1989 08 02
e
e
e
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 2, 1989.
(The Planning Commission met prior to the meeting with the City
Council, City Staff and Representatives from Cenvesco to discuss the
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Oakview Heights Townhomes.)
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim
wildermuth and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and Dave Hemphill, Senior
Engineering Tech
PUBLIC HEARING:
CENVESCO, OAKVIEW HEIGHTS, PROPERTY ZONED R-12, RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY
AND LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18.93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS
FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT GRADING WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND.
Public Present:
Dean Johnson - Applicant
Charles Nixon - Attorney for Applicant, 11 Third Avenue So., Minneapolis
Charlie James - 2715 Maplewood Circle West, Woodland
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order.
Conrad: Dean, how would you like us to approach the item tonight? We sort
of whipped it around for the last hour.
Dean Johnson: We made the change for the double frontage lot... We took
care ~f that issue by putting in the cul-de-sac... We did get rid of some
of the curb cuts and stayed within the impervious surface... Obviously the
other issue that was taken that night was the parkland in place for the
park equipment...I guess we didn't think it was as much concept as we were
likely to vote on it and pass it onto Council. We realize that we don't
have some of the drainage drawings on it...but we did do the densities and
we did show some of the engineerings things we could work out with staff
before so we are looking for a vote on this.
Conrad: This is a public hearing and we will open it up for other public
comments. Are there any?
r,
-
-
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 2
Charlie James: My name is Charlie James. I live at 2715 Maplewood Circle
West in Woodland. I'm the owner of the property. I have a purchase
agreement with Cenvesco on this property and as I was sitting here I
couldn't remember whether I had sent a letter to the Planning Commission
addressing my concerns on th~s project and I can't remember if I sent it to
the Planning Commission or not. So I guess my first question is, have any
of tou, did you get a letter from me. Okay. I'm getting old. I guess
I'd like to give a little background on this because as I pointed out in my
letter to the City Council, I see a lot of new faces here and there may be
some people who don't know what the history of this property is so if
you'll allow me a few minutes I'd like to tell you some things that may
assist you in your decision that perhaps you weren't aware of. We
purchased this property, golly it must have been about 1986 I think and at
that time we were working with the staff and Gary Warren's predecessor. I
can't think of his name right now.
Conrad: Bill Monk.
Charlie James: Bill Monk. Bill Monk and Barb Dacy and Barb had just
arrived because the previous planner I believe had departed and anyway,
when we came in with some questions about this entire about 50 acre parcel
on the corner there and I had explained at the time that our company was a
commercial developer. We've never done a residential project. We have
done over 100 projects in the course of the 40 years that we've been
incorporated and none of them have been residential and I approached the
staff about the possibility of zoning this entire parcel commercial. I was
told at that time and this was subsequently reiterated at the Planning
Commission, that the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Chanhassen had
always contemplated that this would be the highest density area allowed in
the City of Chanhassen and the rationale for that was that they wanted
something that was close to downtown. That was convenient. That was
within walking distance that would serve as life cycle housing as I
believe. They wanted people just starting out and they wanted elderly.
They wanted something that in case there was a HUD program or a
farmer's home, there's certain criteria that have to be met in those
programs and one of them is the proximity of the project to services. The
government will not approve these types of loans for projects if they're
built out in the middle of the cornfield. They want them to be convenient
to the people who occupy them. We had indicated at that time that we would
prefer to have the whole property zoned commercial and the City was adamant
about this that our Comprehensive Plan says this is what we want and we're
going to give you the highest density that our zoning ordinance will allow
as an inducement to you to come in with a plan that's in conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan and so forth and so on. So that's what we did. I
immediately set about, got a copy of the mailing list from the Minnesota
Multi-Family Housing Association and began to try to market this property
because as I say, I wouldn't even know how to go about doing something like
this. Some of the other things that came up during that time was the
consensus at that time, the people who were in City Hall at that time was
that this site was ideally suited to a high density project because number
one, if you look at the topography, it's fairly well isolated. You've got
a big ravine to the north so structurally, topographically there is some
separation to the single family projects and so forth to the north and
...-,
e
e
-
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 3
there's a natural topographic buffer there. Number two, we graded this
entire end of our property here. We've been waiting for, I donated he
right-of-way for the new West 78th Street and we've been waiting for the
City to build that so we could proceed with our plans but we spent a lot of
money out there moving a lot of dirt that can't be put back. I mean I
suppose it could but I don't know where it all went. It was hauled off the
site and when we g~aded that p~ope~ty, we did that in ~eliance on the
zoning that we were given. On the plat that we had done and we even
adjusted the toe of the slope in what we perceived and were told were the
setbacks between a commercial project and a residential project and also
what are the setbacks on the residential side. What sort of setbacks
they're going to have to maintain from a commercial. We designed that
slope with Jim Hill Engineers and laid that out so that from the highway
the slope was situated to take maximum advantage of the open space that
would be created by the setbacks from both these projects. So as you're
driving down West 78th Street, you'll see some commercial stuff at street
level and then right behind that commercial is going to be an enormous band
of green that is the setback requirement between the commercial and the
residential. So you have to combine the setback that we have on our
commercial. We can't encroach on this residential and the residential area
is going to have a setback from us. When you combine those two areas, put
them on the slope, then you've got a big green area there. That also
serves as a substantial buffer for this type of density in this type of
project so you have an area that is, and it's got streets on both sides so
you have an area that's relatively contained topographically. It's
contained by the zoning. It's accessible to all the services and amenities
and things that are happening in downtown Chanhassen and it meets the
Comprehensive Plan. I guess the other thing is with the road up there and
we were told originally there was a proposal for a cul-de-sac and we were
told that the Fire Marshall and other people would not support a cul-de-sac
through that property because of the density of people that were expected
to live in there and that therefore a through road was going to be a
necessity for fire and safety and they were concerned about trucks being
able to get in and out and this sort of thing. Well apparently this
message never got communicated to Carver County and in conjunction with the
TH 5 widening and the realignment of West 78th Street, the County has begun
work on a redesign of CR 17 and it came to them apparently as a total
surprise that this street was going to be punched through there. We had
another buyer who was going to come in here and it's interesting to point
out too that they perceive the market in Chanhassen, they hired a
consultant. They did a very expensive market study and they perceive the
market substantially as Mr. Johnson is perceiving. This outfit was out of
Washington D.C. They've built projects allover the country and anyway,
what they were basing their project on at that time was, and I don't know
all the ins and outs of this but apparently there's some sort of credits
that are available in Minnesota for certain types of housing and at the
beginning of the year they're allocated to each community to be paired.
When a communi ty doesn't use them at the end of the year they're th)':own
back into a pot and if the community's got a project, they can grab those
credits or they can apply for them so what Durand was trying to do was come
in at the end of the year when they knew they could grab those things and
they were going to put this project up. Well, they go in with their plat
and everything and the Assistant County Engineer told them no problem.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 4
.
-
Yes, this is great and ye~ when the final plat comes back, the head
engineer down at Carver County goes crazy and says, I've never seen this
before and what's this street coming in here. We can't have this. It took
us 4 months to straighten that out and get the street where it should be.
That is the only place where that street can touch down. On the other side
of the street, I heard a lot of talk tonight about wetlands and I was
curious about what the definition of wetlands is because I'm not aware that
I've got any wetlands on this property and as a matter of fact, when the
highway department was looking at CR 17, one of the reasons that they felt
they couldn't expand to the other side of the road was because there were
wetlands over there and it looked better on our side. So I guess as Mr.
Knutson said here earlier tonight when I asked him this question, I guess
everybody's got their definition of what a wetland is but in any event, I
guess what I'm saying is there are certain things here that have all
conspired shall we say to create a project the way you've seen it. There's
nothing we can do about the location of this road. It's fixed from both
ends. There's nothing I can do about that grading but I want you to know
we put a lot of thought and a lot of expense into that and I have relied on
the relationship that I had here with the staff and everything that they
told me. I've done everything the City has asked me to do on this project.
They said this is what they envisioned there and I think that more
consideration should be given by this Planning Commission and the new
Council to some of the representations that were given in the past. We've
relied on that and I think that, it seems to me that everyone's really got
their heads together here and I haven't seen one attempt, I've come out
here to these meetings, I haven't seen one attempt by the parties to
compromise something here. And I've seen Dean try different projects but I
haven't seen anything from the Planning Commission or Council. I've seen a
lot of kind of things where they're trying to anticipate somebody's move
and let's say well, oh golly, if he's going to do this, I know let's go to
the Park Board and I know we'll get land when in fact the land that they're
asking for far exceeds. There's been court cases on this about how much
land is reasonable and so forth and it seems like people, I guess what I'm
saying is, we know what's going on. Why can't we be, we all know what
everyone's maneuvering here. Why can't we talk about this? Why can't we
be reasonable? Why can't we compromise something here? Also, I just
wanted you to know, I guess I've gone too far here and I'm sorry but I just
wanted you to know what some of the history was and some of these things, I
guess what I'm saying, were set in place a long time ago. Enough said.
Thank you.
Conrad:
can't.
Thanks for your comments Charlie. Do you want me to respond?
There's too many comments. Other public comments?
I
e
Charles Nixon: My name is Charles Nixon. My address is 11 Third Avenue
South, Minneapolis and Dean Johnson's attorney. I do have two comments
essentially. Number one, that after literally weeks and probably more like
months of staff review and this commission's review of this particular
submittal. Tonight for the first time a definition pulled in I understand
from another section of the ordinance that the Commission would like to
read into this ordinance. We have prepared, Dean has prepared based on the
ordinance as read, the ordinance was interpretted by your staff. A plat
that conforms to that ordinance. I think because there's a conforming plat
-
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 5
e
submitted, that it should be approved. Your judgment may be that you would
rather see a different kind of development but that is a judgment not based
on conforming with your ordinance but on your personal preference or your
preference to the way you would like to see this go and I think that that's
inappropriate. The only thing that might not be conforming here at the
moment is the recommendation of the park board. The park board essentially
wants to take all of the flat land that exists on this site. That's it's
recommendation and that reads as a point I submit that's confiscatory.
Essentially we're talking about roughly 5 out of close to 19 acres and
they're asking for essentially all of the flat land that there is. I
submit that that's simply a taking without justification. Without
compensation for it, the...ought to be permitted here.
Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Anything else?
Mary Lou Cully: Mary Lou Cully, 1663 Illinois Avenue, st. Paul and I
represent the engineers. I just wanted to make one point that we were
tabled. This project was tabled on three issues. The double front issue,
the parking and the access off of the public street. And this submittal,
which is concept granted, addressed those issues. The underlying issues of
engineering, grading, those types of things, still could apply and would
apply if anything can be worked out with staff. I just wanted to point out
that this is what the tabled items. We've addressed those issues...
e
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: At this time, for those of you who are here probably on another
issue but we'll go around the Planning Commission and get their comments.
Tim, we'll start at your end.
Erhart: I guess at this point I don't think we have the data to show that
the proposal meets the density. The R-12 net density requirement that we
have. Therefore, I'd like to see the thing tabled here until we define
what's unbuildable area by the definition of density, our ordinance, and
then make a calculation of what the density is of this proposal. Whether
it meets the ordinance or not. My overall comments about the project
remain as stated in previous meetings and earlier tonight.
Conrad: Can you summarize those quickly? Other issues besides density.
Anything else?
-
Erhart: Again it's the parking. It's overall density. We're trying to
put too much, the way we're putting it in there is too dense for the area
in that we've got not enough parking for guests and for the people who live
there. We've got too many accesses off the street there and the lack of
open space for the number of people and the basic underlying reason is it's
too dense for that kind of development. Not that I say that you can't in
some way put 12 units per acre in an area like this. It's just that the
design they've used has made it too dense and I question whether it meets
the density requirements of our current ordinance anyway and without
specific analysis by staff, I don't think we can go forward with it.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 6
.
Emmings: Just a couple comments on Charlie's comments. I think it's...
that we get the history the way that I remember it to the extent that I've
been involved in it. I think it's a good place for R-12. I think the
zoning, I don't have any problem with the zoning that's on this property.
I also have no doubt in my mind that density, as the word appears in the
R-12 section of the ordinance means net density because when it's used in
the same context in every other part of the ordinance, it's used to mean
net density and I seriously doubt if this plan meets that when it's
calculated on net density as that term is defined in our ordinance. As far
as Charlie's comments about the road go, you know I think the road is in
the right place and probably is in the only place it can go so I don't have
any disagreement with that. As far as setbacks and the slope that's been
created out there and everything else, I don't think t60se are the problem
that we see on this plat. Aside from that, I don't think it's possible to
take any action on this tonight for the simple reason that the packet that
we received, or at least that I received from staff, we got three items
here. We've got the plat, we've got the site plan and we have a wetland
alteration permit. The packet I got was, all of the emphasize was on
looking at possibly going back and starting over looking at a potential PUD
designation as opposed to a condominium plat. We wrestled with that for an
hour and a half or two here and now we know that they've elected to proceed
with the condominium plat but we don't have the material we need to assess
the plat or the site plan or the wetland alteration permit so I think we've
just got no choice but to table this. I think that's all the comments I
have for now.
-
e
Batzli: I agree with steve. I'd like to respond a little bit. I agree
that the concept of putting townhomes or condominiums on this lot meets our
Comprehensive Plan and I'm not against this being zoned R-12 but I am
against the density if in fact it exceeds net density. I'll agree with
Steve that I assumed that when we were told originally that it did meet
density, that it did. Obviously we don't sit down with our calculators and
figure it out ourselves and to the extent that there was a mistake made, I
can't change anything about that. No matter what they were told, I mean
they're going to have to rely on the ordinance and so are we and we
obviously feel that the ordinance for R-12 is net density. This plan I
don't believe meets that so I'm against this particular plan for the
density reason. I think that a park does need to be included. I don't
know the number of acres. I'm assuming that the Park and Rec's committee
has more expertise in that area. They work with it on a constant basis.
They've reviewed it and they now feel that some parkland is required. I
personally resent the implication that I'm somehow conspiring to block this
particular project and I will state that I have made no contact other than
in the public about this. I don't know who or why some people are making
those types of statements. I personally resent them. I think we have a
problem here with trees with the current moratorium. Obviously the
parking. Curb cuts which have been previously as a problem. I kind of
have a problem with the designation of this road as a local road. Talking
about the density and the number of cars and traffic and people you're
going to put in there and I don't quite understand the process of how that
designation was chosen. I also want to emphasize due to these applicants'
reliance on verbal type comments, we are not approving the apartment
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 1
e
building. We are not looking at the apartment building and none of our
discussions is centered on the apartment building.
Wildermuth: I agree with what Brian has said. My objections to the
project as it's currently configured are the fact that each unit does not
have 2 car garages. There are inadequate numbers of total parking spaces.
There is the ancient tree issue. The net density issue. I think one of
the real problems here and Charlie touched on it is that this piece of
property has become a very valuable piece of property. There's been a lot
of development money spent in and around that piece of property. Because
of the wetland, it's relatively inflexible. I don't think that the City
has an obligation to compromise with a developer who comes in, wants to
develop something that there seems to be a consensus is not a good
appropriate project for that property. People of Chanhassen are going to
have to live with this project for many years in the future. I think a
short term compromise is not in the best interest of the community.
Headla: I have no problem with what they're proposing as long as they meet
our ordinances. Take net density. I think if they would meet the net
density, a lot of these other problems would just kind of get resolved by
themselves.
e
Conrad: I have very little new to add other than talking about the park
and I hear the developer saying there's no place to put the park yet I hear
staff saying we need a park and we're park deficient because of the 500 new
people coming in. That seems rather significant to me so I think, Charlie
was saying we're not trying to help and I guess I worry about that a little
bit because the developers are in the business to do these things and those
of us who are lay people are not. I think we've been trying to offer
direction but I think when the density is the factor and so many units have
to go on here to make this a viable project, I don't know that there's a
lot of flexibility on the developer's part. I think there should be a park
on site. If not, I think the developer should find the parkland for us
where these people can do the things that the Park and Rec Commission feel
that 500 people should be doing. It appears, Charlie said this area is
really quite isolated and has some phsyical barriers by streets and bluffs
and what have you and I agree. Therefore, it's really not a site that can
dump people into another neighborhood. It's almost a site that has to
support itself. I think that's something that the developer of this
property has got to live with. Overall, I think I've always said that
there's just a lot of stuff happening on a little bit of acreage. I do
believe, I'm totally confident that the wetland area has to be taken out of
the calculation. Absolutely confident of that in terms of density and also
I believe that the parkland has to be found within this area too. I
haven't heard anything about trees. Garages, I still have a problem with.
Basements for storage, these are things that are not required by ordinance
but it certainly would help solve some problems that I have here.
Basements might help a little bit also. Curb cuts. We haven't talked
about curb cuts tonight but I think staff keeps hanging on that one and I
think the overall design tells me that we've got too many curb cuts based
on some standards that the staff has so with those comments, re-echoing a
lot of what other people have said here, I just don't think this is the
right design of a problem on this land. I was around when we did zone it
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 8
-
R-12. That was not a real popular decision because this community is going
'up with residential and I felt, as many people did, that we needed some
pockets of high density. I felt this was one of those pockets and I still
do. This is just not the right project for this high density piece of
property. Jo Ann, I don't know what we should do. In terms of what we're
being asked to do tonight, the developer wants to proceed and the attorneys
have made some statements obviously. We don't have enough information to
react to some of these issues that we've being asked to react to tonight.
What would your recommendation be? Should we react to the preliminary plat
or would it be smart to table this at this time for more discussion in
terms of what density is or should we try to get this to City Council?
Olsen: The plans that were submitted, I don't think there's enough
information with the other items that have come up. I think it should be
tabled. I don't think that a decision can be made tonight.
Conrad: Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to table the preliminay plat, the site
plan review and the wetland alteration permit on the Cenvesco, Oakview
Heights project. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
-
Conrad: The item is tabled. Jo Ann, what kind of time frame?
Olsen: I'll try to get it back on the next agenda on the 16th.
Conrad: Thank you for coming those of you that were interested in this
project.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO REPLACE 114 MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED
UNITS WITH 45 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND TH 101, LUNDGREN BROS.
CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name
-
Jim Meyer
W. Pat Cunningham
Sharon Graef
Gordy and Patsy Whiteman
David and Holly Broden
Gary and Peg Schelitzche
Dean Wetzel
Don Peterson
Mike Pflaum
Peter pflaum
Rick Sathre
Address
6225 Ridge Road
865 Pleasant View Road
855 Pleasant View Road
825 pleasant View Road
640 Pleasant View Road
680 Pleasant View Road
6260 Ridge Road
995 plesant View Road
Lundgren Bros. Cosntruction
Lundgren Bros. Construction
Engineer for Lundgren Bros Construction
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 9
.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order.
Conrad: Jo Ann, were you around during many of the changes to the PUD?
Olsen: I was around in the first one in 1985 when it was reducing some of
the smaller single family. It wasn't with the quad units.
Conrad: Applying the current PUD ordinance where the City gets something
and the developer gets something, in this particular project in the very
beginning, what did the City get and what did the developer get?
Olsen: I think back then a PUD was required when you had more than 40
acres or 20 acres. I can't' remember but again, parkland wasn't required.
It wasn't given. They did provide different housing units. They did have
smaller lots. They had larger lots. Single family and then they also had
the quad units and then the condos. So they didn't necessarily have to
give more. It was a PUD because it was required to be a PUD and also
because it had the mixed housing.
Conrad: It was absolute. Anything over a certain size had to come in as a
PUD but if we applied today's standards to it, what would we have. You're
saying it wouldn't be yet we did get mixed housing styles and we did get
mixed lot sizes and some very big lot sizes.
-
Olsen: Yes. The original PUD as it was approved, even then that might not
have been approved unless they had given some parkland more than what was
but as the amendments have been all to have it proposed as all single
family with some smaller single family lots today, that would not be
approved without dedication of some open space.
Batzli: Jo Ann, could you point again to where the wetland is.
Olsen: This is all wetland adjacent to Silver Lake. Then also this is
wetland.
Batzli: Okay. So Oultot D is that area that you just, the wetland up
there?
Olsen: Yes.
Conrad: Okay. Rick, do you have something prepared to show us on this?
Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. Mike Pflaum who will
start out.
e
Mike pflaum: I'll ramble a little while and when you get tired of me, ask
me to sit down... One of the things that I think we should do is, just as
kind of a little bit of an overview. This PUD has been amended 4 times. I
guess 3 times. This would be the fourth amendment. The most recent one
was in 1985 and...in 1985 about it-not being a PUD because of the changes
we were making to it. I understanding from reading your ordinance that
-
e
e
-
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 10
things have changed somewhat. One of the things that I hope to do with the
slide presentation is to show you that perhaps this is not entirely a model
PUD under ordinance. It is classic in many other respects. Overall, it's
over 300 acres. It straddles two communities. It was planned at one time.
Went through review at one time. Chanhassen, currently there are 153 acres
in the PUD and the remainder's in Shorewood. We've almost completed
development in Shorewood. At the time that we came in with the project as
a concept, which was the period of 1978-79, there was virtually no
development in this portion of Chanhassen. There was no development in the
adjoining portion of Shorewood and there was no development in the
adjoining portion of Eden prairie. We did what, for better or worse, most
developers will do and that is we tried to design the project with an eye
towards flexibility for the future. That flexibility is translated as
incorporating as much density as would be allowed in both cities. Right or
wrong, the fact that in an older development you never go back to the City
and ask for more density because you never get more density. You give it
up if conditions indicate it was unnecessary. This particular situation,
some of the neighbors who have been involved for 10 years are here tonight
and would probably just as soon we finished the project so they could do
something else with their Monday nights. They will recall but we did quite
a selling job on them to put condominiums on the mountain. The City wasn't
initially all that enthusiastic about the condominiums on the mountain
either but we argued persuasively that putting condominiums on the mountain
would be a means of preserving the maximum amount of the mountain left to
exist. We also knew that by putting density on top of the mountain, we had
built in excellent buffering. ...buffering for example horizontally.
Place the units far enough away from the single family housing surrounding
it so it should be relatively innocuous. At the concept stage we didn't do
a great deal of precise engineering type of design layout and we found
since then in trying to be objective, from the standpoint of preservation
that what the condominiums will do versus single family. We can't call it
a wash. We don't really know. If it affects the mountain in different
ways and it certainly affects people surrounding in different ways. But
today the area surrounding the mountain is more developed and it's
developed in single family homes. We feel that single family use of that
portion of the site is more appropriate. We met with...the Near Mountain
Homeowners, by the people who preceeded the Near Mountain Homeowners on
Pleasant View Road and Ridge Road and the surrounding area. We feel that
the condominium type development on that mountain is perhaps doomed to
failure. At least in the foreseeable future. It's not the kind of site
that lends itself well to that type of development. It's too far from
shops and services, recreational facilities. Typical condominiums
approaches. I don't want to ramble too much on this. Just kind of giving
you a little bit of an overview of the process and what we did. Throughout
the intermediate years, it wasn't until 1983 that the market permitted us
to start developing anything on Near Mountain. The first thing we did was
revise our development plan to eliminate the quadominiums and replace them
with what was going to be the product at that time and was zero lot line
type of small lot, single family home which was extremely successful. At
that time we were coming out of a housing depression and it was a market.
Sizeable market. Eager homeowners who wanted for a few extra dollars to
own land and free standing single family homes. Could we lower the lights
for contrast here? It's going to be kind of quick tour through the Near
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 11
Mountain project. It will not only show the Chanhassen portion but also
the Shorewood portion. This is from the entrance. Most of you are
familiar with the island... Down the road is the tip of the fountain with
the fountain spray. One of the things that was extremely important to us
in designing the project was distance. We were not staging spacing
allocated to provide long views. Details. One of the other things that we
prided ourselves on with this project is creating an identity and sticking
to it. Street signs have, they're custom made. They have a logo for the
project on everyone. This is again the logo. Here's one of the vistas I
was talking about. We hear a lot about open space and the absence of it.
The ponds on this site were not required by anybody. We constructed the
ponds out of depressions in the fields to provide an amenity to the homes
and open vistas. Another view of the same pond. That's an example of the
initial single family housing type that we constructed over by TH 101 in
the Near Mountain subdivision. That lot is approximately 8,000 square feet
which wouldn't fly in today's city. It has side yards of 5 and 10 feet.
That house is probably about 950-1,000 square feet in size. That's
probably the smallest that's on the site. Here's some more detail. This
is looking back towards the east from the central fountain at the rear of
the homes that evolved out of that first modest one. That was the country
home product line. Much the evolution in lot size and changes in the
planned to amend were to provide lots that could accommodate the...
product. The product presently is about 22,000-23,000 square feet. It
varies considerably if you buy a custom house. This is one of the larger
ones built in one of the later additions. We've had ten subdivisions in
Near Mountain. This is Mountain Way is the name of the street heading
towards the woods to the west. It's demonstrative of the ugulating curving
streets that are kind of a hallmark of this subdivision. We've never been
really strong on linearity. We like interesting configurations. We like
open space. This is the second fountain. Also in the fountain it shows
the back of some more of the country homes in even a later stage of
evolution. This home is a national award winning Better Homes and Gardens
design. Near Mountain was selected and Lundgren Bros. was selected as the
site and appeared in a national publication. One of the later examples.
Here's our repetition of the theme. This particular entrance is on Vine
Hill Road in Shorewood. It's at the opposite end of Near Mountain Blvd.
from the Pleasant View entrance. We're in Trapper's Pass now. Again, you
see the distance, the streets, the rolling approach and developing with the
land. These are some of the more expensive homes in Trapper's Pass. One
of the things that we put in these photos for was to show you exactly the
homes that will be built in trees.
Emmings: Would these be the kind of homes you're thinking, what we're
seeing now?
Mike Pflaum: Yes. It'd be this price range and up. We did not build all
the homes that are in these photos. This is the Sweetwater entrance off of
Covington Road. A closer one with detail and again the repetition of the
logo with attention to point of arrival. This is a pond. There's a
fountain. That's one is kind of awkward. Again, open space. We're
looking south here to the McKinney Place Additions in Shorewood. The
McKinney Place Additions are the next evolution of the country after what
we built in Chanhassen. There's a vista. This is in Sweetwater. Off in
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 12
the distance you'll be looking at Silver Lake. Again open space. This is
in Sweetwater. The back yard. Another fountain. I did not have film to
shoot all the fountains. These homes are slightly more expensive than the
average in Trapper's Pass. Most of the early additions in Sweetwater was
open but soon we will get into the trees. This is our second addition.
This is Sweetwater 3rd Addition. An example of an entire house in and
amongst the trees. That's the mountain and I wanted the Commission to have
an opportunity to kind of get a sense of what others will see. That shot
is taken at the end of Fox Path in Fox Chase subdivision. We're standing
on the main floor of a house under construction. ...What it does show is
even shooting over the roofs of big houses, the top of the mountain here is
very clearly apparent and visible from this location. This is the south
end of Lotus Lake and that bulge in the middle of the picture in the
horizon is Near Mountain. It's kind of an establishing shot taken from
South Lotus Farm. Again, this one is from TH 101 at Duck Lake Trail. What
we're trying to establish here is that what it does to the mountain... We
feel would be better served by having those tucked into the sides of it
rather than a structure on the top. That takes care of the slide show. As
is usually our procedure, we met with the surrounding homeowners April 12th
in this case. We wanted to gather feedback on what we're proposing and
their suggestions. Following that meeting, in response to some of the
questions that they had raised, Rick Sathre and Peter... Just to quickly
point out the features. Some of the questions that were raised were
questions that pertain to buffering, runoff from the mountain, what we were
going to build... 45 lots. Average lot size is approximately 34,000
square feet. Three-quarters of an acre. Minimum lot width at building
setback 115 feet. We're matching grade on the downslope side... Chief
features, the sides of the linear layout. The cul-de-sac are some outlots.
This area, this yellow area is a buffer...trail would rise up to the upper
portion of Trapper's Pass and this trail would follow the street to the
other outlot... One of the neighbors...requested that we look into the
matter of buffering these homes. His deck is close to the property line so
we had expanded the width of the trail outlot which brought in an
opportunity to landscaping to try to shield... Likewise, this outlot here,
that is in response to ancient directive from the City Council. This is a
cul-de-sac. From this point on, it's looped as a cul-de-sac and the
concern has always been that in time of emergency if there was a castrophe
closing the cul-de-sac, how do you get an ambulance up or fire equipment up
or whatever is needed. Really from the beginning of the project, we had
included some sort of a provision for emergency access. Street access.
One of the recommended conditions of approval is that there be street
access proposed...for no other reason than the historical context of the
City of Chanhassen has always in the past recognized that such an
additional connection would be an encouragement, an inducement for people
to attend Near Mountain who had destinations in the vicinity or direction
of Excelsior. To bring it out to this end of the site onto Pleasant View
Road and Pleasant View Road being what it is, it was never considered to be
a very good idea...so we did show the opportunity for a break away access
or a locked gate access for somebody to get up in an emergency situation
but we don't contemplate a street at that point. We also show a very thin
strip right down here which is an outlot. It's created at the request of a
neighboring landowner. I think there are two landowners who can get access
or who would like to get access off Iroquois...so they requested if we
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 13
e
could, in the process of platting, perhaps provide them with 10 extra feet.
That doesn't seem like too much to do. This a basic overview of our
proposal. At this point, I think I might let Rick take over. We'd like to
discuss some of the recommendations. I don't know if this is the
appropriate time to do it but Rick can address the engineering questions
that are bound to come up. I certainly can't answer them.
e
Rick Sathre: Thank you. From the pictures that Mike took, the whole
mountian is now returning to trees. It's been, parts of it had been
cleared in the past. Part of the tree mass is much more mature than other
parts. Basically this part of the site right now, the part that's green on
there, is the more mature tree growth. The periphery of this site is
getting more dense every year but those trees aren't as tall yet. That
graphic shows the major trees now and this transparency shows the
difference if the condos get built. The only reason I show it is because I
want to show you want the single family neighborhood does. You saw the
other views of how the houses get tucked into the trees. This is a single
family product. It allows us to just cut in the streets using retaining
walls and then tuck the houses into the trees. Try to pick out which are
the best trees on the lot and then work around as many as we can. The
concept here is to not mass grade the site. The concept is to go in there
and take down the trees that we need to for road and utility construction
and to preserve the rest and take the trees on a lot by lot basis as
necessary for the house. We're not proposing to go in and mass grade in
that mature forest and building pads. There will be extra block used on
the houses that were built to accommodate grade difficulties. The staff
report talks about access up to the mountain top. Every since the very
first version of the plan, the road leading up to the mountain top has been
in the same location. The reason that was chosen, that location was chosen
was because that was the best shallow slope, flat slope approach to the
mountain top. We have proposed that the street going up the mountain would
be a 10% slope. In other words, for every 100 feet of road that you
traveled, you'd rise 10 feet. The City normally likes to keep those tree
slopes flatter than that. 6% or 7% is much preferred. We need a variance
as a part of this process to accommodate that steeper slope. This
transparency shows the part of the site that we would need that variance
for. To the right side is Trapper's Pass. We're at the east edge of the
mountain itself right here. We've propose to run a steep street grade up
through this segment and also going to the north. North is up. The
engineering staff asked us to show you what affect there would be if we
didn't use the 10% street slope but rather a 7%. This is a hard to
understand graphic showing what the difference in excavation depth would be
if we went back to 7%. The top line, the dashed one is the representation
of the ground line over 700 foot length from the bottom of the mountain up
to the top. The 10% slope allows us to get up on top faster and to
minimize clearing. 7% grade results in 7 feet of extra cut depth and 12
feet at that point so we can get up there... This other graphic showed 3
places where we, Section A, Band C where we took a cross section to help
you understand the difference in the approach to building the road in 7%
versus 10% grade. Again, this is the ground line at Section AA. The
street right-of-way would be from here to here. The center of the road in
the middle of the graphic. with our 10% street grade, we still at this
spot, we're in need of building boulder retaining walls along the edges of
e
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 14
the road. We're building about an 8 foot high wall to get that road
confined in a narrow band of trees. If we used the 7% grade at this spot,
we'd end up having to lower the road about 10 feet. Have to go to a two
tiered wall and our clearing limits would be 15 and 9 feet wide or even
with that increased height of wall. That Section BB, which was where we
got out of the cut on the 10% slope. The street would be up to grade at
that point. We would still be cutting 11 feet with the 7% street slope.
Then on our street going to the north, we'd have about 14 feet of cut that
we don't have if we can use 10%. The rationale for the variance is this is
the best way to get up the mountain and if we don't use that steep street
grade, that 10% which isn't steep on a national level. It's always
desirable to be less steep but the reason that we want the variance is
because of the hardship the land has to endure if we don't go to that
street slope. We end up with more tree loss and more excavation. Maybe a
great dramatic road but more disruption. In the report the staff talks
about the need for a wetland alteration permit because we're doing a couple
of things. One of them is we're on top of the mountain and everything
around it is lower so the water runs off the mountain. We're proposing to
install a storm sewer system up in the street system up in the mountain and
pipe the water down to the wetland that lies just east of Silver Lake. The
reason we need the wetland alteration permit is we're taking water from the
mountain top and we're piping it down to the wetland that Jo Ann referred
to that's upland of Silver Lake. The engineering department or staff is
worried that we would discharge sediment laden water into that wetland
which we don't want to do either. We would work out the details with them.
We would like to try to trap the sediment in the storm sewer manholes up on
top of the mountain rather than build a pond down at the base of the slope
in the trees or in the wetland. That's our proposal. To build sumps and
catch basins to handle that problem. Just a couple more things. Mike
talked about the street access to Iroquois. One of the concerns addressed
in the report, I'll spend a minute on it. Is there adequate water pressure
at the top of the mountain to serve the domestic needs and also the fire
codes. I guess this would be the highest point in the City east of where
the new water tank or tower got built. The red line is the limit of the
mountain or the limit of this area we're trying to amend. Down in
Trapper's Pass, there's hydrants down there that the City recently checked
water pressure and around the perimeter of the site we've got, down in the
lower elevations we've got about 80-85 pounds per square inch of pressure.
At the end of Iroquois, about 52 pounds per square inch. Up at the highest
point on the mountain after development and after the system was built,
there'd be about 41 pounds per square inch. There would be adequate fire
flow, 1,500 gallons per minute flows at 27 pounds per square inch of
pressure. The system that's in place around the site is adequate. The
pipe sizing is adequate to serve domestic and fire flow needs even on top
of the mountain. I guess that's the end of the engineering related issues.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you've got. Mike, is there
anything else?
Mike pflaum: I wanted to comment on what was added as conditions of us for
recommendation for approval by the Parks Commission. The Parks Commission
recommended acquisition of land in the area of Lots 8 and 9 for
neighborhood park use. I guess it comes as no great surprise to the
Planning Commission that we're not delighted with that idea. The two lots
e
-
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 15
in question, forget the building sites. I reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
and the City Code and various different things that relate to parks in the
City of Chanhassen and as near as I can tell, I won't argue the point of
whether it might not be nice because it's a nice area. The question I
guess in my mind is is it necessary? Lotus Lake Park is 23 acres. I
calculated just roughly this afternoon a conservative estimate of the
population within a half mile of Lotus Lake Park would be and that
population is considerably less, they're talking about pre-development. I'm
talking post development population is considerably less than what that
park is sized to accommodate so the question becomes one of is it
necessary. If it is a luxury, a luxury at the expense of the taxpayer
because that's taken off the tax rolls. That's something for the Planning
Commission and the City Council to address. I'm unable and the
Comprehensive Plan was no help either in terms of... The Comprehensive
Plan, in Zone 1 as this is in Zone 1, has got a surplus of neighborhood
parks well into the year 2000 plus so that is a question in my mind at
least. The necessity for it. Now having said that, I've got some very
strong feelings about what kind of recommendation the Planning Commission
should make if the Planning Commission ignores what I've said or evaluates
what I've said and disagrees with me. I think that particular area should
be designated absolutely as a passive use area with no development.
Wildlife area with perhaps a trail through it. No improvement for active
recreational facilities. No improvement for any kind of a launching
facility for Silver Lake. Just let it be as it is area. That's all I'll
say about the park question. The other question I was going to raise is
one that would come as no surprise to the Planning Commission. That
is, I don't really see the need or benefit of constructing a concrete
sidewalk around the top of the mountain. There are no sidewalks in Near
Mountain in the project anywhere. This sidewalk would go no place. It
would be a loop and it would be a loop on a non-thru ~treet which isn't
even suggested by the Comprehensive Plan. I think it's needless. That
pretty much concludes everything that I have on my list but before I give
up the floor because I know you may not let me have it back, Peter is there
anything that you'd like to add to this? Thank you for your patience. If
you've got any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
Conrad: Thanks Michael. Okay, it's a public hearing and a few of you are
here so if anybody has some comments on what you've seen tonight or things
that you think we should know, I'd sure appreciate your advice.
John Servanis: My name is John Servenis and we're in the process of moving
into 570 Pleasant View Road. We should be there by Saturday to move in. I
want to commend the Lundgren Bros on their concern for the neighbors and I
wonder Rick if you would show the southeast outlot again please. I have
just one request.
Batzli: Outlot D? The small one?
Rick Sathre: D is the little driveway outlot?
John Servanis: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 16
e
Rick Sathre: I've got a graphic that blows that up a little. I guess I
have that up here.
John Servanis: We are one of the two residents who wanted that extra space
there. We live or our property on" Pleasant View Road in such a way that
it's rather dangerous for us to get into the garage and we would like to
shift our primary access to the north and come in from that direction. If
we accept the plan as it is, it still makes it a little bit difficult for
us to turn. We would like, if I can just read here a moment. If there's
no objection, we would like this piece extended to here so that when we
come around this way or this way, we have just a little bit more room so
this line, they extend it up to here. So if the plan is accepted, this is
our request. Thank you.
e
Dave Broden: My name is Dave Broden and I live at 640 Pleasant View Road.
I own the lot that's between the proposed development and Lotus Lake
itself. I've been there about 4 years, 4-5 years now and I got to watch,
I'm glad you showed the slides of the development that you just did and
it's a very nice development but there's important differences between what
we're talking about today and those developments. That development, phase
1 if you will, I've heard it that way, was a corn field. It's a flat corn
field. It's got very few trees and it was nice to have open land and ponds
built inbetween and all that sort of thing. What we're talking about here
is one of the steepest hills in Chanhassen and one of the most heavily
wooded areas. We have a few of those and this is one of those. It's a
much different situation. I do not believe that single family homes allow
all the trees to stay magically. I'm not sure how that works. It's
interesting, that street that they showed from the phase 1, walking down
that the other day, I got to see several of the homeowners clearing the
trees from the back and front that had been left. What we need in place I
think, if we're going to allow this kind of development, is control that
those trees stay. First with the developer and what he does and some
control that they stay afterwards in some reasonable fashion. If that's
possible. I guess my concern, they talked about vistas and such and I
think it's real important that we control that cutting so that views don't
becomes more important than trees. It's very easy for that to happen in a
development like this. A little comment about the park area on Lots 8 and
9. If you look at 8 and 9, they are almost unbuildable. The grade below
the road borders on 20 feet plus. I don't think that's the prime building
lots that you're looking at that was implied. I guess what I'm saying, all
said and done is that we need to enforce buffer zones...when we talk about
this kind of development, that none of us are qualified to do for it. I
have concerns for it. Thank you.
e
Alan Wilcott: My name is Alan Wilcott. I live at 6270 Ridge Road.
I guess my questions would be more centered to staff as opposed to you
directly. Like I say, I have in echo to the gentleman who just spoke
saying concerns. I have a question in regards to the environmental impacts
relative to the existing site and the proposed plans. I have a concern and
a regard not only for my own residence but for the nature of the community
in the sense of what I do in my profession and other things. I think.
I have an idea that might transcend, there could be possibly some sort of
compromise. Not having had the opportunity to delve into the planning,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 17
e
let's say the staff report aspect of it. Not having had read that, the
engineering on the site and holding a great regard for that, the percent
slope value and the variance the gentleman talked about, I have great
concern about those impacts. Relative to those, I would like to see the
City come forth with a verification of the DNR aspects of the ponding. The
sedimentation and this sort of thing and not having seen that, I can't
comment to that directly this evening. Maybe that has been done and I
apologize if it has. I've not seen it but I think there's some pretty bold
issues that have been raised here tonight and I would put that to you
inasmuch as you will be making a decision on this and I'd like further
information myself as a property owner, an adjacent property owner, to see
more information.
Conrad: I think something you could do to just start off is just get the
staff report and go in and talk to Jo Ann tomorrow.
Alan Wilcott: I talked to her just a moment ago.
Conrad: And that's good.
Alan Wilcott: I want those issues known to me and I have not received
them. I'm at neglect for that.
e
Jim Meyer: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Michael and Peter
Pflaum and his associates have always been very straight forward and I've
lived next to this development as they mentioned when they started and I've
been there for 15 years. My name is Jim Meyer and I live on 6225 Ridge
Road. Just a couple things. I was at the meeting in April. We were right
here. As I recall at that time and perhaps Michael or Peter can address
this, I thought that for example the Western Hills side, that we've all
talked about preserving the trees and I agree 100%, am I correct, maybe one
of you can answer this, wasn't there or is there something that would be in
the deed that the trees have to be preserved? Is that correct or
incorrect? I thought that was discussed at that meeting in April.
Mike Pflaum: I think what you're saying is correct. We talked about that
buffer zone and there's something else. This was interjected by the City
and the City recommended a conservation easement over the lower elevations.
The lower half of the slope would have no cuts in 3 through 9 which is on
the northwest side...natural, untouched zone along the southwest side.
-
Jim Meyer: As I recall, can you say that people are going to buy a lot,
they really want to preserve the trees or do they want to cut it down and
get the view and if we say, is there a mechanism where in actuality they
can buy a lot but cannot cut the trees and I don't know how you do that and
I think that's what was discussed and I don't know how the Planning
Commission addresses that. The second thing is Lots 8 and 9 are right down
adjacent to my property in essence and they are low as the gentleman
presented. I can understand the developer's thing. I would point out as
you're always going to hear at one of these meetings since I've lived there
for 15 years and I have a deer feed and all that sort of thing, that is of
course right where the wildlife goes through. I would request that if that
is a city park type of thing, that it would be passive. I think it'd be a
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 18
e
great natural conservatory thing for the cross country skier and so on.
Outside of that, I must say that dealing with the Lundgren Bros. and
Michael and Peter over the years have always come to the neighbors first.
At the same time I recognize their responsibilities as a developer. I hope
that we can do something to reach a compromise on (a) preserving the trees,
as he mentioned, and (b) I think those two lots which are well below grade
would make a nice natural conservatory. Thanks.
e
Holly Broden: My name is Holly Broden and I live at 640 Pleasant View
Road. I just kind of want to read a letter that I wrote to the
City Planner about 3 weeks ago concerning some of the stuff and it
reiterates everything that everybody is saying here. It says, I have
reviewed the plans submitted to the City and have great concerns about
developing Lots 9 and 8 on the Silver Lake side. Not only will developing
those lots put severe pressure on the water fowl and other wildlife in the
area but the slope and the buildability of the lots really comes into
question. I said does anyone from the Planning Commission plan on visiting
the site before the meeting? I think this would prove to be very
beneficial. I feel those lots specifically should be set aside as a
natural area and should not be included in the buildable lots in the plan.
I also would like some information on the how the City of Chanhassen plans
to enforce or currently enforces covenant and restrictions concerning
natural buffers and clear cutting. I feel the City of Chanhassen is not
looking into their developments from an overall effect on the environment,
water supply, lot density, natural wildlife and mature trees. Shouldn't
the City have a vested interest with the residents on preserving the
quality of life in Chanhassen? What I'm trying to say is we can do
something really great here with this development or we can just put a
bunch of houses in. I don't want to see that. Also, on the buffer zone.
They did come out and meet with us and they did put a 20 foot buffer zone
in there but again, if the people that buy the land decide to come and
clear cut it, we don't have anything to say that they can't do that so
that's all. Thanks.
Peg Schelitzche: My name is Peg Schelitzche. I live at 680 Pleasant View
Road. We're located at Lot 1, Block 1 next to where they want to put the
adjoining trail. As they said, I also agree that Lots 8 and 9 would be
wonderful to keep as natural as is but our concern is that if when they
came through and told us about the trail, on their original plat it showed
that the trail is going to go right adjacent to our property and we would
like to, if they are going to put the trail, to make sure that it is set
back so that over our deck and stuff we're not looking at people going on
their skis or their bikes or anything going along next to us. So we'd
appreciate if they do put the trail, that they do go in farther. Thank
you.
Conrad: Other comments?
-
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: For comments from the Planning Commission. Tim, we'll start with
you.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 19
e
Erhart: Why aren't we putting Iroquois street through on your plan?
Rick Sathre: Ever since the late 70's when the PUD first started in
review, the neighbors on Pleasant View recognized, and the Council did too,
that the road wasn't really built to the super highway standards and
everybody was interested in discouraging traffic on Pleasant View that
would head, as Mike said, towards Excelsior. Iroquois on the approved
condominium plan dead ends into the side of the mountain and we've shown
all these years an emergency access. A trail connection and maybe a place
for a fire truck to drive through but limited access kind of connection.
We're still proposing that. We don't want to encourage traffic to leave
the Near Mountain project via Iroquois. It's a very steep street. It's
substandard and if the people that use that entrance would use Pleasant
View Road. It's a steep grade. I would guess it's well over 10%.
Erhart: You're saying the existing street east of this development is?
Rick Sathre: Yes.
Erhart:
In this area here?
e
Rick Sathre: Yes. It's very substandard and we've tried to develop our
own fully functional road system that would adequate serve the develop
without the need for that road. In fact the action that we're seeking
tonight to reduce the density from 114 condominiums to 45 single family
lots would greatly reduce the traffic. The access to the mountain was
deemed adequate in the past and reducing the traffic burden to and from the
mountain which seemed to be an enhancement to the roadway system that we
already built.
Erhart: Then Trapline Lane, if that was a second access, that's just too
steep in that area isn't it?
Rick Sathre: We chose the best grade, the flatest slope to locate the road
on. That east face of the mountain. The north face and the west face down
towards Pleasant View are all much steeper than the southeast.
Erhart: Iroquois was not part of that? That street was not part of the
Near Mountain subdivision at all?
Rick Sathre: No. That's a real old subdivision and a very old street.
Erhart: Right not it just ends?
Rick Sathre: It ends with no turn around.
Erhart: No turn around?
Rick Sathre: Yes, that's right.
e
Erhart: I realize we're probably asking, maybe out of line to put a burden
of putting a cul-de-sac on, I mean not you people but is an appropriate
time that we're going to make the final decision not to extend that street,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 20
e
this is p~obably the time to get a tu~n a~ound in the~e. Pe~haps also help
you~ situation out the~e. Maybe it's something you can wo~k with the City
in getting that accomplished at this time. Get it finished off. I don't
think we like to leave st~eets just dead end nowhe~e, pa~ticula~ly when we
a~e deciding in finality on this subdivision that that is going to be the
end of a st~eet so I'll just add that as p~obably an idea that some of the
othe~ members can play around with here. Can you give me a little bit more
comfort on this 10% slope. Rick you mentioned that, you felt that 10% was
not out of line in other developments around the country and that's mo~e or
less a desire on the part of Chanhassen. Are you saying in areas where
there's steep, traditionally steep, urban areas where the~e are steeper
slopes, 10% is common? What's the maximum that you'd ever see in an u~ban
area?
Rick Sathre: In my engineering ca~eer, which I've been engineering 20
years now, the steepest street, u~ban street or suburban st~eet that I've
had a part of building is 12%. 6% and 7%, 8% is typical for a City's
o~dinance but if you read the national publications and things that
transportation engineers around the country consider to be in their
publications, they would consider 10% to be a very acceptable slope. There
are many streets in Chanhassen that a~e steepe~ than that now but we think
it's reasonable but it is not in keeping with your desirable standard.
Erhart: That would require Jo Ann, a variance to do that?
e Olsen: Typically we've, in the past we've always approved that as part of
the subdivision approval.
Erhart: Not required a variance?
Olsen: It's always been having to be proven that it would be too damaging
to go with the lower percentage.
Erha~t: But we have commonly approved 10% when the situation wa~rants it?
Olsen: Right and that's been a few times that that's ever happened.
Erhart: We obviously don't want to have to go in there and tea~ into that
wooded a~ea mo~e than we have to so if 10%, if the City is p~epa~ed to deal
with 10%, I guess I'd favo~ we go along with that p~oposal. That makes
sense. The tree band that's shown on you~ plan the~e, it's essentially in
the ~ea~ lot line of the second tie~ of lots o~ of Block 3. That's a 20
foot section whe~e nobody can tampe~ with the existing vegetation. Is that
what that is?
e
Rick Sathre: Yes. We had the neighborhood meeting and the neighbors we~e
conce~ned about what if those new ~esidents went in the~e and clea~ cut.
Then it was mentioned, Peter Pflaum and I went out and met individually
with a lot of the neighbors who were home and it was a common theme that
they wanted some sort of a preserve area. A no cut zone between their
homes and the new proposed ones. I believe the way it would be structured
would be in the form of a covenant or conservation easement that would be
placed by Lundgren Bros. on those lots so those people were put on notice
Planning Commission Meeting
August
, 1989 - Page 21
e
that that was a no touch area.
Erhart: Why would anybody clear cut their lot? Would you expect someone
up there would clear cut their lot?
Resident: They do it.
Batzli: Mr. T did it.
Erhart: I know Mr. T did it.
Olsen: With other subdivisions such as Shadowmere, there they have lake
view but they do go in and clear it.
Emmings: Now developers do or the lot owners?
Olsen: with that one we had control over the developer to not do it but
once they were released from the development contract, then they did still
clear cut.
Erhart: The developer?
Olsen: The home owner. That's where we a lot of time lose contact or lose
control.
4It Erhart: I guess I like the idea. I think it's a real novel solution to
the problem. Why did you pick 20 feet? Why not l0? Why not 30?
Rick Sathre: I think it just was a reasonable distance that we all arrived
at.
Erhart: You know the real challenge in this hill is to, excuse me
mountain, I don't want to insult the neighborhood, is from a distance. How
to put home on there. How to develop the property without changing the
appearance from half a mile away. The thought, that concept also lends
itself to preserving the view from a ways away, those parallel rows of
trees. Even if somebody goes in and does some clear cutting. My thought
is, it's such a good idea that you might consider applying that to all the
rear lots and then really you're looking at 2, the lot lines in Block 5
between, the whole thing is intrusive...but you may also want to apply it
to these rear lots to try to preserve that view. You see what I mean.
Perhaps extend the concept a little bit further in the whole development.
putting some lines that are essentially horizontal with the perimeter of
the hill insuring that you don't get, just trying to maintain I guess that
visual view from half a mile away. Again, I find it hard to believe
somebody would clear cut but given you have 40 some lots, I suppose a few
of those people will do it so.
e
Rick Sathre: Let me tell you what the plan elements are that helped to do
that. We talked about the 20 foot strip here. If you look at the design
of the subdivision, this is the highest point on the mountain up here.
This street as it gets to this portion of the site right in here, these
lots are double frontage. You have street on both sides. Because of the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 22
e
slope here we've chosen to put a retaining wall on the mountain side of
that street so there would only be homes on the one SIde. Then there would
be a big step up with a wall and trees above it before you get to these
home so we get that banding that you're talking about with trees, a road,
trees, homes and the street even without what you're talking about. We
wanted very much to preserve the character. Selfishly it's better for the
developer if we save the trees. We've been working in the trees in both
Shorewood and Chanhassen for the last couple of years. We're into
Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition and parts of the first two additions and the
third addition in Chanhassen were in the woods. I think if you look
closely at the slides or if you drive through there, you'll note that
there's been greater attention to preservation. In Shorewood the same
thing is true. Once we got through the farmland and into the trees, we
tried to match the street grades to the terrain as best we could and
Lundgren Bros. and the other builders have done a magnificent job I think
of working with the site. We can do that here. This would be, I hope this
would be the finest neighborhood in Chanhassen. I hope I don't offend
anybody by saying that but I think it has every chance to be. It's a great
piece of land and what Lundgren Bros. are proposing would be fantastic
there.
e
Erhart: I'm just suggesting it. You might consider taking a good idea and
extending it a little bit. It's no expense to the developer and given that
we're already doing these easements, it's probably really no more headache
for the City so I'll just again, leave that up to the rest of the
commission if they want to pick it up. I'd also encourage the use of, it
really has nothing to do with us but natural colors and cedar shingles on
these homes. Again, trying to make this without losing the view that you
get. I'm sure your professional judgment, you've probably thought about
that. Going back to this, how are you planning on getting, on this
Iroquois thing again. Are you actually planning on opening that Outlot C
up so you can get an emergency vehicle through there or grass strip or what
is the plan on that?
Rick Sathre: We haven't drawn anything in there but there's Outlot C.
Iroquois comes up and it just stops and there is a driveway here right now.
The homes on this side of the road set way back. The ones on this side are
closer. We angled the outlot first of all away from the straightness of
Iroquois so that we can protect the views back and protect the trees and
not have a straight view. What we've talked about is a passive kind of
trail that would have to serve the emergency vehicle needs but something
that's relatively narrow with some sort of a barrier. We don't want
motorcycles to go through there either. Something that's maybe 8 feet wide
would be adequate. I don't like asphalt. Maybe we could get by with
something other than asphalt. That's been the thought but to try to
develop a trail for it would also serve as...
Erhart: But finishing that, you consider that part of the development? I
guess it goes along with Outlot A or is Park and Rec going to do that? Or
is that not defined yet? Who's actually going to go in and put the trail
in?
e
Olsen: That would be part of the development.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 23
e
Erhart: It would? So you actually have to do some work in there anyway.
Again, it think it would be an appropriate time to finish that street end
off of it.
Olsen: If it's going to be accepted as, at the very least as an emergency
access, it has to have all weather.. It can't just be gr.ass. It has to
have something that can be maintained and be cleared at all times for
emergency vehicles.
Erhart: It could be rock.
Olsen: It's all weather surface is what the fire department. I think it
could be rock if it could be guaranteed that that will be passable at all
times and remain clear.
Rick Sathre: One little point. When you get to this magic line here where
the old neighborhood stops and the new neighborhood will start, the trees
are growing up again. To stick a bubble in the cul-de-sac into this
property would be kind of a shame. There's plenty of space on this side of
the road in a wide open area. The house is back 100 feet or something off
the road. If the need is there for a turn around, there's open space to
put it in.
-
Erhart: I just asked that staff and you work together on that. I think it
would be nice to finish that. Lastly, well not lastly. I'm I guess a
little suspicious of use of traps instead of a sediment pond I guess. I
think they always have a tendency to work okay for a few years. Again, not
being an engineer, a civil engineer...
Hemphill: Excuse me. If I could make one comment to that. I think part
of the Watershed approval, they would demand the sediment pond versus some
sort of catch basin.
Erhart: Another thing is, on the Park recommendation. I'm very much in
favor of the use of Lots 8 and 9 as a passive park and would suggest that
we would change, even go as far as to change the condition to read passive
park but I just simple do not understand why we would put a sidewalk in
here. I suggest that we talk that up a little bit and my recommendation is
that we strike that from our conditions. I just don't see why we would do
it. I think the people buying these lots would be opposed to it. In fact,
some other developments going on right now where we did end up putting
these kinds of sidewalks in the plan, the citizens are coming back again
and ask the City to take it out of the plan. I think we really ought to
think about that. Number 19 Jo Ann. Can you explain that? Condition 19.
Olsen: What I essentially want is to say that it has shown us, is that the
engineering department wanted some plans to show exactly how wide the
right-of-way and the construction. That's what he showed us.
~ Erhart: Number 5, what's that one?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 24
e
Olsen: That one is the property that's platted right up against it has not
yet been developed and the engineering department is just stating that
development of this outlot cannot take place until the improvements have
been made up to that site.
Erhart: So what you're saying is you want this complete before you do this
one?
Olsen: Well, the road and utilities have to be in place. Right now
there's no road there.
Erhart: Number 5 is clear to you right, the way it's written?
Batzli: It's still not clear to me. Let's see if you can clarify it.
Olsen: That is a prior development that's been platted but it's not been
developed yet. The street does not exist there. What is shown in
Trapper's Pass is not there.
Emmings: Are you saying there should not be development of this site until
the development of Outlot A is completed. Is that what you're saying?
Olsen: I think they can further explain but I think that meant until the
road and utilities are there to access the site.
e Headla: I agree wi th Tim. It certainly isn't very complete. We're
wasting a lot of time trying to figure out what it meant.
Emmings: So you don't want the road and utilities to go into this outlot
until all road and utilities are in Outlot A is what you're saying? If we
said it that way, would it be clearer?
Batzli: Where's Outlot A? That's my confusion.
Rick Sathre: Let me help you a little bit. This is the Chanhassen part of
the Near Mountain PUD. This is the mountain itself, the dark area. This
is the road Trapper's Pass. It leads back and stops right here right now.
Right now under development is what we call Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition
which is, we're building streets over here. There's no linkage right now
between this stub street and that stub street and the mountain itself. I
think what the staff is saying is gee you guys, we want you to understand
that you have to build the sewer and water system from the end of this
street to get to the mountain and build a road there. You can't leave out
a piece.
Olsen: That is Outlot A on the plat.
Emmings: Can you show us Outlot A?
e
Olsen: It's part of Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition.
Batzli: Then it's Outlot A of Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition so we should at
least add that much.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 25
e
Rick Sathre: It was a little ambiguous to me too. I think we knew what
the intent was.
Erhart: I've got one more thing. Procedurally, I know and we've talked
about this before, but we've got in my opinion, just to make these a little
easier for us amateurs to follow these, I think there's a lot of conditions
on there that are really standards and I would submit that 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 16 are not unique to this subdivision and are really city
standards and it would really help me and I think I can speak for the other
commissioners because we've talked about this before with Steve, if these
would be left off, these conditions and simply emphasize that these are
city standards. Now I might be wrong on a couple of them but I believe
most of these are standards. So that's the last of my comments. I'll pass
it onto Steve.
Emmings: Is it necessary to have, I didn't look this up but my
recollection is you've got to have a wetland alteration permit for
development within 200 feet of a wetland. How is that being taken care of?
We don't have it here?
-
Olsen: Because the wetland hasn't been determined yet, well number one,
it's not certain that there's going to be actual development within 200
feet of that wetland. The road is way beyond that. The house pad'S may be
on that also. Number 2, with the storm water that's going to be directed
to it and whether or not there will be a retention pond has not been
determined that will make them have to go through the wetland alteration
permit for that.
Emmings: Okay. So that's something, if you later determine that any of
those things happen, that there will be development within 200 feet of the
wetland, then that will have to come back to us again?
Olsen: You'll have to see it and the ponding area.
Emmings: So we don't have to say anything about that at this point in
time?
Olsen: No. I know they have to come through. If you want to make that a
condition.
e
Emmings: No. I guess as long as everybody's aware of it. First on that
broad question. There's a broad planning question here I guess and that
is, whether this proposed amendment, moving the condominium units is
consistent with the original PUD approval. I guess I come down on that, I
don't think there's any reason to evaluate the proposal that's in front of
us under today's ordinance. I don't think we should do that so I don't
have any problem. What they're proposing to do seems to me to be a
reasonable way to develop this piece of property but I guess I'd like to
say at the same time that any PUD that would be approved under today's
ordinance certainly would not receive that kind of treatment or that kind
of a reaction from me. If this had been approved under today's ordinance,
I think we'd make him stick to it. I don't see any reason to do that here.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 26
e
Number 3 is the conservation easement. That's back by Silver Lake. I
think that's a very good and very important thing. Oh, I've got a question
on 7 and 8 off the cul-de-sac. Summit Circle. Those are double frontage
lots and I just want to make sure, again I didn't look up to see how we
handled double frontage lots but have all of the concerns that we have with
double frontage lots been met in those two?
Olsen: If they are approved, they have to have additional length.
Additional depth for landscaping.
Emmings: They have it? You're satisfied that they're all fine? Alright.
I think maybe number 5 seemed to bother everybody. It bothered me too and
I guess instead of saying the development is premature...
Batzli: Shall not be allowed.
Emmings: Yes, shall not take place is what I wrote down. Development of
this site shall not take place until development of Outlot A of Trapper's
Pass 3rd Addition is complete. Until development of roadways and utilities
is complete. I guess that's what we're really talking about. The
development. On the Outlot C going out to Iroquois, I don't see any reason
to put a street in there. I think that a limited access that would be
appropriate for emergency vehicles would be fine. I don't know though who
would have the responsibility for keeping it clear of snow in the winter
time and stuff like that. Who would do that?
e
Olsen: I think we usually maintain, that the city crews. When it's in a
public like Teton Lane, it's city crews.
Headla: What was that Jo Ann?
Olsen: Usually when it's in a residential subdivision, it's the city crew
that does that unless it's a private street and private drive but this
won't be.
Emmings: Then I'd like to ask the developer, the gentleman in the front
row here asked about that little corner. Could you put up that thing that
shows Outlot D? He's concerned about that little corner piece in there. Is
there some way you can accommodate him in all of this? I would imagine if
that's, whatever that turns out to be, he just doesn't want something that
would impede his turning and so forth and I don't imagine there will be
anything there will there?
Rick Sathre: Right over here now there's a hydrant and there's a mound.
The earth is mounded up and there's trees there. I guess it would bother
me a lot if that was cut down so the driveway could be, I don't know, made
easier. There is a driveway right here now and I guess I'd need to see the
tree lost to make the driveway swing a little easier. I think it's
something we could probably work on to try and make it work somehow but I'd
like not to have to cut those trees down. When you drive up to the end of
Iroquois, it's on the right?
e
John Servanis: No, it's on the left.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 27
e
Emmings: Would you point to where it is.
John Servanis: It's right here.
Emmings: Do you have problems getting in and out of your driveway now?
John Servanis: It's just a bit tight and I felt, maybe it'd be more
comfortable. I think it was only about 15 feet there and it's 15 feet the
other way and I'm just afraid that we'd be driving on property we don't own
and I just felt it would be better just to, as long as they're vacating
Iroquois, to run the vacation from that other, in a northwesterly line
rather than having it the way it is.
Emmings: I guess I wouldn't make it a condition but if there's some way he
can be accommodated, I think that'd be a good thing to do here. On the
variance on the 10% street grade. Can you, I'm sorry to make you shuffle
these things but can you put the plat back up there again and show me
exactly where would be 10%.
Rick Sathre: Okay. Let me use Jo Ann's for a minute. Outlot A of
Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition is this area down here. We're proposing to
start the 10% grade, we've always proposed it but we're continuing to
propose to start that 10% slope down in Outlot A and run it up to about
here.
e
Emmings: How long a distance is that?
Rick Sathre: It's about 700 feet from the flatter grade here to the flat
spot up here.
Ernmings: So there will be 700 feet at 10% and then some going up to the
north also right?
Rick Sathre: Right. It would not quite 700 feet of 10% but maybe 700 feet
from flat spot to flat spot. It rounds off short of that.
e
Emmings: Well that doesn't seem unreasonable to me but that's basically an
engineering issue and I think that ought to be, I suppose left between the
City Engineer and the City Council what they want to do on that. On the
parkland. On number 20, we ought to add in, we're talking about Lots 8 and
9. Block 2 is not written in there and it should be so we know what Block
we're talking about. It sure sounds like a good area for a passive park.
As far as the sidewalk's concerned, that's a Park and Rec issue and we're
not supposed to really delve into that but I like sidewalks. We've heard
from people who move into places where they're putting in sidewalks and we
heard in the one place the guy sold his lot and moved across the street
because they were going to put a sidewalk in but there was somebody across
the street who wanted his lot because they wanted the sidewalk so it's kind
of a real personal issue. Whatever the developer wants to do is okay with
me. I wouldn't be opposed to them. I think there ought to be a condition
21 added that specifically states that there will be a conservation
easement over the 20 feet. I'm not sure how it's going to be described.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 28
e
staff will have to think of something but basically it's over the back end
of all of the lots in Block 3 on this plat so they get recorded against the
deed so at least the landowner when they buy the property, they'll be made
aware of the fact that there is a conservation easement there. Whether ot
not that keeps them from cutting down the trees remains to be seen. It's
very difficult to police as you can imagine. As a general principle, if
I own a lot I don't want people telling me what I can cut down or not. I
want to cut down what I want to cut down and I want to plant what I want to
plant. I think that is an issue for an individual that owns the land but
I think preserving that strip is a very important thing to do with this
plat. I don't have anything else right now.
Batzli: Steve, I was wondering. I was trying to think of the overall
planning issue of this being a PUD and we're amending it for the numerous
time. You feel comfortable looking at this under the old PUD ordinance and
why is that?
Emmings: I don't know. I guess it seems to me the reason that this is a
PUD is because, from what I've heard here, is because everything over a
certain size was designated PUD at that time.
Wildermuth: 40 acres.
e
Emmings: At the present time under the present ordinance, the effort is or
the whole thrust of the PUD is the City gets something for giving something
and usually the giving that we're doing is giving them smaller lot sizes.
In exchange for the smaller lot sizes, we get back amenities of various
kinds. Open space, whatever. First of all, I don't think it should be
treated under the new ordinance. We didn't give them anything. There
wasn't that swap there. Also, all these lots really are quite large. They
could be 15,000 or maybe smaller but there are lots ranging here from
100,000 square feet. I don't see anything under 20,000. I haven't looked
but I don't see anything under 20,000 and a lot of them are real big. I
guess the other thing to me is, I'd rather see this kind of development
than you see. I think this is a better use of this property.
Batzli: Than the condos? Well I agree. I think it is a better use than
the condos would be. I think it would actually, although I think the
condos left some more open space and perhaps saved some trees. I think we
would have been much more noticeable and looking at the mountain you would
have seen condo regardless of whether there's a strip of trees around the
outer edge. So from that perspective, I think it will actually be a better
use of this particular piece of land. Jo Ann, I asked you earlier during
your report where Outlot D was and you pointed to the northwest corner. I
now to my surprise find that it's this little narrow strip. In your report
you talked about wetlands in Outlot D. What are you talking about there?
Olsen: Outlot D is what the outlot is right now.
e
Batzli: This entire piece?
Olsen: This is Outlot D.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 29
e
Batzli: This entire piece is Outlot D. So when you say, the only areas
remaining as open space are existing ponding areas, a Class A wetland which
is protected as part of the Wetland Ordinance and Outlot D. Are you
talking about the entire development? What are you talking about?
Olsen: Outlot D is the last area that has not been developed includes the
slopes and the wetland.
Batzli: Okay, so what we're looking at now is, the only open spaces left
once this is developed are the wetlands?
Olsen: And then the ponding areas that will provide as far as the drainage
and storage.
Batzli: So no parkland was set aside? No neighborhood parks were set
aside as part of this? Fees were collected or it was either before the
requirements? I was curious on the deed restriction on the easement,
conservation easement. Is that enforceable by the City?
Olsen: Conservation easement? Yes it is. It's recorded against the
property. Homeowners Association, Covenants and Restrictions are not.
e
Batzli: I was going to come up with a very creative way to handle that but
I'll save it for next time it comes up. The width of Outlot B for this
trail, it's 30 feet at Pleasant View it looks like. How wide is it when
we're running by the deck here? It widens out for some berming or
something. Are we talking about a lot of feet? A couple feet?
Rick Sathre: Let me wade through my transparencies and maybe I can find
one that shows it.
Batzli: Are the trails proposed gravel? Asphalt? Natural?
Olsen:
trails.
The trails recommended by the Park and Rec are bituminous for those
The sidewalk around the interior is concrete.
Mike pflaum: We would recommend wood chips.
Rick Sathre: Peggy's house is right here. It's the last one when we go
west or northwest on Pleasant View. We've got their home set well back
from the street. They've got a nice screen porch and a deck on the
northwest end of the home. We widened out the trail corridor there so we
could get a separation of about 36 feet from the deck to the trail and then
we were talking with them about, suggesting to them that they plant some
evergreen trees in there or something so it wouldn't be such an intrusion.
Peg Schelitzche: Actually if you went to 36 feet from where our property
line ends, there are a lot of trees in there.
e
Rick Sathre: But you go over the edge of that whole flat spot too. You
get them over into the slope more so the trail would be hidden partially by
the fact that they're on the slope down too.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 30
e
Peg Schelitzche: Right and there are a lot of mature trees right along
there.
Rick Sathre: That's why we wanted it so we could get farther away than
just 10 or 15 feet.
Batzli: It sounds to me like you've thought about that and worked with the
homeowner on that.
Erhart: If Lots 8 and 9 will be turned into a park, the whole thing would
probably be rethought anyway wouldn't it? So that's really a moot issue.
Batzli: As far as placement of the trail?
Erhart: Right.
Batzli: I guess I didn't look at, is the creation of Outlot B dealt with
in the conditions in light of turning 8 and 9 into passive park?
Emmings: It's part of the plat. It wouldn't be a condition.
Batzli: Well, he's saying it would be rethought but it's handled here as
if we're going to go ahead and do it right? Then it wouldn't be rethought.
e
Emmings: Could be.
Olsen: When it becomes parkland, it will all become an outlot.
Batzli: I think the 10% grade is appropriate in this particular instance
unless there's some down side that public safety or engineering can come up
with.
Wildermuth: Has the Fire Department looked at that 10% grade? They don't
have any problem with it?
Olsen: They felt that they could get by with it. They did review the
plans and they didn't raise any objections.
Wildermuth: In terms of the excavation and the additional tree removal,
I'd certainly be in favor of the variance. It looks like a very good
development. I'm kind of curious about these little outlots though for
emergency vehicles. I'm not too clear just what those are going to be. I
don't know how an emergency vehicle is going to negotiate those things.
The one map that I have here makes it look like there's going to be some
pretty steep contours.
Emmings: Only C is proposed as being for emergency vehicles.
Wildermuth: Is that right? Only C.
_ Olsen: To Iroquois.
Rick Sathre: Outlots A and B were just walking trails.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 31
e
wildermuth: Okay. What's the grade on Outlot C?
Rick Sathre: I don't have an absolute answer. When you walk out there, it
feels fairly reasonable. Fairly flat. The steepness is in Iroquois
itself. By the time you get up to where Outlot C is, the ground has
flatten out there.
Wildermuth: If you can make it up Iroquois, you can make it up the
outlot?
Rick Sathre: Right.
Wildermuth: I think most of my questions and concerns have been addressed.
Again, it's a great looking subdivision.
Headla: If you were going to school here 50 years ago, you'd know the name
of that gentleman who lives on Iroquois. He's a tradition out in that
area. I haven't seen him for a long time. I'd like to talk about
hydrants. Water hydrants. You say you've got three hydrants. One on
Pleasant View. One on Iroquois and one on top of the mountain. You gave
them the pressures on each. What's the difference in elevations?
e
Rick Sathre: I think it's on there too. You're asking too many good
questions. Here we go. The elevations of the ground where the hydrants
are shown too. Down in Trapper's Pass, 913, 923. Over on Pleasant View,
908. At the end of Iroquois the ground has risen way up to 994. Then the
mountain top is 1,018.
Headla: So that's 22 feet from Iroquois to the top. And what is it from
pleasant View to Iroquois?
Rick Sathre: This was 908 down here and that's 1,018 so 110 feet.
Headla: If you drop 30 pounds going from Pleasant View to Iroquois so
you're only dropping 10.
Rick Sathre: From here at 95 psi up to there it drop to 41 up on the very
peak.
Headla: Okay. That's ratio right. When I looked at this, I thought it
was a lot higher going from Iroquois to the top. Okay. What's the width
of the outlot going down to Iroquois?
Rick Sathre: 30 feet.
Headla: You talk about watershed and you're going to pump it into go to
the east, northeast. Are we going to eliminate most that watershed from
going into Lotus that would normally flow to Lotus?
e
Rick Sathre: The natural break in drainage is about here now. We would be
catching the water which is now sheeting down those steep slopes. We'd be
catching it at the road but we would be diverting a few acres of runoff
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 32
e
from Lotus and putting it into the wetlands above Silver Lake. The water
comes back the gutter down in Purgatory Creek. It wouldn't go to Lotus
Lake.
Headla: will that have an impact on Lotus? I'd like to see that answered.
Emmings:
Is that something the Watershed District looks at?
Headla: The Watershed should look at that I would think. I don't know if
it's significant or not but when you start talking about that storm sewer,
it just rang a bell. I'd like to hear some comment on it. It's
insignificant or whatever.
Rick Sathre: I think we are diverting, we're proposing to divert a few
acres of the natural runoff from Lotus Lake. What we've been doing in the
rest of Near Mountain to the east is we've developed a series of pipes and
ponds. Some of that water goes to Lotus Lake. Some goes to Silver Lake.
We've increased the runoff and also the holding capacity elsewhere in axeas
that are still tributary to Lotus Lake. I'm sure on an overall net basis,
we've increased the flow but not the rate of flow to Lotus Lake. I think
overall just like the rest of the development...increased the runoff to the
lake. We have to be careful as engineers not to increase the rate of flow
but development always increases the total volumes.
e
Headla: You think you've increased the volume of flow to Lotus huh?
Rick Sathre: Not from the mountain.
Headla: Overall. I look at Minnetonka and I wonder if it's ever going to
come up again. Supposedly but the way we have all our storm sewers set up
and the way they're running off, I wonder if some of these lakes aren't
going to be permanently low from what we notice. You gave us a real good
sketch on that 10% grade but you gave us the worse case scenario. You
never even talked about or gave us a sketch why you wouldn't start building
up Outlot A, hauling in fill there so you wouldn't have as steep an
incline. Why did you show a sketch on that?
Rick Sathre: All the way through the woods, down in Outlot A and even
beyond it in Trapper's Pass is wooded. We've been consistently trying to
match the street elevation to the natural ground elevation even with nobody
telling us to. We start the 10% proposed grade about where the mountain
slope itself or the hill slope dramatically starts. If we started let's
say the 7% slope out there in Outlot A farther, sure we could fill a great
deal over there and cut less on top or we could balance it but the
disruption of filling is even worse than this disruption of the cutting,
especially since we're proposing these walls. We're trying to find the
least disruptive way to get up on top.
e
Headla: You didn't show a sketch on it so I hear you but I really don't
know how effective what you're saying, I can't see a picture on it so I
don't know how it really would or wouldn't affect it. I guess I'd like to
ask Dave to reconsider if it's worthwhile looking any further.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 33
e
Hemphill:
grade.
...a lot of effort to preserve trees in the area with the 10%
Headla: But you're going to take those trees out anyway. If you're going
to take those trees out, if you're going to put in a road there.
Hemphill: Some of the trees have to go, right.
Headla: But if you put fill in there?
Hemphill: If you fill the slopes with fill...around the trees.
Headla: How much farther?
Hemphill: Just the typical road width. Let's sayan 8 to 10 foot
boulevard and 3:1 slopes so if he's got 10 feet of fill in there going out,
probably 30 feet from the edge of the boulevard to the edge of the slope
with the fill.
Rick Sathre: I think the other thing to remember is that traditionally you
try to design the road so the water from the lot runs down onto the street
so it gets to the storm sewer. We end up in a fill section in the road,
we're forced then to fill out into the lots either initially or later so we
can get the drainage out of the lots too. We need to get the water to go
somewhere. We try very hard not to fill, especially in a wooded situation
so that we don't have pocketing of water or more work than we have to.
e
Headla: On that sidewalk bit, I'd like to see us word something that, I'd
like to hear the rationale of the Park and Rec. Why they wanted a sidewalk
rather than say no, we don't see any need for it. I would assume they had
rationale why they wanted it. I'd like to hear that rationale before we
recommend doing anything with that. On this page 4, you talk about trees.
Is it very difficult to control tree removal, wetland alteration, etc. once
that lot is under single ownership? Is it any different than if we had
condominiums? We'd still have the same problem about removing trees
wouldn't you?
Olsen: The difference there is that all would be as an outlot which could
be controlled whereas when you have single family ownership...
Headla: That's how you control that then. Okay. We talked a little bit
about Lots 8 and 9. I guess I'd kind of like to see the wording that no
formal development of Lots 8 and 9. Steve, you didn't ask if that would be
a taking. If we would recommend that it goes to that.
Emmings: It's not.
Headla: It's not a taking? Okay.
-
Emmings: You heard Roger say tonight on that other one, we always have,
they either take fees or they take land.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 34
e
Wildermuth: But you've agreed to that right? Lots 8 and 9 would be some
kind of a passive.
Conrad: He didn't agree.
Emmings: They'd rather no.
Wildermuth: It was we'd rather not but it didn't sound like the protest
was too vehement.
Headla: We talked about retaining walls. Over a period of time retaining
walls deteriorate. Jo Ann, if you look way, way in the future, when
you're my age, those retaining walls are probably going to need repair.
Who has the responsibility or who decides that the retaining walls should
be maintained?
Olsen: Dave answered it. I believe they'll be within the right-of-way.
Hemphill: We're proposing the retaining walls to be built outside of the
right-of-way on the private property so the retaining walls maintenance
would be left up to the homeowner.
Headla: If they don't want to maintain it, that could be quite detrimental
to that whole area.
e
Wildermuth: It's private property and it's a public nuisance, the City
can't maintain it and bill it back against the property?
Headla: I'd feel very uncomfortable. I've seen retaining walls on private
property and after several years, it needs repair.
Emmings: Stone ones?
Headla: I can't think of any retaining wall that's permanent.
Emmings: What happens with the stone one?
Headla: Hydraulic pressure just washes it up. Breaks it up.
Emmings: Even if there's no motar?
Batzli: Runoff of the dirt. It eventually will deteriorate and collapse.
Headla: I'd like to see maintenance of that addressed somehow. I think
you may save a future problem.
Hemphill: Maintenance from the City standpoint would be an ongoing battle
with the city staff and the demand for maintenance of those retaining
walls.
_ Headla: Why?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 35
e
Hemphill: Homeowners would be constantly calling for repairs. A stone
came out of place here and there.
Headla: But if we don't have some control over it and the people, maybe
they don't have the means to repair it. Maybe it will be very expensive
and they just flat out won't repair it. That could be detrimental to that
whole a~ea. Maybe you want to comment on that?
Mike Pflaum: I think one solution to the problem is to place in the
Declaration of Covenants the burden is on the homeowner on whose lot the
retaining wall is and stipulate that if maintenance is not performed in a
timely fashion, the City of Chanhassen will do the work and bill the
homeowner and assess the property.
Headla: Something like that. I'd be very comfortable with that.
Batzli: Why would you impose it merely on the property owner that the
retaining wall is on. Why wouldn't it be a burden on the entire
development since it's benefitting the entire development?
Headla: I'd like to see something in there. How they word it, is up to
them but I'd like to see.
e
Wildermuth: But then how does the entire development repair it? Prevent
the City from repairing and billing it back. Somewhere along the way
somebody's got to be responsible. I think if you can afford a house in
this development, you can fix your retaining wall.
Headla: That's all I've got.
e
Conrad: I'll try to make this quickly. We've talked about it for a little
bit. This kind of hurts because I was around when we put the condominiums
in here and it seemed like one of the successes we had to preserve open
space and natural space so when I see this coming back, which is not a
surprise, I'm thinking one of the nice things that we've done is falling.
But I do like what I see. I think there are a lot of benefits to it. I
think reduction in traffic is one. I think there may be some benefits in
terms of single family versus the condos I see so I'm not opposed to
changing this. I feel real comfortable doing that. Rick, maybe you can
answer. The one thing that bothers me, and the intent of what we were
trying to do before is to cluster and preserve and I think you carried the
trees that way but one of the things we were looking for before was having
some space for people and now we're going to do it at maybe some, Lots 8
and 9 if you go along with it and we decide that's what should be done but
the question in my mind, what's the negatives? We don't have trails
basically. We've got trails to get out of the development or whatever but
did you ever consider putting a trail system through close to Silver
Lake? A natural trail or is that a real, in your mind, is that really
negative in terms of lot value? I see the Shorewood Park, and that's just
beautiful natural stuff down there and what we were doing before Rick was
trying to have an outlot that people could use and appreciate. Right now
we've divided it up and yes, we may save. Well, no I think there's a net
loss in trees. This plan versus the old but was that ever considered? Any
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 36
e
kind of a trail system going back by Silver Lake? Going over to the
Shorewood part of your development?
Rick Sathre: Frankly, not really. Silver Lake is a very pristine, private
kind of natural space. We've not wanted to intrude on it either. We've
stayed way back from it and want to leave that slope and lower area
passive. We've tried to keep our activities away from it. The big outlot
that the condo buildings were shown in was always going to be their open
space anyway. It wasn't a public open space or even a development of w~de
open space. It was their yard.
Conrad: So now we have a lot of little yards, or fairly good sized yards.
Trade-off, if you had to make a trade. Having Lots 8 and 9 be a passive
park or putting in a trail around there, what's your gut feeling?
Rick Sathre: I think I'll defer to the Pflaums.
Mike Pflaum: I'll give you my opinion and Peter can give his opinion.
Peter's opinion prevails. My opinion would be for the overall benefit of
this portion of the site, I would prefer to see passive around here and
have a trail...
e
Peter pflaum: I agree with Michael. The trail's been, to answer your
question specifically. It does devalue the lots. It has been an item
that when we first went to plan this development it was discussed at great
length whether there should be trails and where they should. At one point
in time they wanted trail around the lake and after a great deal of
discussion, it was decided that was a bad idea. So it was started to be
considered and dropped. There was a lot of concern at the time if the trail
went in, who in the world would maintain it and could be a tremendous
liability to the community going through that heavy wooded area. So it was
something that was originally talked about. Originally it was thought that
it was a good idea by I think the Park Commission and after a tremendous
amount of discussion, it was decided that it wasn't a good idea.
Conrad: It's too bad and I'm not going to debate that. It's too bad
because it's really pretty, natural country and we're sort of closing, it's
locked up right now. So your feeling would be, if you had your druthers,
is Lots 8 and 9 would be passive park use versus some kind of a trail.
That's kind of what you said.
Peter Pflaum: That's somewhat correct.
e
Conrad: Okay. Well I'm not going to beat that to death. I just think
that would have been a neat system to be able to connect some roads for
people there to walk. Some other thoughts. Are we assuming that the only
way to walk from the top of the mountain down to the 3rd Addition or to the
east, is through Outlot A? Can you walk down this steep incline? You know
we've got boulders and whatever. How are people going to get down there if
they do want to walk? Go out for a walk? Is that a problem? Do we have a
place on the side? If it's a steeper area, I'm thinking winter time. I'm
thinking some other scenarios. How do people walk through this part of the
development?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 37
e
Rick Sathre: Through all of Near Mountain and much of Chanhassen they're
walking on the streets I think. That's been our proposal. That the people
would, to circulate within the individual neighborhoods and get to the
common trails, they would use the streets.
Conrad: Does this pose a certain problem and I'll ask staff. oes this
scenario with the boulders on each side, is that a different problem? We
have no standards for sidewalks here and that's really kind of unfortunate.
Olsen: We're starting to have standards for sidewalks and that's why I
think the Park Commission is being a little bit more consistent in
requiring them. And yes it is preferred to have some form of off-street
path.
Conrad: So Jo Ann, are we saying this Outlot A, is that going to be a
trail system that people can walk through?
Olsen: That would be more, in speaking with Lori, that was going to be
more of the bituminous trail connection.
Conrad: That's part of the overall park trail system basically coming off
from pleasant View through Outlot B and around on the concrete?
e
Olsen:
system.
I don't know if that's part of the overall park or the trail
I know that they've always wanted to have that connection.
Conrad: It's got to be. We've got a trail supposedly on the north part of
Lotus Lake coming over there. Where does it go? Does it go through here?
Olsen: There's a trail that connects to this subdivision from the south,
from the North Lotus Lake Park. It crosses Pleasant View. It's another
subdivision.
Conrad: From North Lotus Lake Park, yes. So on the east we've got a
connection. Where's our...
Olsen: I don't know where there's any...
Conrad: So how do we go through this development and get to? I know
there's some connection on the north part of Lotus Lake. I believe we have
a walking path.
Olsen: Fox Chase?
Conrad: Yes. So how do we connect from there to the east?
Olsen: To the west?
Conrad: From the west to the east.
-
Olsen: I'm not exactly, I'm sure that the trail probably went along
pleasant View Road. I'm not exactly sure where that trail...
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 38
e
Conrad: I don't think anybody would run it on Pleasant View.
Olsen: I know that we don't have any trail easements through any of that
other property on the north side except for maybe Fox Chase.
Batzli: Is it suppose to be linking up with North Lotus Lake Park?
Olsen: There is that connection.
Conrad: Yes. On the east but on the west, I don't see how we, there is a
trail easement in Fox, what is it, Fox Chase?
Olsen: Fox Chase.
Conrad: Fox Chase. There's a trail. The easement down there and I'm not
exactly sure where it is but I thought we could probably connect these
trails.
Batzli: That'd be a good idea.
e
Conrad: I guess I'd like to have somebody review that and present that to
City Council. If we can't do it we can't do it but at least we know we
can't do it. Given that the Pflaums really don't prefer a natural trail, I
think Lot 8 and 9 for a, I really think passive park is appropriate. Not
an active park. I totally agree with them on that. Some of the comments
made by, Jo Ann I've got to ask what, item 20 says a 5 foot wide concrete
walkway be constructed on the outer side of the thru street. Now of the
thru street. What is?
Olsen: He provided that illustration to show where they meant for the
sidewalk to go. She was calling the central street, the one that goes
around the top, as the thru street.
Conrad: Oh, that's the thru street, okay. So really it is just a concrete
loop? And it doesn't mean that, because of the way it's worded, it doesn't
mean that the outlots have a concrete trail in them. Outlots B, A and C.
There's not a...
Olsen: My understanding of them was that those would be bituminous.
Conrad: Okay, so the concrete is not applied to that?
Olsen: Yes. I'm sure that could be worked out where if wood chips or some
other type of steps system would be...so a straight bituminous trail might
not be appropriate.
e
Conrad: It's not bad but I think Michael said something about wood chips
and if you'd let me have my trail back through then the wood chips would be
alright but I think coming down Outlot B, there's a point where we don't
need, I can't imagine wood chips working on that steep a hill but I think
there's a point in time where it can convert and turn into a wood chip
trail. If we decide to go with the passive park to the west there. A
couple other points. The concern that you have for the land for turning. I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 39
e
don't think you're going to hear us make that into a motion. I would hope-
that you could work with the developer on that. It works a lot better. I
don't know that we can deal with that or I don't know that I want to deal
with that issue right now. There's not enough clarity in my mind what is
needed and whatever so I think it's real important that you work with the
developer before this gets to City Council just to satisfy yourself. It's
not that they owe that lot to you. I think if it works within this Outlot
C which, I don't know how it's going to work and I think at this point in
time I would hope you could work that out with them before it gets to the
City Council. The last point, I think it's close to the last point, is
tree removal and I think the residents brought that up real clear and we've
got a couple things in there. Lundgren is, they've done really nice jobs
so it's not like they're new to the area and we're nervous about them.
They've done all the other developments quite well but the neighborhood is
saying well, we're not worried about them. We're worried about the folks
later on that may do some clear cutting. Jo Ann, what leverage, what
ability do we have to control? I think there's a couple issues. Tim
suggested some kind of a green easement. What was your suggestion on the
back of the lots on Block 3?
Erhart: You could extend the idea to Block 5 in some of the lots. Some of
the rear lots there that backed up to other lots.
Conrad: Where's Block 5?
e
Batzli: The interior one.
Conrad: Okay. Jo Ann, how do we take care of this particular concern?
Olsen: What I recommended was to have a larger conservation easement along
Silver Lake. Then we should also include their 20 foot strip as a
conservation easement.
Conrad: Okay, that's two things. But as we work our way up the hill,
anything else? I think people are worried about, cutting trees down after
Lundgren has done their building or selling. What do we have?
Olsen: Just continue with conservation easements along those other lots
that you feel are appropriate. The rear of them also face towards the
slope as Tim suggested but I think we're finding the conservation easements
are the best way to do it.
Conrad: They aren't?
e
Olsen: That they are so far rather than just having in the development
contract that no clear cutting is permitted or things like that. That's
just a little bit too general that people can get around once. What that
means is that each of those lots that we pick are appropriate, would have
to have a conservation easement description and then would have to be
recorded against the lot. It's a lot of work.
Conrad: Is that fair? Is that undue?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 40
e
Headla: That's unreasonable.
Olsen: I don't know that it's unreasonable. A lot of those lots that they
still have enough area for a house, deck, porch. There's something that we
can look at.
Conrad: We'll see what kind of motions come up on this. Iroquois
cul-de-sac issue. How do we solve that? It was always thought we were
going to go through there. We're not. Because this development goes
through, how do we solve the cul-de-sacing? Do we need to cul-de-sac
that? I don't see why we do to tell you the truth. It goes into
individual homes but are we just going to let it go? Are we comfortable in
just dropping the need for cul-de-sacs at that end even though that's below
City standards? Obviously every street needs a turn around. Turn around
at the top of this street seems kind of ridiculous but what are we going to
do? Make a recommendation to City Council when this gets back to them
maybe?
Olsen: It should at least be signed that this is a dead end and will not
be a thru street.
e
Conrad: I think somebody should make a decision whether it's going to come
out of the Lundgren development or out of the property that the street
really serves. If it's not serving them, I'm not sure that the cul-de-sac
should come out of there but technically I think you've got to help us on
that and we should resolve it so we're not here 3 years from now trying to
figure this out. It should be done right now. Those are my comments. I
would look for a motion right now. I don't know that, I guess the issues
that might be outstanding, if anybody made them. I think you've heard most
of the issues but the big one that the neighbors bring up is dealing with
trees and vegetation and if somebody feels that there should be something
extra put in there to help control downstream, the cutting down of the
woods, that's kind of up to you and how you'd like to word that. If you
feel it's fine the way it is and the developer's are going to take car eof
it, then we can leave it as is.
Headla: The people, when they had this development go in on the northwest
side of Murray Hill...I think the village and the developer together very
well...
Conrad: Jo Ann, in terms of the drainage. I guess it's not real clear
what we're doing on drainage yet. We don't know if we're doing ponding.
I'm not sure impact on Lotus Lake and I'm not sure impact on Silver. When
do we get, we will never see this again.
-
Olsen: No you won't. Well, the wetland alteration permit will come back.
The Watershed District has to approve it but you never see that. But
again, once they determine exactly what they're going to be doing with the
storm sewer, initially we were just going to out and out recommend that
they provide a detention pond prior to the runoff going into the wetland
because that's what we usually recommend but the slope there, we just
didn't know how we were going to be able to get into maintain it. So then
it was recommended that the sedimentation catch basin, where it is along,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 41
e
that that might be an appropriate alternative. But that's going to be,
it's still in the works to be reviewed and then also the Watershed District
has to approve it. Most likely it will be coming back for the wetland
alteration permit. They're still going to be directing it.
Conrad: I think runoff is a big deal here. Obviously. Big mountain and
steep slopes and major. I'm real interested in that. I don't know how
much we have to say about it. Is there a motion?
Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the Planned Unit
Amendment to replace the 114 condominiums with 45 single family lots of
Outlot D of Near Mountain PUD and include the 20 conditions that staff has
recommended with the following changes. That condition 5 be edited to
state that development of this site shall not take place until roadway and
utility improvements are complete in Outlot A, Trappers Pass 3rd Addition.
Number 20 be edited to read the developer dedicate. Excuse me a minute.
What is this 4.5? Is that Lot 8 and 9 Jo Ann or what is that?
Olsen: And part of Lot 7 I believe.
Mike pflaum: Can I clarify that? I didn't see anything described what
happened specifically at the Park Commission meeting. The Park Commission
was under the dillusion that the property was 45 acres. I think they
arbitrarily selected 10% as the amount they were requesting. The property
is not 45 acres. It's 39 acres.
e
Erhart: Okay, then the developers will dedicate Lots 8 and 9 in lieu of
park dedication fees. strike the 5 foot concrete sidewalk from the
recommendation. Add item 21. Provide a conservation easement over the 20
foot section of the rear lot of all lots in Block 3. Item 22, work with
the City to properly finish off the end of Iroquois including a turn around
and provide. No, just work with the City on that and leave it as that. 23
is get staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an
overall trail plan if possible. It probably was discussed but just to make
sure that that was reviewed Jo Ann. Whether Lots 8 or 9 are part of the
park dedication is to maintain a trail on Outlot B as far removed from the
people's lot in question as possible so as not to be intrusive with their
back yard. Last item 25 was to insure, work with staff and to develop some
assurance through the use of Covenants or whatever that these walls are
going to be somebody's responsibility to maintain. Leave it up to the City
Engineer and staff to try and work that out but I think we're looking for a
specific solution to that so it isn't left up in the air.
Headla: Maintain what?
Erhart: Maintain the retaining walls. Make sure that someone is
responsible either through covenants on individual homeowners or is the
City going to maintain it or someone. Then item 14 has to be changed to
say the plans and specification will show an emergency access through
Outlot C to Iroquois instead of a second street access.
e
Emmings: I'll second it.
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 42
Conrad: Any discussion? You didn't deal with any kind of additional
conservation easements for green trees or green space or whatever other
than what staff had brought up.
Erhart: I guess in conversation, you and I are the only ones that kind of
passed that one a~ound a little bit so not much inte~est.
Batzli: I'd be interested.
Emmings: I could be interested.
Batzli: We were just letting you take the lead.
Emmings: How are you...
Erhart: My general feeling was that I think it was their idea to put the
one down below. I was more or less offering it as an idea. Really not
expecting to force that requirement because there are probably other
considerations but I guess that's my gut feeling on it.
Conrad: Gut feel not?
Erhart: Not putting it in as a condition.
Conrad: Any other discussion?
Batzli: To remove the sidewalk, even up and down the Trapper's Pass
entrance with it's steep slope and retaining wall sides, do you want a
sidewalk at least during those portions?
Erhart: I don't think that was in there was it?
Batzli: Didn't it go up and down ther? I think it went up and down both
sides.
Emmings: Yes it does. According to the diagram. Let me ask a question
about that. I don't think it's probably appropriate for the Planning
Commission. When the Park and Rec makes a recommendation, I don't really
think it's appropriate that we modify their recommendation. I think we can
comment on it but I don't think it's really, that's one reservation I have
about Tim's motion.
Erhart: I'd agree with you Steve.
Emmings: I think we should leave it in there the way Park and Rec does it.
If we don't like it, I think we should comment on it so the City Council
knows but I don't think we should modify it.
Batzli: I'm commenting on it. I'm proposing to leave it in for one but
I'm also proposing that it's a safety issue and not a Park and Rec issue.
The reason that I would propose to put it back in there.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 43
e
Erhart: I'll amend my proposal to leave the, I think you're right. We
have our comments in the Minutes. I think that does justice to the issue
so I'll amend the proposal to leave item 20 as is.
Emmings:
I'll second that.
Batzli: You changed the wording. You're just leaving the concrete
sidewalk in there?
Emmings: Right. That's my understanding.
Erhart: What your statement really applies to the whole thing really. If
this is what Park and Rec's recommendation was, we probably shouldn't
change that condition and just put our comments in the Minutes.
Batzli: But you are amending number 20 to indicate Lots 8 and 9 of Block
2?
Erhart: Yes. For clarification. That's fine.
Conrad: I think that's a good point but I don't know how Jo Ann sorts that
stuff together when it gets to City Council. They see a staff report.
They don't integrate the Planning report with Park and Rec. Don't you
integrate Park and Rec comments with our comments on one staff report?
e
Olsen: They get the same report that you have with an update on it and the
Minutes.
Emmings: We can tell her, I think it would be appropriate to have the
update state that we have comments on the Park and Rec.
Erhart: You have our Minutes.
Olsen: They've got the Minutes and then if there are issues that are
brought up, I'll point them out.
Conrad: But' things really get lost in the Minutes. We've been talking
this one for 2 hours.
Erhart: Then the question is, Ladd why are we, let's talk about this a
minute because this is important. Why do we include the Park and Rec
condition then in our recommendation if we can't change it? If it's
inappropriate to change it, then why is it even in our conditions of
recommendation?
Emmings: Because they're all the conditions
in the project. We want to see everything.
everything. I think while we can comment on
to change them.
that the staff is recommending
I think we want to see
them, I don't think we ought
e
Conrad: That's a problem. Jo Ann, I think you've got to tell us how to
solve that problem. It's based on what City Council needs to hear.
Because Park and Rec reports not to us. I don't know that we have the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 44
e
right to change their recommendation. Okay. Any other comments or
discussion?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment to replace 114
condominium units with 45 single family lots on Outlot D, Near Mountain PUD
with the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of the Class A
wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 and adjacent to Silver
Lake and that the final plat would provide a drainage easement over the
protected wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan will be required for each lot in the subdivision
prior to issuance of a building permit. There shall be no clear
cutting permitted for any lot except for the placement of the house pad
and utilities. Clear cutting is defined as removal of any vegetation
with a 4" caliper or more at four feet in height.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour along Lots
1 through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2. The
area below the 945 and 910 contour, including the wetland and
shoreland, will not be permitted to be altered.
e
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not
be permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a
wetland alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway and utility
improvements have been completed on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain an dcomply with all con itions of the
Watershed District permit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations
for sizing utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the
City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon
completion of the construction.
8. Appropriate utility easement shall be provided over all public
facilities.
9. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stablize slopes
greater than 3:1.
10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City's
standards for urban construction.
e
11.
The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of
the retaining walls with the plans and specifications.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 45
e
12.
The City's standard detail for the installation of Type III erosion
control shall be placed on the grading plan and utilized.
13. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front
and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and
utility easements for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be
shown on the final plat.
14. The plans and specifications shall show an emergency access through
Outlot C to Iroquois.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided
with the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around
proposed buildings and driveway location.
16. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City to
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the
proper installation of the improvements.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure
concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed
construction.
e
19.
The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City standards for
comparison of hardship before a variance could be granted.
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8
and 9, Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees and a 5 foot wide
concrete sidewalk be constructed on the outer side of the thru street
and along the trail outlots in lieu of trail dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 20 foot section of the rear
lot of all lots in Block 3.
22 Work with the City to properly finish off the end of Iroquois including
a turn around.
23. Direct Staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an
overall trail plan if possible.
24. Check whether Lots 8 or 9 as part of the park dedication, is to
maintain a trail on Outlot B as far removed from the people's lot in
question as possible so as not to be intrusive with their back yard.
25. The developer shall work with staff to develop some assurance through
the use of Covenants or whatever, who is responsible to maintain the
retaining walls.
e All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 46
e
(Steve Emmings and David Headla left at this point in the meeting and were
not present on any of the subsequent voting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGEL FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT
VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION
(VINELAND FOREST) .
Public Present:
Name
e
Jim Meyer
W. Pat Cunningham
Sharon Graef
Gordy and Patsy Whiteman
David and Holly Broden
Gary and Peg Schelitzche
Dean Wetzel
Don Peterson
Todd and Sherry Novaczyk
Pat Calhoon
David Vogel
Arthur Owens
Frank Beddor
Daryl Fortier
Chuck Van Eeckhout
Address
6225 Ridge Road
865 pleasant View Road
855 Pleasant View Road
825 pleasant View Road
640 Pleasant view Road
680 Pleasant View Road
6260 Ridge Road
995 Plesant View Road
6371 Pleasant View Cove
6380 Pleasant View Cove
Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order.
Chuch Van Eeckhout: As Jo Ann pointed out, we're doing substantially the
same as we had proposed before with the modification of platting the
section by pleasant View. I reviewed the Planning Department's and
Engineering Department's recommendation and I concur. They all make sense.
If you have any comments. ·
Conrad: Thanks, we probably will have some. Any comments from anybody
else.
Frank Beddor: My name is Frank Beddor and my wife and I live right across
from this area. We have four homes on lots directly across from this
proposed area. I'd like to ask the developer, going into the property, how
many total homes will there be in the property when it's complete?
e
Chuck Van Eeckhout: 21 single family lots.
Frank Beddor: Okay, the letter that we got said it was 18.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 47
e
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It was 18 until we added that other section. Those 3
additional lots.
Frank Beddor: And you added that to get access into the property?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: That's correct.
Frank Beddor: You planned on coming into the property from another area
before?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: We were planning to come in through an easement before
and leave that area undeveloped at this time and simply put a road through
it... We found we had more flexibility on this side for future
flexibility. The City's recommendation was that we plat it now so we...
Frank Beddor: Do you own the property on the other side or have an option
on the other side?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: No.
feet. I don't remember.
Only this strip that goes, I want to say 150
This strip from this point to this point onto...
Frank Beddor: That easement...is that on your property?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: No.
e
Frank Beddor: Well my concern is access onto pleasant View. I walked that
property and I asked Daryle Fortier to walk that property and I'll let
Daryl address it but it appeared to us that it would not take that much cut
and fill to make an access now on the Lake Lucy Road. That seemed to be a
more direct way to get back out onto CR 17. As you know Pleasant View Road
and I did not have, I'm glad I did not have the opportunity of reading the
report before the meeting. I had glanced at one that somebody gave me. I
noticed that when I glanced at it that one of the recommendations was
that pleasant View Road is a winding twisting road and putting more traffic
on it is not sufficient. Also I believe that the Fire Department
recommended an access to the south. I would like to recommend that the
Planning Commission look at putting an access down to Lake Lucy Road and
I'd like to have Daryl Fortier kind of, I just asked him to walk the
property and to take a look at that and maybe he can address that.
e
Daryl Fortier: Daryl Fortier, consulting architect working with Frank and
after walking the property and looking at the preliminary grades, we would
like to discuss or like more information from engineering. I believe it's
feasible to make the connection off Lake Lucy Road. It does require some
additional fill and may require some altering. Of course it would require
some altering of the plat but we believe it's quite possible...to build
those 21 lots off the cul-de-sac is setting a fairly strong precedent
within Chanhassen. Previously we've been advised to try to keep our
cul-de-sacs down to about 400 or 500 feet in length unless the topography
was really prohibited. We don't think it's that prohibited. We do see
some difficulty but we don't think it's prohibited and we think it can be
achieved so we'd like a bit more time to take a look at the,actual grades
and work with the engineering staff and Chanhassen so we can make a better
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 48
e
report...
Hemphill: I'd like to comment on that. I looked at the access to the
south to Nez Perce and my calculations with the 9% grade from the
cul-de-sac on up to Nez Perce with a couple of flat spots for
intersections, I calculated approximately 14 feet of fill at the lowest
area and with 3:1 slopes, it would take right-of-way approximately out 130
feet through that area. That area does consist of a lot of woods. Granted
the developer is proposing to grade a portion of that area as part of his
plat but the most detrimental affect I guess would be on the existing lot
in Carver Beach Estates where the street connects to Lake Lucy Road and Nez
Perce. A 3 way intersection. A portion of that lot would have to be
filled in for the roadway. Currently there's no house on that lot.
e
Todd Novaczyk: Todd Novaczyk. My wife Sherry and I live on Pleasant View
Cove which intersects just west of here into Pleasant View Road. I would
like to ask the Planning Commission to give some consideration, ask for
further study be done as to the amount of traffic on Pleasant View Road. I
think you'll find that there are a lot of young children in the area on
bikes, getting on school buses, walking in the area. As it stands now,
with the addition of Fox Chase and a lot of the additional traffic that
we've seen on the road, as the drivers going west on Pleasant view Road
come over the top of the hill right before they get to CR 17, generally
they are surprised many times. There are other exits onto Pleasant View
Road from some homeowner on the south side of Pleasant View Road and from
the homeowners on the cul-de-sac of Pleasant View Cove and as we're coming
out on Pleasant View Road from our egress, we surprise a lot of people
coming over the top of that hill. It's unsafe and especially for children.
I think the city needs to have some further study done. And then going
east on Pleasant View Road there's a severe turn and again, you've got
people coming up heading west going around that severe turn on Pleasant
View and they will be coming right at this exit for egress and I think
again you're going to. have people who are exiting onto Pleasant View Road
being surprised by the oncoming traffic. So I think you need to spend some
time out there. I would at least suggest I guess that you would spend some
time have somebody do some research on that winding, twisting road before
approval would be given to the developer to put that many more cars at that
point. Just from a safety caution we would ask you to do that. Thank you.
Gordy Whiteman: Gordy Whiteman at 825 pleasant View Road. We live on that
severe turn and Sunday night we had another accident. The second in the
last 12 months. At what point do you stop adding additional home site onto
a road that was not built to accommodate them. The road was a two wheel
wagon path, that's what it was built for so at some point you have to say
no more.
e
Peg Schelitzche: I'm Peg Schelitzche and I live at 680 Pleasant View and
we live on that curve coming from that hill farther. In the winter we have
cars in ours. The road also has to be, not only less cars put on it, or
not any more cars put on it, but also monitored a little bit better by the
City. There's many cars going much too fast on that road all the time.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 49
e
Conrad: How about speed bumps.
Peg Schelitzche: We asked for that. They wouldn't do it.
Pat Calhoon: I'm Pat Calhoon and I live at 6380 pleasant View Cove and I
also feel that the traffic...is heavy already and possibly another 36 to 40
cars coming out in the morning and going in at night...
Sherry Novaczyk: I'd just like to comment too that the land next to that
also is probably in the future going to have more homes built on it right
adjacent to that lot right now that is being proposed. But that land is
being filled for further development down the line which poses another
problem. Where will those cars come out? The other thing is the bus
company, the children used to walk across the street to catch the bus but
because it was so very dangerous with those cars coming over the top of the
hill, we managed to route the bus to the other side of the road so even the
bus companies thought that was really a hazardous situation.
Holly Broden: In addition to the car traffic, there are going to be...
joggers and stuff that use that road which also...sports cars that like
that winding road.
e
David Vogel: I had a question... I'm David Vogel. I live at 905 Pleasant
View which is part of Lot 3 and Lot 3, the west half is the portion that
the proposed road... I haven't had a chance to...but I don't see on this
drawing up here but I'm concerned about the setbacks that might be allowed
between our property and the proposed street. When our house was built
Outlot 3, the entire lot was one property. It was then subdivided. Mine
is now, I don't exactly...about 30 feet from our house. It appears that
this road goes right along the lot line and we'll have to remove our garden
shed...
Conrad: Exactly where are you?
David Vogel: It's this lot on 3. That's us.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: His house exceeds the setback from the proposed road.
I am not aware of the setback from the building...but I can sure find out.
David Vogel: Then the out building is actually on your lot? ...that's how
large the yard is and not only would our yard be dessimated but we might be
salt spray up onto it and onto our yard.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: The building he's talking about is on my land. The
other building where he's living, his home is more than the front yard
setback that would be required and I don't know if it's 35 or 40. It's
closer to 40 feet but I don't know exactly.
David Vogel: My concern is that it greatly alters our property and I don't
know if there's allowance for moving a road from our property line.
e
Conrad: Are you facing Pleasant View right now?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 50
e
David Vogel: Right now our home faces Pleasant View, yes. I have a lot
sweeping down to that.
Conrad: So basically the road would be on your side yard?
David Vogel: Right.
Batzli: It kind of turns you into a corner lot.
David Vogel: Two of our out buildings are on the west half of the lot
where the road is going so two of our out buildings that we are currently
using...on this other lot and the road. I find that that's an extreme
alteration. I don't know if there's...for that?
Batzli: We don't have in our ordinances a
like the one they're proposing to put in.
actually? They have a 50 foot easement?
they're actually putting in?
setback requirement for roads
How wide is the bituminous
What's the width of the road
Hemphill: Standard. It would be 31 feet back to back or 28 foot.
Batzli:
you hit
his lot
that?
So there will be a 12 foot strip on the edge of the property until
the bituminous. It will be 30 feet from his house to the edge of
plus 12 feet over to the bituminous surface right? Something like
-
Chuck Van Eeckhout: That'd be the minimum.
Batzli: So it'd be a minimum of 42 feet.
Conrad: There aren't ordinances that protect you and we've gone through
this type of thing before and to tell you the truth, we're trying to come
up with a formula. There's no way to out guess the situations which means
all we do is come up with bad ordinances but we have gone through this
before and unfortunately...
David Vogel: It's unfortunate when you spend 8 months last year just
trying to buy the house because we were essentially 5 open acres and my
sister sold me the lot so now...because we won't live on the street.
That's my problem with Chanhassen.
Arthur Owens: Arthur Owens, 6525 Peaceful Lane. We own the property just
west of 8 on the... There's a, on the plat it shows a...going west.
That's going to Lot 8 which is...and staff went over that rather fast. Is
that street proposed to eliminate some of that traffic and when does that
go through?
-
Olsen: That street is just proposed as possible access for future
development. We always try to provide at least 2 access points to a
subdivision and we knew wanted one for a connection to Pleasant View and to
Lake Lucy. Now they are proposing two future access points to the west.
...looking at that as a future connection.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 51
e
Arthur Owens: There was a development on Joe Trundle's property...just
west of the present proposed development...so rather than just these coming
out, you. could have more. I think there should be more study done on that.
I agree with Frank when he says there probably should be some access
from Lake Lucy Road back there. That is, I've been there a few years
myself... I also know the activity by joggers and by bikers and a few
others out there and it is a difficult area but it has been building up
there...consideration given to the safety of the proposal. I'm far more
interested in right-of-ways for the trails and so forth. We're looking at
a future problem there. I can't imagine putting more...going to the west
as solving the need for a second access.
e
Frank Beddor: I'd like to make another comment if I may. I would happy to
work with the developer...and talking about, the engineer said it was what,
a 9% grade. I heard Near Mountain was looking at 10% grades. I think that
the Planning Commission has an opportunity here to help get some of the
traffic off the Pleasant View Road rather than adding more to it. I don't
...because Joe Trundle might sell...which he has the right to, then today
is the time to look for the second access and not a second access sometime
down the road is it possibly happens and is somebody does sell the
property. So I would like to request enough time just to work with the
developer to see if we couldn't come up with some solutions that would be
amicable. We aren't trying to block the development...we're just looking
at a second access to take the traffic off Pleasant View Road and we've
been there 30 some odd years and as you know, people...and it also has lots
of joggers and lots of other traffic on it along with the children and the
dogs and it's twisting and it's turning and to deliber~tely put more
traffic on when we have an opportunity to move that traffic off that area,
I think we should do that so if we could have more time.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Can I comment? We have done traffic analysis and my
engineer is very comfortable that making that connection would impact
traffic on Lake Lucy Road. You've got a great mass to the west and to the
south and all of them want to go to TH 101 and they want to take that short
cut, we're very comfortable that... In fact some of the people we've been
talking to will add to that. That's why they were very much against that
connection. It also spoils a nice piece of woods. As the engineer
technician has pointed out. It requires a great deal of fill and will
spoil several lots and you've got like a railroad track going through...so
these are the negatives that we considered very carefully when deciding to
settle on this design after talking with a number of people from many
persuasions. This sounded reasonable to deny this final...so this is how
we got to where we are today.
Frank Beddor: I only had a chance to look a little bit with Daryl today on
that traffic and he brought that point up and I couldn't really see coming
off this road, that people would really want to cut through that long
cul-de-sac and turn into Pleasant View rather than go out the other
direction.
e
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I don't know how far it is but you've got this whole
mass of people from here all the way over to here all the way down to here
and there's a lot of houses in there. The shortest way for everyone of
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 52
e
those to get to TH 101 is that clean shot...whereas now this is not a plain
north/south route. They got back out to the west and then down to TH 5.
Frank Beddor: That's why I think it needs a little discussion because we
don't have those experts available...but we do have the people who have
been living there for a long time and they probably know the traffic better
than anybody else does that's on the road because they live there day by
day so we'd like to take a chance to look at that traffic flow.
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Wildermuth: It's a tough issue. I guess based on what I've heard, I would
be in favor of tabling the issue and allowing the residents and the
developer to work toward a resolution.
Batzli: That's it? I seem to recall a lot of discussion the first time,
backing off of the entrance/exit issue for just a minute. The 16 foot
driveway up to the north, who owns that little piece?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I do.
e
Batzli: You own that as well? And what does that become as you develop
this whole piece?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It doesn't change in and of itself. We tried to work
with one of the adjacent owners and sold it to one of the adjacent owners.
Batzli: But it would be a separately deeded piece of property on this map
here?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Yes it is. It's separately deeded. I purchased it
along with the other property.
Batzli: Would it be considered an outlot then? What would it be
considered? It's not buildable.
Olsen: Currently it's just an easement.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It's a fee title piece of property. It could be
excluded from the plat...or it could be an outlot on the plat. I don't
know which technically is the most desirable way to handle it. We're not
getting involved in the functioning of the plat anyway. It's simply...that
I would abandon or give to somebody to sell to somebody or work with
somebody on it. It has no meaning with regard to the plat.
e
Batzli: I guess I'd like us to at least consider whether that should be
included as part of this plat or not. I don't know one way or another. I
think that it's interesting that people might use this cul-de-sac as a
vehicle to get over to TH 101. I lived in a subdivision that we lobbied
long and hard to not have a second entrance for that reason that it would
be used as a short cut and in fact it is. Surprisingly it's used as a
Planning Commission Meeting
e
short cut by the school bus company for a long time. The school bus
company does do some good things and some bad things. But on the other
hand, during the super flood, the entrance was blocked off and that was
really the only entrance into the subdivision and at the time it wasn't
built. It was just a hunk of muddy dirt. I do agree that they need it
even though at times it's very frustrating to have sport cars coming off of
Pleasant View through our subdivision. Once they get done racing through
your curves, they come and race on our curves in Fox Hollow. I do agree
that that's a problem and I don't know how to solve it. I don't know that
30-40 cars are going to make a difference on Pleasant View. As I recall, a
large study was done on traffic patterns of Pleasant View at the time that
they were thinking of connecting Fox Hollow to Pleasant View Jo Ann.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Olsen: There was.
e
Batzli: And as I recall, it was a very large number and I don't know that
this is really going to affect it that much. Maybe it will although I
would like to see some, at least discussion with the residents because
there's a lot of residents that are concerned about potential of connecting
it up towards the south. I think it's a hard issue because I would like to
see for instance a second access into this subdivision other than Forest
Street. I don't know that that solves the problem of having a long
cul-de-sac down along Vineland Drive into that length of your cul-de-sac.
So whether we table it or not, I would still like staff and the developer
and the residents potentially to get together and decide whether it is
feasible. It sounds to me like a lot of fill is needed and it doesn't
sound like the most practical thing in the world but I think for safety
concerns and traffic concerns, it's something that has to be explored.
I think I asked this question last time we looked at this. The control
structure on the east side of the property, what is that again?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Are you talking about the storm water control?
Batzli: I think so.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Yes. That's just a dam that will control the runoff
rate so we're not exceeding pre-development rate for a 100 year storm.
Batzli: And where is that located?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It's on the east edge of the property. There's a
natural swale coming out. There is...structure there now but it's not
large enough. We would be expanding that.
e
Hemphill: He is indicating it's in the ravine there and there's currently
a...that's been picking up the storm,runoff off of that ravine. It's
currently just a flared end section. What the development is proposing is
a detention pond on site to hold back a 100 year storm and release it at a
pre-development rate through the storm sewer.
Batzli: Since that isn't on an outlot, would it be appropriate to put in a
covenant on the affected lot that they can't affect the grade of that
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 54
control structure?
Hemphill: I believe it's contained in the drainage and utility easement.
We don't allow filling.
Batzli: It is in the easement?
Hemphill: It would be.
Batzli: But we don't have easements on here? Okay. Yes, it is an
easement. It looks like it is. Those are the questions I had. It's all
yours Tim.
Erhart: Go through with me again here. Your 9:1 slope on this proposed.
Hemphill: If they propose a urban street section through here...
Erhart: Okay, why don't you try the next one over.
Hemphill: This one?
Erhart: Yes.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: That street is very, very under designed.
Erhart: What street?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Nez Perce into Kiowa.
Erhart: Is Lake Lucy Road there or what?
Hemphill: Lake Lucy Road comes in a little bit further down right with
Carver Beach Estates. It's not indicated on...
Erhart: Well that's what I'm having a hard time.
Olsen: That's just the right-of-way. Lake Lucy isn't actually there.
Erhart: It's not there. Has it ever been there?
Olsen: It's south of Carver Beach Estates.
Batzli: Is it ever going to be there?
Erhart: Yes, I've got that map here too but it doesn't.
Hemphill: Yes, it's not indicated. Here's Carver Beach Estates.
Lake Lucy Road connects here with Nez Perce.
Olsen: There's a row of lots inbetween there.
Hemphill: There's a row of lots inbetween the subdivision and Lake Lucy
Road.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 55
e
Olsen: But the right-of-way is still up on the north.
Batzli: Lake Lucy Road doesn't extend past where?
Erhart: It's really Nez Perce then?
Hemphill: Nez Perce turns into Lake LUcy Road.
Olsen: It's a new road which has been named Lake Lucy. The original
Lake Lucy right-of-way which a portion you still see on the plat, has been
vacated except for that portion of the plat.
Erhart: And then is Park Drive there at all or is that also just a
right-of-way?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: That's a 40 foot. piece of right-of-way that's
unimproved.
Erhart: So to bring Vineland Court through, you'd be bringing it all the
way down then to the new Lake Lucy Road?
Hemphill: Which is approximately I believe about 150 feet. About a lot
depth.
e
Erhart: And what'd you say, you've got a 40 foot easement there?
Chuck Van Eeckhout:
South of my property
down and connects up
that one?
The previous platting has left a 40 foot easement.
there is a 40 foot strip of roadway easement that goes
with that east/west street which, what's the name of
Hemphill: Lake Lucy Road.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It goes down from the old Lake Lucy right-of-way...one
lot depth. If you abandon the right-of-way up against my property and move
the right-of-way down so there's a full lot depth away from my property.
That 40 foot easement goes along side of that right-of-way.
Erhart: You went out and bought this property north of your original piece
specifically so you could avoid making the connection down to the south?
Is that what I understood?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I'm not sure I understand what you just said.
Erhart: You originally came in here some time ago and you were proposing
to subdivide this with a street connection down to Nez Perce?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: No, I don't think I ever.
~ Erhart: Just tell me what you did.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 56
e
Chuck Van Eeckhout: What I proposed is essentially what's on the table
right now with the one exception and that was, I was asking really to build
the road through the piece to the north and not plat it but...
Olsen: Staff recommended.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: That was the only change I made.
Erhart: Is there any problem with the easements that we have to give this
southern route? Just forget the 9:1 slope at this time. Are there any
additional problems to do it?
Hemphill: Right now there's a 40 foot right-of-way in order to put a
street. We'd probably need a slope easement outside of it for the road.
Erhart: 40 feet. And your 10:1 is that?
Hemphill: 3:1 slope.
Erhart: The 9:1 that you have, is that in that area south of the
applicant's property?
Hemphill: Yes.
e
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Also across my property would create a grade from...
This is lower ground here so from this point here we'd have to fill
something like 14 feet in there which is a very wide grade into a very nice
wooded area. So we'd spoil a lot of land in there...from this point to
this point. If you start at this point with your up slope and grade, when
you get up here your added slope...would be in excess of 10%.
Erhart: That's assumJng that this cul-de-sac would remain...
Chuck Van Eeckhout: ...but again we're trying to get this low enough so we
can grade properly.
Erhart: The issue and thru traffic is a problem because with Town Line
Road being finished off, there's going to be some pressure for people to
swing over that way to get onto Crosstown. Yet it's a little hard to
imagine that we would invest in this new street to the south and not take
advantage of it for access to areas adjacent to it or close to adjacent to
it. I just wonder if the solution Dave, maybe the compromise is moving
Forest Street further south?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I don't have a problem with that.
e
Erhart: So when that property to the west develops, it provides more
inducement. Before we spend any more time on it tonight, I agree with, I'm
not sure if Brian also concurred with Jim but I do agree that we ought to
spend some more time on this before we pass it along to Council unrevrewing
the issues that were brought up tonight without spending a whole lot of
time. The other last thing again, from the report the public safety fire
inspector indicated his request for a thru street connection. Did you
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 57
e
agree with that Jo Ann?
Olsen: That was part of when we first brought this proposal in front of
the Planning Commission, we were highly recommending that they do provide
that secondary access. Planning Commission wasn't very supportive of that.
We went back and really looked at what actually would happen with the
topography and the filling. I guess we came back thinking that it might be
significant alteration to the site and that we could live with the other
proposals to the west. He's providing an emergency access as one
compromise but as we've seen in the past, those work as streets anyway or
people still use them as streets and they're just problems.
Erhart: So anyway, I'd support tabling it with those ideas.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Can I comment? Time is very important and I have
waited 6 weeks. I would like to have it considered and passed on with your
comments and we'll take into account all of your comments and we'll work
with the residents in the interim to see if there are some things we can do
but we have studied it to the point where we're satisfied and staff is
substantially...well satisfied. That's not to say that your comments
aren't valuable...but we would like to move it along if at all possible.
Erhart: My feeling is that the Council will want to give the opportunity
to the citizens to have 2 weeks to participate in the discussions myself
and if we passed it along, they'll kick it back.
e
e
Conrad: Tough issue. I think any kind of connections to the south, we
looked at them not too long ago. There's some damaging impact to trees and
surroundings and I think at that point in time, and I don't know how they
were informed but a lot of the neighbors, I'm surprised that the neighbors
to the south aren't here tonight but they were here a while back to my
recollection and there was concern with connections to the south. You've
got, the folks that I've heard tonight are concerned with connections to
the north and not too long ago we heard about concerns to connections to
the south which is pretty typical every time you put in a new street. We
hear that every 2 weeks. At the time the logic seemed pretty compelling
not to do any kind of access to the south. Grades. I also think that if
it was a secondary access, and I think most people here probably don't want
any access on Pleasant View, but if there was a Pleasant View access and an
access to the south, you're going to get more traffic on Pleasant View.
Guaranteed. In my belief we're not talking about just dumping the units,
the lots that we're looking at here. You're going to get more traffic.
They will cut through. I think there are some negatives going to the
south. They're environmental and they're traffic and I can't say that
they're a primary entrance for this property either. On the other hand, I
don't like where Forest Street is. I think that doesn't serve any purpose
as a secondary access here. It just doesn't look right to me. It just
keeps seeming like there's got to be a better way to have a sedondary
access into this site. I'm really concerned about neighbors who move in
and we put roads right next to them and I honestly don't have a clue how to
solve that problem. We can't move the road 10 feet more. That's not going
to help you. To be honest, I really don't know how to solve that problem.
We can solve it certain ways with berming and certain ways with some stuff.
;,~,-,
e
e
-
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 58
I don't know that, those things we have done previously but there's going
to be a road access to this site and a very good outlet is Pleasant View
because it makes sense in terms of some street planning even though
Pleasant View doesn't need anymore traffic so we've got some real
inconsistencies here. My preference right now, because there is interest
in this issue and I do believe what Tim just said is right. I think City
Council is going to want to kick this around. They're going to want to
listen to the public and they're going to want to get people a little bit
involved in terms of access. I don't know if this isn't going to be the
final one but I would like to spend a liftle bit of time and. get the
neighbors involved just a tad and I think Frank, if you could take the
initiative on that. You volunteered some things. I guess I wouldn't mind
that for 2 weeks. I think it's going to save you time in the long run
based on how we typically work with City Council. Not that we allow
neighbors to design street plans because in the final analysis it's
planning staff and Planning Commission and City Council but I think there
are some neighborhood issues here that might be able to be straightened out
or at least clarified and my preference right now is to table it for a 2
week time and pack the next Planning Commission agenda Jo Ann. Table it
for tonight and bring her back. Thinking that maybe there's some solution.
For a secondary access or some other access, Jo Ann, even as Tim just
sketched out, an access corning out of the Court to the southwest going into
the property to the west. Even that makes some sense to me. Additional
sense to me but my preference is to table it also as some other people have
said and to get a little bit of Mr. Beddor's time and engineering time.
Obviously their time would be to persuade you that there's something else
that could be done but I'd sure like them and the residents involved just a
little bit more.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: The only problem is of course when you push in one
place, something comes out somewhere else. I have no problem with any of
the accesses that could be collectively decided on to the west. In other
words, if the Commission wants an access south of where the present Forest
Street is, we generally have no problem that. If the residents would
prefer to have access south of some other point, we have no problem with
it. The only thing is trying to figure out who's supposed to strike the
magic perfect solution. I guess the only way I know of how to proceed
would be to have the folks who are interested meet with staff and then
collectively they can decide on something. In all likelihood I'll be
willing to meet with them at any time. In all likelihood, if staff and the
neighbors decide on something, I'll probably concur with it unless it's
entirely off the wall.
Conrad: I appreciate your comments and I hear what you're saying. I think
just because of the interest we see here tonight and they're bringing up
real valid points. It's not that they're not concerned. They all know
that this property is going to be developed and they didn't talk about lot
size. They didn't talk about a lot of things. Many times we forget about
what they didn't talk about. People know there's going to be development
here and it's just a question of where it goes and how we direct it. I
prefer to spend another 2 weeks and maybe if Mr. Beddor can work with staff
and staff can work with the neighbors and bring you in, it seems like the
appropriate thing to do right now and as I said before, the plan may not
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 59
e
change other than I just don't know that Forest Street's the right place
but I think 2 more weeks might make it go through City Council with a
little bit more support than the neighbors and less time overall. Is there
a motion?
Wildermuth moved, Erhart seconded to table Subdivision Request #89-8 as
shown on plans dated July 20, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL - CONCEPT PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL
CENTER ON 1.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, MARKET
SQUARE PARTNERSHIP.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Okay, thanks Jo Ann. Here it is five to twelve. We've been here
for 6 hours and it's not fair for us or for you but why don't you make a
presentation at this late hour. We want to treat it fairly at this point
in time but unfortunatley we've kept you up until midnight. It's not our
choice.
e
e
Jim Winkles: Thank you. My name is Jim Winkles. I'm with MarCor
properties and I'm part of the team that's going to be, put together to do
this project. I think tonight in fact what we'd like to accomplish is just
a couple things very quickly recognizing the hour here too is one, to begin
with, we want to just talk very briefly about the PUD process. Secondly,
we want to talk to you very briefly about the plan which are two parts.
One's a site plan and one's the building plans. Really what we want to try
and do is just get your ideas on the plans. We're on a very fast track
schedule that we've put together with Fred Hoisington and Jim Lasher and
with Jo Ann. It's a schedule that's ambitious but at the same time is one
that we feel that I think, I don't know if you've received a copy of that
yet or not but if not, we'd certainly like to get one of those in your
hands also. What we're trying to accomplish is to create a shopping center
that has been talked about for quite a while in the town. The property
being just south of where we are right now. It would in fact include a
grocery anchored center which we have heard for some time now is probably
the number one shopping experience that people seem to want around this
general area. In fact, Cooper's SuperValu would be the lead tenant or
anchor tenant in that project. It's a project that's been talked about for
a long time. It's a project that we recently, in the last several weeks
have been spending a lot of time with Jo Ann and Fred and Jim Lasher
talking about the ultimate design. I guess I would agree with Jo Ann, I
think we've made a lot of progress in a relatively short period of time.
We have been to the HRA and showed them just a concept basis also. We've
got a whole series of steps to go here through so we're trying to get to
everybody that's going to have some type of review over this project. PUD
wise, when we started talking to staff, it became very clear that there's
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 60
really not an ordinance, there's not a vehicle within the City Code right
now to allow or permit this type of development. Much as there is in other
cities where there are this type of shopping center. There didn't seem to
be a good one ordinance that we could go to that would say this would work
really well in this particular situation. We looked at the rezonings. We
looked at variances. We looked at the PUD's and it was kind of the
consensus of staff and really it was staff's direction that the PUD seemed
to be the best route. That's why we at least are trying to go about it in
that fashion. I think within that concept we're trying to show a
development that will include a multiple number of buildings. Not just one
shopping center but also some outlots and then you get into how do you work
with traffic flow. How do you work with parking and where do you put lot
lines and all those sort of things. We don't know all the buildings that
will go on there yet. We know the main shopping center. We don't know all
the outlot pads and what will happen there. We know from experience,
looking around, that those things will happen. We just don't know how
they'll happen or what they'll be but tonight what we'd like to do, since
it is getting late, Todd Kristoferson and Bill Brisley from AmCon are here
and Todd will review the site plan and Bill will review the building plans.
You've got one set of elevations. Staff said they had some concerns about
that. We've gone back and we've met with the staff and Fred and Jim again
as I said and we have a couple of things to show you tonight to try to
start generating some ideas with what we hope we can then arrive at
something that we all kind of mutually agree upon so we can put that in
final form and get that into staff within the next 2 weeks so we can move
forward in our schedule. Our schedule that we want to hit is being under
construction in October. So with that, I guess I'd ask Todd if he could
run over some of the things. Again, we know that when we come back to you,
roughly in about a month I believe it is Jo Ann, if we hit all the schedule
and we're back on your agenda, then we'll have renderings and things like
that so you can see things a little clearer but at least for the time being
we're trying to get some ideas right now in terms of what your general
thoughts are and start putting things in perspective for everybody here.
Todd Kristoferson: I think that the site plan that you got in your packet
is a little bit difference than this one. We made some changes since that
was submitted. We've been meeting with Jo Ann and Brad and Jim Lash the
last 6 weeks and initially we started out with the plan that was, the
concept was the same but the parking and the traffic was a little bit
different. What we've ended up with I think is a real nice plan. We made
a lot of adjustments in working with staff. On the setbacks, we've
increased the setback from the property line now. The two sides where the
streets are, we've increased those to 25 feet to get additional landscaping
and berming in those areas. We adjusted our driveways to get better
traffic flow on the entries with the median here so traffic will cross in
front where we want to use some stacking. We made some adjustments also in
front of the stores here. In this area here, we initially had thought of
the concept of 2 aisles of parking in front of these buildings. Now what
we've done is put one row of parking up against the building and then
separated the next level of parking with curb and gutter and a median type
thing to get a little better traffic flow through there. So we think we've
kind of worked this thing, little things here and there that's kind of
worked it's way toward a real workable site plan. We've got a few more
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 61
e
things that we've come up with in the last couple of meetings that we
haven't addressed on here. One of those is a sidewalk which has been
suggested along Market Blvd. which would tie into I believe some existing
sidewalks on this corner. That's something that if we agree to do, I think
that's a good idea. We'll incorporate that into our next submittal. Then
also there's this hatched out area running through the parking area. What
we plan to do with that is dress it up a little and c~eate some landscaping
and some curved islands with the sidewalk through the middle to hide that
walkway through the parking lot into the sidewalk on Market Blvd..
Conrad: Where's the sidewalk? The walkway that you're talking about.
Todd Kristoferson: It's this hatched out area in here that goes through
the parking lot. It was a suggestion I think of staff that people that
park so far out wouldn't have to walk through all the cars. That there'd
be some walkway to go through there.
Conrad: Is it an elevated walkway or is it just marked?
Todd Kristoferson: Well it would all be on grade with the parking but I
think what we're envisioning now is some curb and gutter that separates the
walkway from the parking and the sides and then has ramps down where the
walkway goes through so you're stepping up and be able to push carts
through there or for handicap people will be able to go through there.
e
Erhart: Why do some people put the rows running from the building and then
in your case you have the rows going 90 degrees from the building?
Although I guess because it's an L building, there really is no.
Todd Kristoferson: Part of that is the main parking in here is...
Erhart: This is where the grocery store is?
Todd Kristoferson: Yes. The parking layout in that area is pretty much
driven by what works for the grocery store. We've also made the stalls
wider than the City ordinance requires. It cuts down the number of spaces.
If there's a problem we could always restripe the lot and cut our sizes
down but we'd like to start out with little bit wider spacing. It makes it
a little bit easier to get and out with cars and groceries.
Wildermuth: What's up there in the open space between 12:00 and 3:00?
e
Todd Kristoferson: That's the outlot area that Jim was referring to. What
we'd like to do is with the approval of this and PUD concept apprpoval of
having additional buildings on there. Probably a couple of buildings in
addition to the vet site. We don't know what those uses would be right now
so w~ don't know how they would layout and how the parking would be but
we'd like to have it as part of this whole packet, I would like to have it
approved that we could come in later with 1 or 2 more buildings on those
sites that would have adequate parking and possibly share parking in a
cross easement type thing and share parking agreements with the main
shopping center. That's all I've got. So without any other comments, I
guess this is pretty close to what we would be coming in with.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 62
e
e
Jim Winkles: With the site plan, the initial building that would go up is
about 78,000 square feet in size. with that then there's also the
expansion space that you have for the SuperValu which is about another
15,000 square feet. Then we also are, as you can see in terms of the
outlot, that's all in one building. And you have one outlot up there right
now that at least programed, at least there's a significant amount of
interest to put in a veterinary clinic. The remaining open space would be
used for other free standing buildings and that could be one building, it
could be two buildings. I supposed it could be three. I guess we've
envisioned that to be two other buildings. We don't know what those other
uses would be there other than we do know that even a SuperValu there's a
requirement that that area has to be self sufficient in a sense of parking.
SuperValu will not allow, by their lease with us, will not allow us to put
in some use on that site that will generate more traffic than what by
ordinance they would have to provide right on their site. I guess that's
probably consistent too with what we've been talking to Jo Ann about and
some of the staff people that in a sense we can't overbuild the site by
putting uses on there that are inconsistent in terms of their hours or
anything else. But again, what we're asking for, we'll be asking for in
the PUD, is a concept approval for that other outlot space recognizing that
there will be some other space. Recognizing that it would still have to
conform, would have to come back into you for further subdivision for
review of the site plans and building plans for those specific buildings
when they're known. When we start construction, if we don't know what's
going to go there, it's simply going to be landscaped. It will be
landscaped and be green area until such time as that became known. Whether
that was 1 year or 5 years down the road. It would just be landscaped
until that point in time. Maybe Bill could come up and talk about the
building itself and then maybe after that we could take your comments.
e
Bill Brisley: In working with Mr. Lasher and Mr. Hoisington considerably,
we revised what...to the most recent version here. The chief difference
here is that down at the end in the corner we have an identify keyot sort
of thing that the City already has in several places along the roadway and
similiar in it's form and structure. Our original design called for a dry
bed or a stucco type material on most of the center. We've revised that
now to be stucco only on the parts of the buildings that are large. The
large anchor tenants so to speak. We have now in the sign band above the
general retail, a wood 4 inch lap siding. Whether it's cedar or redwood,
something like that. All along and I don't know if it was clear to anyone,
the base that you see under the windows goes all the way through and all
around the back of the building is a rock faced concrete block to give a
foundation or pediment sort of base look to it. We've soften the canopy
from a metal continuous canopy to an opaque, non-translucent canvas canopy
that are individual over shops. Sometimes combined, sometimes not to give
a feeling that, what we've all been striving for is an old town look. To
have as much variety in old town apperance as is possible in a single
building. This is one large building. It's hard to break it up as much as
we have but I think we're getting there to a point that it now is within
that strived for concept of old town for street front. One of the things
that you might notice that all the buildings have 2 or 3 levels of...at the
tops of their walls. They go all the way around the back. I think all of
e
e
.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 63
these elements including the quarricos in front of the main tenants I think
all meet or contribute to this individuality of these different buildings
even though they are one building. We do have and I don't have an overhead
of the handout that you got prior to this one. It's one that we, it was
sort of the Version C. If the one that weremailedwasA.this is B. The
one with the peaked roofs or hip roofs over the large anchor tenant is a
ve~sion that we'~e looking at and p~icing ~ight now. We don't have
absolute go ahead on it with the contractor yet but it's the one that
possibly is our ultimate design. What you're looking at here on this one
are just blow-ups of these different areas. You get a larger scale. If
there's any questions?
Jim Winkles: The kind of comments we received from the staff were that they
were striving towards the old town type of character. Doing a couple
things. Using the different building heights. As you can see on that by
different masses on there. They talked about materials and they wanted us
to use a combination of material rather than an all this or an all that
type of structure. They wanted to start introducing different materials so
hence the rock faced block and I always say glass and the stucco and the
wood and some of the other elements, they're all attempting to create and
even the canvas awnings, things like that are all an attempt to try to
generate or create this feeling of different buildings even though it's one
huge big building. Also introducing all the different elements in terms of
material into the thing too so that's what we've been trying to do and I
think tonight what we heard from the consultants just prior to this meeting
was that they said yes, they think we're getting there towards doing that.
It's hard to tell, a big building like this, you try to.do a rendering or
not a rendering but an elevation like this, it's very difficult to see
all the detailing in a building like this. Things by it's nature, because
it's so big, get very small and it's hard to talk about a lot of the
detailing around the edge of the roof and how the wood and canvas and
everything comes together and the use of colors and what all happens out
there. But I think what we've tried to do is meet staff and say okay,
that's the kind of look they want, that's what we'll try to design into
this thing. I think that we've pretty much done that. When we corne to the
next meeting, you'll see a rendering. A 3D rendering and in color you'll
be able to start picking up on the all details we're talking about because
right now, I look at it too and it looks flat and it's hard to see the
detail how things go in and out and colors and how they're going to relate
and use of materials. At least that's, I guess what I'm trying to convey
to you some of the things that are going to be happening. You'll be seeing
that you can't see off of a black and white just elevation drawing which
doesn't give you any kind of perspective to the thing here.
Conrad: You're certainly heading in the right direction. I think your
Version A was not acceptable at all, in my mind. What I've seen tonight is
certainly getting there. It would, and I know this is all economics as we
play with store fronts but this is getting to be something that I think the
residents would be real proud of. I would hope that that would be able to
be worked in, factored into the equation. The economic equation. You've
got a huge building. You've got to break it up and I think the consultants
are telling you some of those ways to do it and you're paying attention and
that's good. Just to reinforce what they're telling you, you're going the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 64
e
right direction. That's critical that you go... Let's just open it up for
anybody's comments. Tonight is the night for comments. They're asking for
this area to be considered a PUD. Actually they're changing zoning on it
and in my mind this is a far better use of the land than what we had it
zoned for. I'm not trying to bias you Planning Commission but on the other
hand, I'm looking at the clock and I'm seeing it's 12:15. I'm trying to be
a little bit expediate here. I just think that the overall use is far
superior to what I had envisioned in this general business district which
was a mish mash of stuff. That doesn't mean we're not going to push the
general business district down further to the west but this is a terrific
improvment over what I perceived was going to go into this parcel of land
and I'm not too concerned about some of the impervious surface ratios and
whatever. I think staff's done a nice job of detailing some of these
things. Jim, what further comments do you have Jim?
Wildermuth: The exterior appearance is headed in the right direction.
Something with a spire on it just doesn't seem to be appropriate for
Chanhassen Lawn and Sport but I think the design evolution is heading in
the right direction. I'd be curious to know what, pursue this PUD idea a
little further and see what the City would be giving and what the City
would be receiving.
e
Batzli: Not having ever I don't think truly considered what could go in
here, I guess I don't share your total enthusiasm for this being a PUD.
Looking at the PUD ordinance, I suppose this may fit efficiency, density
and district integration but it certainly doesn't meet several of the other
categories.
Conrad: Let me respond quickly and I normally don't do it but basically
what it was going to be, this area was going to be zoned as a building,
parking lot, building, parking lot, building, you know it was definitely
going to be a place for a car center. It was going to be a real mish mash.
It was originally thought of Brian of being, what we couldn't put down into
the CBD area, the overflow went out here and that was going to be lots of
little units. They could have been restaurants or car dealers or whatever
and I just personally had a real problem with that type of, it seemed to me
that we didn't need that kind of commercial development. So basically
you're right. Going under PUD gets rid of some of the restrictions and
gives them a little bit more property to deal with to put in parking lots.
You're right.
Batzli: I guess the two biggest questions I had, I agree with the comments
that I think the architecture is, I like this much better than the proposal
that we had in our plans. The other question was this open section. When
the impervious surface was calculated, did it take into account that
portion?
Olsen: I don't believe that did, no.
e
Todd Kristoferson: The calculation that we did assumed that that would be
building. That wasn't counting on that outlot area.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 65
e
Batzli: So you either took it out of your calculation or you includ~d it
as being all impervious?
Jim Winkles: The calculations were based on that area being developed.
Batzli: Totally impervious?
Todd Kristoferson: Not totally.
Bill Brisley: There's green areas in there. Islands and some landscaping.
Olsen: He's asking like a 80% or...
Jim winkles: We envision two buildings for a total of about another 12,000
square feet of space... The parking necessary to accommodate a...
Batzli: The plan that we have is changed, as I understand, for the amount
of green space that you have in there currently. Is that right? You say
there's been a change in regards to the setbacks with more landscaping and
things like that in there?
Jim Winkles: Yes. The plan has changed. Some of those have moved and...
e
Batzli: The one thing I didn't understand Jo Ann on this parking that's
shown in the dotted lines. A comment in your report was that it would be
open or green or grassy until you needed it and then it's going to be a
parking lot.
Olsen: It's shown as future parking and when we were first discussing, it
was going to possibly only be used...
Jim Winkles: While it's necessary for when and if people could expand...
15,000 square feet for the grocery store which they're planning, until it's
built, that area, that front needs to be landscaped. What we're showing on
the plan, we show you the ultimate size of the building and the ultimate
parking area.
Olsen: One thing that we initially discussed was that if it was even found
with the expansion that some of that parking area would not necessarily
have to be open all the time. That there could be some creative way of
developing it so it still might look like...
Batzli: Was the impervious surface calculation ca19ulated with the grocery
store expansion and the additional parking in place?
Jim Winkles: Yes.
Batzli: So there's 17% green space on this plan with that development up
here?
e Jim Winkles: with the total development, yes.
Batzli: I don't know where you're squeezing it all but okay.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 66
e
Conrad: What do you think? Are you concerned about the PUD? They would
like to hear it. What would you like to change? Green space?
Batzli: Yes.
Con~ad: Bump it up?
Batzli: Yes.
Conrad: What would you do?
Batzli: I don't know. Tea~
Conrad: Okay.
down paradise and put up a parking lot.
Batzli: Well I should say this. It's not a concern as long as the grocery
store doesn't expand and that additional parking doesn't go in probably but
then I think you've got a lot that's a parking lot. Big parking lot. But
it's going to be developed.
Wildermuth: But all the businesses are going to take a big 'parking lot.
e
Batzli: Sure. Well you've got a lot of businesses that are going to
require a lot of traffic and a lot of people moving in and out. I agree,
PUD is a good way to handle it but I don't know, we've talked a lot
~ecently about PUD is a special deal. We're getting something in ~eturn.
It sounds to me like the only thing we're getting here is that we avoid
getting a mish mash.
Conrad: That's right.
Batzli: So we're not getting anything positive, we're avoiding a negative
and I don't know that I necessarily agree with that kind of philosophy for
a PUD.
wildermuth: But there's a lot of potential things.
Conrad: There's a lot more give and take in some of the designs.
Wildermuth: There will be some good construction materials or higher grade
construction materials.
Conrad: Yes, and you have that kind of leverage.
Batzli: Are we leveraging?
Conrad: At 25 afte~, no. We're just giving them our comments right now.
e
Erhart: Brian, this is general business. It's not central business
district. This is general and that district requires how much green
normally?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 67
e
Olsen: I believe it's 70%.
Erhart: 70% impervious and they're looking to go 83%. I think the PUD is
a great idea to be applied here. I think the area needs it. It's truly a
commercial area. It's almost the central business district but I wouldn't
favor changing to that because as it's zoned, it gives us some leverage
here to work on the architectural and the landscaping of the 17% or maybe
it ends up 12% or something so I think it's a great opportunity for us to
get some leverage on this thing. I'm a little curious on who is it within
the City, who is it on the city side that evaluates these proposals from an
architectural point of view? Is that us Jo Ann? In this whole downtown
redevelopment, don't we have...
Olsen: The HRA also reviewed this plan that we're talking about.
Erhart: But BRW has no role in evaluating architectural?
Olsen: We're using Jim Lasher in that capacity and also with Fred and then
myself and we're the ones who are really stating what we'd like to see in
addition to what normally they would give.
Erhart: Hoisington group? Okay, so we do have someone professionally
sitting on our side evaluating these groups?
e
Olsen: Yes.
Erhart: So the process was when they came in with, AmCon came in with this
first pass, Fred had the same reaction that we did I assume? Good because
I think if the first pass had any serious, I guess if we took the first
pass seriously I'd be surprised. I'd be questioning whether we really had
a way of handling the whole downtown thing so I'm encouraged to know that
that was rejected out of hand. And we're going the right direction here
but I just can't imagine a development this big with a bunch of flat roofs
quite honestly from an architectural standpoint. I think it absolutely
needs some roofs on some of these spaces to make it workable. What it's
going to look like in a few years if it's totally flat is it's just going
to look like a big Kenny's and I think weren't you up here Brad trying to,
aren't you working at trying to improve Kenny's? Is that you?
Brad Johnson: No, that's the City.
Olsen: That's HRA.
Erhart: Someone. I mean it's impossible. You've got a flat roof building
and the story was that we couldn't add anything on the roof for fire
reasons or whatever.
Olsen: Building Code. Snow capacity.
e
Erhart: Well then how come these guys can do it?
Olsen: They're building a whole new structure underneath it.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 68
e
Erhart: Oh, because it would require some structural, okay. Anyway, I
absolutely think at a minimum, this is a minimum that it's got to have. I
just can't imagine having that much flat roof and so I'd like to not only
emphasize Jo Ann and Fred, I guess he finally gave up the ghost tonight.
Olsen: I told him to go home.
Erhart: Is to take a pretty hard line on this architectural stuff. I'm
willing to give the 17% or give the 13% up because it's truly a commercial
area. It's going to be cars and asphalt but let's make the buildings look
neat. Let's make it look like some of these nice developments you see in
Phoenix.
Wildermuth: Burger Brothers off of...
Erhart: Yes. Hopefully not that dense but that kind of thing.
Olsen: They're using that shopping center as an example for the
applicants.
Wildermuth: There's another new one called Woodlake in Kohler, Wisconsin
that will just knock your socks off and I don't think the construction is
that expensive. It's the cut stone or block. Exposed aggregate block.
e
Erhart: That's interesting because that's the one I had in mind. In fact
I mentioned it when someone was saying what are they going to put there, I
told Ladd, I said that's where Burger Brothers goes. Secondly, I think
I'll be anxious to see it when you come back with the colored one with all
the nice roofs on it and I'll be very anxious to see the landscaping plan.
What do we do with this 17%-20%. Let's get some trees in there. I don't
think anybody's going to use this thing for a park but it is going to set
an image for the downtown area. Let's get some nice trees and berming in
there. So that's my comments.
Conrad: I think it's a good route to fly. The back of the building. The
building that's, Monterey Drive. So we have the back of the center facing
that street. What, do we have one building over there right now so it's
really not the best of all worlds.
Olsen: No, that was one of our problems with it was the fact that it is
facing another street and it's acting as the back, like an alley almost.
Conrad: Why don't we close the road down?
Erhart: Make it an alley?
Conrad: It's just really not, what does it mean for folks on the other
side that want to build, for the development to the west of that road Jo
Ann?
e
Olsen: That's what we're trying to make them provide. Additional
landscaping and to screen it. I know that they want to also use that as a
view or a front. Not a front but for signage and advertising of their
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 69
e
stores but we're coming from the viewpoing that that should be considered
like as a service area and screened as such and try to reduce the impact to
the lots across the street as much as possible.
Conrad: I think that's the thing I don't like about it but I don't know
that there's a solution to that particular problem.
Erhart: Just have another shopping center facing the opposite direction on
the opposite side.
Conrad: Back side, what's the building materials of the back side?
Jim winkles: We haven't worked that our completely yet but again, we'll be
using some of the same materials that we have in the front. Carrying some
things around. The same type of material.
Conrad: Concept for signage on the side?
Jim Winkles: Some of the people, particularly the SuperValu and some of
the other people along on the south side of the project do want, very
important for them to be signed towards TH 5. On the back side, the other
people, I'm not sure. They mayor may not want signing. We know that
we'll be developing an overall sign plan for the entire center which will
be part of everything else that we bring in too.
e
Conrad: I don't know that signage will be bad over there. Again, trying
to get away from it looking like a warehouse. Anything that makes that
street look a little bit more appealing that the back side of a...
Jim Winkles: We know it's going to have to be well landscaped back there
too. Create something back there that's not just going to be the back side
of a building so the materials have to look a little bit better. The
landscaping has to look a little bit better and the whole thing has to be
dressed up a little bit.
Conrad: Will there be loading docks back there?
Jim Winkles: We really will only have a couple places with loading docks.
Conrad: Really? How do they service the stores?
Jim Winkles: Many of the smaller stores for the most part feed right
through their front door. They get vans and things like that. The other
ones will pull up to the back door. They won't have loading docks but
they'll have overhead doors and just rear doors but there's really only
Lawn and Sports and the hardware will each have a loading dock. Other than
that, it would just be rear doors. As I say, many of the small businesses,
they would just simply load through the back door or they load right
through the front door early in the morning with vans or very small trucks.
e Conrad: I'm not wild about loading through the front.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 70
e
Jim Winkles: Unfortunately that happens in these kinds of businesses.
Whether you get a bakery or some other very small store, materials come in
very, very small trucks and they get there early in the mornings and
they're in and out. Or the back door. It's just whatever is most
convenient for them to run in and out real quickly. I think any of the
larger deliveries would come to the back and they go into the back to
deliver it.
Conrad: Like a liquor store. Where would they go?
Jim Winkles: They would go in the back. They go in the back because
they'll take, they don't need a loading dock height but they would have a
double door. Typically they're situated with a double door in back. What
they do is most of them, they'll have it set up so the coolers are going to
be in back which gets into the whole marketing concept of how you sell
liquor. People go to the back of the coolers and they literally will load
right from the truck right into the coolers. So it will be a walk-in
cooler. The truck driver will actually load their coolers for them in many
cases so they'd load in the back. Right through just a double door.
Conrad: Okay. I don't think I have anything else to add. I appreciate
your comments.
Jim Winkles: Your comments are all well taken. We understand what lies
e ahead of us and we do appreciate you not tabling us.
Conrad: If we make you stay up until 11:30, we're going to listen to you.
Erhart: How many acres is it really?
Jim Winkles: It's about, I think 11.2 acres.
Conrad: I think recapping. The greenery. Trying to make the parking lot
look smaller than it really is. The back side, I think we're interested in
and then the architectural. I think of all the priorities, we would lean
towards a PUD concept, giving up some kind of green space or whatever, I
think you've just got to help us improve the exterior. I think you have
the concept and I think that's probably our top priority.
Erhart: When's it going to be done?
Jim Winkles: When's it going to be done? We want to be back on your next
agenda in terms of process wise. We'd like to start mid-October and get
the buildings up. It's a good size building so it's not going to be built
over night so we'd really be looking at about a May I-May 15th. Possibly
earlier. Again, the other thing, to have everything done, it might be
estimated, there might be some things and people moved in before that but
to get everything all done and put together, landscaping and the whole
works, sometime around May 1. Thank you very much.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 71
e
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Conrad: Moving right along here. Are there any additions, corrections to
the Minutes of July 19th?
Batzli: I don't think you can act on those. I've got to abstain.
Conrad: Then we won't act on that.
OLD BUSINESS:
Conrad: I think I'll skip other things that we could talk about. I think
Jo Ann, one thing that we'd like to get you working on, goes back to this
Cenvesco issues. I guess I don't want to wait too long on that one and I
don't know, just to literally get you working on some of the concepts that
we talked about. I don't know what format that takes at this time.
Olsen: I already have somebody working on that.
Conrad: Do you? So when we're talking about parking for visitors, you've
got somebody there and number of garage sites. You're working on that?
Olsen: Architectural standards.
e
Conrad: Okay. Parking we talked about.
Erhart: I think we all ought to do too, I know we have an ordinance change
to make where we don't say net but assume net. If you look through like
they did in R-4, R-8 and R-12 it's obviously that the word net should be in
that R-12.
Olsen: It isn't in the other ordinance either and I'll go back and check
that but that's always been the way, ever since I've been here, that's the
way it was done.
Erhart: R-4 and R-8 has the word net and R-12 doesn't and even if we make
this ordinance change, what's going to happen. You and I won't be here and
the next person to come along will read it but they won't know about this
other little ordinance and they'll say well geez, maybe that's gross. Just
by adding the word net in there would solve that problem.
Wildermuth: This Cenvesco thing, I think we really ought to take a look
at...
Olsen: At what?
Wildermuth: Take a hard look at the...
e
Batzli: Zoning this for lower density.
Wildermuth: They could still come back with tall buildings up there just
like we were talking about.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 72
e
Conrad: Yes.
Wildermuth: While R-12 might be appropriate for that area, it's going to
look bad up there on that hill.
Erhart: I guess I'd like to even expand on that. I'd like to have a
little bit of discussion from staff of R-12. What it really means and
allow us to really review again what we want to have in R-12. It's been
some time ago since this whole thing went through.
Wildermuth: Except Steve would disagree vehemently.
Erhart: I'm not saying that we shouldn't have it R-12. I'm just saying
that it's not clear in my mind that we don't have enough restrictions.
COnrad: I'm not against R-12. I think we can allow that but we just don't
have the restrictions or the requirements for that area so someone can come
in and build anything and we're going to be stuck. The City will be stuck
with some bad stuff.
wildermuth: Construction standards.
e
Conrad: Yes, that's what we need.
what Cenvesco can't afford to do.
there anything else?
Which will make them costly which is
But there's no reason to be stuck. Is
Olsen: Kevin Finger has been here all night. He just wants to talk real
briefly.
Conrad: Sorry about that. What do you have?
-
Kevin Finger: Well, you know I wouldn't stick around here, because all
this stuff that had nothing to do with me, unless I had something really
important to me. I want to try to be as brief as I can but it's important
so that's why I'm here. Last January 4th I was in front of you guys and we
talked about Northwest Wholesale Nursery. They're down on Great Plains
Blvd.. They were trying to expand their contractor's yard and they wanted
a wetlands permit and all that stuff. I got involved in the discussion on
how to, ways that we could compromise the situation. But instead we really
didn't talk about what was the problem. I've been patient waiting and I'm
at the end of my rope. I'm tired of them. I'm asking you people to do one
of two things. Either revoke their conditional use permit #85-1 granted to
them February of 1985 or two, demand that they begin operating their
business in accordance with that conditional use permit. I don't think
either one is that bad. Briefly, because it is late, I really want to go
into a lot more detail. My letter goes into more detail that I sent to you
and a copy to the City Council. They haven't operated as a wholesale
nursery since day one. At the meeting last January, they admitted they
haven't been. The first thought is, well maybe they didn't know. They're
in business. My God, you should know what you're allowed to do. When they
were allowed their permit, Mr. Van Hoff stated and this is a quotation from
that meeting of January of 1985. He also wanted the Commission to know
e
-
-
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 73
that they only harvest in the spring and fall and storage would be for
those crops burlapped until sold. He knew at that time that a wholesale
nursery is an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on
site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and
maintenance. If he didn't know then, last January he found out because Mr.
Emmings told him. He read him that definition. Okay, if I was a
businessman and somebody came up to me and said, hey you're not operating
in accordance with the law. I'd do one of two things. I'd either change
my style of business and get in conformance with the law or I'd get my tail
back in here and try to get that changed so I'd be operating within the
law. Their response to that is what they've done all along. If they don't
like it, they ignore it. They don't change anything. They ignore it.
Really, I've got two problems that we discussed before. One is the
drainage problem. The drainage problem. I've lost 15 evergreens. I've
got 10-12 inches of sand on my property. It's going to cost me probably
two grand to get all that fixed but why should I fix it. I'm still going
to get the same thing. The reason I have the drainage is, they water the
trees that they get in. You don't understand unless you're there, the
number of semi's of trees that come in. They're a distributor. They're
not a wholesale nursery. They bring trees in and they sell them. They've
only got 35 acres of land. You can't grow that many trees. The pictures
I have that I sent in, you look at the amount of trees they have stacked
there. They can't grow that many trees on 35 acres, and they have their
growing fields full so they must be a distributor. The other problem I
have is the noise. The Bobcats are running constantly. I checked out
Halla Nursery. I checked out the growing fields that Minnesota Valley has
over on pioneer Trail. When you harvest trees, the Bobcats are just a
small percentage of the time. Most of that is manual labor. Bobcats just
go along and pluck them out and then people come by and tie them up and
burlap them. Actually, the two problems. Noise. If they operate as a
wholesale nursery, they would only harvest trees that they grow. with only
35 acres approximately that they could grow trees, that would limit the
noise. plus couple that with the trees generally are in the gound 2 to 4
years. The rate at which they would harvest the trees would limit the
noise so I wouldn't have the noise problem if they were a wholesale
nursery. Number 2, drainage. If they were a wholesale nursery, they'd
grow their own trees. They wouldn't bring in others and have to
continually water them. Growing fields at Halla Nursery and at Minnesota
Valley, they don't water their growing fields so I wouldn't have the
drainage problem. I'm a resident of this City. The owners of the nursery
are not. Most of their employees, almost all of their employees are not.
I pay 2 3/4 times the property taxes that the nursery does. I checked it
out. I think it's the responsibility of the commission to protect and
serve the interest of the residents of this city, especially when it
pertains to the enforcement of ordinances that this commission approves.
To my knowledge the staff this week has told the nursery they must apply to
have the conformed use permit changed. Needless to say, I would be against
that. I cannot visualize allowing a company to act illegally for 3 to 4
years and then tell them it's okay by letting them change their conformed
use permit. Think of the precedent that you would be establishing. Again
I'm asking this commission to look after the interests of the residents of
the city and not to allow a precedent like this to go on. I ask that you
take quick and decisive action. Don't delay any longer. I've had to put
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - page 74
e
up with delay now for 2 or 3 years. I've gone through all the proper
channels. I've tried to deal with them. I've called people. I haven't,
this is the first time I've really ever put anything in writing to try to
really get things going. Unfortunately it was on the day that Jo Ann took
vacation. She came back Monday morning and the world was falling apart.
So in summary, I'm asking one of two things. Either revoke their permit or
make them operate their business under that permit. That's all I'm asking
and I don't think that's unreasonable.
Resident: Let me make a comment on the drainage. I live across, just
straight across the road... Kevin lives in back and I live across the
street. Have you ever picked raspberries, do any of you have raspberries?
Have you ever picked raspberries with rubbers on and had to step around in
water that deep? That's what I've got to contend with all summer long.
It's no lie. Come and look. I'll be glad to show you.
Kevin Finger: But the thing is, they're operating illegally. I mean they
are.
Conrad: I just went by your house the other day and I was remarking at how
good the front yard looked with all the trees. I remember when the trees
were planted there and they were little ones and they're looking real big
right now. It's just amazing how fast they grow. Jo Ann, who's
responsible for enforcing ordinances?
e
Olsen: What happened was last fall I initiated him to go through, Mark Van
Hoff to go through that application process. That's when I went on
maternity leave and that's when Steve just started and I understand that
the meeting got a little chaotic and a lot of accusations were made and
things and what happened is that it was tabled and then Mark Van Hoff wrote
a letter saying that he wanted to be postponed until his busy season was
over which would be November-December of this year. I don't think that
Steve understood the history that we were requiring Mark to go through this
because he had been filling wetlands and he was expanding his business.
Batzli: Didn't he build a shed that was too close?
Olsen: Right and that's where there was, I said one thing and I said
another thing.
Batzli: You came to that meeting and were complaining about the drainage
at that time? It's all coming back to me now.
Olsen: Right. So it shouldn't have been let go and I apologize about
that. Since I've come back from maternity leave and found that nothing did
happen with it, then I've always been trying to get back to Mark to get it
going and I just haven't done it.
Batzli: Now you've sent this letter yesterday. Well yes, yesterday now
and I assume you haven't seen the letter but there is a request to justify
how the business is a wholesale nursery.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 75
e
Olsen: We're not necessarily going to bring him back through and approve
what he's done. What will be happening will be review of the conditional
use permit and one of the actions could be to recommend revoking.
Batzli: The City Council does that.
Olsen: Right but you can recommend.
Batzli: Do we need a hearing first at the Commission level?
Olsen: The actual public hearing is at the City Council.
brought it up to review like with Lowell Carlson has been
brought up to the Planning Commission. I don't know. If
feeling just to bring it right to the Council.
Conrad: I think we should have a chance.
I've always
brought up and
that's your
Wildermuth: To recommend something.
Olsen: At least the wetland alteration permit.
Conrad: It should get in here. It sure sounds like they haven't done
anything. They're trying to get through the season obviously and do
nothing but I think they should sort of be brought in real quickly Jo Ann.
e
Olsen: I gave them a deadline of September that they had to apply.
Conrad: The faster the better and I guess I don't care if it comes to us
or City Council. I don't care.
Olsen: What I would take to the City Council would just be a request to
revoke it and I guess if that's your feeling. It sounds like there are
lots of...
Conrad: I really haven't read the material on this issue so I don't know
anything about it other than what we've seen before but I think the case is
what is allowed, what the permit allows. What we asked to change and what
hasn't changed. Those things have to line up and somebody simply has to
review it and I don't think that that's us adding any insight. I think the
City Council says this is what was approved and this is what you're doing
and something has to happen period. I'm not sure that in that situation
we're needed.
Batzli: But you're requesting his material is actually to finish the
process begun last year.
Olsen: Right. That's been tabled.
e
Batzli: But that's what you requested him to provide so he will actually
be coming through with another application so we will see it.
Olsen: Plus there's a wetland alteration permit involved for filling in
the wetland.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 76
e
Kevin Finger: See that's what got this whole thing started.
Batzli: So what we could in essence do is not only deny the permit if it
was unacceptable but also recommend at the same time that the Council
review revoking the original one I supposed.
Olsen: That will give you an opportunity for you to see all the facts.
Conrad: So mechanically then, it will come back to us because of the
wetland alteration permit?
Olsen: Yes and just because the other item was tabled also. Review of the
conditional use permit.
Erhart: If someone is just in violation of the conditional use permit,
isn't there a process for you to correct that situation?
Conrad: Do we issue citations?
Olsen: We've never done that yet. The only other one I keep using as an
example that there's been gross violations has been Lowell Carlson and that
one we just kept trying to work with them to see what we could do. That's
a little different where he was grandfathered in.
e
Erhart: We don't have an provision in our ordinance to fine people?
Olsen: We could do that too.
Conrad: There's got to be a quick way to stop some of the stuff that we've
been hearing.
Olsen: We've got a stop order now again and if anything else happens, then
we will be starting citations.
Kevin Finger: But if all you had was a stop'order...he continues to expand
his contractor's yard. He hauls in trees.
Erhart: Why did you send him a definition of a contractor's yard?
Olsen: It was discussed at the Planning Commission that it might be a
contractor's yard.
Erhart: Since that time we eliminated contractor's yards.
Olsen: Right. I'm not sending him that. Actually I might have said in
there that section but I was just quoting some of the sections from Steve's
letter.
e
Erhart: ...got the impression that he could come in here. Before we got
that ordinance changed, I felt that he could easily come in under our
liberal interpretation of contractor's yard and then he'd be just fine but
the fact that we've eliminated that, all that's left is a wholesale nursery
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 77
e
period.
Conrad: Do we need other evidence? How does the City go about collecting
evidence on misuse? You can go out and review the site. We have some
neighbors who are saying that it's noisy. How do we document stuff like
that? Actually you document by calling City Hall don't you? That's really
what you do do.
Kevin Finger: All you have to do, just because the one thing is his site
plan. He's gone way beyond his original site plan.
Olsen: Yes, there's no question.
Conrad: So there's a couple things that are obvious and the drainage is
obviously there. Noise we can't prove.
Erhart: What would it require him to fix that drainage problem?
Kevin Finger: Operate as a whole nursery. Plant the trees rather than...
Erhart: But can't he change the drainage or something to get that water?
Kevin Finger: All he has to do, that hill, if you ever
look up to the right he's got evergreens on that hill.
is plant. Don't put the balled burlapped trees that he
all the time. Just plant them.
drive by. If you
What you should do
continues watering
e
Conrad: It seems like a simple way to solve the problem.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m..
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
e