where Jenny Lane goes in so their guest parking is going to vanish. Olsen: And it is being used all the time too. Every time I've gone out there that parking in Jenny Lane right-of-way is used. Conrad: What's the negative to the City in not having enough parking? Anything? They'll just park out on Jenny Lane and then we'll get complaints so we'll put up no parking signs. Then what? Olsen: Bus service out there. Conrad: We'll shuttle them in from a parking lot. I don't have an answer. Okay, but somebody who makes a motion will. My only other thought, Park and Rec said put in a volleyball court, half basketball court and several other things. They made their recommendation and we really don't know ~where it is on the plan. Where it might go. Well, we have to adopt that ..,right? If they make that recommendation, that's nothing that we have to put our name to, right? Olsen: You can say you're not in support of it but it still goes right onto the City Council. The Park and Rec also, they get final determination approval of where that is located. Conrad: Is there leverage on that? Just out of curiousity, is that an exchange for park dedication fees or they're just saying we'd kind of like to have this? Olsen: No, they're saying you have to do it. Conrad: Under what right do they have to put in a volleyball court unless they donate a park? Olsen: They can require a certain amount of acreage in their ordinance, the park ordinance. I think it came out to like 6 acres because of the density or the number of units, they could have required 6 acres of parkland. Because it wasn't park deficient but it still was the surrounding park areas are almost to their capacity that they said okay, you don't have to provide the 6 acres but we want like around I acre, I 1/2 acre with volleyball, basketball so they're kind of coming to a compromise. Plus they still have to pay some of the park fees and trail fees so they do have the authority. They could have flat out said give us 6 acres or else 4Itthey could have said just give us money. Conrad: But we don't see it here right now right? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 42 e Olsen: No. They could have possibly changed their plan because it does have to go back to Park and Rec. They still have control where it's located so they can't put it in the wetland or in that slope. Conrad: Any comments? I see twitches out there. Mary Cully: The park, that area of volleyball is not shown on this plan because we got different information from Lori. When this plan was done she said it was not a park deficient area and all this sort of thing and since that time she has...about the volleyball area. Dean Johnson: Well their meeting was just last week. So until you have the meeting you don't have any permission, know where to put it anyhow. Since they work with you to put it in, it's nothing that you can have on these plans obviously before it comes to you people so I'm sure that's why they also put in their stipulations that it be worked out at final plat time. Emmings: If you cul-de-saced this one road they get a whole bunch of land. Dean Johnson: Quite honestly I think your idea is not too bad. I would take it a step farther myself and actually make it two shorter cul-de-sacs. Conrad: That may be better and staff may not, by the way staff may not ~agree with me. They have some technical reasons for they don't really like cul-de-sacs and I find some good reasons for them and they add to the charm and some neighborhood type of deals but there are some emergency service type things so again, when I say c I-de-sac, I'm saying that's not a bad trade-off but they're probably going to have some other thoughts on that subject. Dean Johnson: Again, when you get back into first of all the issue with the double frontage lots, you have something to go by. We sat there and looked at it and say well if we turn the streets and now the streets are on the side lots which is where turning the building came from. Now do you have double frontage lots? You know, you have a real gray area there in which you to do a cul-de-sac, then you somewhat take that gray area out of there and I have no problem doing that. I guess what I would like because obviously I don't want to be tabled again, I like you people. Conrad: We enjoy your coming here every 2 weeks to talk to you. It's a good time. Dean Johnson: So I guess what I'd like is a recommendation to work with that. Either cul-de-sac it. Go back to fire and see what they would want in this thing and then come back with the best recommendation up to Council with that too. As for the cuts on the curb, to be quite honest with you, if I could get a little bit more impervious surface on a couple of those lots, I would rather go with the drive in going there also. I personally ~don't like to see all those curb cuts on it either so I'd like more of a "'recommendation to say allow me to put a little more impervious surface on which (a) would give me some more visitor parking and (b) be able to get all the curb cuts off so that's the type of recommendation I prefer to see Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 43 e if I could. Emmings: They're at 28% now and the limit is 35% or isn't that right? Olsen: I think you have to look at each individual lot. Some of them are really right up there, 35% like now but that's again where it came more into play in the PUD on how you looked at that. Dean Johnson: Can I make one more comment here? Obviously I'd like to be more a part of the...other stuff too. The impervious surface just got tight. But the other thing that comes in, I'd still like to make one last pitch for the zero lot line on this site. I would rather get the...of the homeowner it's County for processing plats and also to a surveyor for surveying the inside of the buildings. The better way out of it would be able to give the guys and the homeowners a better unit is to, so to speak lessen the soft cost which is what something like that is. I don't know how at this point we can allow it. I guess I'm looking for suggestions but I would still urge, still think the zero lot line is... Even if it's through a variance or I don't know how. It does mean about $1,500.00 I am going to be able to put into the units which I had planned to put into the units. Conrad: We weren't against the zero lot lines but to get to that ordinance ~and what have you, it forced you into PUD and you are not a very good ~PUD the way it looks. It just doesn't classify. Dean Johnson: So now we're in a catch-22. So what do you do? You have an ordinance that really doesn't relate to this type of a unit you know and we went the PUD route to... Conrad: If you brought in a really creative PUD and you save some trees and you bundle some units together, I think you could probably get that through. I think when we zoned this a while back to R-12, we really thought it was going to be apartment buildings. That's where we were at. Obviously market structure and you being there, you can do anything you want and you know what the market demand is but again we're thinking apartments. Close to downtown. Nice brick apartments. Terrific. Okay, well now you're bringing in something that especially when you give us a PUD, it really didn't, it wasn't one and you got caught by that but I think you can come back and save a few trees. You see the other thing we're doing is trying to keep open space and the first thing you brought in just looked, you can have density and still have open space. They're not contradictory but typically that moves you up. Dean Johnson: So you're looking at an apartment. Conrad: Yes. You're ending up with the problem. It's not ours but those are basically some philosophies that we've carried forth around Chanhassen and the residents like it. That's why they moved out here. They like the tit open space so if you had somehow been able to bundle things together, give us some greenery around, keeping the impervious surface down, I think we would have gone along with you but it didn't look that way. This looks good as a subdivision and I think we made some changes to it. You've got Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 44 e some problems here. There is somebody who doesn't like parking and somebody who doesn't like trees and maybe a majority that want to table it so you may not be happy with where we're going tonight but I think you got some time. If you came back with a zero lot line deal that looked creative in a PUD, I think we'd look at it. Dean Johnson: We'd have to lose too much density to do that. Conrad: You might. Dean Johnson: The economics of the thing right now also hedges on the HRA so you're sitting there saying you know, you gain one place you lose another. It's something that you always struggle with in land planning and those types of things. I realize that but the numbers got too low in order to do it and it kicked the project out. The project wouldn't go at that little of density so now I guess what I'm trying to do is sit here and say well this is something that the same darn building you know but let's give the customer something. Let's try to find a way to do it so I guess you know I'm looking for a recommendation from you guys even if it's a recommendation onto the Council to look at this same project only allowing zero lot lines or something on that line because it is going to go to the customer because just to stay within the concept of the idea we have trying to compete with rent, it's going to need to go onto the customer... 4Itconrad: I don't know what we can tell you right now. If anybody has any advice. You see the problem is, my comments are going to come back and it's going to reduce your density and I don't think you survive by reducing density but it saves some of the things we'd be very interested in doing. Giving us open space. Finding a volleyball park, totlot, whatever so I could see saving some trees but I don't know that you can live with what my recommendations would be. Dean Johnson: It becomes financially infeasible. Conrad: Right. It probably is. Anyway, I heard some comments here for tabling. I guess my comment would probably be, we could pass this along to City Council with a lot of restrictions. It appears to me there are 4 or 5 things that really should be analyzed pretty good and I wouldn't pass it to them and I think if they were doing their job they'd bump it back to us so therefore my feeling would be to table this until we can see the curb cut review, the impervious surface analysis and maybe taking a look at a long cul-de-sac and a couple of the other things. Don't know that we can save trees but maybe we can bundle some parking in to this by bumping up some impervious surface but I think I would prefer and normally I wouldn't mind just passing along to the Council but I think it's to your benefit. I think it's to the City's benefit to bring it back and solve a few of these problems. Other than that I think it's a better looking proposal than before. Those are my short comments. Anybody want to make a motion? ~Wildermuth: I move the Planning Commission recommend tabling of Site Plan 11'#88-15 for 182 condominium units as shown on plans dated June 2, 1989. Conrad: Is there a second? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 45 e Emmings: Are we going to table just the site plan or the wetland alteration permit and the subdivision request as well? There are three things going on here. wildermuth: I think we pr.obably ought to table them all. Conrad: I'd table them all, yes. Emmings: Is that your motion to table the whole package? Wildermuth: Table all three. Conrad: Is there a second? Batzli: Second. Conrad: Discussion. You men and women have a choice to get this out of here. Just make your recommendations to the City Council. Emmings: There are enough things, I was for moving it on but I guess I've kind of been persuaded by other people's comments that there are enough things up in the air so it really wouldn't be, it probably would be useful eto look at it again. Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend tabling action on Subdivision Request #88-24, Site Plan #88-15 and Wetland Alteration Permit #89-14. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: We're going to see you one more time. Dean Johnson: What am I going to change? I have nothing. Conrad: The curb cuts. You've got to show us where the park is. You've got to show us the impervious surface. Those things we need to take a look at. It's not here and we'd just like to see it before City Council. Dean Johnson: The impervious surface is there...35%. I can't change the curb cuts because if I do I change the impervious surface so consequently I would corne back with the same thing. Conrad: Is that right? Olsen: I haven't seen that to prove that the impervious surface will be. If it is and they do have to go over, they'll have to go before the Board of Adjustments to receive a variance to that zoning requirement. 4ItMary Cully: But you're requiring that... Dean Johnson: You're going beyond your own ordinances. ordinances because we wanted to get the thing passed so I can't...your we met your Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 46 . ordinances except for possibly the... Everything else is going to have to come back. Emmings: That's another issue that has to be looked at before it comes back too because our ordinance says you can't have it. From what I saw at the City Council last time, there were a lot of folks up there who were very liberal minded in application of our ordinances. Conrad: Basically what you're asking is, you'd like us to turn it down. Do you want us to turn it down? Dean Johnson: What I want, I can't change. I'd like you to recommend going over impervious or I'd like you to sit there and say deal with the double frontage and this way or that way. I can take and cul-de-sac the thing and bring it back to you again but if that's the only option. Conrad: On a parcel this big, it's really not tough to meet our standards. Seriously. If you had a 12 acre or 4 acre piece of property, I could see, and crimped between some different things, yes. It might be hard to meet our standards. This is a big parcel. I don't know why you can't meet the standards that we're trying to set. I really don't. Everybody else does. Impervious surface, everybody, I can't think of a case that hasn't come before us where they haven't met it. _Dean Johnson: This does meet it. Conrad: Then you won't have a problem. Dean Johnson: It still meets it. down because it meets it. It meets it now and you've turned it Conrad: We've turned it down for other reasons. We haven't turned it down, we've tabled it. Dean Johnson: you a change. Or you've tabled it for something that I can't bring back to I can't change the impervious surface. Conrad: Yes you can. Dean Johnson: It will be coming back the same way. Conrad: Then we could reconsider our motion and turn this down. Therefore you could get to City Council in two weeks if that's what you'd like to do. You're saying I have no other alternatives. One, we are interested and so are they as to where the recreation facility is going. There's some things, and you do have the right to go in and say we want 17 curb cuts. You do have that right. Planning staff is saying no. We're saying it doesn't make sense. We haven't seen that too often and City Council could along with them so I think we could sit here and say, we wanted to see it ~back because we thought there were enough things that might be changed that "'we could just send it through and therefore they would follow our lead and it would go through at their level pretty quickly but your alternative, if somebody made the motion to reconsider what we just did, to forget about Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 47 e tabling it, which I'm not sure that somebody would make the motion but they could make the motion to turn it down because of and you could fly up there and see what they say. Wildermuth: As far as the parking is concerned, not every lot probably has to have additional parking space. You've got a couple lots. You've got some leeway to work with impervious surface to provide some additional parking. Dean Johnson: Not without dropping density. Emmings: I guess if what he is saying is that he's going to bring back the same plan next time, then it's senseless to table it. Then we're just wasting his time and ours. If you're going to sit there and tell us you're not going to work with the staff on the concerns that we've raised tonight, and I would like to know whether you are or not because if you don't plan to bring back any different plan, then I would certainly make a motion to reconsider what we've just done. But if in the meantime you can constructively work with the staff to try and iron out some of the things that have bothered us tonight, then I think it should be tabled and we should look at it again. So you should tell us, if you're just going to bring it back the same plan, then I think we should vote on it one way or the other. See you can sit out there and say what you want us to do and ~recommend this and that but we're not going to do that. That's not the way ,.,we perceive our function. You're asking us to do something that we haven't done for anybody else and it's not the way we operate and I guess what we need to know from you is if, basically the choices that I've just outlined I think. Mary Cully: We have worked with staff. Emmings: I know you have and I'm sure it's frustrating because the fire department wants one thing and they want another thing and we want something else. But there's 7 people up here and you've seen nothing but unanimous votes tonight. Usually we're kind of, we wind up not having this much trouble with projects as we've had with yours and maybe that's a message that you're trying to stuff too much in here. I don't know but that's my personal feeling that you're stressing things. You're pushing everything to the limit for density and while I understand that from a financial point of view, that's not my concern. I don't care see so from a planning point of view, if you're over stressed on those items, maybe you ought to consider cutting density, I don't know. But if you're saying you'll only come back with the same plan, we need to know that. If that's your intent, then I think we should reconsider what we just did. Dean Johnson: frontage lot. surface. I think we will probably be working with staff on the double I don't really expect to be able to work with the impervious eEmmings: Why is Dean Johnson: have. To get that? Because we can't afford to drop really the total units we more impervious surface or to get a driveway in there as Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 48 e impervious surface, I have to drop units. Emmings: Well you're right. Apparently you're at 33, 34. You're at 35 on some lots right now. You're 9% on one lot. Dean Johnson: That's the apartment building. Emmings: Okay, but you're real high on all of them and I don't see how it's going to work either but maybe there is a way to make it work or a way to make it work on a few units. Or maybe, I think you heard some talk up here tonight that maybe we're willing to trade a little higher impervious surface to get more safety. Because there's a safety concern we're worried about the number of curb cuts, maybe we're willing to go a little higher on impervious surface. I don't know but that's the kind of things that were said up here and I'm sure they heard all that and will try and work with you to get a couple of lots at least down to one curb cut instead of 3 or 4. Dean Johnson: I stated the same thing. If you people are willing to allow a little more on a couple three lots that have big driveways on them, I would just as soon do that. I would also just as soon add some parking spaces but what I can't do is drop density. Emmings: I understand that but what we're asking you to do is work with 4Itstaff and see if you can't find a way to reduce the number of curb cuts even if it might mean, first by trying not to go over 35% but if you have to here or there, maybe we'll trade it off for the safety we perceive that we'll be gaining. Dean Johnson: I would just as soon work that way but there's one other problem that I do see and that is, when you people do say, say we add more to the parking and we get over the impervious surface there and let's say we have 36% or 37% on a particular lot, that type of thing. We work out the double frontage lot. Now I'm over when I take this plat in front of Council, I'm asking for something that varies from your ordinance. I have the possibility that I could be just thrown out because now I'm over R-12. That's the other problem that I face in doing it. It's that if we do pass here, then the Council goes and says gosh darn, we don't want to see over 35%. We're not doing it and then we're all back... Emmings: That's right. Conrad: There aren't any guarantees. Emmings: We can't control their decisions. Dean Johnson: I realize that so that's why I'm saying it's hard for me to go over the 35%. The curb cuts are an allowable thing so that's why we chose to go that way. 4Itconrad: It might be best, I'm not sure that I'd change my impervious surface. I don't know that I'd go over my standard. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 49 e Emmings: No one has even really looked at it to see if that's going to happen. What we're doing is instead of driveways we're putting in one long thing and has anybody drawn it out and measured it to see if it's possible to do it at least on a couple of lots? Dean Johnson: That's what we have done is originally all of them were going to have the collective driveways. That went over the impervious surface so consequently that's why the plan changed to what you see now. It worked in reverse. Emmings: If it's impossible, it's impossible. I don't know but I don't know if it's been tested. Have you looked at it to see, of course we can't be designing his plan anyway. Conrad: There's some benefit for turning this down and sending it to City Council so they get some immediate input. Whether the City Council would be interested in allowing some variances, I guess that's the Board of Adjustments isn't it that would consider variance's. Is there a benefit to moving this through to City Council Jo Ann? Olsen: Just so they will get their decisions but a major point is that park. That's almost an acre or so that they're going to have to provide and it would probably be interesting to see that before it went farther. 4ItThat does impact the plat. Conrad: Do you think it's good to hear what the City Council says? Olsen: I think that we could, we have the ability to say to them that that's too many curb cuts. We definitely have the legal ability to say that's too much. Conrad: Yes, I'm comfortable with that. From the developer's standpoint, I don't know if it's going to save him any time. If we bounce this up with a negative vote they can at least test the waters up there and see if somebody's willing to go over. Ellson: You're saying by that time it gets to there it will have a parking place. Conrad: They'll know more and they'll see where the park goes and maybe I don't care where the park goes and I don't care if it's 17 or 18 curb cuts. Emmings: It might not be all negative either. with the wetland alteration permit and I don't the subdivision except for the double frontage plan review where my objections are. I don't have any problem really have a problem with lot. It's more the site Conrad: We've already gone through and made a motion to table this item. Does anybody want to reconsider it? Okay. Motion stands as voted upon and ~our request, you may be coming back with the same thing in 2 weeks or "'whatever and Jo Ann, can we get them on in 2 weeks? I guess I would like you to do that if we could bump something else to bring them back so we can do something. Do you think we can do it? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 50 e Olsen: Do you know when the Park meets? Koegler: Next Tuesday. Olsen: It'd be good if it's tabling, to get Park and Rec to review the plan so if we can get that on. Koegler: They're meeting next Tuesday and presumably that could be added to their agenda. Conrad: I think that makes sense to do. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION (VINELAND FOREST). Public Present: Name 4Itscott Edwards Mr. and Mrs. Greg Elliott Jeff Beck Chuck Van Eeckhout Address 915 pleasant View Road Carver Beach Estates Developer Applicant Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Conrad: More than likely if we follow the staff report the public hearing will be continued to another evening but I think it's worthy of getting comments right now on what the issues are so we can consider them and staff can in the interim. Are there comments? Scott Edwards: I'm Scott Edwards. I own the key section of the lot in question where the road would come from Pleasant View... I guess my concern would be having a right-of-way coming approximately about 4 feet from my house... I'm also concerned with a temporary road when there is already a 60 foot easement on the east section of my property. What would be the need of another temporary road? Conrad: Jo Ann, can you sketch on one of those diagrams where? Olsen: I'm not sure where the temporary...there's an existing one there ~right now. When we originally met with the applicant, we were looking at ~access through here, a cul-de-sac and then using the easement that's there now that serves the houses down there as an emergency access. What he is talking about is that existing one and what the applicant I think is doing Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 51 e was going to be working to switch easements to give him this one back and take... Emmings: You two wound up understanding each other but it went right by me. Can you put up that other drawing. You're pointing at stuff, I can't see what it is. Batzli: The plans show it, the 16 foot easement. Gravel drive they call it. 16 foot. It's right in the middle. Emmings: Okay. And is the property that you own inbetween those two things? Scott Edwards: Yes. Emmings: It's that whole long narrow piece? Scott Edwards: Yes. The front is 185 feet. Olsen: To answer your question was that the City has stated that they do not want this as a temporary easement. It will go through as a full street standard. 4Itconrad: What did you say? The easement will... Olsen: That easement gives rights to this property right now...service from Pleasant View. Emmings: Driveway basically. Ellson: But it turns into a road. Conrad: And it's right there. It's between those? Chuck Van Eeckhout: I'm Chuck Van Eeckhout. I'm the applicant here and I do want the matter considered tonight and I don't want to... The only real question that I think is important is the access to the north. So this is my property, this meets all the city codes. All city ordinances. All state statutes for subdivisions. We are asking for no variances. Our lots are oversized and the reason we oversized them is I'm a builder and I don't like to be sitting on an excellent lot and have to take all the trees down so we oversized the lot. We'll have some site flexibility with the houses to jockey around to get the best possible siting to help save trees. I own this property. I'm proposing an easement which is a normal legal procedure to get this public street. This would be a public easement. What I'm asking is, and it isn't really a variance but what I'm asking is, doesn't it make more sense not to put in the full city street here at this time but rather put in a very serviceable paved road on this easement until perhaps Mr. Edwards wants to develop his land. Then we relocate the road ~down the center. If Mr. Edwards never develops the land, we can upgrade 1I'this very easily then to a full city standard. What I'm saying is, I'm proposing not to plat this at this time. The real input I'm looking for from the Planning Commission is their judgment as to whether or not they Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 52 e want this platted down there. I can plat this right now. If that's the case, I'll do that. I'll plat it now. I believe it's wisest not to plat it. Rather operate off of this very, very serviceable easement. I own the property. It will service the property without question. The other negative comments were the south access. Did we discuss and I guess at this point I simply disag~ee, my p~ofessional planner disagrees and there is some argument obviously and it's just simply a matter of a planning question that certainly would consider the Planning Commission's opinions on without question but I prefer to have the cul-de-sac subdivision here. We feel it's much better for the people on Pleasant view not to have this. There's a tremendous amount of traffic back there and...feeder system and I don't think we need to create another feeder street through there which is what would happen whether want to call it that or not. The only way to get down Pleasant or to get into Excelsior is to go a good bit to the west and then down or up and back to Chanhassen. Also, I really feel the character of a neighborhood like this is a beautiful size. It's 18 lots. Those people will know one another. They're relate to one another. There will be a pocket of activity. They'll do things together and they'll have a homeowners association. It will be a much better functioning part of the community and if we have a thoroughfare going through there with everybody more or less getting lost. Public safety concerns, I've been involved in public safety for 31 years and I have never known a case where a cul-de-sac street caused somebody to have very serious problems because a fire truck couldn't get through. A fire truck can drive across lawns. They can go _through barricades. They can really go through a lot of places. From a public safety point of view, on the police end, this is a safer situation. It's easier to control crime in an area like this. Anybody coming in there has to go back out again. You can't come cruising through here. You can come cruising in and cruising out. People are going to notice you more that you're up to no good. I really feel for Chanhassen and my future residents and the Pleasant view people, and my planners feel this way, this is the most desired proposal. I don't know what I would change. In the absence of strong input on the part of the Planning Commission, I would propose we leave it like this and this is my submittal. Emmings: Could I ask a question? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Sure. Emmings: Since Mr. Edwards doesn't want to give any of his land for the easement, I understand that the whole easement would simply be moved over so that it's eastern edge then would be on the property line rather than the center line? Chuck Van Eeckhout: That's correct. Emmings: But it'd be the same width? It'd still be a 50 foot easement? Chuck Van Eeckhout: I'm proposing to use a narrow easement but it really '-'makes no difference. My property is being tied up with this easement "'anyway on an interim basis, I'm willing to just let this property sit then until such time as this develops or something else happens. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 53 e Emmings: So it'd be the full 50 feet then? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Yes. Emmings: How does that affect Lot 1 which is already down to 15,080? Chuck Van Eeckhout: We'd probably have to make some minor adjustments there. We do have like 4,000 feet per lot, we're over like 20 some percent on the overall plat. We'd probably have to adjust that on that westerly connection. Make some minor dimensions. We haven't finished all the computer dimensioning yet so there would be just some minor sliding of lots here and there. They would all, in effect if you divide that few square feet and even them up there amongst those lots, we're talking about 10 feet or something per lot. Emmings: You think you could accommodate that? Chuck Van Eeckhout: The people who work on it, there's no question about it. There's no problem at all. Conrad: Okay, it is a public hearing. We'll continue the public hearing. Any other comments? ~Jeff Beck: My name is Jeff Beck and I'm one of the developers of Carver ..,Beach Estates. Nez Perce now is a real narrow street. There's only 20 feet of right-of-way going down to Mr. Van Eeckhout's property. As he said, it's a very, very steep grade. I know, I was out there when they were building there and I just can't understand putting that through there would be a big detriment to my project. I've lost a lot sale already because of that easement there and the people said to me, is that ever going to go through? I said I doubt it because of the constraints of the amount of...and because of the grade. They called the City and the City said well yes, it could go through. As a matter of fact, you could be assessed. Well I knew that wasn't true because you can't assess them if they don't have frontage. I like the character of cul-de-sacs. I live on a cul-de-sac in Crystal. My kids play on a cul-de-sac. If you do decide to go through Nez Perce, are you going to go back and widened it to the south? There's no way you can get two fire trucks... There's not going to be any utilities down from Nez Perce or Lake Lucy Road either so I just really can't see that. I would like to see the cul-de-sac myself. Greg Elliott: My name is Greg Elliott and my wife and I are building a house at the end of Fox Chase right now so we were glad to see the comments that Jeff wrote...not considering the road to go through. We purchased that land at the end of Fox Chase because we like cul-de-sac living also. I don't know if you've seen that cul-de-sac but it's a very steep grade going down so we're glad that it's not going to go through. Emmings: Is that what's on our map as Fox Path? ~Greg Elliott: That's the development that's Fox Chase. The other concerns we have, maybe Mr. Van Eeckhout can help us with the value of the homes that are going to be going in there? The homes at the end of Fox Chase are Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 54 e $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 homes. I'm wondering what's going to be immediatley adjacent to us. And the last concern was the design of the last row of homes. Chuck Van Eeckhout: As to the value of the homes, they'll be roughly comparable to what's going into Fox Chase. There are $220,000.00 homes in Fox Chase I believe and we're a custom builder of homes. The last five homes I've sold, I haven't sold them under $275,000.00... Very nice quality, wooded subdivision with oversized lots. Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Jo Ann, you recommended tabling. Talk to us a little bit about the secondary access road. Tell us again why you want to table it right now. Olsen: The reason why we're tabling it right now is both the engineering department and the public safety department felt strongly about having a secondary access. In addition to that they feel strongly about having the full right-of-way and the full public street standard, at least that now. In the plans that we had gotten did not provide that at this time so with ~those other options, the secondary access or a full access from the south, ..,whatever is chosen, that alters the rest of the plat as far as utilities, etc. so we really didn't have enough to go on. Tonight is more to get Planning Commission's input. If they agree with the applicant that what he's proposing is what you want to see and then that's what we could work with him. We'll work with this plan and review it and see that that's right. Conrad: So you would not want us to make a recommendation that would get this along to City Council. You really want to bring that back to us. Olsen: We haven't reviewed the whole site as it is proposed now because it wasn't a complete application. Conrad: Okay, let's talk about the secondary access then. engineering and fire department is saying secondary access. believe on that? Any comments on secondary access? Staff, What do we Ellson: You said you felt real strongly about the thru way because of some weaknesses in the way the system is kind of right now in the City? Olsen: Again working with engineering, they were saying that was their strongest, even more so than not having the full right-of-way and the full street standards. What they felt more strongly about was having that full, the street connection from the side. _conrad: Olsen: that we To service what? To service this development? I think they're just looking at it because of the traffic problems do have and to alleviate some of that congestion down in Carver Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - page 55 e Beach. So yes, the result would be a thoroughfare going through there. Batzli: They don't like necessarily the access from the east. They want the south in order to have a better flow path of traffic? Wildermuth: But why? None of the neighbors, the neighbors to the south don't want it. The neighbors to the north don't want it. Olsen: I can see if Gary's here and bring him back down. Conrad: It is a standard to have two accesses basically. Emmings: We're always looking for the second access. Somehow on this one it doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense. Where is that Forest Street going to the north? We've got that Forest Street dead-ending, or to the west? Chuck Van Eeckhout: That would be future to the property to the west that presumably could go out to the west and be able to use that as a connection to get the secondary access. Again, without creating this thoroughfare problem, the application will not change...secondary access on Nez Perce. We have decided through a lot of planning that we do not want the access to the south so we would want the Council to turn that down if that would be ~your recommendation to have that. The City was not strong about that and ~I'm surprised they're taking a strong stand on it. They said you shouldn't do this because the grade's too steep. Go out to the north. Olsen: I don't remember them saying you shouldn't do it. I remember one of our meetings where we stated that the standard was 7% and that's usually what we stick by but there are a lot of times when the slopes do not permit that. They have allowed a higher percentage but I don't know that they ever said that they didn't want it. Conrad: Would the grade be more than 7% in this case? Olsen: Oh yes. Chuck Van Eeckhout: The other comment is that Fox Chase has some 50 lots off of one access to Pleasant View. We would be destroying the nicest part of the woods and creating ugly fills...in the prettiest part of the woods so those are, from a planning point of view... Conrad: Okay, let's go around. Jim? Comments on what you want to do tonight. wildermuth: I like the idea that the developer is talking about putting a full width street in, even if they're going to be temporary character but I don't know what... ~conrad: I don't think he said that. Did he say that? Wlidermuth: Didn't you say that? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 56 e Chuck Van Eeckhout: I'd like the street surface to be designed adequately to not, if we design it to carry the loads but not necessarily the full width at this time because we are going to be potentially taking it out in a period of 3 to 5 years depending on Mr. Edwards's... Emmings: The full easement would be there but it would be a sub-standard road. Chuck Van Eeckhout: We would bond and guarantee the performance of the road. We would do that without any problem. Conrad: He just wants to have part of that road taken out of the neighbor's property when they develop but then there's no guarantee that that neighbor, that might never happen. It probably will but it might not. Wildermuth: I'm inclined to go along with the idea of having it be a cul-de-sac but if it is a cul-de-sac, it's got to have a full standard access road to the north. Batzli: I, of course, thought our neighborhood was going to be a cul-de-sac and I built on it and I hate to beat the dead horse here but at the time that our, almost half of our neighborhood showed up and cried foul, everybody decided that it was an absolute necessity and I don't know what's changed here. I don't necessarily understand why, what the 4Itdifference is between this and several other developments that we've required it in so I would say that we need a second entrance. The one thing that I'm interested in is what would be the setback required from Mr. Edward's property if we allowed a temporary road? Olsen: We would consider that. It would become a front yard along the street there. Emmings: I think he's asking, where would the road pad go. Batzli: Where would the road go in relation to his property? Mr. Edward's property. Can you put it right up to the line? Olsen: There's no setbacks for roads or driveways. Emmings: This has come up before and I think it's outrageous but that's the way things are. Batzli: For instance if he was built before the City even had a code and he's 8 foot of his own property line or 6 feet, whatever the sideyard setback is, you'd still put the road right next to his house? Olsen: I'm not saying that's where we would put it. Batzli: But I think that's another reason to table this because I have no ~idea where his house is and I'm not willing to put a road 2 inches or 10 feet away from this guy's house right now. Any kind of road. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 57 e Chuck Van Eeckhout: He's indicated there was 4 feet from his property line. Scott Edwards: It's something that should be planned out. Wildermuth: Is that acceptable to you at this point? Scott Edwards: Of course I'd like to see the road as far away from my house as it can possibly go. That's where I'm at. Ellson: I know that Nez Perce Road and it is a lousy one for a thru way but I also know that in all of our comprehensive plans we don't have a lot of north/south going through our city. It's a weakness and everything like that but I can't see that being the connector. I also don't like assuming that in 3 years it's going to be brought up to a road standard that we require based on hearsay or assumptions that there's going to be more development in 3 years and that. I think if there's 18 people coming in here and if this is the only road then I think it should be up to speed with every road we require allover and not allow for who knows what period of time some temporary something that's not quite what we'd require for anybody else. Did that make any sense? Maybe that's the way I am. Conrad: you'll have to read the Minutes. eEmmings: I'm even more wishy washy than Annette. I really have a problem with this one. I think the builder has made a lot of good points about, there does seem to be quite a grade here that's a real problem for a road but engineering I figure must have taken that into account. A lot of the issues like that are technical in nature and I could see passing this along and letting the engineer make his pitch to the City and letting the builder make his pitch to the Council and just letting go of it but on the other hand, since we have to move that road over from where it's shown here. Oh, I agree with the comments that, I don't like this notion of a temporary road. If it goes in, it ought to go in as if it were a permanent road. But somehow in this particular application, having this be a cul-de-sac arrangement doesn't bother me and I know that every other one that's come in here, I can remember always proposing a secondary access but somehow on this one, the plan kind of makes a lot of sense to me the way it is and it looks like they're well out there, at least is the potential for future connection out to the west which maybe influences my comment but I don't know. I could see tabling it so we have we have a final plan in front of us before we send it on. The other thing is Brian, you have to realize that the reason that we destroyed your cul-de-sac and put a thru street there was because you were living there. That was personal in nature. Batzli: Understandable. Conrad: I like the plan and I guess my preference right now, and I'd like to see staff really do a good analysis of the secondary road but I wouldn't "'be in favor of it at this point in time. I see all sorts of justification ~for not connecting. All sorts. I'm in favor of a permanent road going in because I don't know how to orchestrate when we would upgrade it. If somebody had a better idea how to orchestrate when to upgrade it, I might Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 58 e pay attention but at this point in time, simply because road access is an issue and if we're not going to have secondary access, I guess I can persuade myself that we need to bring the access into this area to our standard right away and the fact that it's servicing 18 houses I think is important. I think Mr. Edwards, we've done this before, we get into problems when we bring roads in past people's houses. That really bothers me. I wouldn't want it to happen to me but I don't know that we have any standards to help us here but I guess, that bothers me and I don't know that we're going to solve the problem. I would like to table it because staff hasn't really analyzed this to the extent that they normally do because they were thinking, there were going to be some other issues that, there are other issues to examine. I do want to table it. I think the staff hears our comments and I think it would be important that they analyze what we said versus what the staff requirements are and to bring this back when we can and review it with all the information that staff needs and taking a look at the subdivision. Any other comments? Anything else? I'll accept a motion. Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table Subdivision #89-8 pending further analysis by staff of the access issues through the development. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 4ItCONVENIENCE STORES MORATORIUM, MARK KOEGLER. Conrad: Let's do this, Mark I'd like to table our discussion on convenience store moratorium unless there's a good reason to go over it tonight. Koegler: The moratorium expires July 1. I don't know, obviously there's not a flood of applicants beating down the door. That doesn't make any difference. Emmings: I could say, why don't we have him go ahead and, what he's asking for and approval to go ahead and draft an ordinance based on your analysis. Isn't that right? Koegler: Correct. That would be the next step. Emmings: Sounds good to me. Batzli: I second the motion. Conrad: Are we all comfortable with that? Wildermuth: Yes. I like the table that you made. I think it's quite appropriate. The only thing that I didn't like about the table was where you had an x under business fringe for automotive service stations. Why ~not a service station in the business fringe? Koegler: That was a specific question I was going to ask is the BF. I've taken, for purposes of discussion, a hard line approach here with the Comp Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - page 59 - Plan saying that essentially the only uses that would be allowed in the BF are the grandfathered uses that are there. I wouldn't be promoting expansion of that. You really take that doctrine to heart and say we're not going to allow new uses to go in. We're not going to make those permitted. Batzli: Can I jump over what you just said. Someone, one of several of the council members I think talked about business fringe didn't they as a priority for us to look at? What did they want us to do with the business fringe? Olsen: We only had time to just grab the sheets. Ellson: Didn't get any elaboration. Olsen: They didn't give any specific. Batzli: Buy I assume they're wanting us to limit further development in the business fringe so this would go along with that. Olsen: They wanted to change the BF to the A-2 district. Emmings: Would we be looking at that as part of the Comprehensive Plan? ~Of the A-2 I suppose so I'd be in favor of not adding any uses to it. ~Business fringe has always been kind of like a twilight zone to me. Koegler: You can air that in a public hearing on the ordinance aspect too. Emmings: Okay. Let's move it along. Conrad: You don't even need a motion do you? Koegler: Just some direction just to prepare in accordance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 7, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Batzli: While we're here, can we just mention the City Council update? Did this, the Fortier and Associates, the condition that curb and gutter must be provided was included? Emmings: Yes. I was there. Olsen: Right. I'll explain it. My understanding was the way it was... ~engineering really wanted it so I threw that back in saying that the staff "'is wishing that we want the curb and gutter. It was on the Consent and I had them pull it off so there could be discussion. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 60 e Batzli: Well I voted against it so I'm happy to see it again. Olsen: That is how it turned out. They put back the curb and gutter. They also put back the per caliper inch per caliper inch... Emmings: We took it out and they put it back in. That's why I say, there was like a bunch of fundamentalist's preachers up there. It was a Council meeting as they were using the zoning ordinance as their Bible. Ellson: And last time I was there it was just the opposite. Olsen: They did say...Dave Stockdale to the Board of Adjustments. Emmings: He's got to ask for a variance in order not to have curb and gutter down that road. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.. Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City planner 4Itprepared by Nann Opheim e