2h Minutes II
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
II REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 28, 1993
I Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
II COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman
Wing, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al -Jaff,
II Scott Harr and Todd Hoffman
I APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconed to
approve the agenda with the following changes and additions: Add 1.5, Variance
for a 3 1/2 foot variance to construct a 6 1/2 foot high fence; and changing
item number 5(a) to read, Preliminary and Final Plat and Preliminary and Final
I
PUD Development Plan Approval. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and
the motion carried.
II PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
I following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Prairie Creek 1st and 2nd Additions:
I 1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications
I b. Royal Oaks Estates:
1) Final Plat Approval
I 2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications
c. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Chanhassen Business
Center, Project 93 -1.
II d. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Windmill Run, Project
93 -3.
II f. Resolution #93 -57: Accept Utility Improvements in Bluff Creek Estates 1st
and 2nd Additions, Project 92 -10.
II g. Approve Liquor License for Chanhassen Rotary Club, July 2.
h. Resolution #93 -58: Approve 1994 Southwest Metro Drug Task Force Cash Match
II and Resolution.
i. Approval of Accounts.
II
II 1
II
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
11 j. City Council Minutes dated June 14, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2, 1993
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated June 10, 1993
11 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
E. ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN TROENDLE ADDITION, PROJECT 91 -3.
Councilman Wing: I'm just assuming this one may have been on someone else's
list also. I just didn't want to move ahead on this in a state of confusion.
' There seems to be some assumptions made here regarding that road that seem to be
our assumptions and there seems to be some controversy and I'm wondering if we
want to act at all on this until this item is cleared up a little bit more and a
determination of what's going on and who's who and what direction we're going.
' Is this premature with all the issues before us?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, it's really an engineering item and... As I
' understood it, the only issue that came to bear on the discussion of this...
Councilman Senn: What we do on this road has nothing to do with the extension
of?
Paul Krauss: Well this road has been...
Councilman Senn: But what we're doing tonight doesn't negate or confirm the
question one way or the other as I understood it. I just wanted to make sure.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I checked with staff this afternoon. That's one of the
questions that I had. And they addressed that and indicated that as far as they
were concerned it had no bearing factor on it.
' Councilman Wing: If nothing else, I would move approval of item 1(e).
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
' Resolution *93 -59: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
accept Street Improvements in Troendle Addition, Project 91 -3. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Gary Delaney: My name is Gary Delaney and I live at 1161 Bluff Creek Drive
which is in the southern part of Chanhassen. And I come here tonight because I
know that there is a good number of you that are new Council people and you may
' not be aware of the activities on Bluff Creek Drive that have been taking place
in the last 2 -3 years. Let me assure you it is probably the most heavily
traveled road...in the city of Chanhassen, or maybe even the State of Minnesota
' for all we know. I take this opportunity because the bridge is now closed
coming from Shakopee...We don't care to have our friends and neighbors be
inconvenienced by the activities or the flooding but for goodness sake... Now
it starts at about 4:30 in the morning when people are coming across 169 and
' down 212...and by- passing Minnesota 101 and taking Bluff Creek Drive which runs
parallel to 101, and I'm not talking about 10 or even 100. I'm talking about
' 2
11
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
thousands of cars and trucks per day that use this basically a residential 1
street. And you may not be familiar with the history of how it got to be a
State Aid road. It's rather interesting and colorful and it's something that
was occurred and put to the residents who live in that area that probably didn't
understand what they were getting into when they consented to...I'm not so sure
the City of Chanhassen...problems that this road would face. It originally was
a dirt road about 3 years ago and the State...to make it a State highway or a
State road. State Aid road and part of it is being paid by the State of
Minnesota and certainly part of it is being paid by the residents there. Last
summer finally there was gravel trucks that were delivering gravel up to the
Target store that was being built and I used to stand out there with my
telephone and I'd be calling the Mayor and Don Ashworth and some other people
and they couldn't hear me because of this truck traffic. It's also there as far
as the cars are concerned. I don't think there's any one of you here who would
live on a road like that, and maybe having lived there for 5 or 10 years or even
longer if all of a sudden...thousands of cars a day came by you...We run the
Bluff Creek Inn, my wife and I, and it's an asset to this community. It's a
historic site that Chanhassen. It's the oldest functioning house in the State of
Minnesota. Our property is the oldest piece of real estate in the State
of Minnesota and it's a very beautiful place. We have guests that come and stay
there during the mid -week as well as the weekends too and it's hardly a good
example as far as people becoming acquainted with...our community. We get a lot
of guests who are from out of town who are coming here because of a result of
their company relocating them so they stay with us for 1 to 3 to 5 days...enjoy
our ambiance and then the real estate agent picks them up and takes them out to
look for houses. Well, obviously...and the traffic going by, it just curddles
my blood as well as all the rest of the residents up and down Bluff Creek Drive
because of this ridiculous traffic. And so many of you are new folks who I
haven't talked with in the past and I don't mean to be a burr under the saddle
but it is something I think that's reasonable for you to consider and to make a
pledge and I'd like to have you do that. Commit yourself to try and resolve
this thing. All of this traffic that's going on there is going to Jonathon.
It's the early shifts at Nordic Trak and all the other companies that do
business. They're in Chaska for the most part and also huge semi trucks that go
up there one after another. This is not a...this is a residential street. It's
not County Road 17. It's not Minnesota State Highway 101. Those are both
between, or on either side of us so I personally think that it's just plain
unfair and I would, there's been talk about how to help us but nobody's really
done anything about it and I'm here to tell you tonight that I truly...because
it isn't just us. It's the other nice people...I'd like to know if any of you
might have questions of me as to any of the statements I've made. If you feel
that they're exaggerated or untrue. Are you familiar with this issue? Can you
share a response...
Councilman Wing: I was one of them that was probably on the early days of that
project and I remember the traffic studies and they're not in your favor. The
proposed was county, it was a county traffic study. Bluff Creek's a busy road
and was a busy road whether it was paved or not. So it was going to become an
increasingly busy road whether it was paved or not. So from growth potential of
the city, I could recognize your problem. I guess I would ask you, what's the
solution? 1
3 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Gary Delaney: If I come up with a solution that are reasonable, would you folks
be...
Councilman Wing: Well I'm just kind of, you're living there. Is anything
coming to mind right now?
Gary Delaney: Sure. I have two solutions which I think are reasonable. I
don't know if this is the forum to present them or not. I would like to do that
but I don't think...
Councilman Wing: This is semi off the record. Just off the cuff. What are you
seeing as the solution?
Gary Delaney: Well I think the traffic has got to be stopped. It's only going
to increase so I think there has to be a commitment...after if you're willing to
make that commitment...
Mayor Chmiel: Gary as you're well aware, and the road being a State Aid road
does give all those vehicles a right to be on there.
Gary Delaney: But it's also a city street and it's also the taxpayers...fair
share.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and I don't disagree with it but maybe there are some
solutions that can be concluded in trying to eliminate some of that traffic
going through there. I sat there many a time and you're right...but there is no
way that we, as a city, is responsible for...and I don't know if that can be
either. The first thing that comes to my mind would be stop signs...
(There was a problem with the sound system at this point and the discussion
could not be heard on the tape.)
Mayor Chmiel: ...but maybe there's something that we can look at and I'm not
sure that we can come up with a conclusion.
Gary Delaney: ...none of them are going to be easy and all of them are going to
require some courage of this Council to...take a stand on. Yeah, there is heavy
industrial traffic...
Mayor Chmiel: It was a State Aid road before that. It was a State Aid road
before it was widened.
Gary Delaney: As a dirt road?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I might suggest that we probably refer this to our Public
Safety Commission and have them look at that to come up with some conclusions if
they can. And I would like, if you have some ideas or concepts as to how you
can do it, that are going to be legal for the city, I'd like you to contact
Scott Harr who's our Public Safety Director and he happens to be sitting here.
And give him those ideas as well. But I thank you for coming in and presenting
your side of it and we can see what can be done, if anything at all. I'm not
sure. We can at least look at it a little stronger.
1 4
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Gary Delaney: ...haven't been down there...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I haven't been down there and I'm not familiar with
the road or even the traffic issue but to just piggyback on something the Mayor
said. There's only so much that we have in our toolkit to stop traffic. We
can't patrol speed limits or stop signs. That all has to be done according to
regulations so I'm not sure what exactly we can do but we'd certainly be open to
your suggestions. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks Gary. Appreciate it.
REQUEST FOR A 3 FOOT VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6 1/2 FOOT HIGH FENCE WITHIN THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD,
JOHN AND DURENE KLINGELHUTZ, VARIANCE CASE 93 -4.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: ...appeared before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals today. 1
...so it's before you right now. ...The applicants are requesting a 6 1/2 foot
fence to be located on Lake Riley Boulevard...to act as a privacy fence. When I
met with the applicant she stated that on several occasions while her and her
daughters were fishing at the lake, they were harrassed by passers by and that
is the main reason why the fence went up. In the ordinance it states that we
have to survey the neighborhood within 500 feet to see if there is a comparable
use. Now we looked at the parcel south of the subject property. All of those
parcels have houses on them that act as fences for people that are on the lake.
And this particular parcel do not have this advantage. We feel that without the
fence they will not be able to enjoy the property and for that reason we are
recommending approval of this variance. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Final recommendation Sharmin was? 1
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Approval of the variance, and that's how the Board felt as
well. It's just that... 1
Councilman Mason: If staff thinks it's okay and the 2/3 of the Board think it's
okay...
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. There are conditions contained 1
within this. Four conditions by staff and those would be part of the approval.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: There were additional conditions added by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. I apologize.
Mayor Chmiel: What were those?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Landscaping be completed. The fence kept up. No trailers or
campers be located on the site. No storage of boats, with the exception of the
boat that belongs to the applicant. And no portable toilets shall be permitted.
Councilman Mason: What, do they have a bunch there now?
1
5 1
1
II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
II Mayor Chmiel: The last one sort of throws me. Okay. With those conditions.
Would the second approve those conditions as well?
11 Councilman Wing: Certainly.
Councilaan Mason moved, Councilaan Wing seconded to approve Variance Request
$93 -4 for a 3 foot variance to construct a 6 1/2 foot high fence within the
II front yard setback on property zoned RSF and located on Lake Riley Boulevard for
John and Durene Klingelhutz as stated in the staff report with the following
conditions which were added by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals:
II 1. Landscaping be completed.
II 2. The fence be kept up.
3. No trailers or campers be located on the site.
I 4. No storage of boats, with the exception of the boat that belongs to the
applicant.
II 5. No portable toilets shall be permitted.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II AWARD OF BIDS: BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING PROJECT 93 -16.
Don Ashworth: ...the bid from Fair's Garden Center of Monticello is for the
1 amount of $91,385.00. We have checked them and find them to be a good firm.
We're recommending approval of the low bid of Fair's Garden Center in the amount
of $91,385.00.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was just looking and I saw that Wilson's Northwest
Nursery is also in here, which is very close and so is MN Valley.
II Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, you have discussed this one at length and won.
Mayor Chmiel: Which one?
II Councilman Wing: This one. We stopped it cold last time. I think we've made
some headway and how do you feel about it this time?
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Before it's a slam dunk I need to.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, we're not going to.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: What is this?
II Mayor Chmiel: This is the plantings that we're proposing in doing for Kerber
Boulevard. And Arboretum Boulevard. Planting trees in and adjacent to that
road.
II Councilman Senn: Starting where and ending where?
1 6
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: I would most imagine starting anywhere from 78th Street onto
County Road 17...Highway 5 to County 17 and 18.
Councilman Senn: Arboretum, isn't that a misprint? Aren't we really talking
about Audubon? 1
Don Ashworth: Audubon.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. But it's in here as Arboretum Boulevard. ,
Councilman Wing: The last time this was here the Mayor and myself voted,
decided to plant the trees ourselves for less money and we have since withdrawn
that offer.
Mayor Chmiel: I started getting callouses thinking. 1
Don Ashworth: Audubon from Highway 5 to the first road...300 -400 feet south of
the railroad track. '
Councilman Senn: And how many trees are we planting?
Mayor Chmiel: Total number of species I'm not sure. We did have that. ,
Don Ashworth: Do you recall Todd?
Mayor Chmiel: Charles not being here. Being sick, he probably could have told '
us that but.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But we've got some new stuff going in on Audubon to ,
the west...do a lot of these plantings...
Councilman Wing: This is for existing, as I remember it. '
Don Ashworth: These are all boulevard trees. Boulevard trees.
Councilman Senn: What size? ,
Don Ashworth: If you could table this until maybe later in the agenda. I'll
find out.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. We'll move this somewhere when it comes time, why don't
you get that information. 1
Don Ashworth: Size and the number, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Size and number and I think we had that last time, but I don't 1
recall. I know there were some maples and they're looking at different species
as to what size. I think they were 2 1/2 inch caliper or somewhere between 6 to
8 feet. 1
Don Ashworth: I think they're a little bigger Don.
Mayor Chmiel: Were they? 1
7
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Don Ashworth: They were 2 1 /2's and I think we've got...
Councilman Wing: This is kind of...I pulled this last time it was here because
the engineering fees or the consultant fees seemed excessive and I didn't
understand how it worked. And then it kind of got thrown out and now it's back
in a different form with a lot less money involved here but all the landscaping
plan, all the discussion was done at that time. For me this is just a very
simple, to me this is an agenda item but it's not fair to Mark and Colleen. As
a matter of fact, I would move approval of this for discussion, with respect to
Colleen and Mark wanting to not continue. I would move approval of Project
93 -16 and give it Fair Garden Center, Monticello. Just because I'm familiar
with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
•
Councilman Wing: Mark, I don't want to dump this on you. Do you want to pursue
this?
Mayor Chmiel: He's got it here now.
Councilman Senn: I'm just looking at the numbers and they blew my mind so to
speak.
Councilman Wing: They're less than they were.
Councilman Senn: ...sit and figuring this, if they were 1 1/2 inch caliper or
12 foot trees, we'd be buying 3,000 trees and the other way, if you're talking
20 foot trees, 2 1/2 inch caliper, you're buying 1,500 trees and I don't see how
that...
' Councilman Wing: This is a big package. This is engineering, grading,
maintenance, upkeep, replacement, care. I mean there's a lot involved here.
' There's a whole package. Not just planting trees and going on as wholesale.
There's a big package involved.
Todd Hoffman: These are all 2 1/2 inch caliper...
' Mayor Chmiel: Do they have a list there Todd on the right?
Todd Hoffman: The species are...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are all those trees, are they salt acceptable? I know
some of those species are but I'm not sure about the others.
' Todd Hoffman: My understanding is that Barton - Aschman...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There's not a total number on there?
Mayor Chmiel: Do just a quick total on this.
1 8
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Paul Krauss: It's about 600. 1
Mayor Chmiel: 600 trees?
Councilman Mason: It is important to remember that it's not just the cost of 1
the trees we're looking at.
Mayor Chmiel: No, there's the maintenance and upkeep of those trees as well. ,
Councilman Senn: *150.00 a tree?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? 11
Councilman Senn: Secondly. Why, I mean is this something we're going to do on
every boulevard in the city?
Don Ashworth: May I respond?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Don Ashworth: Where we have carried out new street construction, we have
typically included boulevard trees along with it. In this particular one the
original project included landscaping but we never got around to doing them.
And then it got to be 2 years later and I still have the construction account
open and it still has the dollars available and that's when we first started
coming back to City Council. Should we do this or not and so Councilman Wing
is correct. This has been on the table I'd say for at least 2 years. Maybe 2
1/2 years. Well, you probably recall when this was completed. I'd say it was
at least 4 to 5 years ago that we did both of those two streets.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So the money was set aside then, is that what you're
saying?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Hearing none, I'll call for a
motion.
Councilman Wing: I have a motion and a second to approve this.
Resolution 193 -60: Councilman Wing roved, Councilman Mason seconded that the
Kerber Boulevard and Audubon Road Landscaping Project 193 -16 be awarded to
Fair's Garden Center of Monticello at a contract amount of $91,385.00. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: 1993 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM, PROJECT 93 -11.
Don Ashworth: See if I do as well on this one. Again we have carried out,
taken bids for our sealcoat program. The City Council did see the specific
streets that we were looking at. That was, I would say roughly a month ago that
we brought those back. In some areas we're doing a patch prior to going in and
actually doing the sealcoat itself. We're typically looking at a program of
around $175,000.00. The low bid for this year's program came in at *164,116.71
9 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
from Astech Asphalt Surface Technologies. Staff is recommending approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Was Astech the company that did last year's sealcoating as
11 well?
Don Ashworth: I have no idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? If not, I'll call for a motion.
Councilman Wing: Do you want a motion?
11 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I think I'd better get a motion. I move it.
' Councilman Wing: Oh I'll second it.
Resolution #93 -61: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to award the
1993 Street Repair and Sealcoat Program Project 193 -11 to Astech Asphalt Surface
Technologies Corporation at a contract amount of $164,116.71. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
RECONSIDER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAURENT ADDITION.
Paul Krauss: In May the Council approved a small plat for Gil Laurent. What
has happened is that Gil operates a farm in that area. The area is going to be
significantly altered by the...construction of Highway 212 at some point in the
future. Gil was looking to get an additional single family lot out of this. We
recommended approval at the Planning Commission. However, a condition was added
pertaining to the reservation of a trail easement...either side of Bluff Creek.
...Mr. Laurent objected to that condition and asked that it be reconsidered by
the Council and that's why we're... Staff continues to support the acquisition
' of the easement. We've been putting together the Bluff Creek corridor now for
several years. This is an important part of it and...developed right away but
we do...
' Todd Hoffman: My only addition was that I did take the opportunity to meet with
Gil Laurent. I had actually made the appointment with Paul and Paul was not
able...Paul and I discussed the width of this proposed easement and came up with
a figure of 50 feet on either side because of the nature of the creek in that
area. It's not well defined so if an eventual trail were to be pursued and
constructed sometime out into the future, then we could clarify where that trail
' bed would lie and then allow the, if he lived on the opposite side of the creek,
he... Other regards, this is certainly in trying to in the mind's of the
applicant, I can't predict when this trail would be constructed but certainly at
' some time out into the future. As you know, the Pioneer Trail is situation
where it is because of the gorge or the creek comes up out of the depths there
so to speak and flattens out so the City has acquired easements from Highway 5
to Lyman Boulevard. That segment is complete. This property would represent
the southern most half of the second segment of Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer
Trail. And then the city does own some property farther south. So again we'd
recommend that...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mr. Laurent, are you here this evening? Okay,
would you like to come up and at least present your portion of your case to the
1 10
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Council? 1
(The microphone the Laurents were speaking into was not working properly so
their conversation was not picked up on the tape.) ,
Paul Laurent made a statement.
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, would you like to clarify that? '
Todd Hoffman: I clarified that with Jo Ann Olsen, the original labeled it an 8 11 foot easement but it would be a standard 20 foot easement for an 8 foot trail.
Drafted that report.
Paul Krauss: ...we first did the trail corridor on either side of Bluff Creek.
...one of the things we did recommend though, after talking with Todd...We
understood that that really wasn't necessary. MnDot required that...
Mayor Chmiel: The trail easement is still going to be there and I guess maybe '
if you understand where the City's coming from. If we don't normally get that
now, we don't get it at any given time and that trail may not go through there
for the next 20 years, for all we know. '
Paul Laurent made a statement and then Gil Laurent made a statement.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, you and I discussed this rather at length one day. Would
you like to at least give the...Council as to the discussions that we had on
that?
Don Ashworth: Well I think one of the biggest issues was the requirement that
we require them to plat that portion of the property that's going to eventually
be purchased by the State. And some of the problems that I had with that is,
I'm not quite sure how they're going to develop the remaining portion of the
property. And by our making it easy for the State, I think that we have created
problems for the Laurent's. So I really felt that we were stepping beyond our
step in making that as a requirement. But as it deal with the trail portion,
Todd at least did convince me on that day that this may not come back to plat.
May not come back again before us and if there were ever going to be a time
where you had the opportunity for the trail, now would be the time to do that
and get it recorded against the property. If there's an issue in regards to, is
this a good location or isn't it? Should it be up higher? Should there be some
step or whatever? I don't know if any of those positions have been presented
back to Todd. If you've gone through some of those. If you'd like to respond
on that issue. I can't speak to that issue. The major issue that Don and I
have talked about was, should we really act as an inbetween between this owner
and the State of Minnesota and kind of came to the conclusion, let the State
fight their own battles. Do you wish to speak to that other issue Todd?
Todd Hoffman: Again as I indicated earlier, the exact location of where that '
trail would be, it's labeled on the comprehensive plan as a nature trail which
would lend itself to either turf or possibly an aggregate trail. The City has
accumulated the easements in land acquisition all the way along this corridor so
it is important to keep that contiguous. If we lose a few segments here and
there, 5, 10, 15...that corridor together. These pieces are either more
11 1
1
II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
11 difficult and more expensive at that time to file. As an insurance measure...
if the City wishes to carry out it's comprehensive plan...
II Mayor Chmiel: Todd, on the recommendation on page 2. The last sentence. It
reads there that the property will have to be platted again in the future when
the right -of -way is acquired by MnDot. It's on page 2. Just prior to
Recommendation. Last paragraph. Last sentence. It has to be replatted one
II more time, or be platted again.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'm not certain that that's true...we didn't go through
II replatting of all the lots on Highway 5...
Roger Knutson: If the State condemns it...one of two ways. Just an easement...
I I don't see why this would be the case.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Would have to be platted again.
II Roger Knutson: It could be but there'd be no necessity.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything else that you'd like to say at this time?
II Gil Laurent: Wouldn't that trail go on the other side of the road? We have
very little room in front of my house. This last winter there have been at
least two cars come over here and where...It's only 20 -25 feet wide before you
I get to the barn...
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, is there anything you can address on that?
I Todd Hoffman: The comprehensive plan has not identified to date the north or
south side as the corridor for Pioneer Trail. At some time in the future that
1 segment is labeled, I believe it's 2000 -2005 so as development occurs along
Pioneer Trail, whichever side comes in with the most appropriate corridor, you
then want to choose that location but until that time, again we just want to
insure that we take that opportunity to gain the easements along there...
II cumbersome in the process later on.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So exactly where that's going to be is still undetermined.
II We don't know if it will even be there. I guess is what Todd's saying. Is
there any other thing that you'd like to say?
II Paul Laurent made a comment.
Mayor Chmiel: And even with that one, and that was something that I had tried
to see if we could somehow circumvent but unfortunately there's no other way
II that we can really do that. To make that difference. Just for the one lot of
the one place that you want to build on. Yeah, and we understand that.
II Paul Laurent and Gil Laurent made comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything you'd like to address to that?
II Todd Hoffman: I do not recall if this went to Planning without this
recommendation as a part of that.
II 12
II
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Paul Krauss: It did and it was raised at the Planning Commission meeting...
Todd Hoffman: At some point in there I had a conversation at the staff level
with Jo Ann Olsen. An appointment was made to go out and visit the landowners
and then...was passed over to the Planning Department to add that...
Paul Krauss: Well it wasn't...
Todd Hoffman: Perhaps that was the situation where we had discussed it but it
just didn't go down...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate your input. Are there any discussions?
Richard.
Councilman Wing: Just the only question I've got Todd is, first of all the fact
that this is kind of old business in a way that Bluff Creek has long ago been
decided to be guarded with due process and we want to have that access, both
north and south from the river all the way up to Minnewashta. And that these
simply have to be taken when we can get them. But regardless of the consistency,
when I go down there and look at this, and I think Laurent's comment on this,
what Bluff Creek? I mean if there was some pristine mountain stream running
through this, it'd be pretty impressive. But when I get down there,
particularly at this location, it's hard to identify. So I guess I would ask
you Todd, is in fact this the location you want or should it in fact be graded
and properly installed through this stretch and following the topography because
it's sort of, is it or isn't it at this point. So I would just ask you, is this
the location specifically that you want and this is specifically where the trail
might best go? If not, maybe we want to be east or west and worrying about that
easement.
Todd Hoffman: Again, at this point I did not intend to plan for or carry out an
exercise of investigating where exactly within this easement this would be
placed. Certainly 10 years from now when you wanted to build this trail you
would put those type of efforts in. At that time if it became known that you
couldn't put the trail segment in this portion of the property, which you're
correct in your statement. The confines of the creek in this area, they just
aren't there. It goes into a wetland type of area. It shoots down into the
gorges of Bluff Creek so 10 -15 years in the future if an alternate location is
identified that would be coming out of one of the potential future residential
streets in the area, then cutting south to Pioneer and then going over...that
may happen. A master plan has not been developed for this trail segment to
date.
Paul Krauss: ...there is so much that's unknown over there. When 212 comes
through...city to the 212 environmental impact study, that we wanted to have a
bridge section over Bluff Creek. Now Bluff Creek is very well defined on
the Jeurrisen property, which is just next door. So they may even have to
channelize a part of it to fit it underneath the highway. We honestly don't
know. And last time I heard, the construction of that segment of highway was
pushed beyond the year 2000.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Delayed. Okay, Colleen. '
13 ,
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't know, this is a tough one because it is a
simple subdivision and we're treating them like a Lundgren Bros coming in who
can afford to dedicate that kind of land. On the other hand, this has been
identified as a very important trail section in our city and we need to get that
land by hook or by crook and certainly we don't want to do it by crook but.
I guess I'm uncomfortable because we don't know exactly where the trail...will
' go, therefore we can't tell the Laurent's exactly what land will be used and how
it will look and therefore they're uncomfortable with where the easement should
be, and I guess I am too. On the other hand we don't want to undertake a large
study to determine where it should go until we're ready to do it and I guess
I because we know for certain that the trail won't go in for probably 15 -20 years,
you will have the use of that land, so to speak, until that time.
Gil Laurent made a statement.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any other comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, I think we need an easement there. I certainly
' wouldn't be happy if I was in their position. I think it's been made clear that
we don't know where that trail's going yet. And maybe it's an easement we'll
vacate in 10 years but I also appreciate Todd's comment about when something
like this comes along, we need to get the easement if at all possible because
once it's gone, it's gone. It's my understanding that this kind of puts them in
a continuing form of limbo not knowing what's going to happen to that land but
' on the other hand, there are some I think that would say that the City is
finally getting on top of things and taking care of things ahead of time instead
of trying to react. I see the need to have an easement there at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I think the uncertainty's going to remain down there for a
long time. I think most of that's going to be caused by the State, from what
I've seen. I think as far as the easement goes, I think we really need to get
it. Like Mike says, we may never use it or we may trade it later but I think
that's a position we should be working from rather than a position of, oh please
can we have it later. It's an important element of the corridor so I think we
ought to take it and maintain it and go from there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Of course the reason that I brought
it back was for the same reasons that the Laurent's have indicated. But the
1 trails become a real problem with that. It is necessary, there's no question
because it's something that we have to look at for the future of the city and
having those trails connected and if we miss out on that segment of it, it will
start there and end there and go from beyond. 5o I think we're in a position
where we have to take a stance on it one way or the other and I'm not happy with
what we have to do with just having one additional lot. But the other
standpoint too, I didn't want to put us, or Mr. Laurent in a position that he
1 wouldn't be able to negotiate with the Highway Department either. And that was
one of my major concerns. Making it easy for the Highway Department to acquire
his property. So with that I would look for a motion.
11
14
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Councilman Mason: Could I ask a question here? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Mason: How does granting this easement now affect negotiations with 1
the State having that land?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it does with that segment of it. Although it was
mentioned. Is that right Todd?
Todd Hoffman: I cannot comment on how that would affect that but the city would
be working with the state at that time to get the underpass segments or the
overpass and the trail connections so they would be a partner in that process.
Paul Krauss: You know, we really can't tell you exactly how that process is
going to go. MnDot's already aware of the trail corridor. We make sure of
that. The land in question is either flood plain, wetland or both in any case
so what, I don't know what kind of a value they would assign to it. Whether or
not the trail easement has much bearing on that. But this is something that
MnDot's supposed to be taking into account. But what I tried to do there is
trace on where the creek is well defined and where it isn't. It is pretty
defined where the arrows are. It is not where the dashes are but as near as we
can tell, it does not emcumber the proposed lot. That's on the other side of
the barn. ,
Councilman Wing: That's what I wanted to clarify too. The gully is right
across from the easement right?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. That could very well be. Good point.
Councilman Mason: I'll make a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Question. Is this particular trail corridor tied to 212? 1
Paul Krauss: No. No, I mean we've been trying to put together bits and pieces
of it for at least 4 or 5 years. I mean it came out during the comprehensive
plan. What we tried to do was make MnDot aware of it so that when they do
eventually build 212, that they don't come in and say, we're just going to put a
culvert over this thing. That they do make plans from the start for a bridge.
Councilman Senn: So our development of the trail is independent of what happens
with 212?
Paul Krauss: Oh yeah, and I think at the rate MnDot's going, we're more than
likely to have the trail before they have the highway.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. ,
Councilman Mason: I will recommend in regards to conditions of approval for
plat for Laurent Addition, City Council reaffirms that condition #4 remain as
part of the preliminary plat and final plat approval and the first part of
15 1
II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
I conditions #6 be removed from the conditions of approval. And then yeah,
ever e will rem th s
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council reaffirms
1 that condition $4 remain as part of the preliminary plat and final plat approval
and that the first part of condition $6 be removed from the conditions of
approval. Preliminary plat approval for Laurent Addition is subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a 50 foot wide corridor for
County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail).
2. Proposed locations for the on -site sewage treatment sites should be
submitted to the Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final
' plat approval.
3. The applicant shall receive access approval from Carver County for a
driveway to Lot 1, Block 1.
4. Park and trail fees will be required at the time the building permit is
issued. A 20 foot trail easement along Pioneer Trail shall be dedicated and
a 50 foot easement on either side of Bluff Creek for recreational purposes.
5. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat drainage and utility
' easements over all ponding and wetland areas, including Bluff Creek.
6. The appropriate side, front and rear drainage and utility easements should
' also be dedicated with the final plat.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CHASKA MACHINE AND TOOL, INC., LOTS 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK 2, BURDICK PARK, 7900
KERBER BOULEVARD:
A. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPROVAL FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE ON PROPERTY
GUIDED FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 16,335 S0. FT. ADDITION.
II Sharmin Al -Jaff: On April 12, 1993 the City Council approved a concept plan for
this planned unit development. There are four applications before you.
Preliminary and final plat to combine three parcels, I'm sorry, two parcels into
16
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
a single parcel. A planned unit development, site plan approval and 11
comprehensive plan approval. This applicant has really come a long way from
when it was first submitted to the City. The applicant is putting on an
addition to an existing building. Currently there is cedar wood shingles on the
building. All of this will be removed. Instead the applicant will be using
seamed metal. The setbacks on the building meets the minimum requirements and
that has been revised again. The applicant has cooperated throughout the
process. Hard surface coverage currently exceeds 80%. With this proposal it
will go down to 70% which meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance.
Landscaping. The applicant will be adding 20 trees. Staff questions if all of
those trees will fit on the parcel. If they don't, then we would make the
recommendation that they would be moved to the City's parcel that contains the
fountain right now. When the Planning Commission reviewed this application,
Commissioner Mancino noted that the elevation of the addition is 2 feet higher
than the existing building. To eliminate this problem, the applicant is adding
columns to basically break the new addition from the old one. There's also the
issue of the use of two different sizes of windows. The new addition has larger
windows than the existing building. We're recommending that the same size be
used. The Planning Commission also requested that tile, well two commissioners
actually requested that tile be used for accent rather than paint. The
applicant is going to use both tile and paint and he's got samples with him that
you can see right here. One issue that I will leave for Todd to address is the
park and trail fees. Staff is recommending that park and trail fees be paid for
both additions, the old and the new one. The applicant is objecting to this.
He's saying that he would only pay for the new addition and we're leaving it up
to the Council's discretion as to what should be done. With that we're
recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the
report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I'm sorry, I had a little discussion here. Would the
applicant like to make a presentation of this at this time? If you would just
state your name and your address.
Doug Hansen was not speaking into the microphone and therefore his presentation
was not picked up on the tape.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions at this time? We'll
start on the far end. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I didn't see a big problem with the painted stripes.
Especially given that's what Market Square has and Target I believe also. I
didn't see a big concern likewise over the windows. I mean it almost seemed
more preferable to see a little more glass and less block or bulk. I told Paul
earlier that I have some real concerns in changing the underlying guiding Comp
Plan simply from a standpoint that maybe very comfortable with this use and
stuff but you know, if we rezone it PUD and we have all the controls there now,
that's great. But when another company comes in, I still really question our
ability to enforce that and not allow a person reasonable use of their land and
if the underlying guidance is industrial, I think at least raises some concerns
in my mind. One of the things I noticed when I was going through this, that I'm
having some problems with that I'd like to, I guess either get a question
answered on or understand a little bit more is in all the original documentation
and land development contracts and all that in here, there was absolutely all
17
1
II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
outside storage was prohibited. And now in what you're suggesting or what staff
11 is suggesting, that's being significantly relaxed to allow outside storage so
long as it's screened and I guess in this particular set I have a real problem
with that. I'd like to see the language be maintained as it always has been, ,
11 which is no outside storage. I think the language, with the exception of trash
facilities, is here and provided was the only exception from the previous
contract language. So I'd like to see that get in there a little tougher. The
only other question I had is, is TIF being used on the expansion? I understood
II TIF was used on the original building. Is it also being used on the expansion?
Mayor Chmiel: I think as they indicated, none was provided for the first phase
II of that building. There was no TIF dollars, is that right Don?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. And as far as I'm aware, I didn't see any type
II of, I mean you're purchasing that for market value. There was no TIF back to
you, correct?
Doug Hansen: ...using the market value or...
1 Don Ashworth: So the new addition is being partially written down from the
standpoint of feeling there could be a higher value. $3.00. I find it difficult
1 to believe that back in that section you could get $3.00 a square foot. But
anyway, you're purchasing it for a $1.50. I don't know if I would consider that
necessarily a large subsidy, if any. You'd almost have to make the determination
II if you feel that that land would sell on the open marketplace for a higher
amount than $1.50.
Councilman Senn: I think a lot of that goes back to the zoning question. I
II mean if you're selling it as commercial general business, I think it's going to
sell for more than it's going to sell as industrial. That's a general question.
1 Mayor Chmiel: That's normally 2 to 4.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean you know it seems to me that if we are, I mean if
TIF is a justification, that's what I'm trying to get at. I mean if we're
II rezoning the property, I hope we're not rezoning it and then selling it for the
lesser price. Unless that's part of the whole deal with the TIF so there's not
a double dip so to speak because I otherwise would look at that very much as
1 being a double dip if you're going to provide the TIF and on top of that you're
going to sit here and downzone the property, turn around and charge a lesser
price than the other zoning would charge the property.
II Don Ashworth: I believe the Planning Commission and the HRA looked at it as
though, similar to the back side is that the...property, is it reasonable that
that could be built out for commercial use, especially recognizing that there is
1 an industrial building there today and that if you put controls in there, allow
for the expansion of the industrial. Industrial, what's a better word to look
for but, that that would be a better use for the property and was compatible.
1 Councilman Senn: But to answer my question there, I mean like you say, the
dollar reduction in the land is the TIF subsidy?
1 Don Ashworth: Yes.
II 18
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Councilman Senn: One and the same. 1
Don Ashworth: That's the way it was given to the HRA and that's what they
approved I believe.
I/
Councilman Senn: Well, that was it. Other than that I just want to say, I
think it's great to see him expanding.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael. 1
Councilman Mason: I agree with most of what Mark's saying. I think the plaster
II
looks nice in there. Bigger windows are okay with me. In fact I find it nice
that the employees will have the opportunity to look out a little more. The
paint is okay. I don't, well as I share Mark's concerns about the PUD, it seems
well enough defined for me that I can live with that. The tree thing, I agree
II
with Mr. Hanson. I mean if he's got, if there are in fact too many trees and
maybe he shouldn't have to spend the money on them. I mean, you know. I think
that's kind of tit for tat there. We do demand people to put more trees in and
II
he in fact has too many, let him knock a couple bucks off. I don't know how we
make, who makes that decision.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can leave that up to staff. 1
Councilman Senn: The tree man.
Paul Krauss: If I could explain the logic behind it...very little of that II
frontage that's owned as a part of this property. And we originally talked
about 30 trees being put in there. We knocked that down to 20 trees and we saw
II
how much land there was available to accommodate it and we said fine, stick all
the 20 trees on this property. But if there doesn't happen to be room for
reasonable planting of all of them, stick a few of them on city owned land II adjacent to it. Across the railroad tracks. So we're not trying to get our
land reforested but you still accomplish the goal of planting trees. Because of
the way the property lines fall out, the goal is to put trees between Highway 5
and this property so you either go to the back of their property, across the
II
tracks on our property but it still accomplishes the same goal.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess I'd say if Mr. Hanson wants to plant his trees
there, that's fine. But I don't think we should, that should be a condition II
personally. But I agree with what you're saying about that and the fact that I
want to see that happen.
II
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Everything I'm going to say about how the building
looks and is balance against you can't see it anyway so. Really. Why are we
going from cedar shakes to steel? That just goes against everything. I mean
II
I understand from the tie in and the paint, etc. but that just seems to be
against logic that you would go from a quality cedar shake to ribbed steel. Is
it just to make it tie in with the coloring and with the...?
II
Sharmin Al -Jaff: That's one of the reasons. The other one is, the cedar shakes
are weathering. It's time to replace them.
II
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Paul Krauss: And the steel is not inexpensive. I mean anybody's that's built
with it, that's one of the most expensive roof treatments available.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, yeah I don't care what...cedar shakes look
nicer. Anyway. I guess I'd go along with, again because you don't see the
structure. The people that work there see it and they work inside. Therefore I
would say, they want bigger windows, so much the better. That's fine. Other
issues. How are we going to screen the, for storage in back, how are we going
to screen that? I understand we've got large sheets of metal that cannot be
contained.
1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: With additional trees.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And those are a mixture of conifers?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. And that's one of the reasons why the 5 evergreens
were added.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So in the winter...pretty hidden back there. And
about the parking spaces. You're saying that 59 spaces are not necessary and
that they can be removed or what's the situation with parking?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: What I'm saying is the, per ordinance requirements we need 43
spaces. The applicant is providing 59 spaces and that's enough. More than
enough. More than we require.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And my theory is, I'd rather see green than
asphalt, so is there any way we can reduce that?
Paul Krauss: Well, the ordinance gives a bare minimum and a rule of thumb. In
' this case the applicant, based on experience says that he believes they need
more than that. We didn't dispute that because it's based on actual operating.
characteristics. But also we worked with the applicant so that the site, which
is not way out of kilter in terms of hard surface coverage, is going to comply
' with current standards. So we do have a net improvement of green space.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I'm thinking we're requiring a transit element in
' this and if we're going to have, use Southwest Metro for Dial -a -Ride, etc and
van pooling, why are we having more parking spaces? I mean it just seems out of
whack. Mr. Hanson.
' Doug Hanson: I think you're probably not aware that there's a building that's
20,000 feet has 68 spots now. We're adding 16,000 to 36,000 feet and cutting 8
spaces.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But what's the useage now?
Doug Hanson: Chaska Machine has 90% of it. Steinkraus Plumbing will have a
small area. We have some trucks...I know that we have 5 tenants in there and we
use those...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So based on your experience, you're going to need it?
' 20
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Doug Hanson: ...we're really concerned that if I ever have to come to you...
II
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And regarding the, going back for park and
trail fees on the existing structure. I thought that was kind of chinsey of the
Commission. That's just my opinion.
II
Councilman Mason: I agree with Councilman Dockendorf's comment on the park and
trail fee. I don't know about the chinsey part but I don't know that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: No, I was going to address that issue if no one else has and I
would suggest that we drop that part. I'll let that one get to it. Richard. 1
Councilman Wing: It's all been said. Shakes, I understand that. The windows
are fine. The trees, originally I was with Mike. I said land specific but then
all of a sudden I looked over and I saw that TIF money being thrown in there.
II
And if we're going to pound TIF money into this, then 20 trees is a minor issue.
I think that's, to even bring that up is a problem. Or better yet, I'll go with
10 trees but then we pull the TIF money. It's a choice. Whatever you guys,
I
whatever the owner wants to do.
Doug Hanson: Can I just pass this aorund ?...
II
Councilman Wing: For what?
Mayor Chmiel: He's still paying taxes. ,
Councilman Wing: I understand that. I heard you make the comment. We're still
writing it down. The trail fees retroactive, that's inappropriate. I don't see II any need for that. And then I'm concerned about the outdoor storage. Is
everybody clear on that? Are we happy with that outdoor storage?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think yeah. I think we can leave it with item number 4,
II
there shall be no unscreened outdoor storage permitted, period. And scratch the
last sentence of item number 4.
Councilman Senn: Where again?
Councilman Wing: Number 4, the last sentence would be deleted. There should be
no unscreened outdoor storage permitted, period. So I guess with that stricken, II
with the number 10 stricken. Excuse me. Number 10 would be intact.
Councilman Mason: Without the parenthesis.
II
Councilman Wing: Without the parenthesis.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Keep what's inside of them. II
Councilman Wing: Yeah, with those corrections I guess I'm happy with it.
II
Councilman Mason: Then what are you going to do about item 14 there on page 15?
Councilman Wing: I would just leave the, whatever can go on the property and
il
then the remaining will be used along Highway 5, because there's going to be
21 II
II
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
outdoor storage and the only view here is wintertime. So I think those
evergreens are significant. I guess I'm not dissatisfied with that. I guess I'd
leave, speaking for myself, I would leave 14 intact and let staff work that out.
I don't see that as a burden.
1 Councilman Senn: Don, what's past practice or is there a policy in place
relating to the park and trail fees. As an expansion versus new construction
and how that affects, I mean before we just kind of do it? I mean is there
something there?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we've done that before where there's been a couple
different things done. Not so much with the large expansion but for instance
with Kenny's in itself resurfacing and doing everything else that we've done
there with new brick front and everything. The Riveria was another one. There
was a partial extension put on that, and that wasn't charged there. A complete
rennovation inside and out as well. So I think that what has already been in, I
can't see how we would justifiably charge for.
1 Councilman Senn: No, I understand. My question is more of just one though,
does that split something we've already had in place as a policy. And this is
an industrial specifically which I know is treated differently.
Mayor Chmiel: We're not...I don't think we've ever had anything that I can
recall in the past 5 years.
Councilman Senn: But what did we do like with, who was it in Redmond?
Mayor Chmiel: No that was, there was, no there wasn't any charges. Was there
park and rec on that one? I don't recall.
Todd Hoffman: There was on the addition but there also was on the original
building.
Councilman Senn: That one did originally under the original plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. By the time we sell them that swampland to make up for the
total amount of square footage, they weren't very happy with us but it least
worked out so they could do that expansion.
Councilman Wing: I really believe that if there was an issue here, significant
issue, from experience Mr. Hoffman would be saying excuse me Mr. Mayor. Could
I interrupt here. He would not be letting this go by so quietly.
Todd Hoffman: I'm just attempting to live up to my new reputation and the
second time tonight that the side of the view which is the dark horse side of
the view.
Mayor Chmiel: I just have a couple questions. I think everything else has been
1 covered. When I look at the total amount of square footage and I total it up it
shows 16,309 as opposed to what's in the report of 16,335. It should be 16,309
and that should be changed, unless I stand to be corrected. That's one of them.
1 As everyone has said, I don't believe that it would be right of us to charge
them trail fees on the 15 year old structure that's already there. The new
22
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
portion, I think that's probably right and I don't see any objections by Mr. 1
Hanson on that part of it. In covering the point of item number 4, as Richard
has indicated. I think if we just strike that last sentence and strike the word
unscreened and have it read, there shall be no outdoor storage permitted,
period. Is that what you said?
Councilman Senn: Don, could we also do that little modification back under the
intent permitted uses language there, because I assume that's something that's
going to be attached to this. Down under light manufacturing there.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1
Councilman Senn: So it just says no outdoor storage.
Mayor Chmiel: Under the permitted uses.
Councilman Senn: Yeah basically it provides a definition of light manufacturing
there.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. To cover it completely. So with that.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, one minor correction. We were just checking out the
square footages, and we think the one that you read was the original size of the
building before we did some cut off a corner to meet the hard surface coverage. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, if he cut off a corner then it would bring it down to that
total amount as to opposed to the 16,335. Okay. 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor, I have one more question for Paul. Could
you just explain to me exactly what we're doing this PUD? My understanding is
it will be non - transferable to a new owner. Is that true?
Paul Krauss: No, the PUD's recorded against the property. It becomes part of
the title... A different property owner can buy the building but it's encumbent
by the same conditions.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that was your concern Mark? It may open it up?
Councilman Senn: My concern was more from a standpoint, this use seems to be
very acceptable and all that sort of thing but yeah, the changes coming later
will be and then you say as long as they meet the conditions and I look at this ,
and I say, well like no visible emissions of smoke. Well that's great as long
as the equipment's working...equipment isn't working, then it's a major problem
and that's not a concern here but it may be with the new user. And I mean, you
just get into a lot of questions but I guess the real issue becomes, and Paul
and I talked about this earlier...to what nth degree so to speak do you take it.
And the other option is just to create the...in the ordinance itself where we
simply leave the underlying guide alone and rezone it PUD, which causes Paul
bigger problems I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, can I have a motion? 1
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Wing: I'll move, let me just read this rather than trying to make it
up, if you'll permit me. The City Council approves the rezoning of 2.2 acres,
with the square footage included, of BG, General Business to PUD, and approve
the preliminary and final development plans, preliminary and final plat approval
11 and comprehensive plan amendment from commercial to office industrial as shown
in plans dated April 9, 1993, revised June 18, 1993, and with a waiver of the 5
acre minimum PUD zone requirement subject to the following conditions. Items
number 1, 2 and 3. Item number 4 shall read, there shall be no outdoor storage
permitted. Item 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 as is. Item number 10 as is, deleting the
parenthesis. 11, 12, 13, 14, approved and then we skip to, on mine we skip from
14 to 16. Item 16, under the PUD agreement. The only change that I was aware
11 of was simply under permitted uses. No outdoor storage period.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. The only other thing that I'd like to emphasize, as
Mr. Hanson's indicated, prior to rezoning of the development, to provide the
information that Mr. Hanson was looking for from HRA so he can keep this on a
given schedule. Do we have any idea Don how long that might take to get that
clarified to him?
Don Ashworth: Well as I recall, the HRA has approved the sale and now we're
solely into the technical portion of making that happen. So I don't know of any
reason we shouldn't be able to get the survey completed. If there's any other
work that needs to be done. I mean we should be able to close as soon as you
' wish to close.
Councilman Senn: Is there a misunderstanding there who's responsibility that
is? I mean number one would kind of imply that's all the applicant's
responsibility and I heard the applicant say that he's kind of waiting for the
city to do that. Is that maybe the problem?
Don Ashworth: Right. It sounds that way. And I guess I haven't.
Councilman Senn: But as we're passing it here, that is the applicant's
responsible as it usually is?
Paul Krauss: I think you've got two things there. I mean the first is, as a
condition of sale is he going to want a boundary survey, and if he does, does
the HRA pop for that. The second thing is, Mr. Hanson has to combine what he's
buying from us with what he already owns and that's his responsibility.
1 Councilman Senn: Right, okay.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoaand Dockendorf seconded that the City Council
approves the rezoning of 2.2 acres (97,163 square feet) of BG, General Business
to PUD, and approve the preliminary and final development plans, preliminary and
final plat approval and Resolution 193 -62 comprehensive plan amendment from
commercial to office industrial as shown on plans dated April 9, 1993,
revised June 18, 1993, and with a waiver of the 5 acre minimum PUD zone
requirement subject to the following conditions:
1
1 24
11
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
1. Preliminary and final plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2,
Burdick Park into one lot with appropriate easements. All typical utility
and drainage easements shall be dedicated to the city on the final plat.
Plat documents need to be prepared by the applicant.
2. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit I/
Development.
3. The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural 1
design of the existing building. Rock face concrete block shall remain as
the main material used on the building and shall be painted. All cedar
wood shingles shall be replaced with ribbed steel panels. However, the
accent stripes shall be created by using paint.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted. ,
5. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the
property in question from the HRA.
6. Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development.•
7. The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer calculations prepared by a
professional engineer for the City to review.
8. The applicant shall provide a $500.00 security for connection to the City's
storm sewer line and boulevard restoration on Picha Drive. This fee will
be refunded upon satisfactorily completing connection and restoration of
the City's boulevard.
9. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the perimeter along
the grading limits.
10. Park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of application of building
permit on the new structure.
11. Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan 1
Council.
12. Stop signs shall be installed at the exit points to Picha Drive. 1
13. Meet the conditions of the Fire Marshal.
14. Should open space for planting the proposed trees be problematic and
limited on the subject site, 10 trees shall be located on Outlot A,
Crossroads Plaza. ,
16. The PUD Agreement shall include the following conditions:
a. Intent 1
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD that would allow the expansion
of an existing office /light manufacturing use. It is intended that this
use be operated and maintained to preserve its low intensity character to
25 1
11
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
ensure its compatibility with surrounding uses and the greater Chanhassen
11 Central Business District.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone are limited to the light industrial /office
or less intensive uses than the existing use. The uses shall be limited to
those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a
use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that
interpretation.
11 1. Light Manufacturing*
2. Retail **
3. Newspaper and small printing offices
4. Veterinary Clinic
5. Animal Hospital
6. Offices
* Light manufacturing is subject to the following limitations:
- no visible emissions of smoke
1 - no noise emissions exceeding the MnPCA standards measured at the
property line
- no outdoor storage
no overnight parking of semi trailers or inoperable vehicles
- all parking must be accommodated on -site in a concealed location behind
the building
** Retail uses are subject to the following limitations:
- signage consistent with approved sign package
- retail uses must be consistent with the site's restricted parking
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR SCHMID'S ACRES BEACHLOT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street
Tom Owens 1230 So. 6th St, #1512, Minneapolis
Ken Dur 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka
Craig Miller 6450 Minnewashta Parkway
Brad Solheim
Roger Knutson: I think the Council's gone through this process numerous times
but just to say what the process is about. What this item has to do with is
registering a non - conforming use. The issue is only one. Is what was the level
of use in 1981? Other issues such as ownership, right of access, boat
violations, was the level of use in '81 appropriate, what does the property look
1 26
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
like today. None of those issues are issues. There's only one issue. What was
there in '81.
Councilman Senn: Don? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: You know I've had a number of phone calls on this and stuff 1
and I guess I'm going to do something that isn't normal for us to do but I would
really like to see us just simply pass a motion tonight tabling this and telling
the neighborhood to go back and get something decided amongst themselves in
terms of what they want to do. And then come in and propose something to use on
some kind of a basis that we know they're all living with it. I mean I don't
see us, we're not going to get anywhere if we're going to try to mediate between
the parties here and I don't know, I'm not even sure that the '81 question is
answerable and I think there's plenty of room in this thing for a compromise and
I would really like to see the people involved get together and figure out some
form of compromise that they can all live with and then be coming back into us
when there's something we can do about it so to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's a lot of questions that remain unanswered and we
can't give all the answers to this. No matter what final decision we come up
with. I think there's some legality questions and if those legality questions
are there, that's a court decision to come up with to say who has property
rights where and how much the property rights are. Secondly, as you've
mentioned, the beachlot was done, a survey of that beachlot was done in '81 and
as staff has indicated, that there has been some items on there. That there was
one dock 45 feet in length and one boat on shore and that dock increased over
the period of time. It was 30 and then it went to 45, if I remember reading
what's in here. And those are some of the things that I think, what we can do
is basically address those and what I would like to ask, once we get staff
report and it's up to Council whether they might want to table this. I think we
have to move ahead on it. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other but I
think we should move ahead on it to come up with the conclusions as to what's
here and I think we've all read this and probably gone through it word for word,
and knowing what was done within the Minutes from the Planning Commission
meeting. And I also read some things in the administrative section which gave
me a little more insight on this under Visitor Presentation from January 25th of
'93 as well. Where things were discussed. Who has what and why they have it
and indicated that information. So I will leave it to Council. If their
decision, you want to proceed or if you want to table. There is a motion on the
floor to table.
Councilman Senn: And if I could just clarify. Part of the reason that I think
that it almost becomes important that we do is, as you look at this and you look
at all the issues, I mean not an indifference or whatever but I mean to me they
aren't legal issues. To me you have to apply common sense rules here. And to
me this is very easily solveable issue apply common sense rules. And if
everybody would just screen out there it seems to me the work force is simply to
answer these questions in a legal context which I don't think...best situation.
And that's why I'd really like to kind of give it back to them and say come on,
one more chance. Let's go do it and see if you can do it and if you can't, then
we'll do it for you but I don't know.
27 1
II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think the issue that Roger put forth is basically what
I was the use in 1981, and that's what the ordinance covers and even though common
sense can enter into it. That's the issue.
Councilman Wing: I don't understand what we're, I'm losing track of what we're
doing here tonight. I don't care if the neighbors get along or not. Our issue,
after Planning Commission looked at this is to merely determine what the '81
II useage was and allow the permit. We have to be consistent and we have to be
reliable on this issue because we're already done what, 8, 9, 10, 12 other ones
where we've cut back boats. We've enforced the '81 ordinance. We're not going
to not enforce the '81 ordinance here. Whatever information we have to justify
11 that decision and I think Planning Commission has been extremely generous here.
It's our decision to make. I'm not going to table this so the neighbors can get
along. We haven't had neighbors get along on any one of these and we could
II table every one and it's not a neighbor issue. It's our issue to enforce the
'81 ordinance which was long ago decided to do and I'm not about to change
paths. But there's a motion.
1 Councilman Senn: We've got so many affidavits both way on this, I don't know. I
think that makes it a little unique. I don't know.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and I agree that's the way it should be done
but unfortunately that's not the way the ordinance is written and unfortunately
I think part of the reason we're here tonight is because the neighbors can't get
II along.
Councilman Wing: That's why we're permitting these is because the neighbors
consistently can't get along and something had to be done. This permit is going
to say here's the law and let's not talk about it anymore.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? If
II not, it dies for lack of second. We'll go through the process. One of the
things I'm going to request is that if there's something new that can be added
to the information that you're going to provide this evening, we'd like that
II information. If not, believe we've gone over this. We have read what's here
and from what I saw, it took probably about 2 hours plus at the Planning
Commission meeting. I hope I don't carry that for 2 hours here and I'd like
each of you to, whoever's going to approach it after staff's report, to come
II forward with any additional new information that you may have in regard to this
proposal. So with that, Paul are you going to do this?
II Paul Krauss: Yes Mr. Mayor. I'll be very brief. The beachlot's origins go
back some 80 odd years. In 1914 it was originally acquired as a property right
of an older subdivision. It does not meet the minimum standards of today's
II beachlots by any way, shape or form but then again, many of those non - conforming
uses don't. The survey, the original 1981 survey shows that there was one dock
45 foot in length, 1 boat on shore. There were no boats docked...beachlot.
That's the best available information we had and we've been using it throughout
I but wherever applicants can provide more accurate information, we've generally
accepted that since we acknowledge that we're not in a position to verify the
survey that's now 12 years old and nobody that did that survey works for the
1 city. The Association requested continued use of the dock with 1 or 2 boats
being docked, 1 canoe rack, 2 boats stored on land and continued use of parking
11 28
II
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
at the beachlot. This item was heard several times by the Planning Commission 1
because of problems with notifying all of the applicants. The DNR also
exercised some jurisdiction because if you've been out there, the creek outlet
for Minnewashta basically is this beachlot. It's adjacent to the high ground.
I/
There are a lot of issues that I would deem exterraneous that have been raised
from time to time and I'm sure you'll hear them again tonight. There's some
basic disputes over who has rights to the property. We've never thought that
that was something the City was in a position to regulate or administrate one
way or the other. The only purpose in doing this was to define what level of
useage should be... The Planning Commission ultimately recommended that the
Association have one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on land and one
canoe rack. They also raised some questions about security and although it's
not...consider this is something that we can't require because all you are doing
is trying to establish the level of useage. What we've done in the past is
recommended that fencing and signage be placed on the beachlot as a good will
gesture. We have requested that on other beachlots and that was done here as
well. With that Mr. Mayor I'll turn it back over to you and hopefully answer
questions as they come up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul.
Councilman Senn: Don, could we ask a couple questions first before we go?
Mayor Chmiel: You bet. 1
Councilman Mason: Yeah I was just, I read through this very thoroughly. I was
down at the site today and I guess I'm wondering a little bit if we need to go
through the repetition of the presentations again. I do hope that any
I/
information that is shared, I mean quite honestly I could make a motion on it
right now but I don't want to cut people off either.
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do is to give probably about 10 minutes for each
side to come forward with any new information that they have and whoever would
like to start, they have that opportunity at this time.
Councilman Senn: Can I ask Paul a question first, just real quick?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1
Councilman Senn: Paul, under the Planning Commission recommendation that's in
here okay, you have motor vehicle access yet no off street parking. Can you
give me a little better definition there as to what, what does that mean? Does
that mean that motor vehicle access is to launch boats? I mean what does this
mean?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, that I found intriguing when I read through that this
afternoon as well. Apparently the Planning Commission originally when they
first looked at this did consider allowing some parking on site as has been
maintained by some that it's gone on for some time. When they ultimately did
approve it, they said no parking on site but that people should have the ability
to drop off people. Drop off a canoe or whatever, which meant vehicular access
but the parking's not supposed to be there.
29 ,
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Senn: So does that mean that they can go all the way down?
Paul Krauss: Presumeably. Once you're across the curb, it's a straight shot
right down there.
Councilman Senn: But I mean that goes a lot way to defining what this is going
to look like. I mean is it going to be a street? Is it going to be a nice
landscaped area for everybody's enjoyment? I mean that particular issue to me
goes a long way in defining what this thing's going to look like. Yet there is
public accesses on the lakes so that's why I'm asking.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I'm sorry. I really can't define that for you any better.
I was not at the Planning Commission meeting. I don't recall that that came up
specifically. It's all hard packed dirt once you're out there. There really is
nothing to stop it from going any further to the lake. Clearly it's not, it
wouldn't meet our design specifications for a parking lot and a driveway. The
lot's only 50 feet wide at it's widest anyway.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not, who'd like the floor first?
(The microphone at the podium was not working properly and therefore not picking
up all of the discussion by the speakers.)
Gary Carlson gave his presentation to the Council and then stated he had
pictures if the Council would like to see them.
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe you can just pass them through. Okay, thank you.
Tom Owens: Ladies and gentlemen, lawyers are known for long winded oratory.
Your comments at the beginning of this hearing took the wind right out of my
sails. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to look to your guidance as to what to
do with this because the rules of the game here were established by the City,
specifically by the City Council and establishing...passing the 1982 ordinance
and then coming back a year ago and requiring every beachlot to come to the city
and obtain a permit for a legal non - conforming uses. In an ideal world
everything would be simple and straight forward and there'd be 1 or 2 facts to
go over and we could all go home. But the facts here are not simple. There are
not 1, 2, 3 or 4 of them. Let me give you an example. If you're...with the
Planning Director's statement about the 1981 survey, and Mr. Krauss has not been
involved in this very much. Kate Aanenson has...at the staff level. The
description of the 1981 survey is incorrect. There was not a dock in the 1981
survey. It's in your packet and it is also in the materials that have been
circulated previously. June 4th of 1981 someone on the city staff went to this
reservation at Schmid's Acres Tract and did a page and a half survey of the then
existing uses. There was no dock. There was also no dock that was 45 feet in
length. I've just given you what I thought...summary of our key points with 1
1/2 pages. It's not something that we can get through in 10 minutes so what I'd
like to do is run through and ask you what you'd like to hear tonight.
I/ Mayor Chmiel: Let me, can I interrupt you for just a moment.
Tom Owens: Yes sir.
11 30
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 t
Mayor Chmiel: In looking at the recreational beachlot inventory, which is in
the packet, it shows 1981, approximate length it says no. In 1986 it shows it
at 36 feet in length and in 1991 it shows it at 45 feet in length. Just to
clarify some of the statements that you had made previously. ,
Tom Owens: ...is incorrect.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, but there is also clarification on this chart that shows 1
it.
Tom Owens: Yeah, and it clarifies that there was no dock in 1981. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Tom Owens: And that, as I understand it, is what this proceeding is about. What 1
it was in 1981. Now my client has gone through the trouble of assembling a
couple dozen aerial photos which are not, we proposed to show you three from
1980, '81 and '82. Set up the projector, show them to you and for all of us to
huddle around and look at those is going to take a couple of a minutes. But it
seems to me that the City has set up this proceeding as one in which you are
acting basically as a court of law. The ordinance calls for satisfactory proof
of legal non - conforming use in 1982 or before and I just don't know of any other
way around this than for the City Council to listen to the testimony and to
consider the physical evidence. Things like aerial photographs. Things like
the turn around ability on that site and to weigh these in light city
ordinances.
Councilman Wing: Can I just interrupt here Don? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. I was going to.
Councilman Wing: Some of us were at the Planning Commission. We've read '
the Minutes and heard the testimony and these pictures show that the tree root
was cut out that was there for 4 years and there's been small boats launched but
not with trailers and cars and so on and so forth. Can your client Mr. Durr,
can you live with the Planning Commission recommendation that's in our packet?
Which allows for a dock and a canoe rack.
Tom Owens: No. Our preference is, Mr. Durr can certainly give...change one
part of their recommendation to you and that's to eliminate the motor vehicle
access. That's point number 3, the second page of my summary outline. ,
Councilman Wing: Well okay. My intent of a motion would be to go along with
the Planning Commission recommendations. No vehicle access. No parking. And
we somehow have to come up with a gate and a sign so that we have privacy for
the neighbors and hours restricted, which would mean there would be a small dock
and a canoe rack. No overnight boat storage. No parking. No vehicle access.
There's no curb there. There's a curb. There's no driveway there now anyway.
It's a curb.
Someone in the audience made a statement.
31 1
11
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Paul Krauss: That's basically true. I mean depending on what you decide, an
entrance would be saw cut or just the curb would be left.
Councilman Wing: But we can be real hard nosed and we could listen to testimony
and go on and on. On the other hand we can tend to compromise because of the
differences of opinions here so we could go with your recommendation of
absolutely nothing or go along with the other party of absolutely everything or
go along with Planning Commission recommendation. The understanding that
there'd be no parking or vehicle access and request the gate and sign be up and
I'd be happy to make that motion at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor first of all. Let me get a second
and then we can have discussion. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a
second?
r Councilman Mason: I'd like to hear that motion again.
Councilman Wing: The motion takes the Planning Commission recommendations from
their June 2nd meeting which specifically has a canoe rack, dock. Let me get on
here. The Planning Commission recommends that the Association have one dock, no
boats docked overnight. One boat on land and one canoe rack. I would also
specify also that there be no parking or vehicle access and that we request a
gate and the proper signage be placed specifying private and hours.
Paul Krauss: Could I ask for a clarification of Councilman Wing? Motor vehicle
access. The presence of cars onto and off the property. The Planning
Commission recommended that you allow that but no parking. Are you then saying
no access, no parking?
Councilman Wing: Yeah, because there's going to be no boat launching so there's
no need for cars to go down there as I see it, and why drive down there if you
can't park there so we might as well, and then the gate would be placed to stop
public access which has been a problem, which can be documented if we want to go
on here. And then the issue of the snowmobiles and so on and so forth. There's
a trail that clearly needs to be blocked off from public access because they're
used to having it. The parties and the vandalism haven't been Schmids Acres
people I'm sure. It's been the public coming in there and so I think
considering that we now have neighbors on either side of this very narrow
parcel, we now have a responsibility to either enforce this at '81 levels or be
a little more compromising and fair and go along with the Planning Commission's
recommendation which I think is a good one, which again, gate it. Sign. No
vehicle access. No parking. One dock and one canoe rack. The overnight boat,
I'd leave that to.
Councilman Senn: And Dick the, you know if we're really going to kind of put
columns together and say here's '81 and here's the Planning Commission's
recommendation. I mean you're talking about altering that as the motor vehicle
access goes, and don't get me wrong because I agree with you 100%. I think the
motor vehicle access should be taken away. I think the boat launching should be
no but I think they should be able to walk a canoe down there or a boat that
they can carry down there and launch it so I don't know if that needs
1 clarification or not. I'd really much rather see you eliminate the motor
vehicle access and allow 1 or 2 boats at the dock and eliminate the boat on
32
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
land. I think that's to me what causes eyesores and growths and I mean usually
more problems than a couple of boats not on a regular basis but I mean you know,
to me it gets back to common sense again. If you haven't, what's wrong with
letting them kind of utilize their dock to pull in and keep it for a weekend if
they get that worked out or whatever.
Councilman Wing: That's the issue on almost all of these and that would be very
inconsistent if we did that. They had no boats. 1
Councilman Senn: Oh I see what you mean. Well, but also on the survey they did
have motor vehicle access and they did have a boat on land. What I'm saying is
do a trade off. Get rid of the boat on land and allow, I'd rather see it at the
dock then sitting on land. That's my own bias from living on the lake and what
you see. What happens when the people leave them on land.
Councilman Wing: The more issue here is boat counts on the lake and the
overnight storage and that tends to be the biggest problem for the neighbors
sometimes too. And with their narrow area, boats on the dock and they're not
going to have any swimming. So I'm going to stay with no overnight dockage and
storage of boats. That would be the one.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? I would suggest under the circumstances, a motion should
be to direct myself to prepare Findings of Fact to bring back to your next
Consent Agenda consistent with the way that you decide. We'd have it all
written up in one package. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Good idea.
Councilman Mason: I'll second the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion with Council?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. A quick point. The thing about crossing the street
there. Walking a couple of blocks. I live 6 blocks from Lotus Lake and we
regularly walk down there. Now no, it's not as busy. However, my children were
there today as I was looking around and they were very careful and looked both
ways and there wasn't a problem.
Councilman Wing: Well there are signs going in and there's a trail going in.
You know it exists.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, counsler. 1
Brad Solheim, an attorney representing Gary Carlson and Schmid's Acres Tract
made a comment regarding the Findings of Fact. 1
Councilman Wing: Were you on the site prior to the bulldozing of the shoreline?
Brad Solheim: I was not...
Councilman Wing: Well I'm saying, the last month. You couldn't have been on
the site in the last month and tell me with a 4 wheel drive you could have 1
gotten a boat in there and that tree limb, that tree root has grown across there
33 1
1
11 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
11 for years, if not decades. That didn't just occur and this access was just
bulldozed in there. So the use since 1981, I mean we can challenge these things
because there's pictures. I mean we were at the Planning Commission. There's
II pictures. We can show '79, '80, '81, '82, there wasn't a dock at all. I mean
should we get into that tonight or should we stick with the motion ?...I happen
to live there and I disagree with what you're saying. I'm not going to
disqualify myself. Or these other neighbors that have lived there for 25 years
il who would like to challenge you also.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Carlson, Mr. Carlson, you're out of order. And I don't
11 normally like to do this but Mr. Wing is a Councilman, whether he lives on the
lake or wherever. He still has an opinion which he can do.
Gary Carlson made a comment from the audience.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, this is cut and dry enough that I'd be happy to bow
out of this.
II Brad Solheim made a statement at this point.
II Councilman Mason: I'd like to make one quick comment and then planning on
calling the question. I saw some before and after pictures today of the
offending root across that and if one believes in those photographs, that root
was removed this year. I know enough about trees to know that that was not a 2
II year old root. I would in no way ever take a car, unless it was a 4 wheel drive
vehicle, over that root. Mysteriously this root disappeared and that troubles
me a whole lot so I think obviously some altering was done on the shoreline and
II I guess I would even question the legality of some of that but that's neither
here nor there. I seconded a motion and I support it and I guess I'd like to
call a question.
r Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Question is called. All those in favor to allow, Richard
do you want to reword what you had before. I have it here but I want to make
sure that it's exactly as what you indicated.
I Councilman Mason: Now does this include then the Facts of Finding?
I Mayor Chmiel: Including the Findings of Facts, correct.
Roger Knutson: What you're doing is directing me to prepare Findings that
II incorporate whatever you're going to say. You won't officially do anything
until your next meeting other than direct me to prepare Findings of Fact.
Councilman Mason: Okay, good enough.
II Councilman Wing: I'm going to just go without the recommendation. The Council
then the motion will be, approval with the dock, with clarification of the dock
II setback zone ordinance be included in the final of facts so that the 10 foot
setback is maintained. The dock. The canoe rack. No parking. No vehicle
access. Recommendation that a gate be installed. And a sign specifying
private property and hours of use. And I'm going to leave it at that. I'm
1 going to delete the, I'm going to go along with the canoe rack and I'm not
including the boat on shore, although I'm willing to take that as a friendly
II 34
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
amendment. If you want to keep it to one boat on shore. That would be a
rowboat or whatever. Then I'll stay with the.
Councilman Senn: He said it was a canoe earlier anyway so now you've got it in
the canoe rack.
Councilman Wing: Alright. I'll stay with the canoe rack then.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And no other boats? 11
Councilman Mason: Well they do have a boat on land there.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they do have one boat on land.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but they had no canoe rack so.
II
Councilman Wing: They had no canoe rack.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they had no canoe rack. II
Councilman Wing: Okay. Then I'll go along with the Planning Commission's
I/
recommendation with clarifying. The Planning Commission recommended that the
Association have one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on land and one
canoe rack. I'll go along with that. Also requiring then that there be no
parking, no vehicle access and the gate and the sign. Is that clear Paul?
II
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council direct
the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact consistent with approval of the
Non - Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot at Schmids Acre Tract
allowing one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on land and one canoe
rack. Also requiring that there be no parking, no vehicle access, a gate II installed and signage stating private property and hours of use. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Wing: May I make just one clarifying comment. These issues have
ii
been emotional and they've been a real problem. Consistently. I was very
active and involved in the process through 1981 and the lake useage study in
1983 and subsequent opening of the park. Whether this has been Lake Riley or
II
Lotus Lake or Lake Minnewashta, I have strongly supported the 1981 ordinance and
we've been pretty flexible. More than I think we should have been. We've cut a
lot of people back. We've done some real, we've impacted some neighborhoods and II we haven't made a lot of friends on this but my fervored opinion has been the
same level whether it's been on my lake or any other lake. And I haven't
changed my opinion or direction. I simply want to enforce the '81 ordinance
and I think we've been pretty fair and generous considering the documentation
that's been presented here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Counselor? 1
Tom Owens: May I ask for a clarification on two points. One is the canoe rack
and it's intended use. My home is near Lake of the Isles and you have a canoe II rack there for 20 or so canoes...number of canoes on the rack to 2. The second
is, the length of the dock. We were prepared tonight to show aerial photos
35 II
II
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
11 demonstrating that the dock was 30 foot out. It was a very short length. Two
or three dock lengths...that the length be limited to 25 feet.
' Councilman Senn: How about 6 canoes and 45 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any problem with that.
Councilman Senn: Okay, let's do that.
Councilman Wing: I tell you, when we talk height though, 4 considering that
you're in a neighborhood here. 4 is boom boom. 6 is getting high.
Councilman Senn: Well 6 is, I mean all canoe racks are generally double sided
so I mean it's 3 on each side. You're not talking more than 6 feet really.
Mayor Chmiel: No. That's about it. The ones that we have at the Park and Rec.
Councilman Mason: I can't get upset over 6 canoes.
Don Ashworth: Clarification then is 6 canoes.
Mayor Chmiel: As he said with canoe racks, a total number of 6 canoes contained
on the rack.
Councilman Wing: And what is the existing today as it is? Sitting there right
now
Paul Krauss: 45.
Councilman Wing: The existing dock today I can accept without any problem,
including the T's, as long as it meets the dock setback requirements.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you.
PROPOSED CITY CODE AMENDMENT, SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES, FIRST READING.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to table the next item which is the sexually
orientated business ordinance and the reason we're going to table that is to put
it over to the Planning Commission. They've not had an opportunity to review
this.
Paul Krauss: No, they did.
Mayor Chmiel: Huh?
Paul Krauss: They did.
11 Roger Knutson: They did? I thought they didn't.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've been misinformed here. Yeah, I thought that they had
done this.
Councilman Senn: It was a long time ago. 1992 if I remember reading right.
36
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: Have they had the entirety of what's here, do you know? 1
Roger Knutson: Did they hold a public hearing on this?
Paul Krauss: They did not because it wasn't going to be in the zoning '
ordinance.
Roger Knutson: But the separation requirements in here are zoning ordinance
like anyway. They take our authority to do it comes from State Enabling
legislature for zoning.
Paul Krauss: The Planning Commission did hear it. I don't recall if it was. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It has to be a public hearing is what he's saying.
Paul Krauss: ...maybe at that time it was more philosophical,..
Mayor Chmiel: Well, rather than be safe and sorry and go according to what
Roger is saying. Let's table this back to the Planning Commission having a
public hearing with it and we'll go forward.
Don Ashworth: We'll table it to allow staff to work with Roger to find out if 1
it needs a public hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. I'll go along with that.
Councilman Senn: Could I make one comment though?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1
Councilman Senn: We ought to be charging more money. A lot higher fee.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor could I, before we throw this. Mr. Harr, our Public
Safety Director. He sat down in the staff position and started to go like
this... 1
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mayor Chmiel: Why not? '
Roger Knutson: Because in many communities it is a permitted use. For example
we regulate.
Councilman Senn: A bookstore.
Roger Knutson: I'll say it, short time hotel. 1
Councilman Senn: A bookstore is a bookstore. A film place is a film place. You
can't attach the descriptive word.
Mayor Chmiel: I thought I'd ask the question just in case.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's too late to eliminate it. It's not permitted.
37 '
sN
11 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
II Councilman Mason: What's not permitted?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So this will be worked out between the 3 or 4 of you and
I then we'll take it from there and maybe my suggestion to save that if we have
to. Don. Item 7.5.
II COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
MISSION STATEMENT /1993 GOALS.
Don Ashworth: The Council asked that I submit both Colleen's and the Mayor's
mission statement. We're going to spend, and my recollection was, the Council
felt that we could combine the two in a relatively short period of time.
1 Councilman Senn: When did we do this?
Mayor Chmiel: About 6 months ago.
II Don Ashworth: Yeah, a long time ago.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: It actually was 6 months ago.
Don Ashworth: Do you want to save this for some upcoming work session type of
II thing?
Mayor Chmiel: Let's do that.
1 1 Councilman Senn: I mean I'd rather handle it in there than.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep, let's do that in a work session.
II Don Ashworth: Okay. And similarly then.
II Mayor Chmiel: Or whenever we have our next work session.
Don Ashworth: Goals for the City Council, should we do that at the same time?
II Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: And do we have to do this?
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think we decided that it was something that we
wanted to do. We all had ideas about what was important and.
II Councilman Mason: I think that's okay. I just wanted to make one point here
about on the cover about low income housing. I'm talking affordable housing
not, and there's a real big difference there. I'm not, when people that are
11 making *30,000.00 a year are having trouble finding a home in Chanhassen, you
know I think that's something. So I'm not ruling out low income but my main
concern is affordable housing for anyone that works in Chanhassen.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
II 38
II
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Senn: Before we jump into administrative things, could I bring up a
couple things?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Go ahead. 1
Councilman Senn: Well, I'll do it anyway. One thing was, is cable.
Mayor Chmiel: Cable television? 1
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: We are in hot discussions with that right now....communication,
regulations that are just coming out.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but I also understand that our cable
company is using that as an excuse to not going ahead and doing anything and
I think this Council ought to make a real strong statement back to the cable
company which says, live up to your franchise and get cable in the areas where
you're required to put it in or we'll get another cable company in that will do
it. This is ridiculous. I'm tired of getting phone calls on it all the time.
Mayor Chmiel: I think he was going to address that and he has not.
Councilman Senn: He has, no, no. In fact I talked to the regional, new
regional head. That's the other interesting part. Every time you talk it's a
new one.
Mayor Chmiel: He's just living in town. 1
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but he lives in Chanhassen and he says he wants to do
right by Chanhassen but he said, well you know about the only way I'm ever going
to pull this off is if you guys give me the ammunition to do it. And I said
well to me that's kind of a scapegoat. Go do your job and live up to your
agreement. But if that's what it takes, then I think we ought to give it to him
and I think we ought to give it to him hard, between the eyes and say, put up or
get the whatever. Because this is getting absolutely ridiculous. I mean we've
got neighborhoods that are half served and other halves that aren't served and
we've got new areas that have been sitting there beating on people to get it
forever and to sit there and say we're not expanding because we don't know what
the new federal legs are, sorry our contract doesn't say that guys.
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't see any of those letters that I have given back to 1/
staff. Maybe we can get copies of those letters that I think I provided to Todd
on that. So what Council is aware as to what they're really saying and if I
remember correctly by legislation, they do have a certain timeframe. I can't
remember the date.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, Todd's given them notice and I think they have 60 days
is my understanding to get at it but I think.
Mayor Chmiel: What the feds had just made that increase for a period of time.
They moved it from one date to another. They allowed them...
39 1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Senn: Again, that should have nothing to do with it though Don in
our eyes.
Mayor Chmiel: No, and I probably don't disagree with that. The availability is
there. They can plow that in and run it in and I'm amazed that they don't.
11 Councilman Senn: Well and I think we should reaffirm Todd's letter to them
which is saying, you know get in compliance with your contract in 60 days.
We've given you notice. I think they should be put on notice that if they're
not then dang it, as far as we're concerned, hey. It's open season again which
means we can go start talking to other cable companies about getting service to
our residents who want it. Like I say, I don't mean to beat it to death.
Mayor Chmiel: The only way you'd be able to do that, if I'm not mistaken, with
the franchise that we have presently. This franchise gives them the right to
provide the services within the community and I don't think we have the right to
go back out and get another franchisee to come in.
Councilman Senn: But they're in violation. We can cancel their contract.
That's the end of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But specifics in that franchise, I'd even have to look at
to even know.
Councilman Senn: I'd just like not to be put in the situation where 60 days
from now we're sitting no different than we are sitting today, which is nowhere
with those people.
Mayor Chmiel: I think they have some concerns because their costs and also the
position that the cable company can be directed by their respective franchisee
or the city in itself to dictate what the rates would be. So there's some.
Councilman Senn: Well there's fear but at the same time again they have to
provide service. And I guess my point is, if they're fearful of it and don't
want to provide service at that cost, then maybe we should find out if there's
another company that will.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we should do is have him come in here again.
Don Ashworth: I think we can do that. I also think though that it's not a bad
idea to direct the City Attorney to notify them that they are in non - compliance
with the franchise agreement. They've done a number of...past the mile. They
have to take and provide that service and they're not doing it.
Mayor Chmiel: Can you write a short letter?
11 Don Ashworth: All of Roger's letters are short.
Mayor Chmiel: I know but the price is high.
Don Ashworth: Well, I might write the letter and have him sign it.
r
40
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Roger Knutson: I think my letters are known for being short. I will also say,
it often takes a lot longer to write a short letter than a long one.
Councilman Senn: Okay, my other second quick item, and I don't want to take too
much time here, is Saturday afternoon I got a notice in the packet for the first
time about a meeting Wednesday night. I have really, that makes me mad. I mean
my schedule is such that I can't sit there with 3 days notice for gripes sake
and clear an entire evening and the issues that are scheduled for that meeting
are important issues. And I just really object to, like I say, getting that
stuff and telling me I'm supposed to be there at 5:30 on Wednesday.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any problems with it. 1
Councilman Senn: Well you're retired Don. 1
Paul Krauss: If I could add to that too. I don't want to sound, this came out
of staff and I actually didn't know about it until I actually got through my box
this morning. I've already got the Planning Commission. 1
Councilman Senn: Well good Paul. I wasn't last then. Thanks.
Paul Krauss: I've got the Planning Commission coming in for a special meeting 1
on Highway 101 and the pedestrian bridge at 7:00 in the morning. Then I've got
some of them coming back at 5:30 in the evening to talk on the Highway 5 Task
Force subcommittee.
Councilman Wing: Then there's something else going on at 7:00 and 7:30 and how
many meetings are you going to have? '
Councilman Mason: There are 3 other meetings...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Who scheduled it? Why is it happening then? '
Don Ashworth: Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman and myself and I'll be darn that we
did this I would say at least, 2, 3, 4 weeks ago and it was based on direction,
I don't want to lay it off on a group but I can't remember if that was right
after one of the HRA.
Councilman Senn: Don, there's no reason to lay it off. Let's just tell us 4
weeks ahead of time and then it's easy to schedule. That's all I'm saying.
Don Ashworth: Could the Council look at their calendar and maybe see an off 1
Monday that might work, because you're right.
Councilman Wing: Well there's so any meetings on Wednesday we can't attend 1
them all and I'd like to be at two at the same time.
Don Ashworth: Well how about a Monday? Hopefully 3 -4 weeks from today. 1
Councilman Senn: That's fine with me as long as we can pick one that works.
Don Ashworth: We meet on the 12th and the 24th don't we? r
41 1
i
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, we meet the 12th.
Don Ashworth: So that leaves the 19th.
Mayor Chmiel: The 19th?
Councilman Senn: 19th is fine with me.
Councilman Mason: As long as it's after 5:30. Well, I'll be a little late but
that's okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you drive your car instead of your bike and you'd be here
on time.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know, I'm going to be negotiating so I might
have to walk.
Mayor Chmiel: You mean your tires are going to be flat.
Councilman Mason: Could be.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. HRA and City Council and Planning.
' Don Ashworth: And Park.
Councilman Mason: Is that 7:00 in the morning?
Councilman Wing: Now that's cancelled?
Mayor Chmiel: The one for this Wednesddy is cancelled and it will be the 19th.
Councilman Wing: July 19th?
' Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: At what time?
Mayor Chmiel: 5:30 p.m.
Paul Krauss: Fred Hoisington wanted to come in and talk to them about the TH
101 realignment study and the pedestrian bridge to get Planning Commission
input. So we were going to have the Planning Commission come for breakfast here
at 7:00 on Wednesday morning and some people who are on the Planning Commission
have to come back at 5:30 in the evening for the Highway 5 Task Force
subcommittee.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and then there's another. Isn't there a Recycling?
Mayor Chmiel: There is a Recycling.
' Councilman Mason: That is an important one.
Mayor Chmiel: That's one I was concerned with too.
1 42
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Wing: Mark, are you done with all your unlisted Council 1
Presentations so I can start mine?
Councilman Senn: Your unlisted ones? Well, I'll defer for the moment. No, go
ahead.
Councilman Wing: Letter to Don Ashworth, June 2nd from Todd Hoffman, Dale
Gregory, Dean Schmieg. I think that, these are significant events and I'd like
this in the Minutes and recognized whether we acknowledge this at a meeting or
Council sends, the Mayor sends a letter acknowledging this. Whatever. If we
choose to acknowledge this. I just pulled this out of the Adminstrative Packet
because when I see these, I like to see them get recognition. I think it's
significant. The people are working hard.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I like that.
Don Ashworth: So you would like under Visitor Presentation section, maybe I
should.
Councilman Wing: Ah, I don't know if we want to go that far. Maybe just a memo
to them saying it was acknowledged and the Council appreciated your, with the
Mayor's you know. Okay. The other thing that I didn't want to, plan to bring
up but frankly the phone calls are very lengthy. I can't take them. I don't
have the time to let them settle down and explain the facts. Is a letter going
out to these people? Where are we going with this? We're all in the same boat
here?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That is it. 1
Councilman Senn: How many phone calls did you get on this?
Councilman Wing: Four. Only four. Which is very few.
Paul Krauss: What's happened is in the construction... 1
Councilman Mason: I've had a couple more.
Councilman Senn: I've had many more. 1
Paul Krauss: In discussions with the Mayor and City Manager, we talked about
trying to get a memo out to residents to do two things. To tell them when
things are actually going to be discussed, which is at your next City Council
meeting. On a visitor presentation I think it was scheduled. The information
that went out to everybody was talking about having everybody come down to the
next Planning Commission meeting where I supposed they were supposed to beat up
on this plat that was supposed to be on. But I pulled that plat off the agenda
because if the issue is where's the road going to go, how can we define where
the plat's supposed to be The second thing was, there was frankly a lot of
incriminating and misinformation that was distributed and in as non - partisan a
way as possible I felt it might be reasonable to try to relate what the
Council's action have been for the last 4 years and why and what is actually
been considered. I think it's fairly reasonable and easy to explain. I mean
there were even accusations that the Minutes were altered.
43 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Mason: Rosemary lives.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, so we can kind of see if I can stretch from here to there
' you know like she did but we actually, we dug out the videotapes of the meeting
so if people want to watch it on TV, they can come down here and we'll turn it
on for them.
Councilman Wing: Can I, did we not. I have watched tapes. Did we not, as a
Council after looking at numerous options, make a decision that the road would
go through?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: And I'm not even sure why we're reconsidering this.
Paul Krauss: Many times over the last 4 years.
' Councilman Wing: But it wasn't final.
Councilman Senn: Then why is it being brought up again?
Councilman Wing: Yeah, how can it be brought up again? It obviously wasn't
final.
Mayor Chmiel: We brought it back and said...
Councilman Mason: Why is this being reconsidered or is this not even the
' appropriate place to discuss it?
Councilman Wing: It apparently wasn't platted, is that right?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, yeah it's platted. I had discussions with Mr. Beddor at
his office one day. And 1 said if you want to come in on a Visitor Presentation
to do this, that you can come in and do that discussion. But at the same time
' you're going to do that, I want to make sure that the property owners who are
being affected by this are fully aware as to what you're proposing to do on Lake
Lucy Road. And he is proposing to sort of put in a U and extending closest to
' County Road 17 for the exit. And I said, if you can get concurrence from those
people, then I see no problem with us making that specific change. But if they
object, then there's no way are we going to make that change. So that's really
' what happened.
Councilman Wing: What these people are really pointing out to me is that
Pleasant, they start out angry and then.
' Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose.
' Councilman Wing: But they're talking about the dangers.
Councilman Senn: The letters are all form letters. They just sign them...
Mayor Chmiel: If you look at the last sentence in there, as a property owner.
' 44
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1
Councilman Wing: But every person I've talked to is emphasizing the danger.
The hazards. The 50 mph speed limits. The roll overs, etc. If it's that
dangerous, independent of this thing, maybe we've got to do something about that
road. '
Councilman Senn: Well, but what's in that information as I understand it is the
information going around is that we're going to widen Pleasant View.
Councilman Wing: Well they're almost asking us to if it's that dangerous.
Councilman Senn: No, they're not. That's the problem. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think we'll just move on to the Administrative
Presentations and I'd like to move through these rather quickly. We have a
curfew here by 10:30.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
PROPOSAL TO LOCATE THE "CORN HUT" AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KERBER BOULEVARD
AND WEST 78TH STREET. CITY PLANNER.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul. I think we all read this.
Paul Krauss: Okay. Then there's not much more to add.
Councilman Wing: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second. 1
Paul Krauss: I don't know if it's anything to formally approve or otherwise. I
just need to be directed one way or the other. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Go for it.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think there's a problem. The only reason why I say I
don't think there's a problem is I know that corn if being grown in Chanhassen
so if it was.
Councilman Senn: In downtown Chanhassen. Say that right. Downtown Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you have direction.
TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE DUE TO HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION. CITY PLANNER_
Paul Krauss: 8(b) deals with temporary signage due to all the road construction
that's going on. We've been approached by several parties who are finding
access very difficult. One of them was Eckankar. The other one was Lotus Lawn
and Garden and we've got to believe that there are others on tap like residents
in the office building. Charlie and I spoke about it and he said, well I'm glad
you happened to come in because I just got a memo from MnDot as to how they
propose to handle that on state highways. This was a very big issue up on
Highway 12 and 394...construction there lasted many years but it was a big
disruptions to businesses. I think if we use a little bit of common sense and
45
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
allow the City Engineer to say what's appropriate and make sure they come down
in October when construction is done, then we can help out the business people
and the institutions without too much grief.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that can be handled by staff with some of those concerns.
I know when they came with Eckankar I didn't see any problems because it was a
big weekend and they needed direction on how to get to where they're at because
they couldn't get there from where they were. So okay.
Councilman Senn: One other question. What's the significance of a 1992,
February memorandum that was put in our administrative packet with nothing
before it or after it pertaining to it?
Mayor Chmiel: Regarding?
Councilman Senn: 1991 investment interest allocation.
Don Ashworth: It must have just gotten picked up off of my desk by mistake.
Mayor Chmiel: So you're just lucky you had additional things to read.
Councilman Senn: I was trying to put it into context and I couldn't figure out
any way to put it into context.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
1 Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1 46
1
11
1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 16, 1993
1 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Brian Batzli and
Diane Harberts
I MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Aran Olsen, Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Senior
Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and
II Roger Knutson, City Attorney
1 PUBLIC HEARING:
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR MINNEWASHTA MANOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. THE PERMIT SHALL DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
THE USE ALLOWED.
II Public Present:
I Name Address
James Sent 2820 Washta Bay Road
I Stew Peterson 2810 Tanagers Lane
Arnie, Anr< g Mike Weimerskirch 2831 Sandpiper Trail
Arthur Kimbe, 2820 Tanagers Lane
Tom Schoenecker 2820 Sandpiper Trail
II Herb Pfeffe, 2850 Tanagers Lane .
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
1
Batzli: So are you recommending any particular course of action regarding
1 the vac at i _
Aanenson: Well the city would like to see the street vacated because we
think it cleans up a problem but we're not sure. It may create another
1 problem with the Association, as I pointed out, narrowing down their
frontage and who would get control and does it create an even more non-
conforming situation and causing the dock to go, if Mr. Pfeffer gets more
1 property. Even go further over into his property causing an inconvenience
or a nuisance to him.
Batzli: Let me ask our City Attorney, if I can. When the City vacates
I property like that, do we have any control at all or any input into the
decision as to who it's vacated to?
1 Knutson: None.
Batzli: None?
II Knutson: I assume we have, is that a platted street?
Aanenson: Yes.
II
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 2
I Knutson: An easement is a right to use for a specific purpose. In this
case a street and utility. When we vacate, we give up our right to use it
anymore. We don't decide who owns it...
II Batzli: So we merely have an easement. We don't have the, we don't own
the.
II Mancino: So what happens?
Knutson: That's something the City does not decide. Generally speaking
I the rule is, it's divides in half. One half going one direction, one half
going the other direction. There are exceptions to that rule that people
litigate over at length. Usually I always advise my clients to stay out of
I that battle. We don't have the authority to decide it. We can't do it.
Scott: This is not like a reservation that's for a specific purpose such
as lake access. Rather something that the City can choose to use for those
I purposes that you mentioned, or give it up.
Knutson: They've always owned it. We just had a right to use it for a
1 specific purpose. My suggestion is that, what you're supposed to be doing
as I understand it, in this process, is determining the level of use in
1981. Just focus on that and forget about the vacation issue. If the City
I wants to vacate it, the City has to go through a public hearing process for
that vacation and it will be held then. If you just deal with the one
issue. What was there in '81. What are their non - conforming use rights.
I Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to address the
Commission? Is there someone who will speak for the applicant? If you can
come forward to the microphone please and give us your name and address.
Tom Schoenecker: Commission, gentlemen, ladies. My name is
Tom Schoenecker. I'm from 2820 Sandpiper Trail in Minnewashta Manor
subdivision. And I've kind of been involved in this for quite a number of
II years. When I first bought that property about 17 years ago I was sold the
property with the idea that we had this beautiful lake outlot, etc. and
when I finally found out it was underwater, and it's been underwater for
II years. And so we had been looking for a way of using this for a long time.
And I've kind of instigated trying to get this thing vacated but since
doing that I've been informed that it has to go through a court and the
I judge may decide not in our favor. We may lose everything we have and not
even have any right to the lake so I think at this time maybe we should
just request this non - conforming outlot use or whatever we call it. The
latest request that Herb sent, or that Art Kimber sent in requested these 5
II spaces on the dock and the request here mentions that the seasonal dock is
30 foot long. It's really 40 foot long and it has an L shape in it. The
L turns toward Herb's property but it does give us access to the deeper
II portion of the water.
Batzli: Does it extend 30 feet and then you're counting the last section
II as 40?
Tom Schoenecker: Could I ask somebody else that question? I guess it's 40
feet and then it turns right 20 feet. So 40 feet out into the water and
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 3 1
then it turns right 20 feet. And it does give us access to the lake. We
don't have everybody in the Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association
doesn't use it but we have on an average of 4 to 5 people that do use the
lake and it varies from year to year. We would like to maintain that lot
and continue to use it as a recreational outlot for the Minnewashta Manor
Homeowners Association.
Batzli: You've been there for a number of years. ,
Tom Schoenecker: About 17.
Batzli: Has this use been consistent since '81?
Tom Schoenecker: Yes. In fact is the dock at one time was longer. The II first dock that was put in there was put in by, it was about 60 feet long.
It was about 60 feet long I guess when it first went in and then over a
period of years it started to kind of deteriorate so about 5 years ago I
believe it was, we rebuilt it. And it's been consistently used as a, right II
now we've got a bench for sitting on it so people can go down there on
their walks and just sit on the dock and stuff like that and then they've
been using it for boats. Just strictly fishing boats.
Batzli: And you've requested 5 on the dock and 5 on land but you've
indicated that only 4 or 5 homeowners use it. Are you asking for
additional spots than what it's currently being used for?
Tom Schoenecker: No, I don't believe we've ever had that many boats down
there. I think 5 on a dock would be sufficient.
Herb: 32 homeowners that have the right to access. Not all of them have
boats.
Batzli: I'm sorr who's speaking?
Tom Sc ho =- nec ker : Herb, do you want to talk Herb? 1
Batzli: Yeah, if you want to come up to the microphone and give us your
name and address so we know who's addressing us?
Art Kimber: In 1981 we had a dock that was straight out. And then when
they dredged the channel last year...out lot extended westward to where our •
dock is row. And they declared that the lot we had originally was under
navigable water and after paying taxes on it for 47 years, we end up with
nothing on anything. But the City did grant us permission to use
Minnewashta Avenue, or Sandpiper Trail it's now called, for access to the
lake. We were to keep the property clean and put a dock on the side of the II
lot excactly in the ground that we're supposed to own. In checking that
just a couple of weeks ago, the records, the Bureau of Records at Carver
still show that we own the lot, even though it's under water.
Batzli: Do you remember how many boats there were in '81?
Art Kimber: It was 5 and 5.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
II June 16, 1993 - Page 4
I Batzli: 5 on the dock and 5 on land?
Art Kimber: That's according to the records I've got. I've lived over
I there since 1965.
Scott: So in the Minutes, I think it was July 13, 1983 when you talk about
the 5 and 5. Basically what you're saying is that's.
1 Art Kimber: I don't think there was any change in the number.
I Scott: Since 1981 because that's the only documentation that I think the
Planning Commission has seen.
Art Kimber: You'll have to talk louder sir, I'm hard of hearing.
II Scott: Oh, okay. So that would be consistent use from 1981, which is kind
of our benchmark that we use, to the Minutes. I think they may be your
II first Association Minutes in 1983 where it talked about 5 on the dock and,
okay. Thank you.
1 Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission?
Herb Pfeffer: My name is Herb Pfeffer and I live at 2050 Tanager Lane.
I I'm in Lot 10. I've lived there for 17 years and may I use the highlighter
there? ...The best of my knowledge, and I just had my lot surveyed 2 years
ago. This is drawn accurate and if you compare it to a plat map, there's a
I world of difference. As the plat map shows, the high water mark.
Batzli: You're going to have to point out to us what we're looking at
I there. Can you point to the boundary of the lake and the road there.
Herb Pfeffer: ...line over here. The plat map shows that the water level
starts at this point. In actuality it starts at the high water mark. This
II is current. So the dock, the Minnewashta Manor dock is not on Lot 11 but
it's on your property, the city property. Now the lake depth, let me start
out with I am opposed to the L section which was installed 3 years ago when
I the water level was down and we dredged, we being people that own property
along the shore. We each paid about $3,000.00 to do that. The DNR would
not allow any more dredging to occur on non - riparian land which means
people that don't live on the lake. Therefore, Minnewashta Manor could not
I have their property dredged. I have a letter from the DNR stating their
conditions. Non - riparian, one. Watershed, two. Wildlife, three.
Erosion, four blah, blah, blah. They go on and on. Anyway, the contention
I now is the deep water. I went out and measured the depth yesterday. This
is in inches...dock. 32 inches, just about 3 feet at the end of the dock.
27 inches at the end of the straight dock, which is 40 feet. 40 feet and
1 20 feet. That was the contention. So you can see that the dock is right
on my property. Now when it was installed, I can leave that up there.
When it was installed I was against it. I wrote letters stating my
opposition to the dock. My wife said, let it go. It might not be so bad.
I Well it is bad you know. Now, how we resolve the rest of the situation as
far as providing the roadway or what not, I don't know but I would like
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 5 1
that northerly section, that 20 feet removed and let me, while I'm
discussing this, show you pictures of.
Batzli: Let me ask you this question. What we're here to decide is what
was the level of use in '81 and that some semblence of that kind of use
continues thru today. Were these pictures taken this year or have they
been taken, when were these taken?
Herb Pfeffer: They were taken about 3 months ago.
Batzli: Okay. So this shows what it was in the winter.
Herb Pfeffer: Yeah. In '81 that L section was not there. That L section
was installed '88. Or '89. Okay. So basically what we've got right now
is a situation where there is adequate water. The water level goes up and
down. I mean if you looked at Lake Minnetonka 3 years ago, or in '89,
there were a lot of people that didn't have docks out. There were a lot of
boats that weren't used and they didn't build new docks. They weren't
allowed. So, you'll also note on that picture there's a couple of boats
there. Back in '81, to the best of my recollection from the time I lived
there to currently, there's only about 2 or 3 boats in use. It's Mr.
Peterson's, occasionally a rowboat and occasionally a canoe. I've never
seen 10 boats there. Ever. Some of those boats becomes garbage. I've
hauled 2 away. Mr. Kerber's hauled a couple away. It gets to be a boat
yard. Sc' another thing they're requesting is storage of boats there. I'm
against that. I believe if a person's got a boat, when they're done using
it at the end of the season, take it home. Put it in their own yard. Just
like I do. Just like anybody else does basically. Why leave it at a lake?
It may be alright on the other side of Lake Minnewashta where it's down
away from visibility but when it's next to somebody's house, it's not
right. The road. I'm also against public driving on the road. Years ago
I had a fella down there who was drunk. Drove down there. Backed up.
Drove over a 2 1/2 inch maple tree. Now I called the police. They
arrested him but I was still out a maple tree. In the spring of the year
when the people use the roadway, it gets ruts. I'm the one that takes care
of the ruts. I kind of got fed up with that so I put in gravel. $300.00
worth of gravel. So what you see there now is my doing. I also planted
grass and tried to take care of the area just as if it were in the front of
my house. In other words, everybody has the same situation when you live
on a road. You don't own to the middle of the road as the Village Attorney
stated. You have an easement to it but you basically only own about 15,
the roadway is 60 feet and the road is usually 30 feet so there's about a II 10 or 15 foot area that's owned by the city but you take care of it. You
seed it. You mow it. You plant shrubs there. You treat it as if it was
your property. Basically it isn't. I'm doing the same thing on the side. II
They're requesting 30 feet of dockage. That should be changed because
they've currently got 65 feet. So that's erroneous. They also stipulate
going out to navigable water. That's too ambiguous. Navigable water could
be way to the end of the channel at some point in time. You should go by
the law to the property lines. I guess that's all I've got to say. Any
questions?
Batzli: We may have some later. Thank you. Is there anyone else that
would like to address the Commission? Yes sir.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 6
II
Arnold Weimerskirch: My name is Arnold Weimerskirch, and if you'll put the
I map back on, I'll show you where. I'm Mrs. Newman's son -in -law. Mrs.
Newman lives on Lot 27 and I live on Lot 25. I've lived there for 30 years
and Mrs. Newman has lived on her lot for about 50 years. My interest, I
II guess what I'd like to see you do is allow the homeowners to use the
property, not really as a road right -of -way but as private property. Make
it look like it isn't a road. Let them use it. Let them maintain it. In
the 30 years I've lived there, the use of that land has essentially not
11 changed. As Mr. Pfeffer said, the lake level does tend to go up and down.
That may impact the useage of the water a little bit but essentially in the
30 years I've lived there, the useage of that land has not changed, and for
I sure not since 1981. I guess my interest in being here tonight is to make
sure that that land, that property is well maintained. In the last couple
years there has been a tendency to use that property as a garbage dump. I
don't know who's doing it but there is debris being deposited on what we
II believe is Mrs. Newman's property. And it is Mrs. Newman's property.
Which is an irritant to say the least. So from my vantage point, the
proper use of that land would be to let the homeowners use it essentially
I as private property. Ask them to maintain it in a neat and orderly fashion
and let it go at that.
II Mancino: Have they used motor, have they driven down this road?
Arnold Weimerskirch: There are occasionally cars on the road. Now there
are trees planted in a way that it is conspicuously not a road. Earlier,
II 20 -30 years ago it looked like a road. The road that you see Minnewashta
Avenue there has never been a road in the 30 years I've been there. Maybe
100 years ago it was but in the 30 years. But the stub of land down to the
I lake at one time looked like a road. It really doesn't anymore now. There
are trees planted, although there are occasionally cars trying to drive
down there. At least partially down there. And in the wintertime there
II are snowmobiles driving on that property. Okay. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Comnia_ion? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
II Ledvina: So moved.
II Mancino: Second.
Art Kimber: I had a comment. I had that survey made in '83 so we'd know
where the road was. It was never defined in all the years I lived there.
I And that's when we discovered the roadway, part of the roadway and Lot 11
was under water. They determined that Lot 11 was on navigable water and
that was the reason it was. I've got a survey here from a certified survey
I done and according to that...not to go beyond these limits...I believe the
homeowners, if it's proven that the dock is on Mr. Pfeffer's land, will
move it.
II Batzli: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion on the floor to close the
public hearing.
II Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 7 I/
Batzli: Do you want to lead off? '
Mancino: Sure. I first of all would like to recommend continuing to grant
the homeowners of Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association the right to the
City's right -of -way on Sandpiper Lane. I think that they have established
that they had been using it since 1981 that way so I would like to see them
continue that use.
Batzli: What do you think about if the City agreed to let them do that and
they were going to keep it clean. We've heard some testimony that it's
being used as a garbage dump.
Mancino: Well going there yesterday and visiting it, yesterday it was
clean. There was no garbage there yesterday. On the Mrs. Newman's I think
property there was some wood stacked and there was a brush pile.
Arnold Weimerskirch: That's not her's.
Mancino: Oh okay. I don't know who's brush pile it is but there is a
brush pile there.
Herb Pfeffer: That's mine.
Mancino: Okay. I don't know, who's property is that?
Herb Pfeffer: There was one of the trees struck down by lightning a couple
of years ago...
Mancino: So other than those two things. It's kept up to me.
Arnold Weimerskirch: Well there's other debris.
Mancino: Okay. Is that further in?
Arnold Weimerskirch: Further in. '
Mancino: Okay. I didn't see it. So the maintenance looks fine to me.
Also the 1981 use for the dock. They're asking for 30 feet, which I'm fine
with. I think the L needs to be removed because it was not a use in 1981
and needs to be removed from the dock. The L shape. 5 boats docked. What
else did you ask for? Number of boats docked, 5. I have no problem with
that. 5 boats on land. Is there any land to put 5 boats on?
Aanenson: You saw that picture. There is, they're pulled up on shore.
Mancino: Now is that part of Sandpiper Trail? Is that part of the roadway
easement?
Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: That City right -of -way?
Aanenson: Yes.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
II June 16, 1993 - Page 8
II Mancino: So that you could fit 5 boats there.
Batzli: So are you convinced that the level of use back in '81.
II Mancino: I'm convinced that the level of use for 5 boats docked is fine.
I'm not convinced that there were 5 boats stored on land.
11 Batzli: It sounds to me.
Mancino: I think there was anywhere from 1 to 5. And I don't know what
I that number was.
Batzli: Okay. Anything else?
I Mancino: I guess I've heard tonight that there was motor vehicle access.
As I look at it now, I'd say it'.s not well maintained to have vehicles on
there and I'm not sure why you would want to drive down there. I think you
II could park a van and walk your boat or canoe down to the end. So I would
say no to the motor vehicle access.
Batzli: Okay. Is that it?
II
Mancino: Yes.
I Batzli: Thank you. Joe.
Scott: I would agree with the removal of the 20 foot section with the
I intensification of use from 1981 useage level. One of the things that I
would question too is that if you're going to have boats on land, or boats
at the dc,ck, I would not want to see any overnight. That's really not an
issue that isn't raised here but I think that's something that I think we
1 need to talk a little bit about. And that comes back to 1981 so I guess
I'd like to ask a representative of the homeowners association if they
could enlighten us as to the over, the storage of boats overnight. Because
I that seems to be, that's a very large issue that we've had to deal with in
a couple of these other lake associations.
II Tom Schoenecker: In my recollection, almost all the boats that are down
there are stored overnight. They're left there permanently for the season.
Scott: On land?
II Tom Schoenecker: Well no, at the dock. At the dock. And some people have
fishing boats in the neighborhood that they just leave them down there tied
II up at the dock so they can have ready access to it. And so they have used
it for that purpose, yes.
1 Harberts: I have a question for you. Are all of the boats from this dock,
what size of motors if any? If I read in here somewhere that they usually
just carry down and put into the water versus in with a trailer?
1 Tom Schoenecker: Well I think probably the biggest boat would be maybe a
16 foot aluminum boat.
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 9 1
Harberts: What size motor? '
Tom Schoenecker: And I would think the motors would be maybe 7 1/2
horsepower. Something like that. At times I had a boat there about 6 11 years ago, 7 years ago. It was a little 15 foot kind of a speedboat thing
and had I think a 25 horsepower motor on it. And I left it down there
permanently. At one time somebody did have a pontoon down there and at one
of the Minnewashta Homeowners Association meetings, we kind of made a rule
that we couldn't put a big boat down there. It had to be a fishing type
boat. And so since that time it's just been fishing boats.
Harberts: Thank you. 1
Scott: So Mr. Pfeffer you were talking about one of the objections that II you had though was not necessarily having boats there overnight but having
boats there after the end of the season?
Herb Pfeffer: Yes. No, overnight there's no problem...as long as it's not II
used as a boat launch area. We've got excellent boat launches on the lake
and I would hate...
Scott: Okay. The only thing I would add to this would be that all of the 1
boats need to be removed at the end of the season. I don't have any
further comments.
Mancino: What about vehicle access?
Scott: I would say no. I think it's been used as rather light duty. I
don't see it as a boat launch. I don't see that as being a use.
Batzli: Matt.
Ledvina: I guess I agree both with Joe and Nancy on the discussion as it
relate= tD the dock. This is kind of a tight area to get large boats in
and out of. I was down there last weekend, and I know that you're not
going to be storing 5 tri -hulls on that dock. That's just not going to
happen so, but then again if 5 boats were stored there at the dock, I think
that's reasonable to continue that. I don't know about vehicle access.
We've heard that there's gravel there and it's always kind of been a
street. Well it was planted as a street obviously so and vehicles have
been down there so it appears that that may have been a use in 1981. We've
specifically talked about or listed in the draft permit here vehicle access II
and boat launch and I feel that it should absolutely not be used for a boat
launch but since there is gravel there and it appears to be used, I think
that vehicle access is acceptable. I guess other than that I have no other
comments.
Batzli: Okay. Roger. We touched a little bit early on here and I don't 11 know if the last two commissioners did but the boats on land and storage.
If they'7e going to be stored on this piece of property that we merely have
an easement on, can we even give them the right to do that?
Roger Knutson: That's a good question...there was a Court of Appeals
decision that came down a couple of months ago answering it contrary to the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II June 16, 1993 - Page 10
II way I would have answered it before. It seemed to indicate the answer is
yes.
II Batzli: Could do that? Okay.
Roger Knutson: My understanding previously is, we have the right to use it
for a specific use and can't authorize any one use to use it for a use for
I which we don't have the right to use it. But they allowed an abutting,
where there was a strip of something like this with a street and the owner
owned property on both sides. He owned property here. Owned property
I here. This is an unimproved street. He wanted to do some activity on here
and they had said, until the city opens that up as a street, he can use it
for anything he wants to.
II Batzli: Okay. Diane.
Audience: Can I address the commission?
II Batzli: In one minute please. Diane.
I Harberts: I apologize for coming in late. I need to just clarify
something with staff. In your report you made comment that you have
concern about the dock setback zone.
II Aanenson: Well this is, Councilman Wing is really concerned that all
beachlots meet the dock setback zone which is 10 feet away but conflicts
with the legal non - conforming status. What the ordinance says is that you
II can extend the dock out to get to 4 feet in depth. In some portions of
Minnewashta we've seen on these other ones they go out to 120 -130 feet out
into the lake. Obviously you've seen from Mr. Pfeffer's that these have
I only a maximum 30 inches of depth. Thereby limiting the type of boat that
you can do there. So if by shortening the dock obviously you're taking
awa the number of boats that can be stored at the dock. So that was the
reason I raised that as an issue.
I Harberts: As I understand the current dock is 40 feet long and.
1 Aanenson: 20 feet.
Harberts: Over.
II Aanenson: The L is 20, yes.
Harberts: And they're proposing to go in there and rip everything up
I except for the 30 feet?
Aanenson: Yeah. Well I'm concerned if you try to extend it out further,
II if the channel's wide enough to even go out.
Batzli: The applicant wants a 40 foot dock. The 30 feet is an error.
I Harberts: Yeah, that was one part I couldn't figure out here. With the
exception of the testimony tonight, the testimony tonight presented was
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 11 1
that there was a dock in 1981. Why wasn't an inventory done if there was '
at least a dock there?
Aanenson: I can't answer that.
Ledvina: It's a very obscure little place. ,
Aanenson: It's hard to find, yeah. I don't know if somebody just missed
it.
Mancino: And did they miss it for '86 and '91?
Aanenson: I believe it was inventoried in '86.
Harberts: Well and the question, you know the question we always have to
look at, what was the level of use in 1981. You know the documentation we
have here was, Minutes from 1983 which the City had granted 10 docking
spaces. 10 docking spaces at least according to the Minutes. I'm not II really, I'm not totally convinced that 5 was allowed. We have some people
here like I said that have testified that they beleive 5 was there or were
there. I'd be inclined to, since we're kind of establishing a new beachlot,
to consider 5. I'm having a hard time with storing 5 boats on shore. But
I'm not hearing any opposition from anyone that has concern. It's City
right -of -way. We have a special case here so I guess storing, we're not
really setting a lot of precedence by allowing people to use city right -of-
way to store boats on, as I'm understanding this. I'm torn on boats to be
stored. Because with the pictures I guess that were presented, it looks
like we have some boats up on some trees or things like that so I don't
think E is, I'm not real comfortable with 5. I might be a little more
comfortable with 2 or something like that. And I guess I'm, the motor
vehicle access as I understand, and what I've seen, it doesn't look like
it's very conducive to vehicle access. So I'd be inclined not to recommend
vehicle access. And I would be inclined to go with the 40 feet and 5 boats
at the dc,c k .
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Yeah, go ahead.
Tom Schoenecker: In attempt to remain good neighbors with Mr. Pfeffer, I
think the Homeowners Association would be perfectly agreeable to no vehicle
access to that property. And if we were given permission, we would put a
post or something so that we couldn't get a car down there. No storage of
boats on land. I think that would be agreeable. We would like to have the II
5 boats at the dock. We would like to maintain at least part of that L
structure. I don't believe it's on Mr. Pfeffer's land now. We could move
it back. There is a real nice bench to sit on and going out there at II nights and just sitting on a bench and stuff like that really is neat. I
mean it's a real pleasant thing. It would be nice to maintain that. And
we would like to remain good neighbors and we will maintain that property.
We've tried to. Thank you. '
Batzli: Thank you. Just to run down it here. I agree. I have no problem
with 5 boats at the dock. I'd like to get rid of the boat storage on land. II
It sounds like the Association is willing to do that. Motor vehicle access
during, if they are also willing to put a post up or a gate or something, I
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
II June 16, 1993 - Page 12
1 think that would be helpful. Keep people from probably dumping things on
there that don't belong there. That'd be helpful also. I'd be willing to
let them keep part of their L because I don't believe it's really that much
II of an intensification of use as long as they're off of the lot line. So
having said that, is there a motion?
Scott: Can I ask a question of Mr. Pfeffer?
II Batzli: Yeah.
I Scott: Sir would you be amenable to having them with a 10 foot section on
the L?
Herb Pfeffer: 10 foot section would be legal.
I Scott: Okay. And that would be. Pardon me?
II Herb Pfeffer: Then I can't fight the L.
Scott: Yeah, it seems like that's a good compromise there so...Well it
II seems apparent, and I particularly appreciate the way that you have been
working together on this because as you know these lake right issues get
very emotional. And I just have one question. Where it says 40 feet in
length from the shore and out into naviagable waters. Could that
II conceivarl, give us cross waves with, get us into another issue if the lake
level declines?
II Aanenson: That goes back to the issue I raised before is that normally we
say to get to a depth of 4 feet. But as I pointed out before, the further
inland you go into the cove, the shallower it becomes.
II Scott: You're going to run into land on the other side.
Aanenson: Right. So I'm not sure how much further in the cove they can
II bring it in.
Scott: Okay.
II Aanenson: That's something they can look at I'm sure.
Scott: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
II the Association's request of a 40 foot, one 40 foot dock in length with a
10 foot L section and out into navigable waters. 5 boats at the dock. No
vehicle access and no storage of boats on land.
II Batzli: Is there a second?
II Mancino: Second, but I'd like to amend to it. That the City allow the
Homeowners Association right -of -way on Sandpiper Lane.
Scott: That's friendly. I'll accept that amendment.
I Batzli: You accepted the amendment. Okay. Is there any other discussion?
I would personally prefer that we leave out the part that reads, and out
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 13 1
into navigable waters. Leaving that issue for another day.
Harberts: I would be more comfortable with that too.
Scott: Okay. ,
Batzli: Do you agree to that?
Mancino: Yes. ,
Batzli: You're willing?
Scott: I'm willing.
Batzli: Okay. Any other discussion? '
Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that
the non - conforming use permit for Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association I
be permitted one dock 40 feet in length with a 10 foot L section, 5 boats
at the dock, no vehicle access and no boats stored on land. Also, that the
City allow the Homeowners Association right -of -way on Sandpiper Lane. All '
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: When does that go to the City Council?
Aanenson: Probably the 12th. July 12th. 1
Batzli' Yes sir.
•
Resident: If the Council approves that, then you...
Aanens• Yes. You'll get a non- conforming permit that will be recorded II
at the Count/. Y o u ' l l get a copy of that.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4.47 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 7500 FRONTIER '
TRAIL, LOTUS LAKE WOODS, LEANNA FORCIER AND HUBERT V. FORCIER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nancy Manarin 7552 Great Plains Blvd.
Wyck & Lori Linder 7550 Great Plains Blvd.
Bert & Phyllis Swanson 401 Del Rio Drive
Robert Somers 7409 Frontier Trail
Zoe Zuzek 407 Del Rio Drive
Bill Kirkvold 201 Frontier Court
Joy Warrior 7423 Frontier Trail
Robert Davis 4010 West 65th Street
Leanna Forcier 9597 Creek Knoll Road, Eden Prairie
Hubert Forcier 18515 6th Avenue No, Plymouth
11
Planning Commission Meeting
il June 16, 1993 - Page 14
Name Address
II Brian Mumdstock SE1, 9001 E. Bloomington Frwy, Bloomington
Kathy & Ted deLancey 7505 Frontier Trail
Sharmin Al -Jaff resented the staff report on this item.
P P
Batzli: The tree preservation easement is in Attachment #2 in here?
Al -Jaff: Correct. In the report.
1 Batzli: Okay. That's difficult to read. It's better up there. Okay.
Would the applicant like to address the Commission?
1 Robert Davis: Chairman, Commission and citizens. Good evening. My name
is Robert Davis. I'm representing the applicant Hubert & Leanna Forcier.
We have a 4 1/2 acre parcel that is single family residential with an
II existing home on it now. The proposal is for 7 lots of approximately
26,000 square feet. Is that on your camera? Okay. One of the reasons to
keep the lots this size is we think it will help with the tree preservation
1 and obviously tree preservation is one of the issues that staff has
identified as significant here. A good share of the property is wooded.
There's maple, oak. There's some good hardwood trees. A few of them are
in the range of up to 30 inches in diameter. We've identified, as pointed
II
out here, all trees above 6 inches in caliper which is what's being
discussed both in the conservation area and in the replacement or
reforestation proposal. I'll try and point out some things here and you
II can pick them up on the camera. The 7 lots are shown here. Access both
from Del Rio Drive on a cul -de -sac on the south and Frontier Trail on the
lower side. The ground elevation here is about 60 feet lower to the ground
II elevation at this point of the property. The dark areas here are generic
houseplans. They are proposed with grading as a footprint of 2,300 square
feet.
11 Batzli: Can I interrupt you just one second? Sharmin, can you move that
up a little bit so that the camera can get a better view of it...
1 Robert Davis: Okay, back to the plan. We talked about 7 lots access from
two different sides. Both at the top cul -de -sac and the lower one here.
We're showing generic houses and I know they're just a rectangular shape.
I I'm sure that if somebody buys the lot, they will take a good look at the
trees and try and work around the trees and do a houseplan that preserves a
majority of the better trees. And I'm sure different people will choose
maple or oak or whatever to preserve as their first priority. We're
1 showing driveways. This area in here is the existing residence which right
now is not occupied. It was built in 1941 by Hubert Forcier. He was the
city plumbing inspector here for a number of years. I don't know if any of
II you were on the Commission at that time. Let me put a small map on here
if I can. What we have here is a drawing off the plat map showing the
neighborhood and the streets. There. I think you can focus it a little
better. You can see the adjacent lots drawn to scale and then the 7 lots
II
to scale on the proposed 4 1/2 acres. The lots down to the lake are very
deep in terms of depth from the Frontier Trail. They'll be off to the side
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 15 1
here. The 4 most affected properties then, I've started to outline here in II shade. In other words, on Del Rio Drive this residence here is existing on
a 90 foot frontage lot. The proposed house here is, the setback distance
then would be no closer to the lot line than this existing house is to the
lot line this way. The house over here has a similar situation although it II
benefits from the moving of the cul -de -sac to one side so that the turn
around area is this way and the length of the car turning around we're to
screen off this way. There are no windows on this that would be affected
by a car turning there. So the setback here is maintained the same as
here. This existing residence here then is positioned in here and we've
left an opening this way we think to hold this house here. This one here
and we think that benefits that existing house to position the lot that
way. There's a residence over here quite far back from the property line
and then across Frontier Trail there are residences here. A number of
those lots are quite deep. They wind towards the lake. They have frontage. II
The most affected property would be the house on the corner of Frontier
Court and that would be across from the pond that's proposed here. The
pond they're showing here in a dark blue as deep waters, standing water.
The light blue edge around that is one foot or less in depth and that would II
be a cattail or a marsh area. The history of the ponding is that to
develop, or subdivide this acreage the owner has to provide some ponding.
Basically the ponding is for water quality to Lotus Lake. That runoff from II
the property goes through the pond, and is basically a sediment pond to
filtt,r out phospherous, etc. We started this process with staff in January
and one of the requests from city staff was that the city be given a chance
to look at the parcel and enlarge the pond at a cost sharing basis for the
benefit of watershed over this area from other areas. There's 63 acres of
area that drain this way. Obviously we can't deal with total watershed but
the city has, at their request, just to enlarge the ponds for that benefit. ,
As we studied that and took a look at this area here, and the size of the
pond is quite large and the owner actually offered to sell one lot to the
city and 1 -1E , _ for a pond. The engineer, the consultant for the city came
back and said, that really isn't cost efficient. We don't want to buy land.
In effect they said we want as much as we can get in ponding between lots
and housepads without buying any property. That has tighten up this...and
in effect the owner has given some property then for ponding for the 11
benefit of the community. There's a few issues we haven't had a chance to
totally resolve with staff. I'd like to go through and clarify. Let me
switch to another plan...This plan shows all trees that we've identified by II
our surveyor of a size over 6 inches of any species. There are I think 15
conditions proposed by staff. I'd like to clarify several of them for the
commission, for the owner and for the citizens. Item number 4 is, I think
a technical question which I think we can resolve with staff... Lot 1, at
the 72 foot frontage and a majority of them are straight lines. It was my
understanding that this is a cul -de -sac and Lot 1 fronts on the cul -de -sac. II
haven't been able to sit down and say, technically is that not right?
The center of the cul -de -sac is here. 60 feet. This lot is, this is 72...
There are a number of ways to resolve this. Maybe we just pull the cul -de-
sac south a little bit so that's curved but I'm not sure that's even
required. I would suggest that we work with staff and make sure
technically, legally we can comply.
Batzli: Sharmin do you understand what he's saying? ,
I/
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 16
1
Al -Jaff: Yes.
II Robert Davis: How do you read the.
Al -Jaff: The way I read the ordinance is if it's on a curve then you have
I to meet the 90 foot width at the 30 foot setback. If it's on a straight
line, then you have to have the 90 foot frontage.
II Robert Davis: Okay. If it had curved...
Al -Jaff: We're being technical here. But you don't even have the half
curve.
Robert Davis: No, but what I'm saying is, we have to comply or we have to
ask for a var iance ...we work with staff and maybe it's a matter of just
II moving this road a little bit south so that we get a curve. There are
other choices. One of the reasons the cul -de -sac is one sided...is that
this provides a good buffer of trees here. We thought rather than pull it
il down this way and trying to squeeze a lot in here, let's put it this way.
Have 3 lots with...
Batzli: We'll probably add something to that condition that you'll submit
II something to staff with the revised cul -de -sac. For their approval.
Robert Davis: Okay. I'd like to clarify item 6 which talks about, I did
II speak t.c the City Attorney. He said cost sharing was not an issue for the
Planning Commission. We'll need to take that up with the Council, and we
did have a question but I won't belabor it now then. But I'd like to
clarify that the applicant is required to provide .72 acre feet of ponding.
II The proposal is for .92 acre feet which is less than the first request from
the consultant, Bonestroo and Associates. When the applicant offered to
sell property, the consultant came back and said let's get as much ponding
II area as we can without buying property.
Scott: Mr. Davis. Which condition is that?
II Robert Davis: 6. Well, it's in that report in 6. That we'll deal with...
so obvious].) the applicant needs to build a pond of a certain size. The
city is choosing at this time to build the pond bigger and share the cost
II because of the benefit to the water quality. I wanted to point out, and in
effect I did at the Council, when the Council accepted the feasibility
study, that we had already gone to the point of trying that on. The
II problem was this. They had a bunch of conditions such as...when we tried
to meet all the conditions, we couldn't so we came back and said which of
these are more important. Obviously side slope and that's where we got
I into the question of do you want to buy some of this property and make a
real big pond. I just want to point out that that has gone farther and we
come back and the City Engineer, the consultant...
II Scott: I would think on that issue too, I'd agree with Chairman Batzli
that that particular condition I think can be deferred to the applicant and
staff to work out.
II
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 17 1
Batzli: What you're saying though is that the size has changed from the
date of the report and that the City's aware of that? But you're afraid
that because we incorporate the study by reference, you're afraid that
you're going to have to make it bigger because it's bigger in the report?
Robert Davis: I want it clarified. I didn't want to leave any 1
misunderstanding as far as what was proposed and what was already accepted
by the City. I think item 7 and 15 somewhat go together and I'll come back
to them. I'd like to discuss item 11, if I can call your attention to that II
and that's the condition of combining access to Lots 4 and 5 and the
utilities as a common segment for some distance. And the comment is, for
preservation of trees. I'd like to suggest a third alternative. What we
have here which was proposed originally was a drive here and a drive here.
The same thing makes...make these two common and then let this party drive
in and go this way. I'd like to suggest do a common double driveway on the II
line and you won't lose this tree so we do have a tree saving.
And we raise an issue...you would have two parties then sharing a part of a
driveway and I think it would require logistically a homeowners association
to deal with and share a driveway. Some sort of an agreement because you
have two parties and you have the... If you have three parties dealing with
something like this, I can see that it may be manageable. Tedious but it
may be mFnageable...sharing a little bit of driveway, I'd really like to
avoid for the legal entanglement of how do you, if one wants to repave,
what do you do? This way each does their half and they can drive on their
half ar'd the/ share it if they want. If they don't.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can just add another comment to that. That
does sound feasible from an engineering standpoint. May I offer another
suggestion that the driveways could be side by side and have a 5 foot
buffer between them and just limit the driveway width to 15 feet each or
something like that. So the one driveway is actually on the property to
the north. The other driveway is actually on the next property to Lot 4.
That way there's no sharing of the driveways actually. Just common, or
separate driveNays. You'll still have the utilities run in those same
areas to minimize disruption to the property.
Robert Davis: I would suggest we work with staff and put a green buffer
between is a better solution. 3 feet or 5 feet or something. The last
item I'd like to take up is the conservation easement and I'm not really
versed on how common this is and what the specifics are. Generally we're
in agreement with a conservation easement to preserve trees of 6 inch
caliper and larger and I understand that this is to allow the City... I'd
like to ask for two changes on that. Lot 5 has been squeezed quite a bit
in size because of the ponding and a conservation easement does take quite
a share of 5. It takes...it takes some here and it takes some here. I
would like to limit the conservation eaesment on 5 to the setback line back II
here. 5 is basically a level lot and it's certainly entirely possible I
think in my mind that somebody would want a general lawn there. The other
lots then are really restricted to all of the...grass area and the rest is
wooded...Lots 1, 2 and 3. Their backyards are really preserved...
Mancino: North of 5, where the Lot 5 is, is all natural and wooded isn't
it?
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 18
II
Robert Davis: That's right.
1 Mancino: So it is a continuation of the conservation easement that goes in
the front or on the east side of Lot 5. It just maintains that naturalness
correct?
II Robert Davis: ...
II Mancino: There isn't an easement but it's natural in it's state right now.
It's one of the features of that whole area.
II Robert Davis: My thought though is if somebody wants to do, I want to
clarify and get, what a conservation easement is. My understanding is,
that you cannot cut a tree 6 inches or bigger. Even if you replace them.
Is that true or can you still replace them?
I Al -Jaff: Well, we would protect those trees. No, you won't be able to cut
them.
II Robert Davis: Can't touch them? Even if you want to replace them? In
other words, if you want to build a swimming pool and a tree is here, you
can't plant new trees of equal caliper if you cut that tree down. Okay.
I Scott: The trees are actually inventoried from what I understand.
I Robert Davis: Right. So for that reason, I think it's generally I think
it's a good idea for everyone but Lot 5 I think really suffers because all
you're saying is, if this person who buys this lot and builds a house and
I cannot cut any trees, which in my mind is very much different than this
person coming in and saying, okay. I'm going to take this tree out and I'm
going to work my plan around it and save these. I'm going to take one out
and I'm going to replace it with you know, if that's a 24 inch tree, would
I 12 -2 inch trees or 3 -4 inch or whatever ratio of replacement trees. But
this person then is really bogged in I think. I guess I'd really like to
ask for that leeway...
II Scott: The intent of a conservation easement is to protect the area that's
left after the house is put in and the utilities and so forth. So I guess
I we feel that goes hand in hand with the value of a lot. Obviously the more
mature trees that are standing after a house is put in, the more valuable
that property is to the applicant. So the intent is not to say, here's
this lot and you cannot cut any trees down whatsoever. There are protected
II areas on this lot from which trees cannot be removed per this tree
inventory. So that is not meant to restrict being able to build a house
there. It's to protect what's left over after the house is installed.
II Robert Davis: I would suggest two things we'd like you to consider. One
is that we survey a straight line...so that we can define the line that we
II know...and if you sell a lot, you're going to have a red flag at each end
and people know beyond that they're buying something that's preserved...I'd
like you to consider Lot 5 because it's a small lot. It's been squeezed
tight because of, in effect giving the property...giving a perspective
II buyer something with some common sense.
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 19 1
Batzli: What we see on a day to day basis here is that small lots, low
maintenance, no yard is desireable. So what you're saying is different
than what we've heard from every developer that's come in here in the last
3 years. We may decide for example to eliminate the conservation, which is
up in corner there and keep it the backyard. Maybe that's reasonable but
just so that you know where we're coming from. We build a lot of PUD
subdivisions where 15,000 is the average and they're all smaller and
they're all tucked back into trees when we can serve their all backyards so
what you're saying, I don't know if we're sympathetic to it or not. We
understand your desire but there's a lot of homes being built in this area
that are on smaller lots than that with just as large a conservation
easement.
Robert Davis: True. I'm an architect. I realize that some of these lots
are going to be a challenge to fit in well. Save trees close by and so on. II
I'm just looking for some flexibility that you've got some leeway on a
replacement basis to place trees but give the homeowner some flexibilty to
do a creative plan. I guess the last item is, and I'm trying to speed this
up. Is item 7 and 15. Speaking of this conservation easement. I'd like
you to consider that this is colored in 3 colors. The green are trees that
are inventoried and are being saved. The brown are trees that are
inventoried 6 inches or larger and probably will go, but not necessarily.
Each individual will make the deal with where they place the house,
driveway and so on. These are not...The dark blue here are trees that go
because of the ponding and the utility easements. I'd like you to consider
that those would be donated as land for the pond and you not ask the owner
to replace the trees that he's donated the land. That seems to be a double
taking or asking of him. First of all he's giving land extra for the pond
size and then you're asking because there are trees there, they should be
replaced. Maybe that's something we can work out with staff and come up
with a reforestation plan that we can all agree on but I'd like to ask you
to... ,
Scott: Are those trees that are being removed because of the increased
ponding size requested by the city or all trees removed? I mean there's a
requirement for ponds of a certain size. The city has asked the applicant
to expand the size of the pond for water quality purposes and so forth.
What I recall from your last diagram is that some of those are going to go
no matter what size the pond is and so maybe we need to address the
incremental tree loss due to the city's request and I'm sure that's
something that can be worked out with staff.
Robert Davis: I'd like you to consider the idea of not replacing trees 1
that, to me it's an issue of water quality or trees and if we're needing to
put the pond in for water quality...replace the trees for that purpose. It ,
seems unfair to request for...that's my request. Okay, I guess as a point
of question. Is there a definition of tree replacement? Is there any
allowance allowed, and you have a conservation easement in effect now for
some percentage of cutting trees to build a house? In other words, I ,
was...
Scott: Well those wouldn't be part of the conservation easement. It's
what's left over after.
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
II June 16, 1993 - Page 20
Robert Davis: But for the reforestation plan, replacement, I would like to
I see...10% of their trees for their house and driveway and if they cut more
than that percentage, they have to replace them on a per caliper basis.
II Al -Jaff: We don't have a percentage in the ordinance right now but our
future ordinance is going to read, you cannot remove more than 40%.
Robert Davis: 40? Wow.
11 Scott: 14. Not 40.
II Robert Davis: Oh 140.
Olsen: It hasn't been set yet. We're talking 20.
II Robert Davis: Well that makes sense. Obviously it's a lot like this.
You're saving 24 out of 25 on that lot. I guess I'd like you to consider
that that person be given some allowance to cut one tree or 10% of the
I caliper size and I think it can be defined. And I will work with staff to
define a reasonable plan that anybody buying a lot knows what they've
bought and what they have to live with and if they want to cut more trees,
I they know they have to replace them...Any questions? I've taken quite a
bit of your time.
Harberts: I have one. This is with regards to the ditch. If the
II proposed, what staff is recommended a 42 inch culvert would be placed,
basicall would replace that existing ditch, ravine or whatever that is.
What if that 42 inch culvert wasn't there? Would the ditch remain?
Robert Davis: There is a 36 inch culvert there.
I Harberts: No, there's a ditch there.
Robert Davis: Oh. There's a culvert under the road. The ditch becomes
part of the pond now.
II Hempel: If I could clarify that. There is currently a ditch section out
there. It's out intent with this project to hopefully eliminate that ditch
II section ky putting in a storm sewer pipe. A 4 Extending it up
to the pond outlet nd filling in that ditch
I Harberts: Well in the report staff was recommending that so I'm guessing
that you've talked to the applicant about it? Or it has no impact on the
property there.
II Robert Davis: Well the 42 inch culvert was part of the consultant's report
along with the ponding.
II Harberts: But you're aware of that?
Robert Davis: It's one of the issues we want to talk to the Council on
II cost sharing on. Is sharing the culvert cost. We are aware of it.
Harberts: I just wanted to. So that would basically eliminate the ditch.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 21
I/
Robert Davis: That's correct.
Scott: And then that also too, it kind of looks like Frontier Trail is
used as a storm sewer and it looks like there on the lake side of Frontier
Trail there are, I don't know what you'd call them but there's asphalt Y
shaped things. It looks like it takes water off the road and dumps it onto II
the property across the street and then it kind of meanders it's way down
to the lake. So it seems like this is a good opportunity to stop that
stuff because it looked pretty rough down there.
Hempel: This is actually a phase of our surface water management program
improvement project for this area. We actually have another improvement
proposed on the lakeside of Frontier Trail at some future point when the
construction dollars are available for that. And acquisition of the
property, currently right now there is a large drainageway that directly
discharges into Lotus Lake without any pretreatment so there's a lot of
runoff going through that area.
Scott: So basically the, Mr. Davis talked about a 63 acre drainage area,
the expansion of the drain area for the Forcier property is going to handle
just roughly what percent of that untreated runoff?
Hempel: Under minor storms, up to a 2 year storm event, will be treated ,
through these water quality ponds. Anything in excess of that will
actually by -paa_ the storm ponds as it does today. There's an existing
storm sewer line that comes down through the ravine, goes underneath
Frontier Trail and discharges into this drainageway. Under the severe
storms, in excess of 2 year, we will have some drainage still going through
the pond but the majority of it will be by- passing it and continue on
downstream.
Scott: What does that mean? What's a 2 year storm? Is that 8 inches of
rain? What does that mean? Sorry about that, I had to ask. '
Hempel: You put me on the spot here but I'll take a crack at it. It's
based on a hydrochart or whatever, but a 100 year storm event is 6 inches
of rainfall within a 24 hour period. Typically storm sewers in the city
are designed and constructed to handle a 10 year storm event which is
approximately 2 3/4 inch in a 24 hour period. So it's probably between an
inch and a half 2 year. Matt, maybe you can expand on that.
Ledvina: It's about 2 inches, inch and a half.
Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to address the ,
Commission?
Ledvina: I had a question for the applicant, Mr. Chairman. ,
Batzli: Okay.
Ledvina: As it relates to the existing residence, is there a well there?
A water well?
Robert Davis.: Yes there is. It has been abandoned. '
11
Planning Commission Meeting
II June 16, 1993 - Page 22
Ledvina: Okay. Has it been sealed according to the Health Department
I requirements?
Robert Davis: Yes it has.
I Batzli: I have one general question. Do you have any idea of what the
value of the homes to be constructed on these sites will be?
II Robert Davis: Hugh, do you want to speak to that? I don't know. The lots
are large. They're 25 to 6,000 square feet average. I guess I don't.
I Harberts: I have another one. In the satff recommendation it talked about
a 25 foot front yard setback. Number 13. Are we talking all the lots? One
lot?
1-Jaff: Actually...Lots 1, 2 and 3.
I Harberts: 1, 2 and 3 would all have a 25 foot setback? And it's being
recommended because of the saving vegetation or something ?...I'd like to
just ask a general question too. Why would you, I'm not 100% convinced on
the 72 feet frontage. Can you just give me a couple sentences why you
il think we should give you a variance on that to allow that 72 foot.
Robert Davis: First of all I'm not sure we need a variance.
Harberts: The frontage road. The frontage.
Robert Davis: It's on Del Rio Drive cul-de-sac, right.
I Halberts: The requirement is 90?
I Batzli: But he's going to submit modified plans on the cul -de -sac to try
and compl, with the 90 feet.
I Robert Davis: You see, I think it's on the cul -de -sac because if you walk
out from your front yard here and your lot line, you hit the cul -de -sac but
technically it appears to doesn't qualify because this part of the
cul -de -sac is straight rather than curved. But if we rotate this down a
II foot or 2 feet and we end up with a curve here, then it qualifies so maybe
it's only a minor technicality.
il Harberts: So what you're saying is though it's going to stay at 72 feet
because you're going to do something with your cul -de -sac to make that
curve and do that 30/30 thing that you're talking about, right?
Robert Davis: I would like to because I think this is the most appropriate
separation of lots.
II Harberts: Is that a technicality? Okay.
Batzli: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission?
I Please, come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the
record.
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
June 16, 1993 - Page 23
Jay Warrior: My name is Jay Warrior. I live at 7423 Frontier Trail. I/
Sharmin, could I have that picture back up again for a second? There are
two issues here really that I want to discuss. I think you've seen that
there's some, at least some open questions in two areas. One is this
question of water quality and what is being done to try and establish I
guess an appropriate level of quality for handling water that runs off into '
Lotus Lake. And the second one is this issue of the conservation setback,
particularly on Lot 5. I think, I mean if you look at some of the facts.
There's a 6...difference in height. There's already some stone lines or
some drain lines on the property. We've heard also about some extensive II what is going to need to be done on the south side of the property, on the
other side of Lotus Lake. The sense that I get with the recommendations
were made that said that we probably needed a fairly larger extended
ponding area and it looks like we're considering what's called a compromise II
without perhaps looking at the overall affect of what this compromise would
do to the water quality. I'd like to at least hear some assurances that
this compromise by the city is not perhaps able to purchase the land that's II
being offered by the developer and as a consequence we have a smaller pond
size which is less than what was originally recommended. I'd like to make
sure that that doesn't have an effect on what's going on. We've always had
problem= on Frontier Trail in that corner. In fact that's one of the
reasons why that extensive work was done and inevitably when you do some
development and you're going to lose a fair bit of ground cover and things
like that, that does contribute quite significantly in terms of runoff.
Particularly with the kind of slopes that you see. The second thing is
this issue of the conservation easement on Lot 5. I really, from my
perspective believe that it's essential that that be maintained. We've
heard, in fact I think it was Mr. Batzli who brought up the issue, we've
had other lots in the city that have been this size or smaller and had
conservation easements. That whole area down there, the trees and the
bushes down the edge of Frontier Trail have been fairly significant in
cutting down on some of these issues with the flooding and keeping really
the whole area of Frontier Trail with an atmosphere that I would hate to
see lost. So there's also I guess when even I look at issues like removal
of trees 01 how to apply the conservation eaesment, there are things that
you can do with the strategic useage or retainment of trees to preserve a
lot of what's currently there. In other words, there are some areas which,
as you can see in the conservation easement, are perhaps more critical than
others in terms of preserving what's already there and preserving the
natural beauty of that area. And particularly for the stretch down by the II
edge of Frontier Trail that has an impact on people who live on the other
side of the road and along the road and also because down that area is the
area where we've seen the most and I suspect will continue to see potential •
problems with the ponding. 5o the question that I really have with, I
guess the request that I really have is that the Planning Commission really II
insure that this compromise that is being proposed in terms of reduced
ponding area does not affect the water quality. It looks to me as though II
you have a recommendation before you from your consultant for a larger area II
yet you're coming back and looking for a smaller area. I guess the
question that I have is really, what is the affect of doing that and are we
comfortable with the effect that that has. And the second issue is this
issue of applying the conservation easement along the edge of Frontier
Trail. Thank you. ,
II
Planning Commission Meeting
1 June 16, 1993 - Page 24
Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
I Bill Kirkvold: My name is Bill Kirkvold. I live at 201 Frontier Court,
which is the small spur right off of Frontier Trail down in that area. In
II fact I used to live in Mr. Warrior's house and I built a house about 5
years ago on Frontier Court so I've lived in the neighborhood for about. 15
years. I share the concerns that Mr. Warrior expressed about the size of
the drainage pond. When I first moved to Chanhassen the City saw fit to
1 put in the current drainage situation that exists on Lot 12 down there,
which really was meant to expedite the flow of the water into the lake. Now
we're talking about building a pond on that property which is a new idea to
1 me, even though I've been a member of the homeowners association down there
all along. I don't think that's ever been brought up to them. But
regardless of the case, I think we need to make sure that we're assuring
I the long term water quality here and not making a short term compromise
that's going to result in problems further on down the road. Particularly
when we have a situation here where what appears to be something is going
to increase the water drainage when we're talking about increasing the size
1 of the culvert under the road here from 36 inches to 42 inches. To me that
appears to increase the amount of water that's going to be flowing through
there at any particular time rather than decrease it. And any long term
1 plans the City has haven't been divulged to the rest of the people in the
area. My only other suggestion would be, and I certainly admire this piece
of property. It's a beautiful piece of property. Another suggestion I
I would have would be to set aside a portion of this property for use as
neighborhood and recreational park or a city park so to speak or playlot or
something like that on a portion of the property to preserve what we have
there. There is no recreational, public recreational facilities within 6
II or 6 blocks of that particular area of the city. So there is no opportunity
and here I think we have a piece of property that certainly lends itself to
a portion of it being parkland. Let's consider that.
II Batzli: Thank you. Let me respond to two things. Do we have as one of
our conditions the issue regarding dedication versus payment of fees, park
fees? Which condition is that?
II Al -Jaff: I have left it out.
1 Batzli: The Park and Rec Commission, wherever you went. Whoever was just
speaking. Has made a determination that we on the Planning Commission are
loathe to overturn. If there is some sort of feeling among the residents
in this area that this would be, that some sort of dedication rather than
II payment of fees, that should be brought up to the City Council at this
time. That's kind of out of our jurisdiction as to whether fees are paid
versus if there's dedication of land. But as far as the drainage goes, I
II know that our City Engineer would love to address that right now. Dave.
Hempel: Thank you Mr. Chairman. As a part of the Surface Water Management
1 Task Fo)ce, we've retained Bonestroo and Associates to develop a
comprehensive citywide storm management plan. The plan is concentrated on
right now the priority areas which are city lakes and the one that's got
the most, the belt areas around it is Lotus Lake and it's very limited to
II any kind of water quality treatment ponds we can develop. As part of that
study the consultant has outlined specific areas that we propose future
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 25 1
improvements to and I think Sharmin, did you bring down that water? There
it is. That outlines some areas around the lake that we intend on
improving and enhancing the water quality. One such area is the area on
the east side of Frontier Court. The price tag of that improvement was
over $150,000.00. There was no improvements proposed on the west side of
Frontier Trail. With the opportunity of this development coming in, the
city has essentially been able to reduce the size of the improvement that
we needed to do the east side of Frontier Trail because of this development
and we're doing that at a much more cost effective procedure. We're saving 11
quite a bit of money in doing it with the developer as a joint cooperative
project. So yes, there has been a compromise but overall this is still a
compromise on the pond size that we'd like to have on the property. But on II
the other hand we have to look at the developer's economics also of the
development and considering that we weren't even intending on using this
parcel for storm water treatment, this is a major find for us if you will
and will reduce accordingly on the other side of the street. So we feel
that it is a good benefit to the water quality and it's a very good
investment on behalf of the city.
Jay Warrior: May I comment, ask a question? There was some discussion
about the...trying to do?
Hempel: For a water quality treatment pond to NURP standards, that's
typically what they would use. It's a 2 1/2 inch rainfall over a 24 hour
period. For the settlement of.
Jay Warrior: Why would...
Hempel: That is with regards to flooding of city streets and so forth. The II
storm sewer drainage, the pipe systems that are put in the city streets are
for a 10 year storm event. But the ponding capability for extracting
nutrients and sediments is basically a 2 to 5 year storm increment.
Batzli: Okay. There was another question back here. Yes sir. Can you
come up to the microphone.
Wyck Linder: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is
Wyck Linder. I live at 7550 Great Plains Blvd. My wife, Lori and I live
there. We've lived there for about 8 years and I had a question too. We
own part of Kolbingers Addition down there and I was concerned about the
runoff going through that trench area down there. I don't know how many of
you were around in 1987 but you may remember that we had two 100 year rain
events in 4 days and I think it was 8 inches on Monday and 10 inches on
Friday and I was down in that area to check on actually the house down
there and it was going over the Frontier Trail and everything else so I
know you can't plan for 100 year events but that would be one concern. Are
you planning on routing that water into these ponds?
Hempel: For the 100 year storms that we had back in '87 is actually I
think they considered a 500 year storm but peak flows like that will
continue the path that it's going right now. The culverts that are
underneath Frontier Trail, as you witnessed, did overtop. That's part of
this improvement and we want to increase the diameter of those storm sewer
pipes so we're able to maintain traffic through there if we do have a
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
11 June 16, 1993 - Page 26
flooding situation. And also for the basement elevations of these homes
I that are to be built to reduce flooding potential in the homes. So during
a 100 year flood event the water situation will essentially maintain the
same status as it is right now.
I Wyck Linder: Okay. I would just ask that you really double check the
numbers and we're 60 feet up on the hill so it really doesn't directly
affect us but other than that we don't have any problem with this
II development at all. So thank you.
Batzli: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to
I address the Commission?
Bert Swanson: I'm Bert Swanson and my property adjoins Lot number 1. I
I would just like to have the lot left next to me, left natural as what it
can be. There's a few trees there along mine that I would sure hate to see
cut down. And especially there's a nice oak tree that's only about 5
inches diameter. I'd like to see that one stand. But I don't know if I've
I got an choice on that one. Because that's just solid trees there. The
whole lot and I'd just like to say that I'd like to see it left as natural
as it possibly could.
I Batzli: How far off the lot line is your house?
Bert Swanson: About 12 feet.
II Batzli: About 12 feet, okay.
I Mancino: And the trees that you wanted saved are right on the lot line or
are they?
I Bert Swanson: There's one nice oak that's about 5 inch diameter and that's
about 2 fret in off of mine.
Mancino: On the ether side?
I Bert Swanson: Yeah. On Lot number 1.
I Harberts: Does it show it on the tree inventory in terms of what was going
to be taken?
I Scott: It's probably too small to be on the tree inventory but there is,
of the 6 trees that are larger than 6 caliper inches on Lot 1, there's a 16
inch birch and two 19 inch spruces that will be removed so basically we're
looking at about a 50% tree loss of trees over 6 caliper inches.
II Bert Swanson: Yeah, but it is solid trees there though. When you start
cutting down anything like under 6 inches, you're really going to be
II cutting a lot of trees down.
Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything else? I'm sorry. Do you
have something else in addition to the trees on the lot line?
111
Bert Swanson: No, not really.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 27
I/
Batzli: Okay. Thank you very much.
Robert Davis: Can I make a quick comment? '
Batzli: We normally don't allow rebuttal until the end but go ahead.
Robert Davis: Okay. I think the property owner is willing to work with
the neighbor and say if there's a particular tree he would like to save,
let's work with them and try and get it on the list even though it's not 6 II
inches and let's try and save it.
Batzli: I think they're more concerned with trying to leave some screening
on that lot, more than one tree in particular. Although he did mention one II
that's 5 inches.
Scott: Mostly understory.
Batzli: Yeah. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commi - ion? Yes sir.
Joe Zuzek: I don't want to take up too much of your time. My name is Joe
Zuze4. I live at 407. I'm a relatively new resident of Chanhassen. My
wife an: I moved here last year. The reason for me coming this evening was '
simply to reassure myself that this development wouldn't substantially
change the character of the Del Rio Street. The neighborhood. From the
De]. Rio side, I guess I don't see any problems. In listening to the type
of issues that were brought forward here, watershed, the double driveway
issueE and ph;sically seeing for the first time the proposal, the
development as proposed, I guess I would come back with are alternative. I
guess what I'd like to see done with this parcel is not divide it into 7
parcels. I would recommend to the Board that you reconsider the
possiLility of combining Lots 4 and 5. Dividing this 4.47 acre parcel into
6 lots. 3 off of Del Rio, 3 off of Frontier Trail. That would eliminate II
the ea =_ern r,t problems for the driveway. You might be able to gain, I don't
know e.actly the housepad placement. It would eliminate what I consider to
be not an aesthetic placement because you've got that one lot that's much
further setback from Frontier Trail than the rest. And by dividing that
lower section along Frontier Trail it would give you the opportunity to
work the watershed issues into the entire project much easier than what I
consider to be a little too ambitious project of cutting it up into 7
parts. That's all I warted to say.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Scott moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Harberts: I just need clarification from Dave. Did I understand you to
say that in this area there's limited opportunities to address the water
quality issue as it deals then with runoff into Lotus Lake?
Hempel: That's correct. Most of the area is built up and underdeveloped I
conditions.
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
II June 16, 1993 - Page 28
Harberts: And if this development were not to occur, then there would be a
1 substantial increase in cost to the city to deal with it on the east side?
Hempel: That's correct. More property to purchase.
II Harberts: Okay.
II Batzli: Let me follow up on that. But does this mean by doing this
project that we don't have to do anything on the east side?
Harberts: That's the amount I understood.
II Hempel: No. It reduces the amount of improvement and cost associated with
the ponding on the east side.
II Batzli: But currently we have no funding to do that on the east side.
Hempel: It's not there yet, no.
II Batzli.: Right. And so we're going to be improving water quality because
we would not be able to do these site improvements for years to come.
Hempel: That's correct..
II Batzli: Okay. Go ahead.
Harberts: I understand what the residents are saying with regard to the
trees. You know I think it's a little bit of an aggressive project too in
II terms of m personal preference but I think a landowner has the opportunity
and has the right to develop the land. They've got economic criteria.
Thing_ like that that they have to certainly keep in mind. The city
provides this opportunity by setting the minimum codes, zoning, whatever.
Requirements. I am of concern. If we've got a feasibility report that
says it should be a bigger pond, because of the water problem. We've got
some residents here that also have a concern about the water condition.
II Lotus Lake is a popular lake. I would recommend, I'd be inclined to
recommend that the, I'm not aware that the City goes out and works a lot of
deals here with developers in terms of meeting water standards. In terms
I of ponding in area. I'm surprised and if we have limited opportunity to
address water issues in this area, that we compromise on the size but I can
understand from a developer's pocketbook, that we'd have to be sensitive to
I that. I would recommend or have the Council consider maybe looking at some
kind of joint cost sharing or something to develop a ponding that's going
to meet the standards as set out in the feasibility report. 1987 or '89
that I heard we had 500 year. We're getting a lot of water this year too.
11 Especially with that area. I drive Frontier Trail. I live on the other
end so I know what kind of water problems they're talking about in the
streets. I like Dave's idea about the double driveway. Put the 5 foot
11 buffer in. Put the 2 foot buffer in and once the owners purchase the
property, if they want to work out a deal with themselves, you know fine.
But I think the legalities, I think you can get into the mess. Maybe
I someone isn't going to snowplow or move their snow in the wrong direction.
I think it just keeps potential problems from happening there. Let's see
here. I think the conservation setback or request. My perspective I'd be
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 16, 1993 - Page 29
inclined to leave it as is because low maintenance lot, that's what people
want. They love the trees. I don't know if there's an opportunity to
basically leave it as is. I'm guessing that if a resident is differ with
what has been established, they have that opportunity to come in front of
the Council and request it. So I would just in a sense, let's maintain the
conservation and if the residents have a differnt matter of opinion, let I
them come before the Council and think about it at that level. I like the
idea about getting rid of that ditch. I was down there last night. I know
Joe was down there too. I thought it would be interesting to see how these '
driveways would have been installed with that ditch still there so I like
that cost sharing arrangement too that's going in. I think that's
basically my comments. I would just encourage the City to look at what
opportunity exists to be sensitive to the developer's pocketbook but also 11 let's look at this is the one time opportunity to make a difference with
that water quality in that area. We've got reports that demonstrate a
need. I think we should do something about it rather than compromise.
That's my comments. II
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Matt.
Ledvina: I have a question for Dave. How far are we off from our optimum I
solution for the ponds in terms of what we have before us and what the
feasibility study recommends? What's the difference?
II
Hempel: We're very close. I think we're looking at .15 acre feet of
storage out there. The problems we have with the pond, it required
steepening the side slopes of the pond and that becomes a liability and
II
danger issue with residents and walking in the area. The ponds will have a
real flat area for the first 10 feet. There will be only a foot of water.
And then it goes down to a 3 :1 slope. To increase, to get that additional
1.5 acre feet, or yeah. .15 acre feet of storage, we end up steepening up
those side slope': or increasing the circumference of the pond which chips
into more of the buildable area of the lot.
II
Ledvina: So the optimum solution is .72 acres, is that correct?
Hempel: I believe that's correct, yes.
II
Ledvina: Something like that. Okay, so that's roughly we're settling for
roughly a 20% reduction on the capacity. Somewhere in there.
II
Hempel: In that ballpark, yes.
Ledvina: Alright.
II
Harberts: Just a question, if I could interrupt you Matt.
Ledvina: Sure, go ahead. 11
Harberts: Dave, if the lots are reduced, I'm a little confused here on the II
lots. Not Lot 5 but the one next to it or the one that take care of this,
with the pond. If they were reduced to like 11,000 or something and you
have to put a smaller house on, you know are we going to get our .72? Is
I that even an option? You know this certainly isn't my area of expertise
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 30
11 but I think we've got an opportunity to correct something so, you know what
are the options here?
1 Hempel: Well, you're correct in suggesting that we could reduce the lot
size down on the building envelope or the lot size itself. But I think the
compensation for that., penalizing the developer on that lot, the
1 compensation would out of the city checkbook if you will.
Harberts: Well it's going to be out of the city's checkbook one way or the
II other as I understand it.
Hempel: That's correct but the ratio I guess for pond storage. The pond
I is already being constructed. All we're doing is making it a little bit
deeper. We're not having to require him to go out and wider so he's not
losing any land so we're not really compensating him for the land he is
losing. We're compensating him for the extra digging involved. The extra
II diameter of the pipes. If we require him to give up some more land for the
house, or for the pond, then we're looking at extra compensation for the
land. And we didn't feel that based on this site that, according to the
I consultant, we didn't feel it was justifiable in this case.
Ledvina: Well given the fact that there is additional work to be done in
the future, I think the staff has developed a real good start and actually
I
taking advantage of this opportunity compromise with the developer. And
Dave mentioned, we are going to be doing additional work in this area to
maintain or develop an optimum treatment scenario so I guess I'm
I comfortable with this situation knowing that if this thing goes in 2 or 3
or 4 year quicker than what we could develop, the net improvement in water
qualit; might be even greater than if we try to force something here and
II this deal wouldn't necessarily go through. So I guess I would be in favor
of the scenario that's laid out in front of us, knowing that something's
down the read to finish the needed treatment system. So be that as it is,
other comments. I think the frontage on Lot 1 should be able to be worked
I out. I don't feel that there should be, that we should consider a variance
there. Generally I agree with your other comments Diane on the other
issues and I'll leave it at that.
1 Batzli: Okay. Joe.
I Scott: I just have one thing to add is I'm real familiar with the
character of that area. On Frontier Trail, as probably a lot of people
here are and one of the things that actually lends it's charm, aside from
the overstory trees, are the bushes and shrubs and that sort of thing that
II we see and I think that will be, as long as we have the conservation
easement on Lot 5, I think that that kind of protects the character of the
front part. I think by reducing the drives or having a joint driveway, I
I think that that character would probably be preserved as best as it could
given this kind of development. The city has experts that I think have
dealt well with the ponding issue so personally I'm in favor of the
proposal, and I'm sure one of the other commissioners will make a motion
I but I don't have any further comments.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Nancy.
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 31 1
Mancino: I really don't have any new ones either. I feel comfortable with
the ponding that staff has approved and sent to us. I would like to keep
the conservation easement as it is for the character of the area. And I
think that we have enough sites in Chanhassen where there are no trees so
if somebody didn't want to put a bigger house or swimming pool, that there I
are plenty of other sites in Chanhassen that have no trees at all. That's
all of my comments.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. I guess I'll talk about the ponds first. That
seems to be the way to go. As a member of the Surface Water Management
committee, here in the city, given our limited resources and the number of
projects we can do each year, this is going to be an incredible asset.
Something we would not have gotten to probably for years to come so while
there is a compromise in place, clearly as our consultants have said in
their staff report, any amount of storm water quality pre - treatment
performed at the development would both increase efficiency and reduce the
cost of future downstream ponds. We're going to have to put in downstream
ponds anyway and in the meantime we're going to achieve a significant
benefit of catching a lot of water from a lot of acres upstream here. I I
think we've worked with the applicant. Staff has worked with the applicant
and with the consultants very well to achieve what I think is a real good
compromise here. Because I know we don't have any money in the budget to I
start busing hunks of this piece of property. Well, if we do they haven't
told us anyway. The other things, I guess just to touch on some of the
things the applicant stated. The cul -de -sac, the 72 feet I think it's
clear. Let them work with staff and iron that out. That sounds like,
cure the line. Do what they have to. It sounds like such a technicality
I'm surprised it hasn't been worked out already. Number 6. I think it's
obviods that if in fact the city consultant and engineers have modified the
staff report, or the feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo and Associates
that condition should be modified to reflect that change. That there's
smalle number of footage associated with that pond. I don't think it's a
problem.
Ledvira: Is there another reference that we can use for that?
Batzli: Weil I think reduced by, go ahead.
Hempel: If I could offer a suggestion. Maybe if we just striken in the
report totally and just enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the
city for maintenance cost sharing of proposed water quality treatment ponds
as per approved construction plans. The applicant still has to come back
through the city with construction plans and specifications per city
standards and that opportunity is where we are going to finalize these
drainage plans and ponding plans and work out the cost share involved with
that. 1
Batzli: Okay so how about if we just, in our condition it would read, the
applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the city for
construction, maintenance and cost sharing of the storm water improvements
period. So we're just eliminating the, in accordance with the Bonestroo
and Associates report.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
il June 16, 1993 - Page 32
Ledvina: I think Dave wanted to tie it one step further and say, as per
1 approved construction plans and that would be the final agreements.
Batzli: Okay, good. I don't think there's any problem with anybody
1 straightening out the conservation easement lines?
Al -Jaff: No.
I Batzli: In number 7 there, I think a change is in order. I liked the idea
about the driveway, if the applicant likes that. I'd like to specify the
front yard setbacks reduced to 25 feet on Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. And
I then we need, I would like to see 2 additional conditions. One is that
we're going to receive dedication of the park fees in lieu of the land.
Our standard condition, however that reads. And also I'd like to propose
I that we include a condition asking the applicant to work with the adjacent
homeowners to maintain some screening between Lot 1 and the adjoining lots.
As far as the conservation easement on Lot 5, I guess I'd like to see it
remain. If the applicant can convince the Council that, to eliminate part
I of it or an additional portion of it, I'd like to give you that opportunity
but I haven't seen a need on that one either.
I Robert Davis: ...conservation easement appropriate for the adjacent
neighbor . We would like to consider the back as an option and if you
sugge =_t, we could take it up with the Council. Okay.
I Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Does anyone have a motion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
1 Subdivision #93 -10 as shown on the plans dated, is that correct, May 17th:'
Al -Jaff: 17th.
1 Ledvina: 19 ^3 subject to the following conditions. As outlined in the
staff repot with the following changes and additions. Condition number 6
shall read, the applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreement
I with the cit/ for the construction, maintenance and cost sharing of the
storm water improvements as per approved construction plans. Number 7.
Reword the first part of the first sentence. The applicant shall provide a
I reforestation plan on the site which is acceptable to city staff and the
rest of that shall read as per the staff report modifying the last sentence
to read, the applicant shall provide to staff a plan which shows the
I location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the
legal description.
Batzli: That's for staff approval?
I Ledvina: Yes. Change condition number 11 to read, the extension of
service stubs to Lots 4 and 5 and also the driveways for Lots 4 and 5 shall
I be in the same general location to minimize disruption in tree removal.
Driveways shall follow the utility service alignment. Change 13 to read,
the front yard setback can be reduced to 25 feet for Lots 1, 2 and 3. Block
I 1, Lots 1, 2 and 3. There's only one block right?
Batzli: Right.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 33
I/
Ledvina: Adding condition number 16. The applicant shall pay park fees in I
lieu of parkland dedication. Adding condition number 17. The applicant
shall work with adjacent homeowners on property screening issues.
Mancino: I'd like to add to that. On recommendation number 4. The
applicant will meet and work with staff to resolve the frontage issue on
Lot 1, Block 1.
Batzli: Have you modified condition 4?
Ledvina: No, I didn't.
Batzli: Well, let's second his motion first.
Scott: Second. 1
Batzli: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Discussion.
Mancino: Discussion. I would like to add a friendly amendment to
recommendtion number 4 that says applicant will meet with staff to resolve
the frontage issue on Lot 1, Block 1.
1
Batzli: Oka And does the second and motion accept that? Okay. Any
other discussion? 1
Ledvina moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #93 -10 as shown on plans dated May 17, 1993,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Al]. utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the current edition of "City's Standard and Specifications and
Detail Plates ". Detailed street and utility construction plans and
spe'ifications shall be submitted for City Council approval.
2. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed 1
District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply
with their conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the
terms of the development contract.
4. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 has a lot frontage of 72 feet. The applicant
shall meet and work with city staff to resolve the front issue for
this lot.
5. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of
completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates
dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater
shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
Plannin g Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 34
II
6. The applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the
I city for the construction, maintenance and cost sharing of the storm
water improvements as per approved construction plans.
I 7. The applicant shall provide a reforestation plan on the site which is
acceptable to city staff. This plan shall include a list of all trees
proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will
not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation
I easement. The tree preservation easement shall be reserved over the
area shaded in Attachment #2. The conservation easement shall permit
pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All
I healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to
be removed. The applicant shall provide to staff a plan which shows
the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall
provide the legal description for staff approval.
I 8. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide drainage and utility
easement over the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines in
1 Lots 1, 2, 4 and 7, Block 1.
9. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the
I final plat rights over all ponding and drainage areas.
10. The existing house on the property shall be razed prior to final plat
approval. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the
1 necessary permits from the City and State.
11. ThE e. tension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5, and also the
I driveways for Lots 4 and 5 shall be in the same general location to
minimize disruption in tree removal. Driveways shall follow the
utility service alignment.
I 12. The existing 15 foot drainage utility easement through Lot 7, Block 1
shi l be increased to 20 feet wide.
I 13. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25' for Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Block 1.
I 14. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 1
through 3, Block 1 to see if adjustments can be made to push the
building pads closer to the front property line in an effort to reduce
tree loss on said lots.
I 15. All lots shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff
I shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if
it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall
be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to
I grading.
16. The applicant shall pay full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication.
I 17. The applicant shall work with adjacent homeowners on property
screening issues.
Planning Commission Meeting
g
June 16, 1993 - Page 35
I/
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: And when does this go to City Council Sharmin? 1
Al -Jaff: July 12th.
Batzli: July 12th. Thank you very much for coming in. I appreciate the
working with the neighbors and staff. Thank you.
1
PUBLIC HEARING:
DOUG HANSON, WEST ONE PROPERTIES FOR A PUD TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM BG,
GENERAL BUSINESS TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT
LOTS 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK 2, BURDICK PARK INTO ONE LOT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 16,335 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF AN OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY
1 LOCATED AT 7900 KERBER BOULEVARD, WEST ONE EXPANSION.
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Doug Hanson 17001 Stodola Road, Minnetonka
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order .
Doug HanEcn: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. As you
know I'm Doug Hanson. I don't have too many in the audience. As you know
the project is to be done in one single and final phase instead of two as
originally proposed in the sketch plan review. And Sharmin has brought to
you the reduced size of the building to 16,309 square foot, the addition
that is. And let 's see
it was also brought out that the project was scheduled to be presented 2
weeks ago but working with her we decided to wait and I'm here tonight. I
think we've accomplished the improved appearance by painting the original I
building with the new addition and installing the teal colored metal roofs
on the entrances. That's tied in with the accent stripes. The posts will
be covered with pre - finished steel of the same color as the main portion of
the building. Existing 3 foot doors will be replaced. The rooftop air
conditioners will be enclosed with steel siding of that color. The almond
color. She talked about public transit. We met that railroad setback
requirement by cutting off a corner of the building to maintain that 50
foot setback requirement. We brought the hard cover down to 70% by
reducing the size of the building and narrowing the blacktop along the rear
of the building to 26'6 ". The concerns I have, one of them was with the I
staff recommending that the glazed tile should be used for accent stripes.
The cost is great because it includes the old building as well as the
addition. This isn't Target or Target's resources. Or Target's income.
Its a manufacturing company and has a much lower return of income.
There'd be about 900 lineal feet or if you added that strip on the top, I
was proposing to paint the roof flashing but if you add a strip on the top,
there's 1,366 lineal feet of this band and it would be very expensive.
I believe its not practical from a maintenance aspect because on the
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 36
II existing building it would have to be glued on the face of the block that's
there. So all the edges are exposed to the weather and eventually probably
II would fall off. One of the most obvious reasons is that the front of our
building looks at the trucks and the loading at the back of Market Square.
In the back of Market Square are accent stripes that are painted. On the
1 front of Market Square there's accent stripes that are painted. Why should
this requirement be made of us? I don't know. The building's been there
for 15 years and I looked at the stripes on Market Square in front of
Festival Foods. There's a red stripe that's painted. It looks great. I
II don't know why these wouldn't look
great. You really have to study it close to see that it's not tile. It's
a painted stripe.
1 Harberts: My understanding is that these are all painted stripes?
II Doug Hanson: Painted stripes, right. Another issue is the truck parking
requirement. I think you've got, the staff report calls for eliminating
truck parking to 4 and right now we have permission to park trucks
overnight. Trucks are a necessary part of the business. There's no semi's.
I There's no semi - trailers. This parking could be limited to the rear to be
completely hidden from view. Chaska Machine, we have 2 trucks. A stake
truck and a van type for hauling product and Steinkraus Plumbing would have
3 or 4. Our firm may have an enclosed van type and in the future. We don't
right now but the truck parking is necessary provision for the businesses
here. We now look at the U -Haul trucks and trailers right in our front.
So I don't think we're asking for anything that's unreasonable. The trees.
You require 15 more trees. I'd like to see them on this lot, if that's
possible. Another concern is a park and rec fee. Although I understand
you're not to answer for that anyway. I'd gladly pay the fee for the new
I addition but I don't think it's fair to charge it on an existing building
that's been there for 15 years and you know we paid, we were probably the
first, one of the first industrial buildings in Chanhassen and since 1984,
what we paid before that but that's the only records I have. We paid
II $218,359.00 towards the tax increment financing that stayed in Chanhassen.
The parkin;, 59 is absolutely necessary. We had to struggle to get down to
this hard cover because of a pre- existing condition of 82% hard cover. So
II through compromise we're down there. I hope in the future if I ever need
more parking, if Chaska Machine leaves or whatever, I hope that you'll keep
that in mind that we met this hard cover requirement as if it was a new
I building, and we've fought that so we've reduced, there's a net loss of 8
spaces right now. Just a few things, advantages I guess. The addition
cleans up and makes immediate good use of the remaining lot and allows
Chaska Machine to remain in Chanhassen. They're a solid company and
II they've been an asset for the city providing jobs and income to the
surrounding businesses as well as the real estate tax income to Chanhassen.
Improvements made to the existing building as well as the addition will be
II refreshing, fit well with the surrounding Market Square complex. Tree area
will be extended to the east to accomplish what the city desires. The hard
cover area is reduced from over 80% to 70% by the addition of Lot 3 to the
II layout. I just want to let you know that the timing is important for
Chaska Machine because they're eager to, they need space as soon as they
can get it. I'll be glad to change the windows to the size that's there.
The reason for the larger windows is that people would like to see out when
I they're sitting at their desk so it was a practical thing. But they're
II
Planning Commission Meeting 11
June 16, 1993 - Page 37
11
living with what's there now and I guess they can live with higher windows.
Is there any other questions?
Batzli: We'll probably have some as we go around. Appreciate your
comments. Is there anyone else that would lime to address the Commission?
If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing? 1
Scott moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Sharmin, I have a couple questions. On page 6 at the top of your
report, the first finding says that the back of the building will be
against the trees and all loading will be screened from view. Is that the
new addition that we're talking about?
Al -Jaff: Correct. '
Mancino: Because the back of the new addition, I'm very concerned with
what you see from Highway 5 because it is on the Highway 5 corridor and
there are going to be some very specific and stringent architectural
specifications on the whole corridor. When it's going to be screened from
view of the loading, does that mean year round or are we talking about, I
mean how is it going to be screened? How's the loading going to be
screened?
Al -Jaff: Over the past 2 weeks I drove, I made sure that I take that
section on Highway 5 that overlooks Chaska Machine and the only part that I
could see, even being in a passenger seat, the only part of the building I
could rea.].] see has been the front of the building and a small portion of
the side.
Mancino: Yeah, but the trees are out so you can't see it like you can in
the winter. 1
Al -Jaff: Anything that will be stored will be behind the building.
Mancini: On the west side? 1
Al -Jaff: On the west side. Correct. We are adding more trees to this
site.
Mancino: Will some of those be conifers so that we can keep the screening
year round? '
Al -Jaff: We could make that a condition of approval.
Mancino: I would like to have a mix because I know that in the winter 1
time, because I make at least 2 trips a day on Highway 5 going back and
forth, you can, that is much more exposed than it is now. I mean you can
see all of Market Square. The back. The U- Hauls. Everything. And also
you can see, if you really look, you have to strain to look, you can see
the back of the existing, but as it comes out and faces more towards
Highway 5 is my concern. Under permitted uses on page 8 of the report. It
says overnight parking of a maximum of 4 trucks and Mr. Hanson is asking
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 38
II for more than 4, correct?
A1--Jaff : Correct.
I Mancino: Okay. Would that mean if someone else came in and they wanted to
put semi - trailers, they could also park semi - trailers or we could put 4
I semi - trailers. Let's say that Chaska Machine and Tool left and somebody
else rented it and it's zoned PUD with light industrial, are we going to,
would we allow the use?
II Al -Jaff: I pulled up their original report. They were permitted, I'll
read it here. It says motor vehicles larger than 9,000 pounds, licensed
gross weight, shall not be parked or stored outside. No, shall be parked
I and stored outside of the building on the subject property between the
hours of 2:00 and 6:00 a.m. on any day. So basically the limit on the size
of the truck is 9,000 pounds.
1 Mancino: 9,000 tons or 9,000 pounds?
Al -Jaff: I have pounds here. That would be a medium size, small sized
II truck.
Scott: It's like a big U -Haul street truck. Yeah, it's not a.
II Al -Jeff: I asked Dave.
I Hempel: Larder than a pick -up truck.
Mancino: So it would be limited to that size when we change the zoning
from BG to PUD?
II Al -Jaff: Correct. That's what they have right now. However, they don't
have a limit as to how many they may park there. Overnight.
II Mancino: And you have 8 right now?
Doug Hanson: I think we can live with 8 unless...
II Mancino: But we're going to limit you to 4.
I Doug Hanson: I can't...
Harberts: What's the reason for limiting it to 4? Is there some kind of
I ordinance or what's your guide?
Al -Jaff: We just didn't want to see too many trucks parked out there. We
figured we can live with 4.
I Harberts: How many is too many?
I Scott: Well that's an indication to me and I would, I'm going to be a
business, as the President of the Chamber of Commerce. That's the way I'm
looking at this almost exclusively. I would love to see the tenants of
I that area have as many, I mean if they have to, they're not going to spend
$30,000.00 or $40,000.00 on a truck just to park there to tick us off. I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
II
June 16, 1993 - Page 39
mean they've got business happening. They need a delivery truck. The II
constraint is purely financial and I think you can effectively limit the
size of the truck that's there but I don't think you should put on a top on
any number of them because they don't buy them for fun. You know they need
them, they'll buy them. Or if they're not too sure, they'll lease them and
then when they don't need them, they'll give them back so I don't think we
should mess the guy's business. With the trucks. We can limit the size. II I think that's an effective way of doing it. We just don't want huge
semi's all over the place.
Batzli: I'm confused. Are we talking about semi's or delivery trucks? II
Scott: There's a limit of 9,000 gross weight. I
Batzli: Pardon me.
Al -Jaff : Delivery trucks.
I
Doug Hanson: No semi's.
Batzli: No semi's.
I
Scott: Yeah, they don't need semi's.
Al -Jaff: Medium sized trucks. II
Batzli: Okay. So we could say no semi's parked but however many delivery
trucks.
Scott: The're going to take deliveries. They may get deliveries in
I semi's or something but they're not going to be parked overnight.
Batzli: Yeah. Well, that's what we're concerned about is that this
become a collection point for rusting trucks or has a bunch of semi's
i
II
dlinc overnight.
Scott: Yeah, and 9,000 gross weight will control. Will eliminate that II problem.
Al -Jaff: But you don't want to put a limit on the number of trucks that
may be parked overnight is what you're saying?
1
Scott: Nope.
Batzli: Oh I would but these guys wouldn't. II
Mancino: Yeah, I would too.
Batzli: We haven't gotten to me yet, but keep going. Who was, Diane were
you? Where was I? Was it Nancy? I knew somebody was still talking. I'm
sorry. I forget which end I started on.
II
Mancino: Visually I have a problem with the two buildings not lining up.
When I look at the front face and I see that everything is kind of askewed
II
11 Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 40
I/ a little, and I look at it and I say, oh my gosh. They must have added on
right there and why didn't they at least add on and make it, and continue
I the elements. Whether it's the window element. Whether it's the top parapet
element. 1 would like to see that continued in the same line. Now 1 don't
know about the draining and what needs to be done to get proper drainage
II for the building or the addition and maybe Dave can add anything. I mean I
don't understand the draining problem.
Batzli: Before we get to the draining problem, aesthetically don't you
II want the face of the building to be broken up somehow?
Mancino: Well it is. It's going to have 3 more roof canopies. It's going
to have 3 more entrances than what we see now. It will hopefully have good
I landscaping to break it up. But I don't think breaking it up by having
just one point in time where everything doesn't meet anymore is a good way
of breaking up a building. Maybe the architect or who's ever designing it
can come back and say, you know there's a reason why it goes up and looks
II
right there and maybe there's another one that echo's it. But I think it
draws your attention to it and I don't think it's aesthetically pleasing.
So I would like to see it taken care of architecturally. Whether you come
I back with something that makes it look right. It just looks wrong. Anyway,
but draining and grading, I don't know what the problem is.
II Doug Hanson: Can I speak to that?
Mancino: Sure.
II Doug Hanson: I have to raise it up 2 feet. I'd rather leave it all level
but I have to raise it to get the water out of that front yard...to get the
water arounc the building and over to...big storm and the whole building
II gets flooded because it's flat. It's not good... It's got to go up 2 feet.
I'd rather have it flat too but it has to be a break up. Market Square you
know joys up all the way up. As the grade goes up, the building goes up.
II Mancino: Yeah, but I think that's been thought through very well
architecturally because it has different levels meeting each other and it
keep goinc and it just doesn't have one split.
II Doug Hanson: Well, I don't know any other way out of it. You know it is a
step up but I don't think we should try to hide it.
II Batzli: Well we'll hear from the rest of the commissioners. Let's see if
everyone would like to see that problem addressed.
II Mancino: My other question Sharmin, last one has to do with outdoor
storage. I saw in the City Council Minutes from the April 12th meeting
that condition number 4 was that there will be no outdoor storage permitted
I and that was one of their conditions of approving the concept plan. And so
it's coming back to us to revise that? Am I correct, in allowing. This is
on page, the bottom of page number 32.
II Batzli: So you feel there's been a change from the Council and then to our
condition 4 that there's no unscreened outdoor storage permitted?
II Mancino: Yes. And do we have a problem there in, I know that the Highway
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 41 II
II 5 Task Force Subcommittee who's working on architectural specifications is
not allowing any outdoor storage on the Highway 5 corridor. With the
exception if it's outside of, let's see, let me think. The following may II not be used in any visible exterior application except when specifically
permitted by the city in areas with limited public view. And so they're
going to be prohibiting outdoor storage. Now I think the west, the back
side of the building on the west side that faces Target is really in I
limited public view so that I feel it would be fine to allow screened
outdoor storage on that one side of the building. On that west side but
again not on the side, the south side that faces Highway 5. So I would
II
like that to be a condition. Exactly where the outdoor storage can go.
Batzli: Does the applicant, do you have a need for outdoor storage? 1
Scott: Well that recycling. Isn't there a metal recycling?
Doug Hanson: ...but that's not outdoor storage. II
Mancino: Well there are pallets all over.
II
Doug Hansen: The pallets will go inside when we have the new addition...
Al -Jaff: It still is a condition of approval under number 16 that no
I
outdoor unscreened storage of materials be permitted. And it specifies
trash storage, shipping pallets or other materials. It's on page 15.
Condition number 16. When it says, defining retail.
II
Batzli: Picht. What I think the issue was that the original condition
when we looked at the concept plan was that there shall be no outdoor
storage and now we're saying there shall be no outdoor storage unless it's
screened., which is different. I think we understand that there's probably
going to be a certain number of stuff that's outside that need to be
screened but we're not trying to allow storage of articles of stuff so much
as if the /'ve got to put a trash container or something outside, yeah
screen it. But everything else comes inside. That's why they're doing the
addition to the building. My understanding.
II
Scott: The way the site plan is set up, it looks like on the south side of
the building there's a 28 foot area that is exclusively for cars. 26 foot,
excuse me. When I measured it I screwed up. But it looks like it's
specifically for the purpose of cars passing so there really isn't any room
to put stuff there and then there's a trash enclosure so that looks to be
way the site is set up is there won't be any room because of the narrowness
of the site and having to pull cars in and out. They're not going to be
putting stuff back there anyway. Not on the south.
Batzli: If condition is just modified that existing trash enclosure, you
II
know shall be screened or whatever we need to say there.
Mancino: Trash and recycling. 1
Batzli: Yeah. And then we can leave in condition 16 as it is. Or we can
just say no outdoor storage of materials.
II
II
11 Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 42
II
Doug Hanson: Could I say something?
II Batzli: Sure.
II Doug Hanson: The recycling binds, you know they can't be screened.
Scott: Because they've got to pick them up.
II Doug Hanson: Yeah. You know they're...filled with metal so the truck has
to come and maneuver around. But they are all basically...
I Batzli: Where do they currently sit on the plan? Is that this one?
Scott: The recycling, it's right there.
II Batzli: Oh, recycle area?
Scott: Yeah. And this is gated right here. So they have a metal
II recycling container.
Mancino: What did they do at Market Square where they have those
I recycling?
A1-3aff: They do have trash enclosure on each side but then you would be
able to access them from the front. They are not visible from Highway 5.
II You could see the side of them, which is basically an extension of the
wall. Of the building.
II Batzli: You're not going to be able to screen this recycle area without
taking out parking stalls and he's already short parking stalls. Like to
punch any other holes in our nice plan here?
1 Mancino: T think that's it.
Batzli: She's done enough damage.
II Mancino: At least those were all of my questions on it. That's it.
II Batzli: What do you think of, this park and trail issue. He only wants to
pay on half of his building. What do we normally do?
Al -Jaff: I checked our building files and all I could find is a signed
II permit application on Chaska Machine. There is no record. Nothing on it
=o.
II Batzli: That he paid the first time?
Al -Jaff: Yeah.
Batzli: So you want to get him now.
Al -Jaff: And I talked to Park and Rec's Director and he still wants the
II fee paid for both phases. The first one that was done in '79 and.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 43
1
Batzli: Did you think you paid one originally or just that you've been
here long enough.
Doug Hanson: I don't know. Probably they didn't have them at that time.
Scott: Yeah, when did we start collecting that? Did we start collecting
them in '79 or is this a thing that came after '79?
Doug Hanson: We didn't do it illegal. We got a permit and went through '
the process. That building is...
Batzli: We understand that. I think it's an issue you have to take up ,
with the Council though. We can't change that one. Joe.
Scott: I think that a painted strip is fine. I think that if to get
drainage the building has to be up 2 feet, I think that's fine. I think
limiting the trucks to 9,000 pounds gross weight is great. •Let them have
10. I mean if they're making that kind of dough, they should be able to
buy trucks and park them out there. I think this is definitely a limited
public view area because I was cruising on Highway 5 and you almost have to
cause an accident to look down there when you're driving by there but I can
see definitely your point. So I think that Mr. Hanson has worked very
closely with the city staff and this is, you know this is an industrial
building you know and I was down there. I think when you compare it to the
back of Market Square, it looks pretty good right now so I think this is
going to be an upgrade. I think it's a great use. I just don't think we
should hassle this guy anymore. You know, that's where I'm coming from. I
won't say anymore.
Batzli: Do you want to see him change the size of the windows?
Scott: No. No. 1
Batzli: Okay. You like it as is?
Scott: Yeah. 1
Batzli: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: Looking at the architectural pespective if you will of the grade
change, or the change in the roof line. I can understand that, I looked at
the grading plan and I don't see any easy solutions for lowering the
building to match existing. There's really not even a possibility of
putting a catch basin in someplace and running it. You know running it in
a storm because there is just no easy drainage out of here. So I can
understand that issue. What I was thinking possibly is, there's a...one
that makes kind of the elbow. Maybe there's a possibility of raising that
another 2 feet as well to, I mean you have the grade change at the addition
and maybe to give it a more uniform look or a unitized look that you'd make
another change at that point. So I'll just throw that out there. I think
it can be done architecturally with just the one 2 foot drainage. But I
don't know. I'm not an architect. But as it relates to the screening. I
was back there when this first came in front of us and I do remember that
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 44
II very limited in terms of the sight views there from off site but as I was
back there I noticed that it wasn't as nice as maybe it could be and I hope
II that maybe with the addition that things will really be spruced up back
there and all that. I don't know, I don't have an easy answer or an answer
even on the screening. I think if staff will work with Mr. Hanson on
II that, I'm sure they can come up with acceptable screening for those trash
and recycling areas. I don't know what those are going to be even. Other
than that I don't feel the need to restrict the number of trucks. Small
trucks back there. I think that's reasonable to, well I take that back. I
II think if we looked at 10 trucks, I would think that would be ample and I
think we really should provide some guidance on that. I think that would
be appropriate. So let's see. I don't feel the, just for the record, I
II don't feel that the applicant should pay additional fees for park and trail
for the existing structure. I think certainly for the value of the
addition that's appropriate but, wherever that goes. Other than that,
I that's my only comments.
Batzli: Okay. Diane.
II Harberts: I'm going to concur a lot with the comments of Commissioner
Scott. I don't think that they need to be required to put some glazing on.
According to the directions from the Council and the Planning Commission to
II match and enhance the design of the existing building. I think that's been
met. I think discussion on previous projects, we have to be sensitive to
the cost factor. Market Square, those pictures or whatever I've seen was
painted and they looked fine. I think that would look a lot better than
II tiles that may be falling off in a few years simply because they're, in a
sense just added on later. I too don't feel that he should be paying park
fees on the old building but only on the new building. The new addition.
II No limit on the truck. I think your business pretty well controls that.
Work out this, I'm still a little confused but work out the deal with the
storage, the screening, that type of thing. I think Commissioner Scott
II summed it up well. He worked hard for it. Let's work with him too on this
and I think he's come quite a distance and I'll just support the public
transit element of this plan. That's my comments.
I Batzli: Okay. Did everybody, nobody really commented on the evergreens in
condition 15, rather than some of the overstory trees on the south portion
of the site I think is where we were talking about putting them. Did
II everybody concur that we should do some of that?
Scott: Evergreens? I'd agree with that.
II Mancino: Add conifers instead of deciduous. Or a mix.
Batzli: Well, is an evergreen tree like that considered an overstory
11 tree? No, it isn't is it? Okay. I ask the dumb questions. I would, I
don't know. The issue about the jog in the building. It didn't look bad
to me. I guess I don't have a complete picture based on the elevations
II that were given to us exactly, it didn't look bad but maybe it would if I
really knew what it was going to look like. But it didn't look bad based
on the drawing to me. So I have a tough time requiring that he put in
different sized windows or match up the roofline or put in a third jog when
it was things that, I didn't get a sense from the staff that these were
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
June 16, 1993 - Page 45
important to them as design elements of the building.
Al -Jaff: Well they were pointed out to us yesterday by Commissioner Mancino
and we're going to end up with two different sizes of windows.
Batzli: Is that going to look bad? Do we have that on another building?
Scott: You know that might be the architectural element that we need, you II
know when you're looking at the new addition kind of jogging up. Maybe by
increasing window size, maybe that can fool the eye into making it look
more compatible. I don't know. I can't figure that out in my head either II
but you know.
Mancino: Well there's so many horizontal elements on the building. That's
where I think the problem is.
Batzli: There's too many horizontal elements?
Mancino: Well yeah.
Batzli: Differing. '
Mancino: They're differing horizontal and they're.
Batzli: But see, I would think it would make it worst by making the 1
windows uniform because then it would be even more noticeable I would
think. I don't know. I don't know either. That would seem to me to
exaccerhate the problem. If the windows were identical size but offset, if
you're trying to make it look like there's not this jog. Well I don't
know.
Mancino: Well actually I would like them all to line up. Not just the
window, but everything else...perfect world is what I'm saying.
Al -Jaff: Staff would recommend that the same windows that are being used
on the building today he used with the addition. You would have some
continuancy with the addition.
Batzli: Okay. As far as the park and trail fees, I think we need to do '
whatever we require everybody else to do. If we require other people to
pay up, if they didn't pay the first time, I guess we need to have him pay
up too. I don't know what we do. Condition 16, I'd like that somehow this
unscreened storage. What I'd like it to say I guess is, there shall be no
outdoor unscreened storage except for the existing trash enclosure and
recycle area. If we can live with that because it looks like that's what
we're going to end up with here.
Scott: How about under number 4, there shall be unscreened outdoor storage
permitted. Existing outdoor storage to be placed in approved screened
enclosures where applicable because.
Batzli: Yeah, that could be. I'd like to limit, the overnight parking, I'd II
like to see a maximum of 10 operable delivery trucks and that there shall
be no overnight parking of semi - trailers or inoperable vehicles. So we
don't see rusting hulks there. Not that you're going to do it. I didn't 1
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 46
II
want to say that.
Scott: Now you lease that building out to not only your own company but to
I all the tenants?
Doug Hanson: Well there's just Chaska Machine. There will be Steinkraus
II Plumbing...
Scott: So you could put, I know in my lease there's all sorts of
I conventions about the stuff that you can't do so I mean, that can be
something as a landlord you can do for people that are moving into the new
space or that sort of thing. That's something that you can control as a
landlord too so.
II Harberts: What's your feeling on 10 trucks?
II Doug Hanson: Well, as far as I know that would be fine at this point but
if ChasJa Machine leaves and somebody else, after I get another tenant or
tenants...
Scott: Well you can always come back too.
Doug Hanson: ...The one thing Matthew brought up...step down. Chaska
I Mact pine, you know they don't like to step up with the forklift truck so any
brakes, we should just have one brake...and you lose the flexibility of
placing the punch presses around.
II Scott: Do they have to mount those things to the concrete floor?
II Doug Hanson: Do they what?
Scott: The punch presses, do they have to mount those to the floor?
Yeah, I could see where that would waste some space.
Doug {ansc,: I know there's one step up where you have...one area to the
other...
1 Ledvina: I recognize there's some utility concerns with grade changes
certainly. But I was speaking strictly from a possible architectural
basis. Just a thought.
II Doug Hanson: You know on this grade change, what if there's a 6 inch jog
or something...
II Mancir,o: Yeah, that's kind of interesting. Do a little stepping back of
the building or forward a little bit. Yeah. That would make, that might
II do something.
Batzli: Yeah, that might help. Talk to us one last time about the strip.
Painted versus this other dealy bob. Do we really need this thing or can
11 we paint?
Ai -Jiff: Because it's a PUD and because we wanted higher standards, staff
II recommended that we go with the tile versus the painted strip.
II
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 16, 1993 - Page 47
II
Scott: Mr. Hanson, what's the increased cost to put the tile on there? You
said it was a substantial amount of money. Just roughly. Plus or minus
$10,000.00.
Doug Hanson: I don't know but I tried to get that bid for you today but he II
didn't call back. I don't honestly know. I know that it's thousands. I
just can't see it when I'm looking at it.
Scott: I think your point was well taken.
II
Doug Hanson: Looking across the street to try...
Scott: I think too with having those tiles exposed on the four corners, if II
they're going to be glued on, exposed to the elements, it'd probably look
kind of.
Doug Hanson: That's what the tile setter told me. ,
Scott: Versus Target, isn't that, Target's set right into the. Right, so II
it's a different application altogether. Yeah, okay.
Batzli: Well, I guess I would like to see better materials if he can,
because it's a PUD, if he can demonstrate with some real cost figures and
II
something from the people that say it's going to fall off and be an
eyesore, I'd certainly go along with that. But right now I guess I remain
unconvinced. Is there anything else that people would like to discuss or
II
is there a motion here?
Manc.inc I know the electrical box in the front, you have to paint that I/ the sane color as the building?
Doug Hanson: I don't know...to do that.
Harberts: I don't know if they'll let you do that. 1
Mancino: Well it's kind of the same color anyway.
II
Harberts: No, I think there's codes. Some kind of codes.
Doug Hanson: I don't know...
II
Al -Jaff: What we can do is maybe screen it with some bushes. Like 3 foot
high bushes on the site only. We do have to have a clearance. That's one
II
solution.
Scott: Well I can make a motion, if you'll allow me to.
II
Batzli: You have the floor.
Scott: The Planning Commission recommends approval to rezone 97,163 square II
feet of Br, General Business to PUD, Planned Urban Development. Approve
preliminary and final development plans, preliminary plat approval and
comprehensive plan amendment from commercial to office /industrial as shown
in plans dated April 19, 1993, revised June 5, 1993 and with a waiver of a
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 48
II
5 acre minimum PUD zone requirement subject to the following conditions.
I'd like to change condition number 3 to read, the accent stripe shall be
II created by using paint, period. Number 4 to read, there shall be no
unscreened outdoor storage permitted. Existing outdoor storage to be
placed in approved screened enclosures where applicable. Number 11, Park
I and trail fees shall be paid at the time of application of the building
permit on the new structure. 15. Fifteen overstory trees shall be added.
Five conifers along the south portion of the site, and 10 trees on Outlot
II A, Crossroads Plaza. And number 16, and Commissioner Batzli can maybe help
me with this one. On number 6, Offices. Light manufacturing is subject to
the following limitations. Overnight parking of a maximum of 10 operable
delivery trucks.
II Batzli: I had suggested no overnight parking of semi trailers or
inoperative vehicles.
II Scott: Okay. No overnight parking of semi trailers or inoperable
vehicle -.
II Harberts: Second.
Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment to that and that is on 3.
II That the rock fac=e concrete block shall remain as the main material used on
the building and it shall be painted. Because we're painting the whole
buildin, correct?
Scott: Oh, anyway? I don't know. Are we? Is that what that ivory color
is?
II Harberts: Yeah.
Scott: Oh, okay. That's friendly. I'll accept that one.
1 Batzli: So what does conditions 3 read now?
II Scott: Rock face concrete block shall remain as the main material used on
the buiidJrig and it shall be painted?
Mancino: And also, you added to it that it's not glazed tile. It's just
1 paint. However the accent stripes shall be created by using paint.
Batzli: So you've eliminated the rest of the verbage there?
II Mancino: Yeah.
Batzli: So you don't have expansion of the building matches and enhances
II the architectural design of the existing building?
Scott: That's striken from condition 3.
r Batzli: Do you want to ask the applicant to look into setting back the
building?
II Scott: No.
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 49
Batzli: At the park. You don't want to do that? 1
Scott: No.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? ,
Scott moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval to rezone 97,163 square feet of BG, General Business to PUD,
Planned Urban Development. Approve preliminary and final development
plans, preliminary plat approval and comprehensive plan amendment from
commercial to office /industrial as shown in plans dated April 19, 1993,
revised June 5, 1993 and with a waiver of a 5 acre minimum PUD zone
requirement subject to the following conditions:
1. Preliminary and Final plat approval combinging Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block II
2, Burdick park into one lot with appropriate easements.. All typical
utility and drainage easements shall be dedicated to the city on the
final plat. '
2. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
Development.
3. The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural
design of the existing building. Rock face concrete block shall remain in
a- the main material used on the building, and it shall be painted.
All cedar wood shingles shall be replaced with ribbed steel panels.
However, the accent stripes shall be created by using paint.
4. There- shall be no unscreened outdoor storage permitted. Existing '
outdoor storage to be placed in approved, screened enclosures where
applicable.
5. The hard cover surface of the site (the three lots) shall not exceed
70':. The setback of the building shall maintain a minimum setback of
50 feet from the railroad right -of -way. Revised plans reflecting those
two elements shall be submitted for staff review.
6. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the
property in question from the HRA.
7. Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development.
8. The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer calculations prepared
by a professional engineer for the City to review.
9. The applicant shall provide a $500.00 security for connection to the
City's storm sewer line and boulevard restoration on Picha Drive. This
fee will be refunded upon satisfactorily completing connection and
restoration of the City's boulevard.
10. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the perimeter
along the grading limits.
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 50
1
11. Park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of application of
building permit on the new structure.
12. Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
I 13. Stop signs shall be installed at the exit points to Picha Drive.
14. Meet the conditions of the Fire Marshal.
II 15. Fifteen over story trees shall be added. Five conifer trees along the
south portion of the site, and 10 trees on Outlot A, Crossroads Plaza.
II 16. The PUD Agreement shall include the following conditions:
a. Intent.
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD that would allow the
expansion of an existing office /light manufacturing use. It is
intended that this use be operated and maintained to preserve its low
intensity character to ensure its compatibility with surrounding uses
and the greater Chanhassen Central Business District.
b. Permitted Uses.
The permitted uses in this zone are limited to the light industrial/
office or less intensive uses than the existing use. The uses shall be
limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to
whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall
make that interpretation.
].. Light Manufacturing*
2. Retail **
' 3. Newspaper and small printing offices
4. Veterinary Clinic
5. Animal Hospital
6. Offices
*Light manufcturing is subject to the following limitations:
- no visible emissions of smoke
- no noise emissions exceeding the MnPCA standards measured at the
property line
' -- No outdoor, unscreened storage of materials, trash storage, shipping
pallets, or other materials
- overnight parking of a maximum of ten delivery trucks
' - no overnight parking of semi trailers or inoperable vehicles
all parking must be accommodated on -site
* *Retail uses are subject to the following limitations:
- signage consistent with approved sign package
- retail uses must be consistent with the site's restricted parking
II Scott, Harberts and Ledvina voted in favor. Batzli and Mancino voted in
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 51
opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Batzli: Your reason for?
Mancino: Well I certainly hope that the...looks better than I think it
might. I just have some concerned about that obviously.
Scott: Mr. Hanson, when the building is finished you can invite ,
Commissioner Mancino to come over.
Mancino: And I'll say I was all wrong, I'm sorry and I hope that that 1
happens. There's no question about it. But no, I do have some concern
about it and I would just like to have it, I'd like to see a rendering of
the whole front face and see what else could be done architecturally to it. II
So we just don't have that one split. That's what concerns me. We're
going to hale two different looking buildings. And that's why.
Batzli: Okay. Out of curiosity, were we going to strike condition 5 and II
was that part of your motion?
Scott: It wasn't part of my motion but. ,
A1. -Jaff: We were going to strike condition 5 but it wasn't part of the
motion. ,
Ledvina: But he's met it.
Scott: So that's why I just left it. ,
Bat.;).;.: 0.a y. My other concern was that I share some of Nancy's concerns
about that and I'd like to see a little bit more guidance, especially in II condit ion 3 reg= arding matching the ...Thank you. This goes to City Council
when=
Al- Jaf; On the 28th.
Batzli: 28th?
Al -Jaff: Of June. That's next Council meeting.
Mancino: I've got to go to that one too. '
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONE 31.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL INTO
48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AND
MITIGATE WETLANDS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, TROTTERS RIDGE. TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Jim Ostenson 7808 Creekridge Circle #310, Bloomington
John Prins 5120 Edina Industrial Blvd.
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 -- Page 52
II
Jo Aran Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: Your recommendation was to go with the 60 feet?
U Hempel: That's correct. We didn't see any advantage to going to a 50
foot. We're losing additional right-of-way for no reason.
I Ledvina: The width of the pavement is the same, correct?
Hempel: The street width does remain the same.
II Scott: 30 feet?
Hempel: 31 feet back of curb to back of curb.
Harberts: What about from Public Safety there was some comments in here
about some corners. Some sharp or blind corners and in the report here it
I talked about maybe additional signage.
Hempel: That's correct. Actually I brought up that point with the street
and alignment and so forth. Some of the curves are very sharp and lower
II than obviously a 30 mph speed. We do have numerous city streets with the
same predictament that we do install additional traffic signage and speed
advisitory signs on those sharp curves to advise motorists. Being that
this is a loca] neighborhood, a looped street that goes through traffic so
generally 90% of the traffic is going to be local traffic and once they
drive it they're very familiar with it.
II Harberts: So you're okay then with it?
Hempel: We are comfortable from an engineering perspective.
II Batzli: Okay. Jo Ann, was that all you had for us?
II Olsen: Yeah, just to keep it brief, yes.
Batzli: Did you have anything else?
1 Hempel: Just to add, Monday night they did approve to go ahead with the
construction plans and specifications for extensin of sewer and water to
this site so there is a condition in there making this project contingent
II upon that. So I believe that condition has been almost complied with.
Harberts: It also talked about the pre - existing homes and according to the
1 city ordinance. They're required to connect to sewer lines, so on and so
forth. Do these homeowners know that? Are they like the developers here?
I Hempel: Maybe the developer can address this at a later stage. I believe
one of the homeowners will remain on site and the other is probably a
rental.
' Harberts: So they're going to know?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 53
It's advantageous with the septic systems that they
Hempel: g P Y Y do connect to
city sewer.
Batzli: Okay, would the applicant like to address the Commission? Your
brevity would be appreciated.
Jim Ostenson: Very brief. My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with Tandem '
Properties. John Prins, a partner is with me tonight and Joel Cooper, the
project engineer with James Hill is also here. We agree with everything in
the staff report. The only issue we had outstanding was the 50 feet versus
60 foot right -of -way. It was our understanding that if we went to 60 feet
we'd have to clear or grade right -of -way to right -of -way and now if we can
save those trees, attempt to save those trees within that right -of -way,
that's what we were trying to accomplish anyway. So we don't have any
problem with that. We would still request the variance of a 25 foot front
yard setback on certain lots that are necessary. And again that's to save
trees.
Harberts: Which lot?
Jim Ostenson: I think it's on that handout.
Harberts: It's all inclusive in this list?
Jim Ostenson: Yes. Is that right Joel?
Harberts: Okay. Even with the 60? 1
Olsen: We'll verify exactly.
Jim OstPnson: We can verify that with the staff if there's 1 or 2 more
that should be added.
Harberts: My understanding from the report was that if the applicant was
not permitted the reduced right -of -way, the need for reduced setbacks will
be increased. So that means that there'd be more homes that would have to
require that.
Olsen: Right. Again, it's hard to say without seeing the actual plan but
a lot of times if you push in the right -of -way, then you're pushing back
even further. So I was just making an assumption.
Harberts: So it's a matter of revisiting that issue then?
I/
Jim Ostenson: Yes. The other issue that was brought up regarding the
home, we purchased both of the homes. The one tenant in the one house is II buying that house. They will purchase it with the understanding that they
have to hook up. The other house we're going to be remodeling and then
selling that house also. So both of those will be able to hook up to sewer
and water. 1
Batzli: Thank you. I'm sure we'll have, I assume we may ask some
questions as we go through this. Would anyone else like to address the
Commission? Are you guys all with the applicant?
I/
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 54
II
Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the P ublic hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
11 Harberts: I would agree with staff not to grant the reduced right -of -way.
I had a little concern about the corners but as long as Public Safety and
II staff is okay with it, I'll go with it. It looks like a nice neighborhood.
Any comments in terms of value of homes projected?
11 Jim Ostenson: I would think probably about $180,000.00 to $300,000.00.
$275,000.00.
Batzli: Do you feel that what you're looking at is close enough to what's
II going to go in? You feel comfortable saying looks good, let's go with it?
Harberts: Oh, with some little squares on here? Yeah right. I guess I
I defer to the staff. You know I look at plans all the time and I'll just
leave that up to staff I guess. But the wetland issue. I found it
interesting that one was concrete and I think it was B that was going to be
filled, had a diving board or something. That was interesting. I guess
II I'm not, I won't oppose the proposed mitigation then. Leaving things in as
much as a natural state as possible I guess is always preferred and as I
had seen it was just a matter of adding a little here and there. I guess
II that basically sums it up from my perspective. My concerns were more along
that public safety issue.
Batzli: Okay, thanks. Matt.
Ledvina: Well I've got some concerns for this development. I am
uncomfortable with the change in right -of -way and how this might affect the
I building pads. I like to see fairly accurate plans in front of me. I'm
concerned about the tree loss. I see routinely 32 inch trees being cut
down. I didn't count the number of them but there's a significant number.
1 36, 32, 42, 34. I understand that when you develop you need to take down
trees but I don't know. We worked fairly hard with Lake Susan Hills, with
that to deal with the trees. Some very special considerations there. I
look at the grading plan and I don't see a lot of grading here. I think
II they've done a pretty nice job of fitting things in and you don't see the
exact grading for all the housepads. The major street grading that's in
here. Its not too bad. Mostly along the eastern edge. One thing that I,
1 as Tim Erhart would say, I think is insane, is the filling of wetlands to
accommodate a setback. I can't support that. I don't know. I like to see
things moved along but I don't know, I would favor tabling this.
11 Batzli: Joe.
Scott: Yeah. I concur with Matthew. We spent a lot of time on Lake
II Susan Hills 9th Addition. I'm actually quite proud of what the city staff
and the developer ended up with on it and what I'd like to see is something
that helped me visually understand the impact was to see the location of
II the trees with their numbers and something that the applicants brought in
the other PUD, residential PUD that we had, is that they showed, the
Fortier property showed by lot the trees that were going to be removed and
II the size. Because when I see tree 499. Number one, I don't know where it
is. And then number two, on a lot by lot basis, I have no way of
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 55
understanding it. And I think we set a very good precedent with Lake Susan
Hills 9th Addition so I'd recommend tabling this until we get a tree
inventory that not only shows the location and number of all the trees, but II
then by lot which ones are gone and you guys can provide the applicant with
a copy of what they did on the Forcier property. Because then we can make 11
a decision but I don't really appreciate, and neither does city staff,
receiving pertinent information at 4 :30 -5:00 via courier on the date that
the Planning Commission has to take a look at something. So I would
support tabling this until we get the correct tree information.
Harberts: Just a comment, question. Staff, did you feel comfortable with
receiving that information at the time you did?
II
Hempel: The information we received was strictly for the right -of -way
area. It wasn't for the house pads. I guess I am comfortable. I thought
I was going to have to fight harder for my 60 foot right -of -way. I'm
getting it. They're getting the. trees. We're getting trees. I'm
comfortable. The comfort level with the buildable pads like we did in Lake
Susan Hills 9th, that's a different story. We have some more developments
coming down the line with similar topographic features that we're going to
be running into the same situation. They're right on the heels of this
project. They don't have a tree survey either.
I/
Scott: They really should.
Olsen: We're not getting the same information that we got with Lake Susan
Hills 9th and that's not the developer's fault. We don't have that set,
exactly what we need.
Ledvina: This is a PUD though...take a look at when we take on this II
process.
Scott: We're eating away at that 5% forested acreage.
II
Harberts: I guess my overall comment to be made is, you know in a matter
of saving time and everybody's time and expense here, maybe it needs to be
communicated to these people coming up that this is what the expectation
is.
Scott: And get them started on it now. ,
Olsen: Well we are doing that with the new ones and they're already.
Scott: I mean these guys, their clock's running right now and it costs
them money every.
Harberts: Every time they're sitting here. II
Scott: Yeah. If they sit here, they've got to be building and doing what II
they've got to do.
Batzli: You're next.
II
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 56
1 Mancino: I agree with Matthew and Joe. I would like to see, as I went
through this list I circled those, it was a 36 inch white oak. Anything
II that was over 32 I circled and just have a concern about where it is on the
property. And if the house pad could be moved so that we do save other
trees because I can't tell from what I'm looking at. Jo Ann, did you go
out and are there tags on every tree that's saved with a number?
II Olsen: We saw some of the tags. Some of them we didn't see but at that
time we didn't have, well the ones on the plans and we didn't have the list
I so it wasn't, but what's difficult with this site and when you look at that
list, they're all large. I mean, and we did look at some of the lots where
we could massage around it but you're still going to take down those big
trees. And they really have worked closely in trying to save that and
II we've looked at, we've gone through different plans. This is like the
third one with the streets and trying to save more trees and locating the
house pads and we feel that we're saving as many as possible. We want to
11 get those details down where so we know exactly for each lot what they can
remove and what they cannot. I'm comfortable that we can get that done
before final plat approval and all that but that's for you decide. And as
I far as the adjustments that are necessary for the 60 foot right -of -way,
there's only a few lots that are close to the 11,000 square feet. Again,
I'm comfortable with those changes too. We have 2 or 3.
11 Mancino: Two that are 11,000 and two that are 11,500 and 600. It
shouldn't be a problem.
I Jim Ostenson: We have, as Jo Ann said, I mean this is probably the 20th
rendition that we've been on on this plat. We were hoping to be here about
6 weeks ago and we have continued working with staff on and on in saving
II the trees. I don't know if any of you follow what's going on in other
communities but I happen to be on the partners in the Big Woods controversy
over in Eden Prairie. We understand trees and we understand the importance
of trees and we understand what you can do to save trees. On this site,
II which is a very heavily wooded site, it has wetlands. It has 2 existing
houses. It has a lot of site. It has topography. It has a lot of site
constraints in it. We are saving 75% of the trees on this site. We, in
I addition to saving these trees, will be hiring a tree company, a foresting
company called Rainbow Tree which we've used in Eden Prairie and Centex has
used in Eden Prairie in the Big Woods project. They'll come in early.
Consult with us. They'll use a vibratory plow. Plow around trees that are
II in danger of being killed. Are in right -of -way or would be subject to
small utilities. And we will be making them available to all homeowners in
there. To consult with them as to how to place a house and care for the
1 yard and care for the trees. It's something that we do on our own nickel.
We feel that we can do a better job than anyone saving trees and I think
saving 75% of the trees on a site like this, I mean it's commendable. I do.
1 I would guess that if we added up a number, and we could certainly do it
with the staff, or they could do it themselves, you'd find that about
somewhere around 180 of those trees are probably going out just with the
road. Not the houses but just by putting a road through the site. So
II I don't know if we've saved every tree in there that we can but we
certainly tried and we'll continue do that. And I also might, I think we
have done a complete tree survey out there. The only trees that we have
I not surveyed are trees that are down below the slope adjacent to the
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 57
wetland that are totally removed from any development at all. Anything
that's on the upland, anywhere near in the lot pad or street right -of -way 11 or anything like that, they've all been surveyed and tagged and
inventoried.
Batzli: Thank you. Jo Ann, assume for a moment that we table this so that II
we can see the redrawn plans to show the perhaps trees or tree loss or the
difference in right -of -way from what we're looking at here. How different
is it going to be and are those the only two things that we're going to
see? Is there going to be any other changes to the plan?
Olsen: No. I don't see any big changes really. I think the plan's going
to look almost identical. We might get more lots with the reduced setback. II
You have some lot line adjustments. Maybe you can explain it more but.
Joel Cooper: I can answer your question on it too. This drawing right
here that we colored up will show the difference.
Batzli: Okay, your name is?
Joel Cooper: My name is Joel Cooper. I'm an engineer with Jim Hill
Associates. I don't know how well you can see but this dashed line right
here represents what the limit of the 60 foot right -of -way would be. And
I/
underneath here is...
Batzli: What's our requirement for frontage Jo Ann? Like for example Lots
15, 16, 17, 18, Block 1. Are those going to have enough frontage?
Olsen: It's the same where, if it's on a curve or whatever, you do it at
the setback.
I/
Batzli: Are these considered on a curve?
Olsen: Which ones were you saying again? 15, 16 and. '
Batzli: The ones on the west side of the development.
Harberts: 15, 16 and 17.
Olsen: That was one of those, it's not exactly a straight line. It's not II
exactly a curve. It was, I did it at the 90 foot setback, or the 30 foot
setback.
Batzli: You did it at the 30 foot setback is where you measured that? ,
Olsen: Yeah. You didn't. I mean you have, did you? I assume that you
hadn't?
Joel Cooper: Well when I did this yeah, I was measuring the distance at
the distance I was given here as the front setback.
Olsen: The width at the front setback?
Joel Cooper: Yeah. '
il Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 58
II
Olsen: yeah, Oh okay. Well then eah those need to be adjusted to 90 foot.
II Batzli: If that happens, then you start moving all the lines around.
Jim Ostenson: Well, could I speak to that for a brief moment?
II Batzli: Sure.
11 Jim Ostenson: When we were placing lot lines, what we were doing was
actually at the same time we were placing lot lines, is looking at where
would be a logical place to site a home. On those we try to set the lot
lines basically where the trees, where we can set a home without
I interrupting trees but if you start juggling these lines 3 feet here and 3
feet there, pretty soon you're going to end up with a spot where we
wouldn't have saved a tree and now that tree's going to be...potentially be
I gone with the advent of a house being there. We spent a lot of time...and
keep tree loss to a minimum. I guess it was, our thought with the PUD that
we would have the flexibility to do those types of things to save these
I trees.
Olsen: The PUD specifically says 90 foot.
II Batzli: You were going to address something else?
Joel Cooper: Yeah I was. You were saying earlier you wanted to see what
I the impact was...and basically what I've got on here is dashed house pads
that move back 60 feet. Or this dash line is a 60 foot right -of -way and
what impact is being the shaded green then would be the boulevard. And
when we prepared this we were under the understanding that the right -of -way
I would have to be basically 35...and Dave had mentioned to us that the city
is willing to allow the street to remain in the right -of- way...those trees
that we thought we were saving before but now that we've widened the
I right -of -way we've lost...the same grading restraints that we had with the
50 foot right -of -way we would have been able to save those. And the house
pads then, what we've done is shift them back 5 feet because that's the 30
I foot setback...we will be able to accomplish that...I had a separate sheet
where I had the lot from the street and it would be affected by the lot
moving and the house pad moving. If we're able to maintain a 25 foot
setback on certain lots, these red trees that I've shaded back here within
II the lot themself we would be able to save those as well. With the 25 foot
variance on the front yard setback.
I Hempel: Joel, I guess from our experience with buildable lots, custom
graded lots, these homes that you see within 15 feet of the house pads,
they're essentially gone. When we mark on the certificate of survey, when
I it comes in, tree removal limits. We essentially border the house 15 feet.
Those trees are gone. You need that for excavation of the house, overhang,
root damage to the trees. They're gone anyway in a few years. So a couple
of these trees that may be highlighted in here are going to go regardless
I whether it's 60 or 50 foot. Or 25 foot setback. I just thought I'd point
that out now that we're not, when it actually comes down to building, these
trees are gone.
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 59
Joel Cooper: Possibly but I've seen...trees very close to the home that
have survived too so it depends on who's doing the work and what kind of
care they give. I understand what you're saying and I'm not disputing that II
that would happen but I think given the right circumstances and right
perspective, that I have seen people be successful in doing that. And I
guess I would like to make every opportunity for these homeowners to pick II and choose how they want to do it and then give them the opportunity to do
it rather than...
Batzli: Well we're not saying you have to go out there and cut them down. I
Just that for the purposes of us looking at it, that those trees will be
saved is iffy.
Joel Cooper: Well I can appreciate that. ,
Batzli: I'm going to ask you one stupid question because I'm that kind of
guy. 25 foot setback variance on these particular lots. Is that something
that you got as one of your conditions or that you don't have as one of
your conditions, Jo Ann?
Olsen: I don't have it as one of the conditions. Again, I didn't have the II
specific lots that were going to have the 20 foot and if it's a PUD, you
don't have to give a variance. The PUD just allows you that flexibility
so, no. It's not in there. You can look, it's not in there.
Batzli: Do we need something in here?
Olsen: Well I think it would be, yes. It's good to have it in there but 1/
maybe mole general that lots can be reduced. The front yard setback can be
reduced to 25 foot. It seems like we switch with each subdivision. We
specify some of the lots and then the other one we keep it general. So
right now I think it'd be good to keep a general one in there.
harberts: I'd like to just comment on the 25. You know I don't like 25 ,
foot setbacks. I live on one and as far as I'm concerned, I'll never do it
again. But we're on Frontier Trail and it's heavily traveled so you can II hear it. Things like that. But I would be okay with the 25 foot setback in
this area simply because it is kind of an isolated neighborhood. And that's
my thinking that I use on it. If you get more of an open stretch of road,
I'd say no. But I'm comfortable with it in here and that's my own personal II
opinion.
Olsen: And again, it would only be used where it's necessary. Where
there's a, you can see where they have done it. Where they've shoved the
forward and there's trees behind the home.
Batzli: What do you think about this 90 foot dealybob here on the west
side?
Olsen: Well they need to adjust the lot lines. I think they can do it
but, well I have to look at that closer. I was looking after you were
saying that and I don't really, I see one lot where, Lot 15 I can see where
they're on the lot line. I'd have to look at that closer. I couldn't, but
you know it's, I don't know how far. I don't know how many lots they would II
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 60
II
have to adjust to get that. I don't know how far they would have to keep
II shifting.
Jim Ostenson: We can adjust that and to the extent of doing that to
II restict the size of a house on...
Batzli: Well, I guess we have two senses up here. At least I feel like
there's two sense. There's probably some people up here that would like to
II see a plan that reflects what's actually going to happen and in my case
what I'd like to do is, well it depends on what sort of precedent we want.
If we want to see a detailed survey of where the trees are and where
I they're going to be removed for each one of these, then I suppose we'd
better require it here, or at least require them to have it ready to show
the Council. So that we're requiring everybody to do it. If we don't make
them do it here. If that's what we want to see. I don't know that I want
to see a plan with a line of 3 feet but I understand Matt's concern because
you look at that particular aspect of the plan more closely than me so you
want to see that. So if you need to see that and you want to see that, I'd
I be happy I guess to have them bring it back. I don't know that I would get
anything more out of the plan by seeing a lot line shifted 3 feet. This
kind of gives me a rough idea of some of the trees around. Where the
II street's going to go and where they're going to lost. On the other hand,
I understand that we're talking about other trees and I don't know exactly
where they're going to take them out. I went out and kind of looked around
the site and it's tough to tell where this was. So I don't know. I don't
II know what to tell everybody. My sense is, I'd like to see them have
everything in order and have it go to Council but if everybody else wants
to sew it back here, got to vote that way. I think I would like to see, if
II we decided to pass it along, I would like to see something about the
applicant remove the trees in the right -of -way that are killed by
construction in the next several years. And the 25 foot setback where
II necessary to save trees and that would be submitted to staff for approval
or what have you. Having said that, is there a motion to either table this
or to approve?
I Harberts: I'd like to make a comment first. That if the motion is made
that the applicant is responsible for removal of the trees for a certain
period of time, then I think there needs to be some type of escrow account
I to insure the funds to be there.
Hempel: We can certainly incorporate that in the development contract we
secure for landscaping.
I Batzli: You want them to post a bond.
II Harberts: Something. To assure that the funds are going to be there.
Batzli: If they escrow funds, they'd have to escrow the full amount.
II Harberts: Well, they've got 17 trees.
Ledvina: You could add that as a condition. Yeah, I would move that
II the Planning Commission table the Tandem Properties proposal for.
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 61
Scott: Case 93 -2 PUD?
Ledvina: Case 93 -2 PUD. '
Batzli: Is there a second?
Scott: Second.
Batzli: Any discussion? 1
Jim Ostenson: Can I say something?
Batzli: Sure can.
Jim Ostenson: We have all the information. We've done all the homework.
You're asking for something that was never required of us. We've got it
available. We can provide it to the staff prior to going to City Council.
I don't know if that makes a difference at all but you aren't asking for
something that we don't already have available.
Batzli: Well I think there's been several changes to the plans that we're
approving and we're not comfortable that we're looking at the project
that's going to go in the ground.
Jim Ostenson: Well the changes are, there really haven't been any changes.
We're asking for one lot line to be shifted or...the right -of -way that is
shown. The road alignment.
Batzli: What will change is that granted, the alignment of the road won't II
change but it will affect the square footage and some lot lines will *have
to be adjusted for that I think. And on the west side of the project there
was apparently a misunderstanding as to the frontage which may have to be
adjusted. And by doing that you may have to adjust the building pads which II
may have to adjust tree loss. What we're saying is, okay. All these
things have added up to we don't know what we're approving. I don't know
if we're saying that or not. We haven't taken a vote but I think people
that made that motion are feeling that way.
Harberts: Do we need to clarify what this commission would like to see
1/
come back for information?
Batzli: Yeah, as part of discussion. I'd like to know what you want to I/ see .
Harberts: I'm asking. I/ Batzli: What do you want to see Matt?
Ledvina: Well, I would like to see a more detailed tree removal plan in
terms of what goes and what stays. I would like to see them, just as you
indicated, the exact lot lines. I want to see the tabulations on the lot
footages and I think we can see those things. At this point I'm not
comfortable with allowing the placement or for the development on Lot 6, or II
possibly Lot 7, Block 1. And I don't know, I think there was some filling
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 62
on Lot 29, Block 1 as indicated on... As it related to the wetland plan
but at any rate, where we're filling in wetlands to meet setbacks. I think
I don't know how the other commissioners feel but I don't think that's
appropriate and I think some changes should be made regarding that.
II Batzli: You felt that way even though the particular wetland that they
were filling was not considered a viable /protected wetland?
Ledvina: I don't think that's the case. I think 7 is a protected. The
1 wetland that they're filling was that one that was man made or with the
concrete thing and the diving board and all that. I don't have a problem
with filling that wetland. Or it isn't even a wetland so it's a man made
II pond supposedly. But at any rate, I think those are two of my reasons
why I'd like to see it again.
' Mancino: I would like to ask, what has been the effect of having the house
too close to the wetland that's in the backyard. You brought up Curry
Farms.
' Olsen: As I just said, there's constant alteration to it. The lawn has,
the activities back there. It's just it's always being impacted. There we
didn't have the buffer strip either but it's just, it's no longer really a
I wetland. It's now just a holding pond. I mean all the vegetation has been
removed eventually by the homeowners.
Ledvina: Well the homeowners have to understand that when they buy that
lot. The/ have no backyard. If that lot is going to be developed that
way.
II Olsen: Sure.
Ledvina: 1 don't know.
II Olsen: Are you suggesting then that they don't alter the wetland and they
receive a uariance to the required, or that the lot just be removed?
' Ledvina: No. No. I don't think a variance is appropriate. I don't know.
Maybe Lots 6 and 7 become one lot or something. I don't know how you can
adjust that. Or maybe the road gets pushed a little bit further to the
I north. The curve comes in at a point further east. I don't know. I can't
make that.
Olsen: See we looked at all that and it impacts trees and it was, it came
I down to trees versus wetlands. We've had those issues before but in this
case I think the trees won out in these areas because they were really nice
big trees and the wetland was.
II Ledvina: Well that's not the way it was presented.
1 Batzli: Don't you mitigate somewhere?
Olsen: It's all being mitigated. It's all being replaced.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 63
1
Jim Ostenson: The wetlands on Lots 6 and 7, what that wetland is is
someone has gone basically in there and dug it out and it's cow watering
hole...it's not something that's real pleasing to the eye. It's a man made il
cow...it's just a pasture and there's a watering hole...
Harberts: Has staff seen it? Looked at that particular area. 1
Olsen: Yes.
Harberts: Did you know that it's a cow watering hole? 1
Olsen: There is cattle in it. On the south side of it. Yeah, I felt
comfortable with what they were, with the filling. I wasn't, and that's
not easy for me to say because I'm always the wetland advocate but like the
wetland that's in Block 2, that was, if they had been proposing the same
thing for that I wouldn't have allowed it. Or I wouldn't have agreed with II
it. It was either that or the house pads be removed completely. Even if
you combine those two lots, they still won't meet those required setbacks.
And they couldn't really get a, they're going for a PUD and the PUD
specifically requires that you have to maintain that wetland setback and
that has to be the back yard and so you could even go for a variance to
that. So it was kind of a complicated issue.
Harberts: I thought I heard though that it was either the trees or the
wetland. And you chose trees.
Scott: In m mind too, I don't really, when I see dotted lines and all 1
this kind of stuff I'm going, you know this isn't really a final plan. And
then also too, I like to see where the trees are. Which ones are going.
And to be conservative. So you're saying 15 feet around the outside, we'll
take that as a worst case scenario and then maybe by some custom grading or
repositioning of house pads or something like that. But I don't have the
same sense and I use that Lake Susan 9th Addition. We had all the
information and we still tabled it. We don't even have anywhere near the
information so I'm just not comfortable moving on it at all. So that's
where I'm coming from. '
Batzli: Assume for a moment that they give you the information tomorrow.
When is the next time this goes on the agenda?
Olsen: Well we could get it on the 7th. The information is there. We
just haven't listed for you specifically which trees. We have looked at
what trees. Where they're proposing the house pads. I mean we've done II everything that we did with the 9th Addition. We just weren't able to get
the numbers of the trees.
Scott: I guess what I sense, I sense too that there was a big difference ,
inbetween the "good faith" of this particular group versus the other guys.
I mean I don't know who these people are but from what you're telling me,
I'm more comfortable with where they're coming from than those other guys?
That's a gut feel so I mean if there's something that we can do, I mean
obviously waiting until the 7th is an expensive proposition. From what
you're telling me, and I trust you too, that all the information's there
and for whatever reason we don't have it.
il Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 64
II
Olsen: Well we just don't have the two they weren't meshed. We've got
I the list with the trees and the size and the number but we just don't have
the numbers on here so we weren't able to say, give you the specific
details that we were with the 9th Addition. Exactly what trees could be
removed.
I/ Harberts: But Joe we didn't ask for that either up front from these guys.
I mean that was not part of what we asked them to supply us with. I mean
II we are now, I understand that. And I would like to from now on but I would
like to have those developers who come in know that right up front. This
is exactly what we need.
II Scott: Well I guess what I'm coming to here is if the information is
there, and I don't know if this is, I'm new to the Planning Commission.
But I would certainly be willing to have an interim meeting inbetween now,
1 I mean whenever the information is ready to take a look. I don't know, do
you do stuff like that? Take a look at it and say, I mean instead of
making them wait until the 7th when the information could be made available
II sooner.
Olsen: If they're going to do, adjust the lot lines and stuff.
I Scott: Specifically deal with this issue and get it on it's way to the
City Council. I don't know, what do you guys think about that?
1 Ledvina: ...interim meeting for the Planning Commission?
Scott: Yeah.
II Harberts: I think we can do anything we want.
Scott: Yeah, I don't think we need to, it seems like the information's
11 available. Could be put together relatively quickly and if you can say,
okay on such and such date for, and it probably isn't going to take what,
we can just figure an hour?
II Batzli: We have to publish. Jo Ann?
Olsen: Do we have to for Planning Commission? I know for Council you do
1 and you've already closed the public hearing.
Batzli: Well we have closed the public hearing.
I Olsen: So I don't know that you have to publish again.
I Harberts: I just want to also comment that I was real happy to hear about
the Rainbow Save the Tree farm or something that they're going to bring in.
It's getting late. I'm comfortable with the trees. I'm comfortable with
filling in the wetland Matt simply because it is a cow thing and I would
bet that it was expanded to get the herd in there. I wouldn't be afraid to
you making it a condition of what they had said about that Rainbow person.
Forester or whatever it was going to come in and basically work with every
II homeowner to place the pad in such a way that it minimizes the tree losses
and this is something that they're proposing.
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 65
Olsen: We've got that as a condition too already.
Harberts: So you eluded to, you feel really comfortable. I'm really 11
comfortable with it. You know I don't like to fill wetlands. I thought it
was a 2 to 1. I don't like to cut down trees but I'm comfortable with
these folks and I'd like to see it move foward. You know get everything in
order. Make sure staff's okay with it and put out some of those conditions
to make sure that they follow through with regard to the bond or escrow.
With regard to bringing in the Rainbow people and working with all of the II
homeowners to minimize to the greatest possible extent tree loss, and
that's my comment.
Batzli: that might also be a possibility, if we don't do an interim ,
meeting or if we don't table it what have you is, is to deliver a set of
plans to Matt and clearly go to the Council and say this isn't what we
expected to see.
Harberts: Would that work?
Ledvina: Well sure. I could do it that way, if that's what you.
Batzli: I mean as a courtesy to you because obviously you really want to
see it.
Ledvina: Sure.
Batzli: And I don't know that the rest of us want to see it back. I guess 11
unless there's something drastically altered, like they've got to eliminate
a lot or they've got to go below 12,000 or they're going to be doing
I/
something weird, I don't see that it's going to change enough for me to
want to see it back, based on what I'm hearing staff tell me. If they were
going to have to realign something or move a lot or take something out,
then I want to see it because then we're not looking at the right thing but
they're going to juggle a couple of lines 3 to 5 feet each way, I don't
personally, I'd say let's keep it moving and have them put it in order. Let
Council see it and make them do that kind of stuff. •
Ledvina: I can understand your sensitivity to keeping it moving. I know
staff, that's certainly their disposition but I just think that if there II were 20 residents here we would table it in a heartbeat and I don't know, I
think there's many...people out there that deserve that support anyway. In
some way. I don't know. And that's one of the reasons I'm not comfortable '
with it.
Scott: Well they're also, I don't believe there's a lot of neighbors.
Ledvina: Well that's true but we're dealing with the resources for the
residents of Chanhassen so.
Harberts: Do you have any additional feeling, based on the new information II
about that wetland? That it's cow.
Ledvina: Well maybe but I think I didn't really know that condition. I
wasn't able to get back to that specific site so. Just the thought of
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 66
II
ends justify the means, the tail wagging the ,� y g9 ing the dog, it's very
unpallatable to me. And that's just my philosophy on dealing with
II wetlands. If we're going to classify it as a wetland, that means that
there's a merit in preserving it in it's state, whether it's pristine or
cow dumping but I don't know. I don't know. Philosophically it rubs wrong
II but, and that's fine. I can see other people justifying it too.
Scott: So you want to see it again. I want to see it again. You want to
II move it on. You want to move it on and Brian, do you want to move it on?
Batzli: I want to move it on.
II Scott: Let's make a motion then.
Batzli: Well we've got a motion on the floor to table it. Is there any
II other discussion?
Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to table the Trotters Ridge Case #93 -2 PUD
for further information. Ledvina and Scott voted in favor. Harberts,
1 Batzli and Mancino voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2
to 3.
il Batzli: Can I have another motion.
Harberts: I'll mo''e Case #93 -2 PUD. Do you have a date?
1 Ledvina: ...so many times, June 16th.
Harberts: That's this one though.
11 Ledvina: That's today. You're going to have to mention both of them
though.
II Batzli: May 19th.
II Harberts: 5/19 and then that was 6/16. How far did I get with my
recommendation? I recommend moving Case #93 -2 PUD with the plans,
preliminary plat dated both 4/19 and 6/16.
11 Batzli: We also have a wetland alteration permit in there.
Harberts: Yeah. That we rezone 32.5 acres of A2 to PUD. Preliminary plat
II to subdivide 32.5 acres into 49 single family lots. And 3, the wetland
alteration permit to fill portions of the ag -urban wetlands and to create
additional wetland areas as sited in the plan. And to move the staff
recommendations as outlined in the plan with the changes or additions as
follow;. I'm looking at with regard to the development of an escrow or
bond.
II Scott: Performance bond for replacement.
Harberts: Be added as number 33 and that staff works with the attorney and
II appropriate staff to get the appropriate language.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 67
Batzli: That's for removal of trees?
II
Harberts: Exactly. 17 trees or whatever trees are going to be affected.
That the 25 feet setback, staff will work with them on the appropriate
lots. On lot, I believe it was Lot 15. The property line needs to be some II
adjustment to meet the 90 feet frontage requirement.
Batzli: What if you broaden that to check them. All of them.
Harberts: Check all of them. And also be added as a condition, and I need
the name of your Rainbow people.
Jim Ostenson: I assume that's who, that's who we've used in the past. II
It's called Rainbow Tree. They're a forester.
Olsen: ...number 4. II
Harberts: Do you feel that it's covered in there? That they have a
professional. II
Olsen: Woodland management plan. Same thing.
Harberts: That will be included in the developer's agreement? I believe II
that's it.
Mancino: The City Engineer on the 60 foot that in some cases the grading 1
doesn't h.;;.& to be the full 60. The grading on the side of the right -of-
way. We can keep some of those trees.
I/
Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Discussion.
Mancino: Discussion is on the 17 trees that we're trying to save. By
goin to the 60 foot wide but not having to grade the right -of -way in those
17 areas. To work with staff in figuring out where those are. Can anyone
make more s&n_e out of that?
II
Batzli: Was that something that you were looking for Dave?
Hempel: That's something I can work with on the grading plan. I can make 1
sure that.
Scott: Just identify those trees.
II
Hempel: Right. Work with staff in preserving the trees. 17 trees located
within the right -of -way as a result of the increase in 60 foot right-of-
way,
Batzli: Is that acceptable?
Harberts: Yes. II
Batzli: Okay. Sounds good to me. It seems to me there was something else
that we're missing here and I can't think of what it is. I had it moments
ago. Something we talked about. I'm at a complete loss.
11
il Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 68
II
Harberts: I'm sure that staff will..
II Mancino: To bring plans to Matt.
Batzli: Well, yeah. I don't want to make that a condition of approval but
II I think they should send a set to Matt. I think what I was thinking of was
that they're going to provide plans to you for approval regarding the
trees. The stuff that we saw for Lake Susan. Those kind of plans.
il Olsen: Provide a plan with the numbers that correspond to the tree loss?
II Batzli: Yeah.
Olsen: I think I've got that as a condition.
il Batzli: Did you have that in here?
Olsen: Yeah, provide information and tag numbers, size and type.
II Batzli: Which one is that?
Olsen: Number 2. That's what I intended.
II Batzli: Okay, that's intended to be what we've seen before. Alright.
II Harberts: I think the motion included the fact that all this information
was put tcoether in time for the staff to review it, comment on it and move
it forward to Council.
Batzli: Dave, on the draintile, number 22. Are you going to get, you're
going to have people hook up their sumps to the draintile again? Pursuant
to your plans that we looked at last time.
II Hempel: That's correct. It was an assumption that they do not have
another acceptable discharge area, i.e. a wetland in the back yard...
II discharging into the street.
Batzli: By saying the draintile is required, are we really trying to say
that they're going to hook up a sump pump so that they discharge into the
II draintile behind the curbs. Pursuant to the plans approved by you.
Hempel: It's kind of, not all households have to hook up. There's a
select few that have the water problems. Not all homes...
Scott: Like walkouts usually don't.
il Hempel: Yeah, or even if the house is on top of the hill. In some cases
one neighbor will have a problem and the other neighbor won't.
II Batzli: So you're just going to leave it up to the, who are you going to
leave it up to to connect to your draintiles is my question.
I Hempel: We have a city ordinance that requires approval and permit for any
kind of discharge in the city street already. We can employ that on the
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 69
homeowner if necessary...placed behind the curb though.
Batzli: But here's what happens. Here's reality. The developer puts the
sump discharging out the back into a soggy back yard and then you, he
complains and tries to run it into the street sideways or something and you
say no. You've got to put it into the draintile behind the curb. And by
that time it's coming out the wrong side of the house and it's too late.
Because this is exactly what happened to me. So I'm thinking that the time 11
to handle this is up front. If there's an area that you're thinking of
that you want this to happen, let's just have the developer run it out the
right side of the house underground to the right area with the little
gravel down to your draintile. ,
Hempel: Unfortunately I don't have soil borings that may indicate whether
there is...water at this point.
Batzli: But couldn't this all be done at the time that the building permit
is issued and isn't that when you really want it to happen? Is fine, let's
have there install the draintile but then let's just say that you'll review
it or something when building permit is issued. For connection to the
draintile.
Hempel: Some sort of language of that could be inserted, sure. 11
Batzli: M:r work for you right.
Hempel: Just another thing for us to check but I mean it's in the
development contract, it's easy for us to find. It's different if it's in
another file. We review all these building permit issuances.
I/
Batzli: I guess I propose an additional sentence that says, applicant will
submit information regarding hooking up the sump pump to the city staff for
approval at the time a building permit is applied for. Is that acceptable?
Harberts YEE.
Batzli: Something like that. Otherwise I think it's going to be pointless
to have the draintile there. Any other discussion?
Ledvina: Yeah, I just wanted to just bring up the situation with the trail II
easement. I think that, is this the diagram that we have for the trail at
this point? The trail is shown to be on Lot 27, 28, 29, Block 1. You have 1
the trail, it would appear 5 to 15 feet away from the actual houses there
and I don't think that should be constructed in that manner.
Jim Ostenson: We can talk to Todd about that...out on the site and walked II
that. We would agree that we're going to...other side of the pond.
Ledvina: This trail here? So it would be on this side? That would be the II
north side.
Olsen: If that would be possible.
1
il Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 70
II
Jim Ostenson: If that's possible to do that. There's an elevation that we
1 have to work with.
Mancino: Would you still have an easement through those lots? Lots 17 and
18?
1 Jim Ostenson: Yes.
1 Ledvina: And one other thing that we did on Lake Susan Hills. We had, we
decided that these 10 foot access easements down from the trail weren't
necessarily a very good idea. I think we decided that we had two access
points and we decided to combine it into one with a large with a large
II access point so that people would actually use them and they'd be less
obtrusive to the neighboring houses. And I know this is the case because
we have one next to my neighbor and the guy across the street on our
II cul -de -sac and it's never used because the houses are very close and people
feel like they're trespassing when they go through there so, I don't know.
That might be a consideration for how this thing ends up ultimately. Just
1 a comment.
Batzli: Do you want to propose a condition that trail locations be
reviewed prior to going to City Council kind of a condition?
1 Ledvina: I'd rather see it tabled.
II Batzli: Well you may lose the vote so this may be your chance.
Ledvina: Well that's why I'm making the suggestion.
II Batzli: I mean if you were Senator so and so, you'd be adding stuff into
here that we hated so that we'd all vote against it so we'd go back to your
motion
I Ledvina: Well, if someone else wants to add it, that's fine...
II Batzli: You don't want to appear to support this by amending it?
Ledvina: No.
1 Batzli: Is there anybody else that would like to see the trail issue
looked at before it goes to Council?
1 Mancino: Sure. I think that's a good idea. I'd like to move that we add
a condition to it.
II Batzli: That it be resolved before it gets to Council. What do you guys
think about that, combining the two access points? Is that something that
we want to start doing?
1 Olsen: Another one to answer that. That's really a Todd Hoffman question
but, I think the reason we did it with the 9th Addition was also because it
was in an area where the sewer was going to go down and the trees were
I going to be removed anyway. To be honest, we haven't looked at that that
closely. Didn't we talk about that though when we were out there?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
June 16, 1993 - Page 71
Hempel: I think we felt that where it's going down between Lots 26 and 27 11
is the same lot line where the storm sewer's going down into a NURP basin
so it made sense from our standpoint. We could double it as an access for
maintenance to the pond and storm sewer. I think...iniative from staff was
the fact to keep this point here.
Olsen: We can look at that. I know that we did talk about the one between II
17 and 18 too. I'll talk with Todd on it.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? If not I'll call the
question. The motion on the floor is approval to rezone, approve
preliminary plat and approve the wetland alteration permit as shown on the
plans dated the various dates, pursuant to the staff report and as amended 11
here with our several other additional conditions.
Harberts moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of rezoning 32.5 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate
to PUD, Planned Unit Development, approval of Preliminary Plat #93 -2 PUD to
subdivide 32.5 acres of property into 49 single family lots, and approval
of Wetland Alteration Permit #93 -2 WAP, as shown on the plans dated May 19, II
1993 and June 16, 1993, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include landscaping between
the westerly lots and the industrial land to the west where vegetation I
does not already exist, and two front yard overstory trees shall be
required for each lot where two trees do not exist.
2. A revised plan shall be submitted which provides information on tag
number, size and type of trees.
3. All trees designated for preservation shall be protected by a snow 1
fence 1 1/2 times the diameter of the drip line prior to any
alteration of the site. Any understory vegetation within the snow
fence shall also be preserved.
4. Each of the lots shall have a woodland management plan developed by
the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The
woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed forester
approved by the city. A copy of the woodland management plan shall be
kept in the building permit file and a copy will also be given to the
homeowner.
5. Unless a lot already has two overstory trees in the front yard,
additional overstory trees from the city's approved list shall be
planted in each lot so that there are two overstory trees in each
front yard. If this has not been accomplished prior to the issuance
of a building permit for a lot, before a building permit is issued,
arrangements must be made to have the trees planted within one grading
season after the building permit is issued. The city should require
security to guarantee compliance.
I/
6. The wetland boundaries including buffer areas will have a monument
designating it as protected wetland at each lot line.
1
il Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 72
II
7. All utilty and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and
I Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications
shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
I S. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed
District, DNR, Carver County Public Works, MWCC, Minnesota Health
Department and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with
I their conditions of approval.
9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city
and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance
1 with the terms in the development contract.
10. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
II with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two
weeks of completing site grading unless City's Best Management
Practices Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
II 11. Utility drainage easement outside the street right -of -way should be a
minimum of 20 feet in width. The applicant shall dedicate drainage
and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas on the final
II plat.
12. The street right -of -way should be increased to 60 feet in width, and
il the applicant should work with city staff to preserve trees within
this right -of -way as a result of the increase to 60 feet.
13. Preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the city
II authorizing Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Sewer and Water
Improvement Project 91-17B.
II 14. All driveways shall access the interior streets. No driveway access
will be allowed onto Galpin Boulevard. Driveway access to Lot 33,
Bloch 1 and Lot 9, Block 2 of the preliminary plat shall be from the
II street on the west side of the lot. The two existing driveways shall
be realigned perpendicular to the new street and paved with a
bituminous or concrete surface.
II 15. The applicant shall be responsible for construction of a right turn
lane on southbound Galpin Boulevard into the site in conjunction with
the overall site improvements.
I 16. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service to
existing home sites. In addition, they will notify the property
owners of the city ordinance requiring connection to municipal
II sanitary sewer.
17. The applicant shall provide a storm sewer outlet for the wetland in
1 Block 2.
18. The applicant shall extend the storm sewer to maintain the
11 neighborhood drainage pattern through Lot 2, Block 1.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 73
h detailed sewer calculations for a
19. The applicant shall supply tailed storm s ten
year storm event and ponding calculations for retention ponds in
accordance with city ordinance for the city engineer to review and
approve.
20. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 13 and
14, Block 2 to divert drainage further away from the house.
21. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be extended along Lots
11 -14, Block 2 along the street boulevard.
22. Drain tile will be required behind the curbs in those areas where sump
pump discharge will not be directed into the storm pond or wetland
area. The applicant will submit information regarding hook -up of sump
pump for city staff approval at the time of building permit issuance.
23. The proposed street names "Trotters Lane" and "Trotters Circle" are
unacceptable. The city currently has a "Trotters Circle ". To avoid
duplication new names must be submitted to Public Safety for approval. •
24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e.
NSP, NW Bell, cable boxes, street lamp, trees, shrubs, etc, pursuant
to Chanhassen City Ordinance, Section 9 -1.
25. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with
a surface so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities. The road
shall be in place before construction on new dwellings start, which
are «reater than 150' from County Road 117.
26. Fire hydrants are not shown on utility plan. Hydrant spacing is not
to ek•ceed 300', beginning at County Road 117.
27. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per Chanhassen Engineering specs. ,
28. Ind]cate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each
house pad on the grading plan before final plat approval.
29. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of
the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division, A
general soils report for the development should also be submitted to
the Inspections Division. This condition must be met before any
building permits are issued.
30. The dedication of Outlot A as park and open space. This dedication to
include a survey of the property and field staking of property corners •
and lot intersection points. Transfer of fee title of this property
shall occur through an unrestricted warranty deed at the time of
platting. The applicant shall receive 50% park fee credit, or $300.00
per home, for this dedication. The balance of the park fees being
collected at a rate of 50% of the park fee in force upon building
permit application. At present this fee would be one half of $600.00,
or $300.00. '
11 Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 74
11 31. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement along the
entire easterly property line. This trail corridor is identified in
the city's Comprehensive Plan and no trail fee credit shall be granted
I for said easement.
32. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling Outlot A as
I described herein and as depicted on Attachment A. Any easements for
trail purposes which are necessitated by this alignment shall be
conveyed to the city. The applicant shall receive full trail
1 dedication fee credit for this condition. The entirety of this trail
shall be constructed above the 933 elevation mark.
33. Staff will work with the City Attorney to draft an agreement with the
1 developer to provide financial guarantees for replacement of any trees
removed within the right -of -way which were not approved for removal.
I 34. A 25' front yard setback will be permitted where necessary to preserve
natural features.
1 35. All lots shall meet the 90' frontage requirements.
36. Staff shall review the location of the trail connections.
I All voted in favor except Ledvina and Scott who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
1 Batzli: And your reasons for voting against are, for the record?
Ledvina: Well I don't know.
1 Batzli: I mean it's pretty clear but it's really nice, it's right at the
end so then they can pick it up.
1 Ledvina: I don't think we've done our work.
Batzli: Okay. Joe.
r Scott: I don't have a feel for the tree placement removal and I wanted to
see it a g a i n .
il Batzli: Okay. And Jo Ann, when does this go to Council?
Olsen: July 12th? I have it at the end of June. That's the wrong date,
I sorry. So August, is that okay with you guys? I've got it on the 28th.
June 28th.
I Batzli: That's assuming they get everything in.
Harberts: When do you need the materials in?
I Olsen: Well, to do the report, it would have to go out next week. I don't
know.
1 Hempel: It's supposed to go out Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 16, 1993 - Page 75
Harberts: They have like tomorrow huh? II
Batzli: Yeah. And Jo Ann, I'd like a coyp to go to Matt for sure. Do you I
want to see a copy?
Scott: I'd like to see a copy, yeah.
II
Batzli: If you can make copies for these two guys...
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning II
Commission meeting dated May 19, 1993 as presented.
OPEN DISCUSSION. 1
Olsen: Did you want to talk about the special meeting? About the
Saturday.
Batzli: Yeah. We're going to hopefully have a special meeting. We have
incredibly backed up, full agendas for the next several meetings and we're
not getting to the proactive good stuff. And what I'd like to do is
propose that we meet perhaps not only in a special session to talk about
all of the ordinances that we're supposed to be looking at and passing but II
also, there was something else we were going to talk about. In addition to II
the special meeting that hopefully we're going to meet on. Fred Hoisington
has asked for us to meet on a Saturday with the HRA and City Council. Not II
this Saturday but the Saturday after that, which is what day?
Olsen: The 26th.
Batzli: So if everyone can jot a note at least, the 26th and what was the I
other date we had Jo Ann? It was the second Wednesday in July.
Olsen: The 14th of July. A Wednesday. II
Scott: I'm out of town that weekend. So let's reschedule.
Harberts: I've got family in town too that weekend.
Batzli: Which weekend? The 26th. Well, if some of us can make it we'll
II
do it a different day but it's important because what's happening is
they're going to redo the Pony, what do you call it? Or no, the Hanus
thing, yeah.
II
Olsen: Where Gary Brown's Tire and Auto.
Scott: Are we going to meet, you know that trivial little $6 million
II
exercise with the community center. Are we ever going to have a meeting
like that with the HRA on that just that insignificant investment? That
one. '
Batzli: You know what I totally forgot about, was getting you my comments.
I commented it all up and then I never sent it to you. Whatever happened
1
to that?
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 76
1 Ledvina: I'm waiting. I didn't get one response.
Batzli: Okay.
I Olsen: Well you have the potential to do that too.
I Batzli: Which? What?
Olsen: Talk about that again too.
I Batzli: Right. At that meeting but we need to come up with a date.
Who's, are you and Fred then going to confer and try and find a different
date?
I Olsen: We'll work something out. We'll see who can come.
I Batzli: What about the Wednesday. We were going to talk about something
else at that Wednesday meeting though besides for our ordinances. What
else were we going to talk about?
I Harberts: We can't meet with Fred on the 23rd.
Batzli: On which?
1 Harberts: The 23rd.
Batzli: What's the 23rd?
I Harberts: A Wednesday.
I Mancino: There's a Highway 5 Task Force meeting.
Harberts: That starts at 5:00 though doesn't it? ...like 7:30?
1 Mancino: This is when we're going to vote on everything. That's on the
23rd. I don't know. I mean it may be over by 8:30 or something but.
I Batzli: Isn't the 23rd when we're going to meet the SWMP committee's going
to meet? Is that the same day?
I Olsen: I thought that was like the 29th.
Harberts: That's a Tuesday.
I Batzli: I thought it was a, well I don't even remember. It's been sitting
in the back seat of my car. They sent it out about 8 weeks in advance.
I've never gotten such advance notice so it's just been riding around in
I the back of my truck and 1 don't remember the date.
Harberts: There isn't a chance of meeting with Fred like on Monday thru
I Friday schedule?
Olsen: Let's look at that. We'll see if we can work maybe a Monday,
Tuesday evening or something.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 77
Batzli: Okay. We'll all have a breakfast meeting.
Scott: That's okay.
I
Batzli: Is there something you'd like to share with the group Jo Ann?
Olsen: Oh. I'm leaving. I think most of you know but the first of
II
September I'm going to leave working here and just be home with the kids
and stuff.
Scott: We hate to see you go but then again, that's a better deal. 1
Congratulations.
Olsen: So I'm looking forward to it.
I
Scott: So there's going to be someone else coming in because Kate doesn't
want to be.
II
Olsen: No, she's going to be right on my heels if somebody doesn't come
so. Yeah, I think they put out an ad last weekend and hopefully this
I
weekend. They're hoping to have somebody in a little bit before I leave
so we can kind of show them what, I doubt it. It never happens that
quickly.
Batzli: W€-11, we shall all miss you.
Olsen: Thanks.
I
Mancino: Have you heard from Paul?
Olsen: Hs heard from Paul. He was supposed to, we were supposed to
I
hear from Pam, his wife today. He's in Peru. Paul's in Peru.
Batzli: Did you want to? 1
Mancino: Well I just wanted to let everybody know that on the 23rd, a week
from tonight the Highway 5 Task Force is meeting and will be voting on some
land use issues and the access boulevards.
Scott: That's the 5:00.
I
Mancino: It starts at 5 :30 here. Half hour for dinner. The actual
meeting will start at 6 :00. So if you want to listen.
Olsen: I don't know when we're going to meet. Maybe a breakfast meeting, I
is that doable?
Scott: Yeah, those work out really well with the exception of the first I
Thursday of the month and Mondays before Planning Commission meetings.
Batzli: Yeah, I mean I can...
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 78
II Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
I Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1