Loading...
1989 08 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 1989 e Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior planner and Dave Hempel, Senior Engineering Tech PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF 22.8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.5 AND 20.33 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, CHES MAR REALTY. Public Present: Name Address Chuck and Ginger Gross Geri Eikaas Tim Keane 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road Larkin-Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes, Bloomington Representative for the Applicant e Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Tim Keane: Good evening. Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Keane with Larkin Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes, Bloomington. Jo Ann gave a good recitation of the history of his matter. We promised we'd be back when we resolved the issues last January and here we are. We essentially have modified the plat to increase the size of Lot 1 to 2 1/2 acres to meet the City's minimum lot requirements for that parcel. We understand the conditions. We've discussed them with staff. The one that, well actually there's one that we're not in agreement with and that is the need for the 35 foot roadway easement. I'm not sur~ with the conditions as imposed, precisely what the need is for that. We do not see the need for that at this time. Jo Ann, just a point of clarification. The 15 foot driveway easement to be provided along the western boundary of Parcel A. Could you identify that? Olsen: That was an old condition. It goes along here to provide some form of access to it. The slope is actually pretty extreme in there. Tim Keane: Yes. I'm not sure if that is even feasible in the field. We're certainly willing to work with the City to identify an access location that does work. e Emmings: That's been removed as a condition you know? Tim Keane: Thank you. Yes. with that, we'd respectfully request your approval. Any questions? Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 2 e Emmings: Yes, I've got a question on the plat. It seems to read to me that all of this is called Block 1 and that there's a Lot 1 and a Lot 2. Can you clarify that? Tim Keane: The actual plat document itself will read Lot I and Lot 2, Block 1, Ches Mar Farms. Emmings: Isn't that what it says now? Tim Keane: I think we have Parcel A and B. Batzli: Parcel A and B were on the previous plans. Tim Keane: Okay. Then it will read Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Ches Mar Farms 2nd Addition. Conrad: Other comments? e Chuck Gross: I'm Chuck Gross. I live on this property. 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road. We're very happy to be here tonight and we're hoping that we can get the approval. I'm, I should say we, Ginger and I, we're in agreement with everything with the exception of this 35 foot roadway easement. The number 6, the 15 foot driveway, it has been evidentally no longer necessary. We're a private road now and there is, as far as I know, no plans at this time to change the density on this farm and from the division that's going to take place hopefully, whereby we'll end up with our home, this would not change anything in the way of density or traffic or that sort of thing. I've got, I don't know whether anyone has seen, may I present some shots of the driveway that we're talking about here? Pass those around? Conrad: Sure. e Chuck Gross: If you'll look, most of that, the left as you're coming in, that's our property which would be to the south. I wanted to refer to the fact that if there was going to be an easement, the 35 feet would be totally unreasonable in relation to the amount of property that it would take and the trees, the mature trees that it would take out. There is an existing 25 foot easement on the north side on the other property as such at this time. I don't believe that any of the people that live on the farm at this time are in favor of any kind of or any type of a road change. I don't believe that any of them are in favor of any type of a development. I believe that they're all interested in saving as much green space as they possibly can and we certainly feel this way also. If in the future there was going to be a change or there would be a development, then I think that would be a time to approach the road situation in terms of having it become a public road as such and that would have to be addressed at that time but I think in all fairness, that it should be property owners that are addressed so they would have the opportunity perhaps to have placed in covenants in terms of any easement that's given. The photos that I'm passing around show that the drive. We have, Ginger and I have lived in our home for I guess probably the past 18 years. We were able to buy the Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 3 e option on it approximately 8 years ago and we exercised that option about a year and a half ago and we've been waiting ever since to close on it. During the time that we've lived there, we've probably planted over 200 trees over the 2 1/2 acres and such and we would certainly not want to see a road come in and take 35 feet of mature trees out and that would also be much too close to our home. So I would hope that the plat that is presented here would be accepted. That plat does not have the easement in there. It does have some drainage and utility easement. I think there's 6 foot or whatever it is there, 10 foot out in front and that's just fine. I believe that we have another neighbor on the farm that perhaps wants to say something as well. Anyway, I thank you all very much. Geri Eikaas: I'm Geri Eikaas. I live at 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road. Even though I own property on the farm I was not notified at all of the road easement until I got here and heard you talk about it. But I certainly concur with Mr. Gross that at this point I see absolutely no reason why the City would want a road easement there. It's a private road. It's a PUD. It's zoned, it's sellable property. I see no reason for it to be changed and if someone would like to explain to me the rationale in it, I'd be interested in hearing it. Conrad: Jo Ann, why don't you do that right now? e Olsen: When we asked for that roadway easement, that doesn't mean we're going to go in and improve and put in a public street right now. When property comes in for subdivision, that allows the City to obtain roadway easements that would be required when roads would be improved in the future. We have had several applications for improving the Ches Mar property and at that time it would have to become a public road and be improved. So whenever a property does corne in for a subdivision, and if they do not have the road right-of-way there, that's the time when we would request it. So it doesn't mean that the City would be corning in and approving this and it wouldn't be taking away the trees. What it would be doing is giving us a 60 foot right-of-way that you need for the rural areas and whenever they do determine to improve the street, that's where they can locate it within that 60 foot easement. Geri Eikaas: By what you said to me it sounds like you're concerned about having an easement is because someone has come in and asked for a development there. Olsen: Well in the past and it's whenever property is subdivided we always. . . Geri Eikaas: But the property is not being subdivided. Olsen: The property, we're asking for the easement adjacent to the property that is being subdivided right now. e Geri Eikaas: been brought But you were also talking about that other proposals have in. e e e Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 4 Olsen: We always obtain roadway easements for future possible development. It may never happen. That easement may just sit there and never be used but that's all it is. It's there and it's not going to be improved right away. Geri Eikaas: And that's not anything that other property owners need to be notified about? Olsen: As far as them... Geri Eikaas: As far as them giving an easement or something like that. Olsen: No. Whenever that roadway is going to be improved, that's when they'll be brought in. As far as where it will be located. Assessments. All that good stuff. Geri Eikaas: my property, listening to necessary at I guess I'll just again concur with the Gross' that if it was I would certainly not feel very secure or still even though your reasons, be convinced that at this point it was anything all. Thanks. Ginger Gross: I'm Ginger Gross and I apologize that our attorney is not here tonight. Our attorney received no notification of either the meeting or of any of the requirements of the Council and we've had no time to brief him on what was presented. I'd like you to know that the attorney for Ches Mar does not have the right to give you on the roadway. We have an option that we did not buy from him. We bought from another party and they have to give to us the property that our option requires. There is on that option nothing that states that there is an easement on our property. In fact our property covers one-half of the roadway. That was done by a Mrs. Johnson in previous years the owner of the farm because she wanted to discourage any development through the main road. The access for development on the farm according to her plan was to be an additional entrance onto the farm which now goes in through the Carver Park. I don't think that's the appropriate name but it's the park down the road. They have the additional entrance on that property. Development was not to come off of the road that comes in through Ches Mar. That was the original plan of Mrs. Johnson who sold the property. That's why she had the property line going through the middle of the roadway. I do see that down in the park one of the stipulations that she had in her original contract which was to name a portion of the property Margeritte Hill, that has been followed. I don't see that anyone is trying to honor her original intention here. I don't know how you would have the availability of jurisdiction to do what you would like to do. We would like to cooperate with you in any way that we could but inasmuch as we have lived on that property for the length of time we have and had the option for the length of time we have, we have planted trees on that property, as my husband mentioned. We are the only ones on Ches Mar Farm, in all of it's years of going downhill, who have taken an interest and who have improved the property. Other people who have been absentee owners have disregarded the property and that includes Mr. Kirt, the current owner on the property. We do request that you take into consideration that we have preserved the green space. We have during the years, when the property has become run e e e Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 5 down, done what Chanhassen is trying to do and that is, to become a better community. We do not feel that it is time for you to impose upon us a restriction or try to impose upon us a restriction that I don't believe can be imposed upon us on this side of the closing. I think after the closing, after we close on the property, that might be another thing but I don't think you can impose that restriction of the 35 foot easement. Ches Mar Realty cannot deliver that to you now. That belongs to us. We've had an option on that. Also, there is a 10 acre minimum out in our area and with that thought in mind, we know that there are developers that are interes~ed in the property. We know that if they meet your conditions, they can . develop the property. We don't feel that that's a good reason for us to give away our road rights and we know that that is the intention of a current developer and we don't feel that we should aid and abet a developer in developing that property at this point. Geri Eikaas bought on the property under a PUD that Mr. Kirt came to you for and then David Geisler bought the following year. The rest of the properties on the farm, when people carne and wanted to buy those properties, people were told that they could not buy the properties unless they bought the entirity of the farm. There have been a lot of offers on the property and the farm. We feel that the rest of the farm shouldn't revert to the original PUD and that it should be sold into private individual ownership, each and every residence that is there according to your original PUD allocation to Mr. Kirt. That's how Mrs. Eikaas did buy and that's why Mr. Geisler did buy. They also have a road agreement with Mr. Kirt. That road agreement is representated to them as though they are 2 of I think 10 parties who own the road corning in. It was in error. It was delivered to them in error. But they have a lot at stake here. They bought on the farm believing that- there would be individual ownership in all of the existing properties. So did we. That's what we all based our ownership on. Mr. Kirt at that time was going to move onto the property himself. That would have been agreeable to all of us. Inasmuch as Mr. Kirt did not move onto the property, he did disregard the property. He lived at a distance. He would have been one of the owners originally but he's not there and the property has continued to run down and they have not promoted the property selling original residences as we believed the original that the original residences can be sold and we believe that if the 20 acres then are attached to the farm, that also could be incorporated. We don't believe that should corne in as a development or that it should be in the hands of a contractor because we feel that the parties who are there bought because you approved a PUD for individual ownership. The individual owners who are there now are improving their property and they're maintaining it and we're a good group. We're a good asset to the community. The people who are either renting or leasing or owning and not on the property are not an asset to the property. The property continues to run down because they're waiting to develop the property. That's the bottom line. They want the developer to corne in who has projected that he's going to develop the 20 acres. That particular developer, and we've brought this before your people before, has harrassed our people. Has caused Mr. Geisler at the gate to put his house on the market. He's been very intimidating. He has written Mr. Geisler a letter. He wrote, I should say, to the Park Commission suggesting that he as a realtor had the right to purchase the land behind Mr. Geisler because Mr. Geisler wanted to move his house back there. Mr. Geisler did not want to do that. The move of intimidation so e e e Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 6 that Mr. Geisler would think that the road was coming through his yard. The same contractor told us that he would see to it that we never were able to buy our house. Now with that understanding that the current contractor who is there and trying to come in and develop the property and intimidating us, with that understanding, you choose to look into continuing the 35 foot easement and pressing that, I suggest that you take into consideration what I've just told you. Now is there anything you'd like to ask any of us about things that we have stated? Conrad: Maybe later on. Wildermuth: Are there any deed restrictions on file by the Johnsons? By Margaret Johnson? In view of her original intents for the property. Tim Keane: Not to the best of our knowledge, I'm not aware of any. Conrad: Jo Ann, what's the status? We're talking about PUD. still considered a PUD? Is that Olsen: This property is not part of the PUD. Conrad: Is the other behind it? Is not. Olsen: To the west? Conrad: Yes. Olsen: Yes. Wildermuth: Is the land to the north parkland? Olsen: Regional Park? Yes. Wildermuth: So that probably will never be developed right? Olsen: No. Ginger Gross: The contractor who wishes to develop the 20 acres came before you last year and suggested the development of the 20 acres and gave you some proposals. He had told Mr. Kirt, Mr. Kirt had a contract to have the existing buildings painted and he told Mr. Kirt not to have them painted because it would be more influential with the Council if the buildings looked run down. And that the Council would or the Commission would understand the need to do something out there. The property has been grossly misrepresented as have the people who have bought from Mr. Kirt in the past. The original PUD needs to be honored with these people. They've bought on the private road and they expected individual ownership on the farm. That is not what's happening there. Thank you. Conrad: Other comments? Anybody else before you come back? I'll give you a chance to talk to us but anybody else? Okay, I'll give this gentleman a chance to go. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 7 e Emmings: Say Tim, before you start. I'm not clear on who you represent. Tim Keane: That was the point that I wanted to make. I'm here on behalf of Ches Mar Trust. They are the fee owner of both Lot 1 and Lot 2. We are the applicant here and I wanted to make clear that our objective is to have the plat approved and the extent to which the easement question interferes with that, we would yield to that question rather than having this plat request denied. I'm here on behalf of the applicant to re-emphasize that our objective is to have this plat approved. Emmings: Can I ask you a question? Tim Keane: Yes. Emmings: Your client will wind up, or is the owner of the remainder except the part that's being split off to the Gross'. Is that correct? Tim Keane: No. Since we were here we attempted to sell the entire parcel together so there would be no need for a split. We were not able to negotiate a sale for the entire parcel. The arrangement at this point is that the Gross's will exercise their option to Lot 1 which is now increased to 2 1/2 acres from 1.9 and they will be purchasing the 20.3 acres of Lot 2 on a contract for deed. e Emmings: Who will be purchasing? Tim Keane: The Gross's. We will continue to be the fee owner. That is the respective interest of the two parties. Emmings: The Gross's are going to wind up owning the whole thing but as two separate lots, is that what you're telling me? They're going to be a contract purchaser of what's on here as Lot 2? Tim Keane: That is correct. And they will be acquiring Lot 1 at this time. Closing on Lot 1 which has the house on it. They will be acquiring Lot 2 on a contract for deed. e Emmings: The Gross's are acting like they don't know anything about this. Chuck Gross: Originally that was a proposal that was made to me to help alleviate the problem in relation to access to this 20 acres and Ginger and I were in agreement with doing this. But they have, and I say they, Ches Mar Realty, they have an option that they had let out on that 20 acres to I believe Mr. Kirt who is the land owner on Ches Mar, part of it, which is fine. That facilitates that property coming together with that division but what I'm aware of is that he currently has, I say Mr. Kirt, has a purchase agreement or an option, one of the two, and I believe it's their intent to exercise that after we are able to obtain our tax ID number such. We have, there's no problem with that as far as doing that but originally, and that may be where Mr. Keane is not, unless I'm not aware of it, but anyway that was originally what was proposed to us was that we would buy both of them and then perhaps we would sell that 20 acres. It's not our desire to own that additional acreage there but it is our desire to see it Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 8 e not developed into any extent and I believe one of the conditions on this is that it would be allowed one building site considering the 1 in 10 and considering that there is one residential now and that certainly would be acceptable to us. The access off of that property, the 20 acres would then come off of Kirt's and I was told that he would access that off the west end of his property which would not, there would be no need to come across ours are close to it so that's what I know about it. Ginger Gross: was that made? Excuse me gentlemen, you say the original proposal. Was that the month of March... When Chuck Gross: Mar Realty. I think it was after March when we were negotiating with Ches Any questions? Emmings: The reason I started asking these questions, and maybe there's nobody here who can answer it but it sounds as if that property right now is owned by Ches Mar Realty and that Gary Kirt has an option which he may or may not exercise but my next question was going to be, why does anybody want to create a parcel that's landlocked and I guess the answer is because everyone assumes that Kirt is going to buy it and he's going to have access through the property to the north. e Chuck Gross: What I'm told is that there is a purchase agreement or an option, one of the two or both and that Kirt is ready to buy that property too. For it to be just attached to what he has now and that will alleviate access problems to it. Conrad: Geri, you had your hand up before. Geri Eikaas: I don't know but I know it's not on the agenda as far as pertaining to the PUD so I didn't .know how far you were going to carry into that. If you're going to continue into that I would say I've spent a lot of times working on developments. I've lived in Bloomington. Was on Natural Resources Commission. Worked a lot with developers an dit is true that we have been hassled and that Mr. Geisler in fact has been scared off his property and this makes it I guess me a little more concerned about this easement because it's been, I'd say a very unpleasant experience. I personally had lunch with this developer and also been threatened with things that could happen to me if I didn't agree with this development and I'm sure the City does not want to work that way but it makes us very insecure when you come up with an easement because we know who's looking at it and who would profit by it so we don't feel that it's the people who are living on the farm and paying taxes. Conrad: Anything else? Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. e Erhart: Jo Ann, on these public hearings. Are you not giving us the cover sheets anymore that show the density and that stuff? Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 9 e Olsen: This is just a cover memo because there's been about two other reports so it's all... e Erhart: All the way through they don't have that and they're kind of handy to find out what kind of zoning there is and if we could continue that. I think this has been fairly straight forward except for this easement thing which I also think is fairly straight forward from a purely planning standpoint in that it is normal procedure for us to require road easements. Generally we like to take half of the width of a road along the edge of the property if there is ever any potential need to get access to the property that essentially landlocked. Everybody supplies it. I think it's been the basis for the development of property. If people historically hadn't supplied it, I suppose everybody would be living in downtown Minneapolis today. I appreciate the concerns you've had with some issues of wherever the owner is of the property to the west and that's unfortunate. On the other hand, I still think it's our obligation to do good planning and I think it's logical and consistent with our practice to take this easement. The only thing unusual about it at all is the additional 5 feet over a rural subdivison. Generally currently we take 30 feet. When we want an easement for planning we take 30 feet off both the adjacent landowners. In this case, since you only have 25 on the north, it leaves, to get the full 60 which we want in the rural area, it requires we take 35. This particular case, it appears that if there ever is going to be a road built in there, since there's several homes already there, it probably would be an urban cross section which only requires a 50 foot easement so I guess I'd be, if the other commission members were interested, I guess I'd be interested in going along with a 25 to 30 foot easement because I still think that would leave the City with all the options that we need but I'll leave that as a thought. I'm in favor of taking the easement as we normally do. The other thing is, again for the concern of tree lots, an urban street only takes, what is it, 20 feet? Hempel: 31 back to back. Erhart: 31 feet so in the future if there actually was going to be an improvement, it probably would be, and correct me if I'm wrong Dave, that it would probably only be 30 feet if it ever were done so I think the 60 feet for us who own land out in the country is scarey when you think about it but when you really consider the real thing that happens is that it's not that wide. So those are my comments. Emmings: I'd like to clear something up. Right now, you're suggesting Jo Ann as a condition that what is now Lot 2 be designated as an outlot. Olsen: That's correct. Emmings: So would it then be, there'd be a Block 1, Lot 1 and that would be the Gross's property and then there would be an Outlot A which would be what is now Lot 2. Is that correct? e Olsen: Right. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 10 e Emmings: Should we make a condition that they have to submit a new plat that shows it that way? Olsen: That what I'm just assuming that when the final plat would come in, that it would have one outlot. Emming: I guess because I think the lot and block talk here is confusing, to make it less confusing I'd add a condition that the applicant submit a new plat indicating the Gross's property, Lot 1, Block 1 and indicating the remainder of the property as Outlot A. Then I'd change the present conditions 2 and 3 so that instead of saying Lot 2, Block 1 they'd both say Outlot A. That way I don't think there will be any confusion over exactly what we're doing here tonight. You're creating this Outlot A is real bothersome like it always has been because it's landlocked and now we know that there's a plan with somebody to the north that will provide the access out. We also have a piece of information that the State Highway Department has said for sure that there can be no direct access onto TH 41 from Outlot A. So given all that information, that means that the only access that this property has available to it is down the existing roadway that goes by the Gross's and for that reason I absolutely agree with Tim. We have no choice but to take that easement at this time. We'd be foolish not to. If we wait and let the sale go through without the easement, we're going to have to condemn it and buy it and we know we're going to need it so I think it should be taken as a condition of the plat. I don't have anything else J'~ ight now. e ElIson: I got a little concerned, maybe confused about what Ginger was talking about as far as the legalities of where the property was or as fat as it was in the middle of the road or not and things like that. Is that the way you've interpretted it Jo Ann? Olsen: Right now there is no easement on the lower, on the southerly part so yes, the property does go right where the road is. It's a private drive. Headla: I didn't hear all of that. Olsen: Since there's no public street roadway, the property does go up into where the private drive now is. It shows on the plat. Part of the property is where the private drive is now. Is that what you're asking? El1son: Yes. I share Steve's concern about the access to that Outlot. It just seems like poor planning to purposely let something sit in there with no access to it and then say and I okayed it. Olsen: Making it an outlot though defines it as unbuildable. That it would have to be replatted. e ElIson: I guess I'd say, well you've got this land but you're right, calling it an outlot gives you a lot more leeway than calling it a block something. Olsen: We don't usually even 1,ike to do that but. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 11 e Ellson: I ag~ee p~obably with taking the ~ight-of-way. I sha~e the concern of the property owner because it's giving basically a green light to developing the area down there which in one ~espect we have to allow even to a certain extent. Not necessarily this developer. I'd like to know if the City has any ~ecou~se at keeping develope~s out or wo~king with people who are shady characters o~ something like this. A black list of our own. You know we don't like you to come in here. I'm sure it's totally illegal. There's no doubt about it but I su~e wish we could do something to prevent those bad eggs f~om getting in which we've even had experiences with and things like that but I don't know that we have anything. I just threw it out so maybe you could think of something c~eative, I don't know to help solve it because it does sound like somebody that we probably don't want to be working with and I'm sure that there developers that like the property the way it~is and could see it just as much as an investment. Staying the same as an investment as putting 500 houses in there if they could. I like Tim's idea of a possible compromise and the fact that we're asking for 35 is more than we ask a normal. I could see something like a 25 or a 30 as a possibility. That's it. Batzli: I'm a bit confused by this talk of having a 25 foot easement to the no~th. That 25 foot easement doesn't ~un along the entire northerly edge of Lot 1, Block 1 does it because we've got this other residence right the~e? I don't think there's any easement on that particular lot is there? e Olsen: Right. Batzli: The 25 foot easement is just in the pa~k property? Olsen: with the park property, no. When the PUD came th~ough it included this p~operty and we did ~etain some easement. Batzli: The one to the north is PUD and there was an easement at that time? Olsen: There is an existing easement there. Batzli: That's about 2 feet inside of his front door then? He's not 25 feet off the road is he? Off the center of the road? Olsen: Yes he is. It's close but I don't know exactly where the easement goes to the house. e Batzli: Well it's troublesome to me because it seems like there's a waiting game being played here as far as development and forcing the issue of getting this easement perhaps. I think it's interesting because we're actually, this easement that we're taking from Lot 1, Block 1 I don't really think benefits the land which we're taking it from at all, which is ~eal interesting. It's actually the only lot that this is going to benefit is the PUD in back of it by taking this easement and it seems somewhat unfair that we're doing it. On the other hand, planning says we have to do it. It would be nice though, and I don't know exactly how or why but really the lots that are going to be benefitted I would like to see somehow Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 12 e have to pay for the easement because in essence they're the ones that are going to benefit. I don't see any benefit going to Lot 1, Block 1 by taking this easement. Emmings: What about Outlot A and that's part of this plat? If there's going to be development out there, that's the only place they can get out. Batzli: They can get out over Lot 1, Block 1. They could get a private drive over. More mess but it's interesting and that's a good point. But on the other hand, we're forcing an easement to the PUD but not to the outlot and why is that? We're reserving one for later and not for the other but otherwise I agree with Steve's proposed changes and unfortunately I think I have to go along with some kind of easement but I'd like to see it reduced to the minimum amount we can get by with. Wildermuth: I'm still not clear, what lies to the north of the existing roadway? Is that all parkland? It can't be because of the house. Olsen: Right just north of the Gross's home is another house, lot and then it's park. Wildermuth: Everything else is park? Olsen: To the north. e Wildermuth: In other words, from where that long building is on the Kirt property, across the road is park? Olsen: Yes. And it's park all the way to the west. All the way to the lake too. It's a nice place to cross country ski. Wildermuth: Did we obtain any easements from the Kirt when he bought that property? Olsen: Any easements? Wildermuth: Were any easements required when Kirt's PUD or bought that property? Olsen: Right. That's where that 25 foot easement. As far as when they, like a 60 foot easement throughout the rest of that? Wildermuth: Right. Olsen: No. I don't believe there is. I could double check. long I didn't double check on that one. It's been so Wildermuth: In other words, if we wanted to put in a regulation roadway, we'd have to condemn a strip of property all along the Kirt's property? ~ Olsen: No. For that to ever be improved, they would have to replat and then we would get it. I'm sorry, I can double check that one but it seems like we received something to cover. I think we've got the 50 or 60 foot Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 13 . easement and I can't remember but we didn't require them to improve it at that time. I remember that was a discussion and we didn't so. There is an easement there. Exactly what it is. wildermuth: Where does the current road lie? Is it on the 25 foot easement that exists past Block 1? Olsen: No. It's kind kind of sketched in on kind of half and half. property or home. of half and half. You can see it. It's shown on, the plans. That's where the road is so it's really probably even a little bit more on the Gross's wildermuth: I'd probably be in favor of looking at a reduced easement. 25 foot. 25 additional feet. Headla: Show the new graph please Jo Ann. Turn it on. Will you outline the PUD, Lot 1 and Lot 2. Olsen: The PUD. Actually it's up here too. This is Lot 1 and Lot 2. Headla: All the way to the lake? Okay. Now the purpose of the easement is what? e Olsen: Of the roadway easement? Headla: Yes. Olsen: If that was ever further, this property, because of the topography, really the only means is through this existing roadway here. Headla: Okay. And the 2 1/2 acres, the dimension of that on the north side goes to the center of the driveway? Olsen: The easement does not, if you dedicate it straight out as right-of-way and give it right over to the City, then you take that away from the 2 1/2 acres. If you take it as an easement, you do not reduce the acreage and that's what we're asking for. It's just the easement. It's similiar to what with the Halla property, Lake Riley Woods. Headla: Why did you go for the easement rather than right-of-way? Olsen: There's no immediate need to improve that street at this time. Easements act as the same purpose. Headla: So in 10 years there's a need to improve it. Now what? Olsen: There's a roadway easement there for him to improve. Headla: So they will have to improve it? e Olsen: It depends on if they go through a public or private improvement. They have that option. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 14 e Headla: And then it would become a right-of-way? If they wanted us to improve it, would it become a right-of-way then? Olsen: removed. It's even a right~of-way when it's dedicated now. It's just not It's not dedicated street at this time. It's an easement. Headla: But if we improve it, would it become dedicated? Olsen: It's the same. It's still there. That easement is not for them. They cannot build into that easement. They can use it. Headla: Well who's property is it? I'm confused. I'm spinning. Emmings: Who's property is what Dave? Headla: This easement that's dedicated. property or the people at Ches Mar? Is it going to be the City's Emmings: Dave, an easement, if you have an easement over a piece of your property, you own the property and other people have rights to use that easement for whatever they've got the easement for. Whether it's for a road or utilities. They have rights to use it but you're the owner. Headla: And pay taxes on it? e Emmings: So they'll be the owner and the City will have certain rights if a public road ever has to go through there. Wildermuth: If a public road ever goes through there, will the Gross's be assessed for their portion of the road improvement that runs past their property? Olsen: Could very well, yes. It really depends on how... Wildermuth: It just doesn't somehow seem fair at all. Olsen: A lot of times what they're do, they will go back, it depends on how the whole process goes through and the feasibility study and whatever, but a lot of times they will just assess back to who is receiving the benefit. But most likely when that is improved, if there is sewer and water at that time, the Gross property could be further subdivided and they will look at that and they might do it by street frontage. Assessments. A lot of times it really varies. I always say that there is the chance that they will be. It's not definite or full assessments. Wildermuth: It really doesn't seem very fair. e Headla: Last January I heard this case. Was over there in the spring and heard them talking and we've still got a bag of worms. The people involved don't even agree on what they're agreeing to. Then we say we want this easement and then this whole thing has to be changed. I'm not sure why this whole thing is in front of us yet, until it gets straighten out. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 15 e Batzli: I think the applicant knows very clearly what they want to do. I think the people that currently are living on the property and have various options are the ones that don't like the way the developers are going. Headla: I hear the attorney that's supposedly selling it is one position and the buyer has a different position. I don't call that a mutual agreement. Batzli: No, but does it matter? Conrad: It doesn't matter. Headla: Well, I think it does to some extent because I don't know what we really have to vote on yet. Emmings: In front of us is people asking for a subdivision. For a form, this plat. Talk about the quality of the developer and all that stuff is so far field we shouldn't even be hearing it. It's got nothing to do with what we're doing here. Headla: I'm not interested in it. e Emmings: But all of that, this is really kind of a narrow question and it's getting real broad here. Erhart: I guess I'll just emphasize again that in land planning, it has been consistent for hundreds of years as new subdivisions and so forth, that the government ever feels that there is a need for future access and other property as land gets subdivided, you reasonably take easements when the land is subdivided so that in the future that roads can be put in without having to condemn property. If there seems to be some unique thing about this that we would want to reverse that, I just can't imagine it as much as I understand your problem. Headla: To coin a phrase, I'll re-emphasize too. This isn't the first time the same subject has come up. We said we want that easement and you've got to have at least 2 1/2 acres. We don't have it but it's before us. Erhart: They have 2 1/2 acres. Conrad: They've met all the other requirements that we've asked. Headla: Well, not that I read it. If I calculate this, it's 2 1/2 acres to the center of the road. Not with the 35 foot easement. Erhart: That's the way we calculate it Dave. Emmings: We count the easement in there. In the area calculation. ~ Headla: Oh, an easement. That's right. Emmings: They own the land. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 16 e Con~ad: Anything else Dave? If you think of something, jump in and I'll ask a few questions. What did we hea~ the PUD was going to do Jo Ann? The last time the develope~ was in, what did they, given and this is kind of i~~elevent but I'm kind of inte~ested. Olsen: They showed including Outlot A, if that's what we refe~ to it now. They showed, I can't ~emembe~ the numbe~ of lots. 10 o~ l2? 7, but the~e was also including into dividing into this p~ope~ty to use the ac~eage fo~ thei~ density. Con~ad: Given the configu~ation befo~e us tonight, the outlot and the 2 1/2 ac~es, what's potential to happen in the PUD? What possibly, so they asked fo~ 7 houses befo~e, will this ~estrict, based on what we're looking at tonight, would that ~est~ict the numbe~ of units that could go back in there if land didn't change hands? Olsen: One way it would ~estrict would happen is that the~e's going to be a restriction against the prope~ty that they can only get one building eligibility. Even then, even with the building eligibility, if they would have had the two, what they thought, they we~e not meeting all the other ~equi~ements so that hadn't been a done deal essentially. But this would definitely making it clea~ that they'd be getting one building eligibility even though they'~e getting some 20 some acres. e Con~ad: The one building eligibility goes whe~e? Olsen: If it all is combined with this acreage, then instead of getting what they would think would be 20 ac~es or 2 building eligibilities, they would get 1. That's how we would... Conrad: Okay, so the public ~oad and 60 feet of easement will se~ve potentially how many homes? Olsen: seems comes about lost. Fo~ what they'~e p~oposing, if it was 7, possibly 8 o~ so. It like it was more than that. If sewe~ and wate~, when sewe~ and water out the~e, that ~eally opens it up completely. Then you don't wo~ry the eligibilities or anything anymore but you could have a lot mo~e Batzli: But as a PUD we'd have a lot of cont~ol ove~ that wouldn't we? e Con~ad: Yes. We would. You'd still have a ~oad. You'd still have a ~oad going ~eal close to some houses. That's ~eal distasteful. .We'~e back into some situations. Rega~dless of what's going on legally and I don't even care about that and financial implications and the negatives of owners and upkeep which I find ~eally unfortunate. They made a bad buy and they were going to do some things back there and it's a real negative deal but here we a~e again looking at a road, for whatever reason, looking at road going th~ough two houses that potentially, I ~eally don't see, is the~e anothe~ place for the road to go? No. Eve~. It's going to go there. And it's going to se~ve some houses. Really it should serve 1 or 2. e e e Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 17 Headla: Conceiveably it could down south right along the front and then head west. Wildermuth: The State won't allow it. Conrad: MnDot won't allow it Dave. Headla: wait a minute. I'm not talking on the highway right-of-way. On that property. This side going down parallal like the service road and then head west. Olsen: The topopgraphy is pretty extreme there. Headla: It isn't anywhere close to what we're going to talk about tonight. Olsen: Or 2 weeks ago. Conrad: I don't think we have too much of a choice. I don't know that we can assess the PUD, the people that have the property behind. I don't know that we can ever assess them the full cost for the improvement and leave the Gross's out of the roadway improvement but it's real bothering. I don't see us, I think the road has got to be, the easement has got to be there. I don't think we need the full 65 or 35 as talked about. I think we can reduce that to some magic number. Whether it's only 30 or 25, I just really feel uncomfortable that there is going to be a road going in there. That the road is really close to these houses. It's beautiful property right there and I wish I saw a way around it but I think based on what's before us tonight, we have to grant the easement. Erhart: You have staff's opinion as to, if we wanted to reduce that easement to a standard or more normal 30 feet, do you feel that has any substantial negative impact on the future? Hempel: If you're going to construct a road as a rural road, we'd like to see a 60 foot wide easement. Erhart: If you've got 55? Hempel: In 60 feet we have enough room for a typical ditch section for drainage. Any less than that might cause some steeper side slopes that may or may not be able to contend with. If sewer and water does go in this area, typical 50 foot right-of-way would do. However, I think we're in the process of changing that 50 foot, excuse me, increasing it to 60 feet for urban. For boulevards and space for sidewalks and utilities. Erhart: Are you entertaining a motion? Conrad: Not quite yet. Dave, any other questions on anything? Headla: No. The way I'm looking at it, to call it an easement is just a blatant effort to avoid meeting that 2 1/2 acre. Conrad: Is there a motion? Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 18 e Batzli: Yes. I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat #88-27 shown on the plat stamped "Received July 25, 1989" subject to the following conditions. 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the staff report. The fourth condition that the applicant shall submit a new plat designating Lot 2, Block 1 as Outlot A and then change the references in conditions 2 and 3 to delete Lot 2, Block 1 and replace it with Outlot A. In condition 1, delete the reference to 35 feet and insert 25 feet. Conrad: Is there a second? Is there a second? Emmings: I'll second it for discussion. Wildermuth: If the ordinance is going to change, if the urban street ordinance is going to change, I think we're making a mistake to reduce it. Emmings: How do you get to 25? Brian, what's the rationale for 25 rather than 30 or rather than leaving it at 35? Batzli: What was the width that they took in Fox Hollow in the PUD for the road? Didn't they take 50 feet? That was my rationale. And what this is going to be doing is servicing a PUD. That was my only rationale. e Emmings: Why do we have a 50 foot easement there? Olsen: Basically because of sewer and water. For Fox Hollow? Emmings: Yes. The one he's talking about. Olsen: Sewer and water, urban street versus rural. ElIson: No, I don't get it. Why was that not 60 and that was 50? Batzli: Well it was a PUD that was sewered and water so they didn't need the additional for side slope and ditches and all that stuff. Emmings: And basically this thing isn't going to be develop without sewer and water. It's really going to be, when it does develop it's going to have those same characteristics. Is that what you're saying? Batzli: That was my rationale. Wildermuth: This is going to serve a very limited number of sites. ElIson: We hope. Wildermuth: Like 7 sites. Emmings: Well not when sewer and water comes in. ~ Wildermuth: That's true. Emmings: We could be talking about down to 15,000 square feet maybe. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 19 e Erhart: I would support your proposal if we changed it to 30. I think that's, in my mind that's the right number. Emmings: Why? Erhart: Because that is traditionally what we take from rural easements. 35 is more than what we traditionally take. 30 is traditional and I believe that will do the job here. Batzli: I'm willing to accept that if my second accepts it. Emmings: As a matter of fact your second would prefer it. Batzli: 30 feet. e Emmings: And I think too, I agree with the comments that I don't think is particularly fair to the Gross's. I don't like doing it and in fact I was absolutely opposed to it the last time this was around but at that time the parcel that they had was smaller. They didn't have 2 1/2 acres so now that, in fact I didn't think it should be necessary for them to renegotiate their deal last time around and I still agree with that. I'm happy that they were able to do it and come out with the 2 1/2 acre parcel but that also gives me a comfort zone that taking that 30 or 35 feet off the north side doesn't bother me as much because of we'd have a larger parcel than we did. You'd hope that when the road is put in there that a lot of sensitivity, which some engineers are not famous for, goes into picking where the road will go to preserve the trees but I assume that will be done. Batzli: They're going to have a ditch to fill in on the north side though as I recall so they'll probably prefer a more southerly alignment in order to lineup with the road further to the west but in any event. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary Plat #88-27 shown on the plat stamped "Received July 25, 1989" subject to the following conditions: 1. A 30 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City along the northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City designating that Outlot A has only one building eligibility and the development contract must be recorded as part of the recording of the final plat. . 3. Outlot A shall be designated as an outlot and is considered unbuildable until it is combined with adjacent property or provides two approved septic sites and street access. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 20 . 4. The applicant shall submit a new plat designating Lot 2, Block 1 as Outlot A. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Headla: I don't like the term easement. I think it should have been right-of-way and the line should have been calculated from the right-of-way. Conrad: This item will go to the City Council when Jo Ann? Olsen: The 28th of August. CENVESCO, OAKVIEW HEIGHTS, PROPERTY ZONED R-12 RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY AND LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARDS 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. tit C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT GRADING WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Dean, do you have any comments? Dean Johnson: Hello again. I guess I'd like to hear your comments you know on this now that we have it but due to recent developments, I guess we'd like to ask you to continue this for 2 more weeks. We have been negotiating with Charlie James the owner of the ground and we might have a little more latitude that we didn't realize we had before so maybe with your comments and this new information, maybe we can come closer together on this thing to get this thing to work. The only thing that is again we want to be able to present this to you so that can we have the public meeting or public hearing part of this remain open or be opened again? Conrad: We're typically pretty flexible. Dean Johnson: I'll make a formal request at this time. . Conrad: So basically to table the item or to continue the hearing later on is what Dean's asking for. I think it probably is wise to go through the Planning ,Commission and just give comments specific to, I think he'd be interested in our perspective on the park and whether we endorse. The City Council, with the Park and Rec reporting to them, at their recommendation goes to City Council but we can make some comments on what we think about that park and obviously if 4 acres comes out of there, it throws the plat in front of us in a little bit of disarray. The other question that we Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 21 . should take a look at and we've seen it in about 4 meetings now is curb cuts. We're saying there were, I don't know. It started at 17 and there's 13 or 14 now and I guess the comments have always been, there have got to be fewer but we've never settled on a number so if anybody has a concern with curb cuts on the south side, please raise that so the applicant knows. Obviously what they're doing is the more the curb cuts, the more impervious surface. No, I take that back. The curb cuts are there to help meet their impervious surface yet there is a safety issue and just good planning issue there so I think that and maybe some of the other comments that the staff has reviewed but I think the review of the item are pretty valid but let's give Dean our most current feelings. Dave, why don't we start with you. Headla: I didn't understand what you first said about the impervious surface. Olsen: They have provided an amended plan showing that all the lots meet the impervious surface. Headla: And you agree with that? Olsen: The numbers, all I can do is review the number and yes. e Headla: Okay. As far as I'm concerned, I think the Park and Rec has good rationale why they want so much land. I've got to support their position. I don't know why we can't put the sidewalk on the north side. Get away from, the trail committee preferred it there and the last time we talked it was going to be there. Olsen: It is on the north side. Emmings: It switched. Headla: When did you switch it again? We talk about it every time. It's on the south side. We comment on it and then you say it's on the north side. Olsen: The plans show it on the north side. No, I thought we made it clear on the south. Batzli: The engineering report says it's on the south side again. Conrad: It's still on the south Jo Ann. Olsen: But Lori told me it was on the north. Emmings: That's what they said at our last meeting is that it was changed to the north. e Headla: And then I read it in the report it's on the south. If Park and Rec wants it on the north, I want it on the north and the north seems to make a lot of sense. Emmings: That's what they said last time we talked about it. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 22 e Olsen: Yes, and I talked to her again. Mary Culley: Last time we showed it always on the north and they said they want it on the south so we put it on the south this time. The north would be quicker... Wildermuth: Basically I have the same feelings about the configuration that I had at the last meeting. With the density issue taken care of, I think there are really three issues that have to be addressed and that is the parkland, which I support, the access points and visitor parking and storage. At some point I think we have to revisit the ordinance and require two garages per unit but I understand that that would not apply to this case. e Batzli: If in fact they have to give up that much parkland and that throws the densities into all sorts of turmoil doesn't it? Be that as it may, I guess we talked about it last time that Park and Rec reviewed it. Determined they required some parkland and they apparently had some fairly good rationale for it with the closest park being maxed out and it's a somewhat isolated area that may require some parkland. It is interesting though that the useable parkland is in that upper right hand or northeast corner and it does seemingly take out 3 units which would put that sizeable of a park on the property which is unfortunate. So I don't know what that does and I don't know what Dean was referring to when he said he has a little bit more flexibility. I don't know whether that refers to densities or what have you but I like this plan better than the one with the two accesses and the double frontage lot and everything else. I guess I'd prefer to see a few less curb cuts but if the sidewalk is going to go on the north, that reduces a lot of my concern of the curb cuts. The safety issue and the kids wandering around, going up to the park, whatever was for me at least a great extent of that concern. I guess I'm not as, I'm concerned about visitor parking. I don't know if I'm that concerned about single garages. I think the applicant has tried to work with us a little bit on that and has provided some and I understand to some extent if they try to include more they're going to be running into impervious surface problems so I guess I'd like to see them continue to work with staff and if they're in the middle of negotiating something else with the current owner, I'd like to see the end result. Ellson: I don't have anything new that hasn't been said before. I guess I like the idea of a park but I'm the crusader for those trees and this still isn't solving my gorgeous 200 year old oak trees and couldn't they have the park where there's just like picnic tables or something and leave all the trees in an area? I think that we're really losing out on something by getting rid of those trees so I still don't like it for that reason. - Emmings: I don't have anything new but I'm going to repeat what everybody else said. I don't have any problem with the density issue anymore. This way of looking at it lot by lot I guess I don't have a problem with. I still feel, and I've said before that I thinkthis is a good place for R-12. I think it's appropriately zoned. As far as the parkland is concerned, I'm uncomfortable with what Park and,Rec did there. I think it's a tremendous, to have 4 acres together is a tremendous burden to put Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 23 e on this piece of property if you want to have it R-12. It takes such a chunk that I think it makes it impossible. I think they are winding up saying that we want something here and you're pulling the rug out from under your own feet by imposing that large a burden. I think there should be some park areas up there. I don't know what's appropriate but I think 4 acres is too much. It obviously, to me, is a project killer so I don't like it for that reason. The other thing that bothers me about it is we heard last time that 2 times this went in front of the Park and Rec and they agreed to take fees and then the third time it comes, then they want 4 acres and that's an extreme change of position which suggests that, I don't know why they did that but I'd be interested to know. I'd like to know what standards they applied the first 2 times and what standard they applied the third time that they got such a different result. Batzli: It's the steve Martin rationale. I forgot. e Emmings: As far as access points onto Jenny Lane, there are too many and I would vote against this project on the basis of that alone. I think it's that important. I would never vote for it the way it is. Somehow there has to be a way to plan in roads so that there aren't so many people backing out of their garages onto Jenny Lane. I wish I was an engineer and knew about these things I tried to figure it myself but I'm not. visitor parking is another issue. I'm very much for 2 car garages. I would not impose that on this one because our rules don't call for it now. I think our ordinance should be changed. I can live with the one car garages. I can't live an absence of visitor parking and again, that would be an item that would cause me to vote against this. There's got to be some attempt to get visitor parking there. I know there's a problem with impervious surface but again somehow it's got to be designed in. I guess basically, I don't mind the preliminary plat. I don't mind the wetland alteration permit. I've got problems on the site plan with those items. Erhart: I'm never going to tell Steve my problems with something when he's first again. Emmings: I'm supposed to feel like I stole his...? e Erhart: My concern is pretty much the same. Number one is, as in the past, even though we made ordinance on specific subdivisions and projects, I have voted against them if I thought there was a specific safety issue involved. I think, as we look at this thing over and over again, I have a real concern when we have cars backing out on Jenny Lane. Before I would vote on this thing, I would have to see the driveways reoriented so that everybody accessed Jenny Lane driving out as opposed to backing out. And that can be done.- I think the buildings on the southeast corner are oriented so that people do drive out forward and you have access points that look like at about 100 foot intervals which is what you'd find in a regular residential subdivision. So by turning some of those buildings 90 degrees I think you could solve that problem. Secondly, on the park issue, just to complete that. As far as the surface area, that's just a question. To me the access points have nothing to do with the impervious surface area. The impervious surfaGe area is a direct result of how many buildings you're trying to put on this site so to ~ay that the reason that we can't Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 24 e have, the reason that we may not have all these curb cuts is because the impervious surface is because you've got too many buildings so I don't accept that. Regarding the park, in reviewing Mark's discussion here and I guess the 4 acres in general, I agree that if the developer won't put recreational activities on this site commensurate with the density, then the City will have to take a stand on that in the form of recommendations from the Park and Rec and they're appearing to do that. On the other hand, 4 acres, I guess I just question are we applying with the number of 4 acres, are we aplying the same standards in arriving at the 4 acres that we do other developments. Then if we are, then I guess it's okay. Olsen: They use the same calculations. Erhart: Same calculations? Then okay. Then I think I agree with Steve. In this particular case, if those same standards make R-12 literally impossible, then I think we have to take that into consideration in viewing the 4 acres and maybe it ought to 2 acres or something. On one hand I think the developer simple isn't providing enough open space...and 4 acres isn't reasonable either. And I agree with the others, we've got some ordinance work to do here yet. e Wildermuth: Just one thought Ladd. The property immediately north of that is also zoned R-12. I wonder if the park were to be located along that northerly lot line, east of that wetland, maybe there's a possibility that something could be worked out there with that adjacent property so we could look at maybe 2 acres and fees or something like that and 2 acres or 3 acres also to the north. Conrad: I agree. That's a possibility. I think everybody's mentioned some of the concerns and curb cuts still remain one and that's got to go from 14, it's got to be reduced. At least I agree with Tim. The backing out is not what I want but I think 2 curb cuts per lot is probably reasonable in my mind. Densities look okay as long as we've got parking for people. For visitors. The park area, the park issue is not our responsibility but it is in terms of how it affects the plat in front of us. There's got to be park for the people and I think that's something that the developer, that Dean's got to work on with staff to figure out where that is and from what we're being told, there's no room in the inn. The bigger park so there's got to be places for these people. From the standpoint of whether it's 4 acres, if that's the calculation, I guess we need that. If somebody told me that we could have a mix of 2 acre park and then the balance in fees, I could listen to that but right now I haven't seen any other options for park and therefore I guess I have to go with what I see. That's my comments. We'll continue this and bring everybody back. Dean? e Dean Johnson: To the park issue for a moment. Like I say, with the flexibility~..if we want the 2 acres and again because we're bringing this back and trying to work with it, if we try to take 2 acres...is that something that you people, as you see if obviously, I know it's the park commission that makes the recommendation but is that something that would be something that you could see conceiveable or that you might then be willing to work with? Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 25 e Conrad: We're not really experts in the park issue. That stuff sort of comes in and typically we've never had a problem with that. That sort of passes through here real quickly because the Park and Rec reports directly to City Council and we've never stumbled on this one before. To tell you the truth, and I'm going to speak which I can't do for the Commission, but more than likely if you solve some of our other issues, I think we're going to be much more flexible on that issue. I don't know if like Annette, she's more concerned with trees and I don't know that you've solved any of the trees problems. That way I think a couple of us are concerned with teh curb cuts and if you can solve the curb cuts and still keep some extra parking. If you solve some of these problems and they're starting to shrink. They're fewer and fewer the more we see you. Another couple times. We keep telling you Dean to build up not out. But I can't say that we're going to approve or deny. I think just based on a general feeling that we get when you come back in and obviously if you take care of a lot of the problems, we typically become sensitive to maybe being a little bit more lenient but I think the bottom line is for Chanhassen, the Park and Rec's got to be comfortable that there's enough space for people. And we don't really, we want to make this development basically provide for that and whether that be fees or area, you've got to do it and the Park and Rec, from what we're hearing, is saying we need land. So I don't know. Somehow you've got to get some feedback from them. We can't give you a blank check on that one but just generally the more you take care of some of our issues e I think the more flexible they're going to be on the others. Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Wetland Alteration Permit for Cenvesco, Oakview Heights. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION, (VINELAND FOREST) . Public Present: Name Address Chuck Van Eeckhout Daryl Fortier Todd Owens Pat Cunningham Scott Anderson Dean Wetzel Applicant Representing Frank Beddor 6661 Nez Perce 865 pheasant View Road 6260 Ridge Road e Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 26 e Conrad: Now did we table this and it was a public hearing before? So are we continuing the public hearing? Okay. We'll open it up for public comments. Chuck, if you'd like to start out we would appreciate it. Chuck Van Eeckhout: This is the strip that runs off to pleasant View. It isn't shown contiguously on the sheet. The plat has remained the same I guess, this is probably 10 weeks since I made this initial application. The plan is still the same as it was in the beginning. We initially examined this carefully. In fact it was my intention originally to try to get this worked out. The principle objection came from the City on the basis of grades so I went ahead and purchased this piece so as to alleviate the grade problem which we can do now with my current proposal. The objection I have to the access to the south is one of it does remove more trees. It does involve more cutting and filling and I believe it decreases the quality of life for those future Chanhassen residents who are going to be living here by having a more or less thru street going through the area. So I still believe this is a preferred plan. I have taken into account the comments and advice from any number of people on the commission and the staff. The earth disruption is more. This is where, the red line, the solid red line is where the back of the lots will be. The back of the houses under the proposal. Under the alternate of going to the south, it will be disrupting this dashed line here which is a little bit larger area. This right-of-way is loaded with beautiful trees which we hate to see go. They act as a nice natural buffer and something we all hate to see disrupted. . Batzli: Are you saying that your grading plans would only be the solid red line there if we weren't to go south? e Chuck Van Eeckhout: Right here they would be with the exception of the engineer has shown a retaining area here which in going over them more carefully we feel we can accomplish without digging a hole in a ground but putting a series of ponds right where the trees aren't so much. In other words, a little more precise work on the retention area. Right now we show this being disrupted by digging a retention basin which is foolishness. We would want to work on that to get a series of little ponds and we can accomplish the retention without taking down the whole forest. So this solid red line is the grading area. This happens to be a fill area on this proposal because this is a lower area here. We want to fill this up to get good drainage around here and develop walkout lots here and fill this area but we'd only fill to the back of the houses. Then we have solid woods. In this case we could take into account that entire right-of-way as if it were ours, even though it's wasn't ours because they would appear to be ours and it's there and there's nice woods on it. We've designed the sewer and water and it works out very nicely. The City last time represented that we make a connection, a water connection down to Nez Perce rather than this water connection here. This makes no difference to us. It's easier. In fact it makes good sense. This is the portion of the plat above... these 3 lots would be platted on Pleasant View. I guess in summary, I think we have met all the criteria of the ordinances and all the standards of the City and I believe this plat makes good sense. It gets the people out in the most reasonable fashion. It gets away from a thru street situation which I believe is undesireable from a traffic point of view. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 27 e From a public safety point of view as to security. Police. Fire. I believe it's more desireable for people to live in this kind of a thing and again, I have not seen anything telling me to nor have I received any directives that would tell me that to change my thinking. That this is probably the desired way to develop this piece of ground. Just to the east, Fox Chase has more than twice as many lots. The Lundgren project that was here last time was I guess passed onto the Council with more than twice as many lots as I have here on the same connection only they had some kind of a barricade of the street or some deal going there. That's, I guess I'm just again requesting that it be passed onto the Council with your comments, whatever they might be. Conrad: Okay, thanks. public hearing. Other comments? e Daryl Fortier: I'm Daryl Fortier. I've been asked by Mr. Beddor and the pleasant View homeowners association to make a brief presentation of what we've studied as an alternative. We've had the chance to meet with Mr. VanEeckhout, other property owners and talk to them. We would like to offer for your consideration a brief presentation. Our first little board here will show the existing situation of where the property in question is. We have toned in the, roads that we believe are most salient to the discussion. pleasant View Road from about this point on is 20 feet in width. Nez Perce from this point to this point is 20 feet in width. We believe any connection that were to go all the way through this property would cause a short-cut or a back door route and that would increase traffic not only on Pleasant View but also on Nez Perce. We believe that is objectionable to both parties. To the people who live in this area as well as the people on pleasant View. Emmings: I'm sorry to interrupt you but just so I know who you're representing. The people that you are representing here live where on that map? e Daryl Fortier: They live along Pleasant View Road and we are proposing an alternative for the Planning Commission's consideration. The people who are living along this road, and I believe Mr. VanEeckhout as well would agree that any road that goes straight through we would find objectionable not only to these residents but to the Nez Perce residents who I've only talked to one and also I believe Mr. Van Eeckhout's future residents so we seem to have a consensus that that is a poor decision because of the nature of the two roads involved. That's the first point we'd like to make. The second, we'd like to comment on the existing proposed plan as shown here and to contrast that we have an alternative plan which is shown here. We are proposing that there not be a connecting link and we are proposing that access be to the south and that a secondary access in the future be provided as requested by the safety and fire inspectors. The Fire Marshall, be provided at this location where Outlot A is. I'm not sure how many members were on the Planning Commission back many years ago when Carver Beach Estates was planned but there always was intended to be an access point here and there was a dedicated outlot here. We believe that in the future some road of some sort will corne through here and pick up all this traffic and keep it on a 28 foot wide road rather than a 20 foot wide road. If we're to consider the alternative and any future road were Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 28 e connected through here, it would indeed be an issue or more than the 18 residences being put onto Pleasant View. It would be 18 plus whatever else happens in the future on both of these lots. Pleasant View Association would not be in favor of that. That is putting too much additional traffic on pleasant View which again is a collector road only by default. pleasant View has been there for many, many years and as your own inspectors will admit, it is not an up-to-date road. It is only 20 feet wide and it has some very tight hairpin turns in it or at least 90 degree turns. So the conclusion is that we would really like to see this overall view prevail and in the future, if I can just modify this, we believe a proposed additional road should come through in this fashion which now gives you a similiar looped fashion and a simliar circulation pattern to what else is prevailing in this immediate area. That's it unless there are any questions. Headla: I've got some. Why doesn't that map look like this map where you have Lake Lucy Road going right along side where the new homes are going in? Daryl Fortier: This may right here, this is taken from a direct photocopy of Mr. VanEeckhout's plan. Headla: Whe:r:e are the new homes along Lake Lucy Road? e Daryl Fortier: There is a new home which sits right here. This lot is vacant and there is new homes located along these lots. Headla: But that's Nez Perce Drive? Daryl Fortier: It's referred to as Nez Perce. what's shown on the street sign. It does take out at Lake Lucy Road where it intersects with be identical. Lake Lucy Road is actually a little bend here and comes CR 17. The two maps should Headla: Well this calls Lake Lucy Road going right against the property there. Daryl Fortier: There is a vacated Lake Lucy Road right here where this dotted line is. Headla: That's blacktop right today right? Daryl Fortier: No it is not. Emmings: I think you're thinking on the other side of Powers Blvd.. I think what you're thinking of is not this far east but is west of here. Daryl Fortier: If we go to this overview, you're thinking of Lake Lucy Road over here which on the map aligns with this line here and it does have an easement here. e Headla: I don't know. I was out with Joe Trundle today looking at the property and I walked over it. We were on Lake Lucy Road and he showed me Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 29 . where his property was. Daryl Fortier: That's where I say the actual name of the road here is Lake Lucy although it's called on this map, for some reason, Nez Perce. Nez Perce ends at this point and Lake Lucy comes across here where it's shown in gray so this is where you would have been walking and then you would have walked down through this vacant lot. Batzli: So the map and reality don't match? Daryl Fortier: The name on the map does not match but that is the name that is taken off of the development plat. The road does not go straight here. It does indeed drop down like this and then come across. The map is accurately reflecting the conditions. Julius Smith: If I may, years ago Lake Lucy Road was platted along the north line of that property and that road has been vacated so that if you look at Lake Lucy Road, it doesn't come straight across anymore. It comes across. As soon as it hits CR 17, it dips down onto Nez Perce. Headla: So how. much land is there from the road with several names up to where that property is? Daryl Fortier: This is approximately 150 feet of land... e Headla: So you go beyond that tree line and drop down then? Daryl Fortier: That's correct. Headla: Is it roughly where that old fence line is in there? Daryl Fortier: The tree line sits right about in here. Headla: Alright. I understand that better then, thanks. Conrad: Thanks Daryl. Jo Ann, why don't you talk about this. Chuck I'm going to let you come up in a second. Jo Ann, could you just comment from a planning standpoint on anything you see good or bad. Olsen: This is the first I've ever seen this plan. Conrad: Spontaneous. Olsen: Spontaneous but we've never, well I won't say never but we really do not like having two cul-de-sacs. I couldn't really see the plan. ...We would want it at least be continuous. Batzli: What about the not wanting to connect both Pleasant View and Nez Perce there with a continuous north/south road? Does it make sense not to do that Jo Ann? e Olsen: Again, our original position was to have that connection. We feel that the traffic, it does have to go up onto Powers and it would be a Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 30 e preferable to have another thru street to Pleasant View. Another primary reason for that would be for safety access. Looking at the slopes, it can't be done if we allow the variance to the 7% but this sort of plan would never be supported. Wildermuth: Is there a right-of-way on Park Drive or would the developer have to purchase property there to make that southerly connection? Olsen: There is right-of-way all the way out. Wildermuth: But he still would have to develop the road right? He'd have to clear the land and provide the fill? Olsen: Yes. Conrad: On the one hand, the road on the top that accesses the top 3 lots, the cul-de-sac is more sensitive to the neighbor to the east who prior to now has not had 20 some houses being serviced by his door. ElIson: Well he could corne in tomorrow and have 3 there too. Conrad: Could but he doesn't want to. ElIson: Right but I'm just saying, the long term. e Conrad: If somebody came in just to subdivide the 3 lots to the north Jo Ann, you would have a problem with that? No, we'd have to allow that configuration basically. Olsen: We would suggest that if they carne in with this plan, that they would just have a continuous street. Engineering should probably comment. Conrad: The concern with Pleasant View folks is traffic. Obviously this would dump only 3 folks, 3 houses out. The rest would want on Nez Perce. Is there anything reasonable about this plan? Hempel: From an engineering standpoint, traffic circulation I guess from the start we would like to see the north/south connection. If something did happen along Pleasant View, this would be an alternative for an access or an exit. There's very few or limited areas that such a connection couldn't occur. This is the first one and one of the last places. utilities would still remain the same. We'd loop the two subdivisions probably together so there wasn't a deadend watermain. Conrad: Chuck, do you want to come back and talk to us a little bit about that? e Chuck VanEeckhout: The only thing I would say is there are no real standards that would prohibit this number of lots on a cul-de-sac and it would be very, I believe, very much better from a public safety point of view to have a dead end area in their cul-de-sac area. Bad guys aren't going to feel so free to come wandering through there if they don't have the same way to get out of there. In all my years I've never seen a Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 31 e situation where you needed that second access for public safety reasons. We have in many, many areas in Chanhassen with twice this many lots. If the traffic for the pleasant Avenue folks is their principle concern, we could always put a left turn only on that road coming out so all the traffic would have to go west. That would, except for the traffic, the people in Chanhassen, but that would eliminate a good part of the problem that the Pleasant View people can see as being a big negative of this project. We've had a lot of input and this was kind of the consensus that we perceived as well as my own personal feeling that I want to continue the Fox Chase, Pleasant Avenue, Pleasant View quality, of homes. I build only quality homes and I believe that it speaks more as a continuation if it flows to the rest of Fox Chase and that's my thinking. Conrad: As you're talking, I'm looking at this map. Are you talking about what you originally presented Chuck? When you're saying you're comfortable with... Chuck VanEeckhout: This is Daryl's representation of essentially I believe identical to what my proposal is. I'm saying this is the difficult area of pleasant View. If we only turn left here and made no right turns here we'd keep a certain number of cars out of this area which would be a positive thing I believe as far as pleasant View is concerned. Again, I'm trying to continue this level of quality on through here and then I really like the idea of these people being able to have a private area rather than a thru street. There are, as I've pointed out, a number of other examples where this would work very well in Chanhassen and allover the Twin Cities. e Conrad: Jo Ann, how do you see the property to the west developing? Olsen: Again, with this plan...we looked at a connection. Obviously you don't want that because it will just bring it back onto Pleasant View. At least with the original plan we did have some... I don't feel that having just one connection will satisfy. e Daryl Fortier: This area up here will of course develop up off of Pleasant View. There's no thru connector. That is our first and foremost argument that there should be no thru connector. The secondary exit for this cul-de-sac should run to the south and tie in eventually to this street. This could be terminated. It would be no different than this road down here. As a matter of fact, it's slightly less than this one is but it is a looped system that you could get in both ways. If the only cul-de-sac is 250 feet long, which is not a severe cul-de-sac that you can see from other scaled streets in the area. That would serve this area. If I can address just a moment about the left turn lane, this has failed to work over at Near Mountain and Pleasant View and it has not been successful. If the Planning Commission is to approve the present scheme, our one big concern would be Forest street here. We would not like to see that included. We would rather see no connector there because what that is going to do is eventually connect down to this outlot in which case we again have the backdoor circulation that we're trying to avoid. Or it will develop additional homes at least and have a larger dead end cul-de-sac situation. We'd much prefer to see a looped design to. begin with or at least indicate to begin with. We do not want to see a connection. If this plan were Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 32 e approved, we would not want to see a connector here and we would not want to see this street. Conrad: Okay. Other comments? Scott Anderson: I'm Scott Anderson. I'm the neighbor to the east...and northerly access. I'd like to restate my objection as I've stated in earlier meetings and that is primarily the traffic. with the amount of single family homes accessing through my back yard. That will create noise and... That's my objections. Conrad: Okay. Thank you. e Dean Wetzel: My name is Dean Wetzel. I'm a 35 year resident of the area. I live 2 doors off of Pleasant View Road down by here on Ridge Road. There are 55 residents from CR 17 down to where Pleasant View turns to the west and that's what makes up this Pleasant View Homeowners Association. They get a loose group of people that are interested in what goes on in the neighborhood. Because of the configuration of Pleasant View Road from this point on and those of you who have driven it know full well, I thought it was 18 feet wide. You say it's 20. I don't know whatever it was but as you know there's hairpin curves and down along Lake Lucy there's homes within 20 feet of that road. It's a country road is really all it is in that area so our concern is to keep as much traffic off of Pleasant view Road as possible where there is a good alternative that makes sense and we think that this is certainly the case. you've got a brand new road here. Whether it's Nez Perce or Lake Lucy, I guess I don't know but I was on it today too and both names are used but that is a new fully designed road. Full size that goes right into CR 17 here so you've got the access on the new road that doesn't have a lot of blind entrances onto it which Pleasant View does. Even up in this area some of these homes were built with access from their garage right onto Pleasant View Road so like I say, it's a country road and it's been that way. Pat, you were born there what 80 years ago? Let it slip again but this of course is Cunningham's area here. He has a daughter living here and one here. Their drive comes right out onto Pleasant View Road so it's just not basically a collector road for all practical purposes. And like I say, here's a perfect example of having a brand new full sized road, extension of Lake Lucy. They can pick up this area. These areas back in here as they develop because it's already the outlot there made for that. There is an access, was allowed at this point so why start dragging it back up to Pleasant View when we don't have to. Yes, these lots along here, if and when they're developed. Bill Trundle lives here. He sells that off and they go onto Pleasant View, that makes sense and maybe these lots in here but again, why pull things to the north when there's good access to the south. Thank you. Conrad: Okay. Other comments? e Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 33 . Erhart: I guess I'd like to have, I don't know if it's fair to ask you Chuck to respond to the two cul-de-sac proposal. I don't know, did you see that? Chuck VanEeckhout: We met earlier with evening, yes. Erhart: Is it fair to ask you to respond to that specifically? Chuck VanEeckhout: Yes, I'm ready to respond to that. In fact, one of my principle considerations when I first purchased the property was to go to the south and I was discouraged by the City so then I went out and purchased the other piece so we could go the north. The negative on the south approach are the fill amounts that have to be put on those lots which would make them less desirable and the tree removal would be more extensive. Also, I could identify more, the house would identify more, in other words, I could build a little more expensive homes in there, little nicer homes if I enter off Pleasant View then if I enter off from the south. That's some substance of my observations. Erhart: I'm sensing you're not totally opposed to the idea of the two cul-de-sac thing. e Chuck VanEeckhout: That's less desirable to me than the proposal that I have before the Commission. If the final determination were that it's that way or nothing, I would build it that way. What I would like to do, as I've said before, is to carry my proposal through until it's ultimately approved or disapproved and react accordingly. e Erhart: Okay. I guess the concern I had two weeks ago was the problem of putting a thru street there considering that there is a lot of temptation for people to take Pleasant View all the way over to TH 101 and it really isn't adequately designed to do that so I guess my general feeling is the worse of all the proposals is to have the thru street for that reason. Also, I think we talked about it the last time. It hit me that we have this new street to the south and we're talking about land which, the majority of the land is closer to that than Pleasant View and it seemed to me again that at that point that it made more sense to try to access the new Lake Lucy Road. It's unfortunate that Chuck gets the run around. Well not run around. We have to consider this 10% grade. I think in consideration, my general feeling is that that is not a good plan. Having a long straight street and then having two cul-de-sacs at the end. I guess I'd rather see it access to the south and I personally like the two cul-de-sac thing. On the other hand, one thing I don't like about that, because I don't think you need to have a connection to, if you went to the two cul-de-sacs I think you could eliminate that connection to the west called Forest Street completely because they're not that long from Lake Lucy Drive and I don't really see that it serves any purpose to make a U shaped street in there so that might pick up another lot to compensate for all the effort of having to go through on this thing. So regarding just the streets, those are my general feelings. I hope I made myself clear. The other issue, I think it's a fairly straight forward development and we talked about most of them last time so I'll leave it go with that. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 34 e Emmings: I can't decide. I think it's about a horse apiece. I ordinarily like to hook things together so I've got that bias coming in here and I recognize at the same time that a lot of people, for reasons I think that Chuck has stated, like this cul-de-sac arrang~ment so they don't have the thru traffic and I think that's kind of a personal preference item but I tend to like to hook things together. It seems to me that this one, this particular one, the urgency to hook things together really doesn't, I don't feel like it's there to the degree that I usually do and there is the potential for the hook up to the west later on to have a secondary access, if there is some need perceived at a later time so an option is preserved there. Frankly I can go either way on this. I just don't care. Ellson: Let me ask Jo Ann something. The big reason that we want a thru street is safety and lack of a lot of north/south, things to Pleasant Road right now or what are all the key reasons that the City is pushing this? Olsen: We originally looked at the submission with the applicant and I'm just trying to remember exactly which one. He had just the cul-de-sac from the north and that's where we showed that there was right-of-way to the south and that we would prefer to have that secondary access onto the site since you couldn't provide that from Fox Chase. It was reasons for safety and also reasons for a north/south connection which we're just really lacking in the city. e ElIson: I remember going through the Comprehensive plan saying how little we had going north and south. I distinctly remember saying that anytime we can look to try to find something we should take advantage of it. I remember agreeing. I'm trying to decide, will people, I mean this isn't very far from CR 17 and I don't feel that we're going to get people taking this instead of CR 17. CR 17 has never known to be a 35W back-up traffic kind of street or anything like that. I'm wondering what would cause somebody to purposely either go to this route. They'd have to either live here to know that goes through. You'd have to be one of these people. Olsen: They'd perceive it as being a short-cut possibly but the design... ElIson: I doubt it too. Olsen: I think to really have that answered, a traffic study would have to be done. ElIson: But I guess my gut feeling is that I don't think it's going to bring anybody more on that street than probably lives there. I live in that area but I can't see myself going that way towards Excelsior. I would go up to CR 17 and it's not more than a couple of blocks more to do it anyway. Olsen: The design of it was such that you would come right along Lake Lucy. e ElIson: So I guess I'm not as concerned that there's going to be a lot more people on it and I'm leaning more towards the City's recommendation because I agree that we don't have a lot of north/south thru ways and it's Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 35 e not a t~ue thru way because it's only going a little way. I don't think that it's going to cause more. I also think the fact that there are 55 homes on a really bad, 20 foot street is more reason that they need safety accesses. If something were to happen along there and there's something blocking the st~eet, it's a tiny little street, an emergency vehicle even more so won't get through there and there's a lot of homes in there that have very little back up access so I'd agree with the way the staff has proposed it. Batzli: I agree with Steve, whateve~ he ag~eed with. Each has their bright sides. Both p~oposals I think. I agree with the develope~ that the way he's got it p~oposed I think is probably much mo~e att~active to him as a develope~. I hate to harp back on this but one of the reasons I bought my prope~ty in Fox Hollow is that I thought it was on a cul-de-sac and when they put it th~ough to Pleasant View, Pleasant View gained some traffic from our development going west to Excelsior and I think if you put a thru street in there, you're going to get more traffic going east on Pleasant View. I don't see that as even being a question. I think for sure people down on the west side of the lake are going to use Pleasant View to get up to TH 101 for whatever reason. But on the other hand I like second accesses. I've been convinced of that but I think this design, the cur~ent design has a potential second access eventually when that site develops so I don't know. I ~eally, there's pluses and minuses .to both of them. In fact, even a thru street wouldn't really irritate me that much, the third option, so I don't know. e Conrad: I can't wait until I get a motion. Wildermuth: I'm trying to think of a rationale for a thru street. I guess without a traffic study, Jo Ann as you talked about, I can't see where it's going to take that much pressure off of Pleasant View. The connection with the double cul-de-sacs that would connect to Nez Perce and then a dead end cul-de-sac off of pleasant View certainly doesn't look very attractive on paper and it would result in removal of a lot of woodland between Nez Perce and the property. I guess what I favor is what the developer has proposed. Conrad: Dave, you have the power to persuade us all. Headla: I like the people f~om Pleasant view put up some pretty good arguments. Where nobody jumped on, we just approved Near Mountain and all those people coming on Pleasant View. That could have been quite a compelling argument. When push comes to shove, isn't your p~operty line going to go to the south? You're going to vacate that, take over that Lake Lucy Road and go down closer to Nez Perce Drive? Realistically isn't that where the boundary line will end up? e Chuck VanEeckhout: I don't know if you're asking me. I presume if the p~oposal that I have on the table is approved, there could be some action to vacate that. It would be up to someone else to initiate it. The land would be effectively attached to the adjacent properties by default because it's the~e now and it's being used now as if it belonged so whether someone wants to go through a formal vacation process or not, that would be up to someone else. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 36 e Headla: It looks like there's just a narrow band of trees from the right-of-way. As you got in you had your bigger basswoods and then... Chuck VanEeckhout: I think that right-of-way is pretty heavily wooded if I didn't get lose up there. I believe the rear of the lot line of the house to the west of Nez Perce... Headla: On the north side of the road? Chuck VanEeckhout: On the south side of the road. I believe their back yard comes right up to the woods meaning that the entire right-of-way would be nicely wooded. That was the way... Headla: I got lost in that one. Chuck VanEeckhout: Maybe I can show it here. The rear yards here seem to go right to the edge of the woods. My property starts here so this piece here, which is the existing right-of-way potentially which could be vacated, I believe is nicely wooded. e Headla: Yes, I agree. I came up pleasant View. Came up along pleasant View. Swung around and then came back on, I thought it was Lucy Road and I got up to that curve there, I can't imagine why anybody would want to take that as a short cut if that road went all the way through the north/south. If they did, and I'm sure some would, I can't imagine anybody trying to go on Nez Perce. You may say it's about the same width but I bet if you measure it out on an average over a period of a few miles, you'd find Nez Perce much narrower and more dangerous. I definitely favor a north/ south road. I think it should come up there through to the Nez Perce, I think just for safety reasons. When I was there, I was looking at maybe we should just have a break away so fire trucks could get down in there. It would have to be maintained winter and summer. I think that would be, I could take that as an alternative just strictly from a safety point of view. If we had to get in there with emergency vehicles and the other way was blocked, let them go that way. Conrad: Anything else Dave? Headla: No. Those are the only comments I had. Conrad: the east accessed right? We're not going to get any motion here. Jo Ann, the property to of the road coming in, if it were to be subdivided, it would be off the current roadway coming down from the north or the west Olsen: Correct. e Conrad: So more than likely we don't encourage, you know we're not talking aobut forcing it. I think this road will, development goes in, based on what you said before, this is not where you want to be living which is unfortunate. To the west, whatever direction, would those lots be, would they go straight to Pleasant View or would they access the Redman Lane? Jo Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 37 e Ann, any idea? Olsen: That's Art Owen's property. Conrad: Here's what I'm saying. Tell me what you think might happen to the other lots there and where the planning department would like them to exit. Olsen: It really depends on what properties come in but we've been seeing them come in in pieces like this where we would be showing again, we still have this connection. We would still have that. Conrad: Was that outlot off of Nez Perce, was that planned there simply for access to the north? Olsen: Right. Again, if this plan was approved and we would have to count on this as being the north/south connection. Wildermuth: What would be lost on that one in terms of wood? Is that all wooded? Olsen: This is where the water tower is. This is Art Owen's property and that's pretty heavily vegetated but along here I can't tell you. So we do have another connection to these properties but we would always like to see some form of connection. e Conrad: Because of a second access? Olsen: Just for flow thru traffic and yes, that connects this. Wildermuth: How was Fox Hollow ever approved with all those dead ends? Or not Fox Hollow but Fox Chase. Olsen: A lot of that was topography. Conrad: Yes, it was real steep topography around there. There was really significant difficulty. So the planning department, if you had your druthers, you'd run a road through Outlot A all the way up to, and I'm not talking about the parcek in question, I'm talking about others, so you'd run a lot straight from there north up to Pleasant View? Olsen: Not necessarily straight but we would look again for that north/ south connection and then we would also look for the east/west connection again so we don't have two separate. When Art Owens came in, the way that he had it designed did not use this outlot. Did not use the southerly... wildermuth: He did not? e Olsen: ...it was considered I think at that time to vacate it. There are times when if you just come in with a cul-de-sac and that's the way it is approved but with that plan there was going to be a western connection. Conrad: The lot numbered 8 there really has no access? Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 38 e Olsen: Right. But he also owns 4. Conrad: He does own 4 and 8? Okay. Resident: He intends to live on 4 and maybe sell off 8. As of this afternoon. Olsen: That's why I'm saying that most of these lots, the ownership will dictate... It's really hard to say. e Conrad: Thanks Jo Ann. Yes. This is a little bit confusing. I have one absolute and the absolute is I don't like the thru street. Period. I just think that that is, and I said it, I've very consistent from last meeting. I haven't been persuaded to go to a different. I think from a traffic standpoint, it just doesn't make sense. So in my mind that option is out. The option, I think the, developer, Chuck, has come in and he's asked for one thing and then we kind of told him to do another and then we come back and say you really could have done the first to begin with. As more information becomes available and different ideas are generated, then obviously you can come up with different solutions to a problem. I feel badly that we make folks jump through hoops and then sometimes say well, we didn't mean it. If I were to pick, and I think again the best, the most economically justifiable one is the one that has been presented tonight. I think my preference however is the one that the Pleasant View folks presented for a couple reasons. One, I think it does dump or exit the new development more towards a road that can handle it but primarily because I'm more sensitive to the individual living right off of Pleasant View where we're not running a road that services quite a few houses past so my preference, absolute I don't like the thru street. I think no matter what, we probably have to provide some sort of access, well I'm not sure what to do with Lot 8 or the parcel labeled 8 on that. I don't know but no thru street in my mind. The two alternatives that I see, the one the developer presented, I think that's acceptable. I think I like the one that the homeowners association presented a little bit better. I'm not sure I like the winding road going to the west or whatever direction off of that. I don't know that that's possible or probable or whatever. I don't find a problem with the cul-de-sac coming off of Nez Perce other than an economically we told the developer not to do it and then we said do and I don't know. I have some problems with how we administered that but I think no matter what we do on Pleasant View, there's going to be more development there and we're going to need more, and these are things not associated with what we're doing tonight but whether it be no right turn or stop signs or whatever, these are things that are going to flow from this. There just has to be some control some traffic on Pleasant View. wildermuth: Or upgrading pleasant View. e Conrad: Which is almost close to impossible. If you take a look at that, the cost to do that and purchase property and what have you, I don't know. It would be real costly to the residents of Chanhassen. So anyway, that's where 11m at so I think we're allover the board on this one folks and if somebody can make a motion that a majority can agree to, lid sure entertain Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 39 e that right now. Batzli: I have a question. Jo Ann, did we get an easement on the northerly most lot on Pleasant View there for future expansion of Pleasant View? Olsen: What Dave was just saying is what we already have that. That there is a 66 foot right-of-way. Hempel: Pleasant View I think is currently 66 foot wide right-of-way. Wildermuth: So upgrading might not be the problem? Olsen: We might not have to purchase land or condemn. Wildermuth: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject to staff recommendations 1 thru 10. Batzli: Second. Conrad: Is there any discussion? So you're recommending the thru street? Wildermuth: No. Recommending the plat as you see it right there. e . Olsen: I think staff's recommendation was to put the thru street. Conrad: See that's where I'm confused. Emmings: There's no condition in staff's recommendation that there be a thru street. That would have to be added right? Wildermuth: Right. That would have to be added if you wanted a thru street. I purposedly didn't add it. Olsen: So you're saying just with these l0? Headla: What about the comments from the Fire Inspector? They wanted that didn't they? Olsen: Yes, it should have been in there as a condition. Headla: Here again we come into that you don't include the comments from the... Wildermuth: All we've got from the fire inspector is to add a hydrant put in the conditions. ElIson: Number 9? e Wildermuth: Number 9. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 40 e Olsen: They did want them. They did request a thru street connecting Vineland Court and Nez Perce. Headla: What'd you say Jo Ann? Olsen: The Fire Inspector did request the connection but that was back with the 7% slope they couldn't do it. Batzli: I've got a question Jo Ann for you. We talked last week I think about moving Forest Street a little bit, more southerly didn't we? Do you recall that? We were talking about adjusting the alignment of Forest Street. We didn't look at that at all? Okay. Emmings: Is everybody clear that the Fire Inspector has said that the Fire Department wants a thru street connecting Vineland Court and Nez Perce? Okay. Headla: Is a trail or break thru considered satisfactory here? Olsen: When we can't get a thru street, then that's of course... ElIson: He had agreed to that. Headla: Wait a minute. What'd you say? e Olsen: Ideally we want the thru street. The Fire Department also but if we can't get that, then we would want to at least have secondary emergency access. Wildermuth: But to put an emergency access in there is going to be tantamount to putting a street in there. You'd have to take out all the trees and have to put the fill in. You'd have to be able to clear it in the winter time. Hempel: If I can make one point. The watermain connection will require some tree removal. However, it will be no more than probably 10 foot wide through to Nez Perce. Headla: Now, are we recommending the thru street or not? Conrad: No. That's not what the motion says. Wildermuth: The motion proposes what you see recommended. Headla: That's not consistent...whatever's in these reports allover. Now we're saying well not this isn't true in this case. I don't care which way we do it. All I'm asking is to be consistent so I know what we're doing. Emmings: That takes away all the sport Dave. ~ Batzli: We've got to keep you on your toes. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 41 e Conrad: Well what did you think of the subdivision with the Lundgren subdivision last week? Did we have break aways for, how many units there, 45? Did we have secondary accesses there? We did. Ellson: So you're right Dave. This is being inconsistent. Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject to the following conditions: 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. Clearcutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 3. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12 inch watermain in Pleasant View Road. 4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather than Fox Chase. e 5. The watermain shall be looped from pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. 7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication. 9. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector. 10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant. Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor and the rest voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 5. Conrad: Is there another motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject to the 10 conditions and also to the condition that the applicant provide an amended plan providing a street connection to the south. e ElIson: Second. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 42 e Emmings moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject to the following conditions: 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. C1earcutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 3. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12 inch watermain in Pleasant View Road. 4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from pleasant View Road rather than Fox Chase. 5. 6. e 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The watermain shall be looped from pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant. The applicant provide an amended plan showing a street connection to the south. Ellson, Emmings and Headla voted in favor and the rest opposed and the motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4. Erhart: The next motion could be just to deny it. What is it that we want you know? e Batzli: We don't have a consensus for what we want. Conrad: Is there any other motion? ElIson: If we could just pass it along and let them decide. You know, we're split here and they've got the Minutes. Erhart: You can't vote on the proposal from the Daryl, Mr. Fortier, because that's not been engineered so that can't be. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 43 e Conrd: You're right. We can turn it down. Erhart: So the only thing left to do is to deny it. Conrad: Yes. Unless there's something that could swing a vote. Headla: What was the objection. The first 10 was agreeable to you people that voted no right that Steve had? It's just the thru street wording? Emmings: I don't know what you just said Dave. Headla: Your 11th condition. Conrad: That's a thru street. Emmings: Yes, the only difference between mine and Jim's was the thru street. Headla: Oh, the definition of a thru street that bothered you? Conrad: Having it there. Emmings: Ladd is the most adamant. e Headla: What about a break thru trail? Conrad: We've got developments down the line that have the same situation. Yes, we are a little bit different. In my mind I like to have a second access but I just, there's all sort of precedence for not. In this particular case, I think a second access, if it's break thru, I don't see the positives outweighing the negatives. The negatives being the disturbing to the property. Disturbing to the trees. I see a lot of negatives with the cost to the developer. I just wouldn't do that. The positives of having a second access to this, I would assume we will have an access possibly as other sites to the west develop and therefore we're going to have a solution but I don't see forcing the cost to have a break thru, I just don't think that's fair to the developer nor do I think, I think we've had too many other cases where we did require a second access. There are cases where we have humongous cul-de-sacs in town and we didn't have the fire department telling us don't do it so I'm not swayed by having a second access because I see some other factors Dave. without those other factors, I would have liked to have seen a second access. Is there any motion? Emmings: What are our options here? What if there is no motion? Ellson: Well could we make a motion to deny this subdivision or whatever? e Conrad: We could. Headla: Or to pass it on. We'd like to pass it on I believe. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 44 . Conrad: Yes, I'think the City Council should. Erhart: Even if we deny it it gets passed on. Ellson: Right. Headla: We can pass it on with no recommendation. Emmings: Yes, is that an option? Batzli: We've made motions with passing it on. Conrad: We've done that before. Emmings: Because if you vote to deny it, let's see. Ellson: As it is right now maybe. As it's presented right now is what you're saying. Emmings: Jim moved to approve it and it failed 4 to 3 so a motion to deny it ought to pass 4 to 3. Ellson: And it would at least move it on. . Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to deny Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989. ElIson: I'll second it. Conrad: Is there any discussion? Headla: Aren't we going to have to give some rationale if we deny it though? Conr ad: Sure. Batzli: Well let's see if it passes to deny it. Conrad: Actually several could be made and it would be a consensus of objections coming from two groups. None of which the developeli' would have to totally satisfy later on but from, if it was to deny, it would be primarily because of a second, not having a secondary access. It would also be a traffic standpoint impact on Pleasant view. You could do some other. My concern still being with neighborhood disruption to the neighbor to the east. Very significant impact on that person. Safety impact because that road does go fairly close to his door so there are reasons. -- Headla: denial. Those things at least get it up there and it isn't a hostile It's split on the one item. Emmings: It's a friendly denial. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 45 e Ellson: It's just a way of moving it fo~wa~d. Chuck VanEeckhout: Is it out of line to comment at all? Con~ad: No. We'll take that? Chuck VanEeckhout: I would ~athe~ see you pass it on with some findings of fact ~athe~ than a ~ecommendation to app~ove o~ deny. You can find that it does meet the standa~ds of the o~dinance. That it does, the lot sizes and g~ades do comply with the o~dinance but you do have these distu~bing things that you haven't been able to totally settle and these a~e you~ conce~ns. A denial is, the Council's not going to want to ove~tu~n you~ denial. Emmings: You don't know om: City Council. Chuck VanEeckhout: If you pass it on with some findings, they can look objectively which they'~e going to want to do at you~ findings and at you~ conclusions. That way at least it isn't quite so negative and I ~ealize you~ concerns and I understand them but I would hate to see it denied simply because, although I do very much want to move it along. e Emmings: I think that, it feels negative to deny it and I don't think any of us are against the project. The City Council reads our Minutes and they're going to know that if we do, if there is a denial, it's only a fo~mality to move the thing onto them. I think they'~e going to know that but we hav a choice. Can we do essentially what we've kind of said here and he's just suggested, just say... Conrad: The motion is to fo~ward it on without a recommendation. That would be the motion with any kind of recommendations tagged onto that. Emmings: We're not opposed to the project. We think the conditions are in o~de~. We just can't decide the issue of the thru street. Headla: Can we approve it and then list our concerns? I think we had about 3 concerns that we had a split vote on. That would be a much more positive thing. Erhart: I think it's important that we pass on to Council people's feelings about the th~u street so when they read the Minutes it's clear how many people favo~ed, were for o~ against the thru street because I think that's the numbe~ one issue. The other issues are sort of seconda~y. Headla: So we could app~ove this but list that as a concern? Erhart: Whatever. Just so the Council has an accurate... Conrad: I don't think we need to approve it. I think somebody can make a motion to... ~ Emmings: There's a motion to deny it on the table. Conrad: Okay. And was that seconded? "- e e e Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 46 Emmings: Yes. Over here. Erhart: I'll withdraw that if we can get something moved onto the Council with comments. That's what I'm trying to get accomplished here. Conrad: Do you withdraw your second? Ellson: what's going to happen here? I've started to lose it? What is this going to be replaced by? Emmings: We don't know exactly but... Ellson: Before I remove it I kind of want to know that. Emmings: denial. We're going to try and do something more positive than do a It's going to be more wishy washy but it's going to be... Erhart: That's fine as long as we're clear, and we pass onto the Council our comments, it's clear to them to read the Minutes how many people are against or for the thru street because I think that's the number one issue. Conrad: So we could accept a motion to just recommend that we have not come to a final conclusion on this item but have the following comments. Emmings: I think we can go further than that. Can't we say that our opposition is not to the... Headla: Not to the project. Emmings: And we think tha~ the conditions that are listed by staff are appropriate but we have other concerns that don't allow us to come to a consensus and we'll go down the line and state what our separate motions are. How about that? Conrad: Okay. Do you want to make a motion? Headla: Tim, did you withdraw yours? Erhart: Yes. Before we do, in other cases though when we have a motion and it fails, do we always remove it, resubmit it as a denial? Com:ad: No. Erhart: What do we normally do when it fails? Ellson: Find one that does pass. Conrad: Oh yes. Sooner or later we have to make a specific motion that passes. Emmings: She's holding out. - Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 47 e Ellson: Yes, I guess I'll take it back. It's 10:30. Emmings: I move that the Planning Commission pass this onto City Council with the understanding that the Planning Commission feels that the conditions in the staff report, 1 thru 10, conditions 1 thru 10, are appropriate and that there are other issues primarily concerning this street that don't allow us to come to a consensus and we'll simply make individual comments on our own feelings about those other issues and let the matter be decided by the City Council. Batzli: Second. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission pass Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 with the following conditions with the understanding that there are other issues primarily concerning the street that don't allow the Planning Commission to come to a consensus. 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. Clearcutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. e 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 3. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12 inch watermain in Pleasant View Road. 4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant view Road rather than Fox Chase. 5. The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. 7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication. 9. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector. 10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Conrad: Now for the comments. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 48 e Erhart: Comments. 11m very much against the thru street. I can accept the proposal that Chuck has got but I favor the proposal that the Pleasant View Homeowners Association submitted. I stated the reasons previously in the Minutes so 1111 just leave it at that. Emmings: I have a weak preference for a thru street. I'm 55% for a thru street and 45% for essentially the plan that the developer has presented. ElIson: I want a thru street. Conrad: I am totally opposed to a thru street and find a lot of merit to sourcing both Pleasant View and Nez Perce as connectors for the proposal as presented by the Pleasant View 'Homeowners group. Batzli: 11m against a thru street. I think welre providing a secondary access in the future by the present proposal. Wildermuth: I'm opposed to a thru street and I think there will be another opportunity to connect Nez Perce and Pleasant View. Headla: I support the Fire Departmentls request for a thru street and I think it will help us in the future for better planning. Conrad: Good. Well thank you all for sitting through that. e APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ElIson moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting July 19, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 2, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Conrad: Anything Jo Ann for City Council updates? Olsen: They are going to reconsider Daryl Kirt. His wetland. They're going to reconsider that. SuperAmerica, I donlt know if youlve been hearing about that but they have lights around the gas canopy now which was never approved. The construction plans, which I donlt look at the detail, it's like 30 pages of construction plans, did show them as lit so there's problems with that. Emmings: You remember no stuff stored outside. e ElIson: I liked And I noticed that when I went last week and I told the manager it. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 49 e Emmings: I'm watching that like a hawk and doesn't it look a lot better? ElIson: It does. I went in and it and I said, gee that looks so could just do it on the counter. about to put your stuff... I acted like I didn't know anything about nice without all that stuff. Now if they I mean you've got like one milk carton's Olsen: That's about it that happened Monday. Batzli: What happened to our convenience store moratorium? Olsen: Oh yeah, that was another one. I did forget that. That went up to them and they felt that the intent of what the Council wanted with the moratoril~ hadn't been met. They still want something that you can only have one convenience store on one corner or regulate it by the number in districts or whatever. Batz1i: They didn't want to regulate it by square footage and all that kind of stuff? Olsen: They didn't feel that regulated it. They felt that a convenience store could come in under the definition of a motor fuel service station and still really be a convenience store but that didn't limit the number. It's going to be coming back. e Batzli: So Mark is going to be going back to the drawing board? And he wa worried about the Council over ruling us earlier? Emmings: I'd like to move that we move Mark to the end of the agenda. OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHAPTER OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MARK KOEGLER. Emmings: Dave, we live in the most populous region of the City. 539-1. Headla: Where abouts is that? Emmings: Right here. That includes you and me. Head1a: That's the western part? Emmings: We therefore have more to say. At least we have greater weight. Head1a: But who's going to listen? e Mark Koegler: What I have this evening actually is very brief. I want to do a couple of things. Give you kind of progress update and then talk a little bit about the next meeting. The material that you got in the packet is a distribution that we worked up of the projections that have been agreed apparently with Metropolitan Council for purposes of completing the TH 212 EIS. Don't construe those necessarily to be Chanhassen's population projections at this point. It appears we'll still have some minor Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 50 e discrepancies with those and I hope to have that worked out by the end of this week. The information that is in that material, as I indicated, is being used for this Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and they're beginning to do some preliminary computor runs on traffic and they needed some feedback on at least dispersal of those numbers. We did go through the the employment portions of that with some detail and the City just recently completed another survey so I feel pretty comfortable with the employment numbers that are shown there and the distribution geographically that's on those maps and that tabulate information. utilizing this solely at this point in time and translating that into land use, just to give you a preview of things to come, it does appear as though there will be a need to expand the 2000 MUSA line just merely to accommodate growth at that level and you'll notice those particular projections are labeled the 2005. Again that's because of the Transportation Study that we were providing projections of both 2000 and 2005 throughout all of the material. So more will be known on that as we proceed over roughly the next weeks period of time. That kind of ties into the second part of what's really a conclusion of my comments and it's more of a reminder that if you recall when we met a month or so ago, you all agreed to dedicate an extra Wednesday on August 30th to have a special meeting to discuss Comprehensive Plan. Perhaps I should clarify whether or not that still works for everybody's schedules but that's what we're working toward at this point in time. Emmings: Will we get a handout or something will come to our house to e remind us? Mark Koegler: You'll get a packet of material. So again, view the information you've got in front of you now as what seems to be the most current projections coming out of Metropolitan Council. We will be revising those to some degree and presenting that as part of the presentation on the 30th. I should also indicate, you had a presentation last time from John Shard low representing some of the property owners along TH 5 and I have tried to keep John abreast and I think he's trying to keep us apprised of what they're doing. We're meeting later this week to at least get some idea of what their thinking is and probably will bring that to you on the 30th as well with some additional update as far as some of their plans. I think it's also noteworthy that the City's new planner, Paul Krause and I discussed things today. Jo Ann met with him recently. We're going to be meeting on Monday to get some of his input also. I think since0he will playa critical role as this goes on, it's time to probably involve him as well so we're trying to bring together all of the current information and it will be coming to you as part of the packet for the 30th. Emmings: On the sheet that came to us it says, EMP. That means what? Mark Koegler: Employment. Full time and part time jobs. Emmings: In that area? e Mark Koegler: In that area, correct. Batzli: Do you count daycare as full time jobs for people? ~ Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 51 e Mark Koegler: If it's in a daycare center we do. If it's in a home, it's probably generally an unknown. Emmings: How do you figure that out? Mark Koegler: We've looked at a combination. First of all, the most recent survey the City did, just literally this week, I think, I don't remember the exact number but the employment was up in the neighborhood of 2,800. Something like that as the total. Don't hold me to that number. We've utilized that. We've looked at development proposals that are before you right now and buildings that are under construction such as McGlynn and Rosemount. Ver-Sa-Til. Some of those. We've looked at the remaining land in some of these parcels and made some assumptions as to the types of facilities that are going to go in there and what their employee generation is going to be to come up with the 2005 numbers. So there's a batch of reasonably scientific input and there's a little bit of guesswork in there as well, to be honest. Conrad: Mark, who came up with these numbers? The 2005 projection? e Mark Koegler: The 2005 popUlation and household projections came out of the, I guess the dialogue between Met:ropol i tan Council's demographers and the consultant group that's putting together the EIS work and then the spin off, Eastern Carver County Transportation Study which is the Transportation Study sponsored by Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden prairie. Maybe Eden prairie isn't in there I guess. The County itself is and I think maybe victoria. So that is where this most recent batch of numbers came up. Those numbers, at least in the early years, are pretty consistent with the population projections that were done for the broadened study area report that you went through a few years ago with Fred and Jim Benshoof and some of those people. In the later years they tend to deviate some and we'll be focusing on that again a little more the next time around but there's some consistency there. Conrad: And do you agree with those numbers? Mark Koegler: They appear to be a little bit low. Again, I will be substantiating that but just literally today we reached the conclusion that I think, and speaking in terms of population now, that those numbers are a bit low. Conrad: Are they like at l3,000? Mark Koegler: Our best guesstimate is that at the end of 1988, calendar 1988, the population was 10,100. That's with assuming about a 5% vacancy rate so you know, 10,600 maximum kind of thing. Since that time obviously in 1989, there have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 permits issued in the first half of this year. So pretty well on course probably similar to last year when I think there was in the neighborhood of 400. 412 single family and there 165 as of June 30th. e Conrad: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 52 e Mark Koegler: Is the meeting on the 30th still a go? Conrad: Anybody can't make it? Batzli: What kind of meeting on the 30th? Conrad: Special meeting to get the Comprehensive Plan, to spend some time with Mark on the Comprehensive Plan. Batzli: Like were we notified of that before? Conrad: We talked about it before. We haven't been notified but we will be. ElIson: We were polled on it before. Conrad: Thanks Mark. Erhart: Are we going to discuss this stuff we got from Roger Knutson or is that just for information? e Olsen: You really don't have to. It will be coming forward in a more formal. Batzli: Jo Ann, what kind of a problem would it be to get a base map with the zoning on it for the Commission members? That would be useful for me. The base map of zoning. An updated one of those. Don't they have one? Olsen: Sure. Emmings: me one. I think we got one. When I came on as a commissioner, they gave I think I've still got it. It's out of date but it's... ElIson: Right. Some of the things have changed. That's what he's asking for. Something that's more updated. Batzli: An up-to-date base zoning map for us because I know they just did one in like January didn't they? Olsen: Yes, the base maps are what are always updated with all the new streets and sometimes the zoning map is behind but I'll get you both. Base and zoning map. Conrad: In our kit Lori sent you a note on the Near Mountain trail and I don't understand it at all. e Olsen: Essentially what's it saying is that the trails, there are trails from Fox Chase south and on street rails through Near Mountain and to get to those two you're asking, they will have to go on Pleasant View but there's no other trail, off street trail system. Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 53 e Conrad: until Pleasant View is upgraded or something. If this is the trail, there's very little on Pleasant View so that's why I'm at a loss. Until, there's so little on Pleasant View, we're saying we're going to wait until, I'm still at a loss. There's nothing on Pleasant View to tell you the truth. I don't know what her comments mean. Olsen: I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Conrad: The connection between Near Mountain and Fox Chase will not likely be made until Pleasant View Road is upgraded. Well, I am looking at, here's Pleasant View and there's no trail. My concern last week was the trail going through Near Mountain and I knew we had this here and I saw nothing in the planning packet that talked about a trail going through the stuff we were looking for. Olsen: You're saying all on street. There is no off street trail. They've been trying to get off street with all the newer additions but it hasn't...so it's all on street trail meaning... Conrad: That just doesn't make sense. Batzli: That isn't really a trail. e Conrad: give up? Yes, why are they doing that do you know? Are they just saying we We don't want a trail or is that their... Olsen: They'd recommend sidewalks... Conrad: But the sidewalk was just a loop. Olsen: But it was also an extension. Conrad: Huh. There's something missing between their recommendation and what we see. We support the trail. If they had said here's the trail and we want it in that development, I think I would have, we would have paid attention to that but what we saw was a circular, it wasn't a trail. It was a circular sidewalk. Wildermuth: There's got to be something connecting that circle with a system. Conrad: Absolutely. See a circular sidewalk is not the trail system to me and maybe we're just talking about some semantics but I'm hopeful we didn't screw up, I don't know. Batzli: Well has it gone to Council? Has that one gone to Council? e Conrad: But I hope our standards are not being diminished because of, here we have Near Mountain. They need our okay for a change to the PUD and if Lori says, or the Park and Rec says we want a trail going through there, we're going to jump on the band wagon. It's an absolute connector and now we're just letting people walk on the street. That's not a trail so I don't know. Not your problem but I just have a problem with what they'll Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 54 e telling us. Olsen: There is a trail plan and...I think what she was outlining here is that this is part of a trail plan shows. Conrad: This is what I want to make sure happens if that's what in the plan. I didn't see that last week so if you can help us make sure that it is happening and that we did approve the right stuff. Okay. Thanks. Anything else based on the other stuff? Erhart: This interim use thing. Roger just took the old ordinance and just made a suggestion here. Here's how we would do that? Olsen: Right. We discussed whether or not it should be real open or specific and in speaking with Roger, he'd be much more comfortable with it being specific. Erhart: So you're going to come back with some proposals on that then or what? Olsen: Yes. I'll review those... Batzli: We have a new planning person? . Olsen: Yes. Batzli: When does that person start? Olsen: August 28th. Erhart: stuff? Are we working on an ordinance change now addressing parking and Is someone working on that? Olsen: We are. Erhart: Okay. I'd like to suggest we add another one. And that is the access points and that. I think it's very easy to add an ordinance that says that limits your accesses to 2 every 200 feet except in cul-de-sacs. In a street, if we have two homes, each has their driveway right together, that's fine but in any given 200 feet, you can't have more than 2 access points. Batzli: So what zones are you in there? Erhart: Anything that comes onto a residential street. Wildermuth: Regardless of the zoning. e Erhart: Regardless of the zoning. You just can't have more than 2 accesses. 1n residential areas. Obviously downtown businesses that wouldn't apply but in residential areas. You shouldn't have an access more than 2 every 200 feet. Okay, then say 180 feet or something like that but to eliminate this thing that we've seen tonight. It's an idea and as long Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 55 ~ r as we're making a bunch of changes trying to prevent that, there's another idea. Maybe I don't have the right words. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.. Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim . I ~