Loading...
1e Minutes le CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 1991 ' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:53 p.a. . The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman and Councilman Wing ' COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Disler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul ' Krauss, Todd Hoffman and Scott Harr APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to ' approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. ' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Define/Clarify Bed and Breakfast Establishments, Final Reading. e. Approval of Accounts. f. City Council Minutes dated August 21, 1991 ' Planning Commission Minutes dated August 7, 1991 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 23, 1991 g. Resolution $91-79: Acknowledge State Estimated 1992 Levy Limit, Set Official Public Hearing Date, November 18, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' H. AMEND FEE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. ' Councilman Mason: On 1(h). I'm just reading through this whole deal on the development fee schedule. What thought was given to, in the report Paul some city has an escrow where you draw off of it on an hourly rate. Was any thought given to that? Paul Krauss: Yes, quite a bit. We found a couple of distressing things though. First of all that's probably the most equitable way of doing it. But from an accounting standpoint, it gets rather difficult because you need to account for all your hours and basically bill somebody, the same as you would as if you were a consultant. It's kind of cumbersome. Frankly our financial folks kind of hit 1 the ceiling when I suggested it. But more importantly, I checked with a number of communities and some communities had experienced significant problems with it. I think Eagan is several hundred thousand dollars in the hole because they 1 I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I forgot to bill in a timely manner and some of the developers were either approved and the developer's gone already and they can't collect or they spent a lot of time on a project that was ultimately rejected and the guy never paid his bill. Having talked to a number of communities and found out that there were some problems with it, that it was an administrative headache and that we probably were not trying to reach parody. You know bill all our time, we took the approach of kind of walking the middle of the road which was raise our permit fees to cover more of our expenses. Not all of them and just accept the flat fee. Councilman Mason: That's fine. My only concern, you know all these things with user fees and what not are trickling down. I mean license fees and what not are trickling down. I mean license fees to fish and that keep going up and up and I hope that the City is getting what we should be. I guess if you're comfortable with that. Paul Krauss: I'm comfortable that we made a whole lot of progress over what we did last year. I guess I would like to use it for a year or two and see how ' it's working and then we can make some more changes if need be. Councilman Mason: With that I. Councilman Workman: Paul, this addresses only PUD's right? Paul Krauss: Yeah. Everything else was already included. Councilman Workman: Where do you pay taxes Paul? ' Paul Krauss: In a community that's several hundred thousand dollars in the hole. Councilman Mason: Yeah, with that I'd move approval of item 1(h). Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution 891-80: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve to amend the fee schedule for Planned Unit Development Appolications. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LAKE DRIVE EAST. PROJECT 89-6. ' Public Present: Name Address David Berg 12125 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Limits for this project began at Dakota Avenue and extended east to 184th Street or Dell Road. One of the primary impetus for this project was the interfacing of the overall roadway IIsystem improvements associated with the upgrading of TH 5.? The project ' 2 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I/ improvements consisted of the installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities, the reconstruction of the westerly 1,000 feet of the existing roadway and new construction of approximately 2,400 lineal feet of non-existing roadway. The cost associated with these improvements were to be financed by a combination of MnDot, State Funds, TIF and Special Assessments. The majority of the improvements impacted the Sunlink Corp/DataSery property. DataSery personnel thus have been intimately involved with the project from it's inception including providing input on the actual road alignment and utility needs. The feasibility study estimated a total project cost of $928,800.00. The actual total cost came in at $956,987.00. Your packets contain a preliminary assessment roll for this project and I would emphasize the roll as being preliminary. We have recently received a letter from Sunlink Corp, the sole entity proposed for the assessment of these improvements stating their objection to the assessment and to some other extenuating circumstances related to the project. They also provided some terms that they and DataSery would be agreeable to. At this point in time staff is not totally clear on the specifics of their proposal and I believe more time is needed to allow staff to fully investigate the issues involved and conduct at least one more meeting with the Sunlink/DataSery representatives. I would therefore recommend that the City Council continue this public hearing to the September 23rd City Council meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there someone here from Sunlink to discuss this situation? As I said, this is a public hearing. David Berg: My name is David Berg. I am General Counsel of DataSery and speaking for both Sunlink and DataServ. We would simply concur with what has just been said. We have filed our written objections which were served on the City Clerk on Friday, August 23rd. We've been engaged with some discussions with the folks of the City of Chanhassen trying to resolve this matter. We would appreciate the opportunity to have another month to try to get that done. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. David Berg: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If no one else, could I have a motion to continue the public hearing to September 23rd for the adoption of that assessment roll for lake Drive East, Project 89-6? Councilman Mason: So moved. ' Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to continue the Public Hearing to adopt the Assessment Roll for Lake Drive East Project 89-6 until the September 23, 1991 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I j t 3 I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK FIFTH ADDITION (PARK PLACE PHASE II). PROJECT 85-13B. Public Present: Name Address Roman Roos 10341 Heidi Lane Richard C. Potz RCM & Associates Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At the time the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition was platted in 1986 the developer Alscor Investors petitioned the City to install some needed capital improvements and entered into a development contract with the City to insure payment for the cost ' of these improvements. Thus in 1986 the City conducted the petitioned improvement project which included the construction of the cul-de-sac, Park Place, and sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities. Due to the poor soil ' conditions in this area, a two phased approach was implemented to complete the overall improvement project. The concrete curb and gutter and bituminous wear course were to be placed following a closely monitored soil consolidation period. Due to the uncertainty of the exact building site locations and grading, the watermain portion of this project was also delayed. The cost for these Phase II improvements were shown as a pending assessment to be levied against the 5th Addition parcels when the construction of the remaining improvements occurred. The project feasibility report estimated an assessable project cost of $2,526.68 per acre for the street improvements and $4,896.42 per acre for the watermain improvements. The actual assessment rate was $2,790.90 per acre for street and $4,356.38 per acre for the watermain. The net result is a decrease in the combined assessable project cost by $275.00 per acre. The project consultant engineer, Mr. Richard Potz of RCM is present tonight to address any specific project questions you might have. At the close of the public hearing, if there are no outstanding issues or questions to be resolved, it would be appropriate for the Council to adopt the assessment roll for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition, Improvement Project 85-13B and that the assessment rate and term be set for 8% on an 8 year term. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this particular item. This is a public hearing. This is your opportunity. Roman Roos: Good evening. Roman Roos. I'm the owner of Lot 1, Block 3 of Chan 5th Addition. I'm not here this evening to contest any of assessments. I only want a clarification as to how the allocation came about. I bought Lot 1, Block 3 in 1989 and when I went back and looked at the records, there were Lots 2-10, Chan Lakes Business Park original that was replatted into the new 5th Addition comprising of 7 lots and one outlot. When I saw the assessment roll I saw it was broken down into 6 lots are sharing that total cost. The question is, what became of Lot 7 and the outlot? That's all I have. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Maybe we can address that at this specific time. Charles? Charles Folch: At this point I'd have to do some research on that particular question. Basically the assessment roll followed the feasibility report's ' 4 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 recommendation on the assessment area and that Lot 7 was not included in that original assessment proposal at the feasibility stage. I Mayor Chmiel: It was not included? Charles Folch: It was not included as a part of the assessment area. I Mayor Chmiel: Alright. What about the outlot? Charles Folch: The outlot was not included either. Only the Lots 1 thru 6 of Block 1 were included in that original assessment or at the feasibility time. Mayor Chmiel: Ooes that answer your question? I Roman Roos: I guess the question again, this happened prior to the sale of some of the lots in the 5th Addition. My question was why was it not included initially in the first phase which was 85-13A. I don't understand that why it should not have been because one of these 9 lots was effected in the replat. But again I. . .and I'm very comfortable with it. I just didn't understand why it was eliminated... Don Ashworth: I think we'll end up, to answer the question, we'll probably end up tabling this. There's an original plat of property and the remaining ownership under Opus, there was a request for a replat which I think encompassed then your property, correct Roman? As a part of that, as Opus was really the primary benefactor. They had come back to the City asking how that would then be assessed back to them. Charles' comments are correct. It has been consistent with those early agreements but sitting here I can't recall the configuration of the old plat versus the replat. What lots were encompassed in the old plat versus new plat. I think there's a number of questions that need to be answered that I don't know that we have the answers for tonight. Charles Folch: Maybe I can put this up on the overhead. Mr. Potz has pointed out that this Outlot A here was not included in the original feasibility assessment roll because of it not being...through this existing pond and wetland area, it's not really a buildable lot. This lot here, Lot 1, Block 2 is a parking lot for this lot here. So it's not again a true developable piece of property. Roman Roos: Charles, that's a 1 acre lot. Richard Potz: That's buildable. Charles Folch: Lot 1 is? Richard Potz: Lot 1, Block 2... The agreement at the time. I Mayor Chmiel: Richard, would you like to come up to the microphone? Richard Potz: At the time the feasibility study was done in 1985 and presented in January of 1986, the agreement with Alscor was to assess the sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and roadway through for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Alscor at that time I believe also owned Lot 1, Block 2, which is on the corner. It is 5 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 a buildable lot but it was being used as a parking lot. It was a paved parking 11 lot for a building that's located over on the corner of Park Drive and Park Road. Outlot A I am not sure if that is an outlot because it's in a ponding area and the city has that or not Todd. So the agreement at that time when the original feasibility was presented for for sewer, water, storm sewer, was to assess by an acreage basis through those 6 lots. And of course as Charles mentioned, the original feasibility indicated that there were some soft soils ' under there. We did a lot of surcharging, compressing the soft soils under that roadway and made a decision to go with a rural type roadway rather than installing curb and gutter and end up with a lot of dips in there. And we pushed through the cost for the curb and gutter at that time and tried to estimate at that time and delayed it and showed it as a pending for that future street work which is the second blacktop and curb and gutter. And I've got an overlay for the watermain too which eventually went under the Phase II. ' Originally there was not anything proposed to be built in back in 4, 5, and 6 so with nothing pending, we decided to delay the watermain at that time rather than push it through. After the project was built and the settlement occurred, there were some people that were interested in building on Lot 6 back in the ' cul-de-sac. There was some stuff on Lot 3 so at that time the Phase II then was initiated. Settlement had occurred sufficient and most of it had been that we felt we could put the curb and gutter and the blacktop in and run the watermain in. So following the procedure of Phase I, we again went back through and did on Phase II, put them through on the same 6 lots. Not the seventh one which is the Lot 1, Block 2 because they were shown as pending under the original one. That was the agreement with the Developer's Agreement. It does not specifically say give me this much on 6 and this much on 5. It just says spread them out over the lot and the agreement with Alscor Investors which was acceptable to them to spread them over those 6 lots. And that's the way we did it in Phase II. Followed the same procedure. Mayor Chmiel: Sounds reasonable. I think that probably answers your question. Roman Roos: Right now they're spreading the assessments on five lots. Mayor Chmiel: You say they're spreading assessments on five and not six lots? On Lot 1 thru 6 they're being assessed from what I understand. Roman Roos: Did they recently combine...? Paul Krauss: Actually yes. You're correct. The PMT expansion that was approved last year, Lots 1 and 2 were replatted and combined. ' Richard Potz: The overhead you see up there is from the Phase I, showing Lot 1, 2, 3. If you can see those down in the bottom left hand corner. Currently Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block has been replatted into one lot so the combined acreage from Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 2. Or I'm sorry. Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 down in the corner is now one lot. The acreage is still the same, however it is one lot. Roman Roos: Are you.. .Opus/Alscor. ..? Richard Potz: Well there's is no Lot 7. You're referring to Lot 7. There's Lot 1, Block 2, yeah. Alscor Investors was acceptable and was willing and 1 b I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 wanted to know, wanted to do it the six ways. The combining of Lot 1 and Lot 2 into one building I think was because the building locations and stuff forced the replatting of those two into one. The dollar value and the acreages for those two now is one which wouldn't be any different than taking and combining 3 and 4 or 5 and 6. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to provide some testimony for this public hearing? If hearing none, I think the questions were answered. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing. ' Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Councilman Workman: Have the questions in fact been answered? I Roman Roos: .. .yes. Councilman Workman: I'd make a motion to adopt assessment roll for Chan Lakes Business Park 5th Addition, Project No. 85-138. Councilman Mason: Second. 1 Resolution 091-81: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition Improvement Project No. 85-138 assessment roll and that the assessment rate and term be set for 8 years at an 8% interest rate. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: MARKET SQUARE STORM SEWER, PROJECT 90-13. I Charles Folch: On Tuesday, August 13th bids were opened for the Market Square Storm Sewer Extension Project. The scope for improvements on this project were increased by addendum to include the right turn lane on hest 78th Street at Market, the turn lanes on Market Blvd. and the bus shelter relocation. The reason for adding these work items to the original project was the result of the necessity to try and meet some time schedule deadlines with the Market Square development project. Low bidder for this project was Schafer Contracting Company at $176,983.00. This is approximately $15,000.00 less than the engineer's estimate of $192,000.00. In relative terms, the storm sewer portion of the work is approximately $9,000.00 less than the bid that was received last year. Same work. Schafer Contracting has performed favorably in other contracts within the city and is capable of performing the work items required of this project. It should be noted however that the actual closing for the properties associated with the Market Square development will not occur until sometime around the first part of September. Until this closing has taken place and the city has received an executed development contract and the necessary securities, the City has no assurance or guarantees of being reimbursed for the costs associated with this improvement project. I would therefore recommend that the City Council award the Market Square storm sewer project and road improvement project No. 90-13 contingent upon receiving the executed development contract and necessary securities for Market Square Development project. 7 I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Just one question. Schafer Contracting, are they the same people working on TH 5? Charles Folch: That's correct. The same General Contractor. Mayor Chmiel: I want to make sure that somehow we contain in there that the road be cleaned at all given times and not like the problem we're having down on 78th and 17. That was supposed to have been swept as well for the weekend. Cleaned off and they never did do that. It just bothers me and irritates me a little bit to see the amount of dust that does fly in that particular intersection. It was so heavy one day that there could have been an accident. It was good and dry and it hadn't been swept as it should have been. I want to make sure that they understand the importance of making sure these roads stay clean so there's not cause for an accident. ' Charles Folch: That's a point we will highly emphasize at the pre-construction conference. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Workman: These costs will be assessed back to the benefitting properties or. . .by HRA? Mayor Chmiel: This is probably an HRA project. Don Ashworth: A portion of each is the answer. Included in the contract is some bus shelter work which is being carried out by the HRA. The turn around loop, the widening of a lane so there would be a right turn lane where the bus pull out. Councilman Workman: Wait a minute. We're going to that now? We are going back ' to that curb cut? Don Ashworth: No. Off of Bowling Center Road. Pauly Drive I guess is the correct term at this point. The turn around that you had seen. The storm sewer, typically storm sewer is 50% assessed and 50% general obligation. In this case tax increment so it's a combination of both. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, can I have a motion? Councilman Mason: I'll make a motion to award the bids for Market Square Storm Sewer and Road Improvements, Project 90-13. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Mason: Should I have added contingent upon the necessary property transactions? Mayor Chmiel: Well I think Charles phrased that in his recommendation. i 8 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 Resolution 891-82: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the bid for Market Square Storm Sewer and Road Improvements, Project 90-13 to Schafer Contracting in the amount of 8176,983.00 contingent upon necessary property transactions and securities of the Market Square Development taking place. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AND DECK. 180 FOX HOLLOW DRIVE, STEVE AND SHARON PETERSON. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicants are appealing a denial of a variance request from the Board of Adjustment. The request calls for a 12 foot front yard setback variance from 20 feet down to 8 feet for a lot located in the Fox Hollow area. This area was developed as a PUD and we've frankly had a long history of problems with the residential PUD's relative to undersized lots and variances that stem from building on undersized lots. I'd add that we're looking at reappraising the question of residential PUD's from the Planning Commission and looking at tying up the loose ends so we don't have problems with this in the future but unfortunately we're left with a legacy of some difficult situations. Now the normal front yard setback in single family districts is 30 feet. This is a corner lot and the ordinance provides that corner lots have two front yards. In reality there's only one door but from the ordinance standpoint there's two front yards. What they did in the PUD is, in recognizing that we had smaller lots they lowered the setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. The applicants are looking to construct a porch and a deck into that 20 foot setback. It's outlined in red on the west side of the home. There would be an 8 foot setback from the new porch to the right-of-way line. It also intrudes a little bit into, there's a 10 foot utility easement, that dashed line over there. Near as we can tell, and we haven't been able to locate the final documentation on this plat, there are no city utilities in that easement area. The sewer and the water run down the street. What we're not sure of is we don't know if there's any gas or electric or telephone lines in there. There probably are. They typically bracket the area. If there's any favorable action on this tonight, we'd ask that you make it contingent upon using that, having the owners call up that Minnesota One call and verifying where these utilities are because obviously we don't want to build into a gas main or whatever else happens to be there. As I said, this is one of those situations that becomes rather difficult. We do have probably 3 or 4 residential PUD's where these sorts of things. . .Further compounding this is the fact that the patio door is facing this area. Now for the last year and a half or so we've been reviewing building permits and refusing to allow patio doors where there's no likelihood of getting a deck, and this is something that we probably would catch today but nobody did back when the home was built. I've heard the owners speak before. I believe that they were led to believe by the builder that they could get a deck in this place which has also happened before. With that, again we had recommended denial to the Board of Adjustments. We didn't find a neighborhood precedent for this. The Board of Adjustment did recommend denial. We're carrying that recommendation forward. I'd also add too that Brian Batzli from our Planning Commission wrote a letter of support for this. That was intended to get into the packet and I don't believe it did but he was in favor of granting the applicant's request. With that we are recommending denial. Mayor Chmiel: Is the applicant proposed to address the situation? I was out there and I looked at this home. Actually from the edge of the house to the 9 I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 curb there's approximately 30 feet. Setback requirement is, well Paul maybe you 11 can explain that. I sat down and discussed this with Paul and I felt that there was some potential in seeing this go in. It's a little different situation. It goes into a cul-de-sac. It's not a continuing on street so the blending of the appearance I don't think would be quite as bad either. But maybe with that Paul why don't you just. Paul Krauss: I sketched his up after having a conversation with the Mayor just ' so I could lay out for everybody the way this thing lays. In this case north is that way. The cul-de-sac exposure is right here. Mayor Chmiel: Show them the front of the house. Where's north? Paul Krauss: North, yes. I'm upside down. North is this way. I pointed in ' the right direction. It just came out backwards. I knew where it was. The existing building wall is this black line here. There's a 20 foot setback to the property line. The property line is this red line with the PL next to it. Again, this 20 feet is consistent with the ordinance. The PUD ordinance that ' was approved here. Normally it's a 30 foot setback. In this case it's 20. The new deck that wants to be added, they are looking to build is out here. What this red area is the utility easement and I'll highlight that a little better. That area is that 10 foot utility easement and it's the deck and the porch actually protrude into it a little bit. The outside of this red line here is the right-of-way line. It's the property line itself. Now the Mayor was specifically asking me, where is the curb line here. The curb line is 8 feet beyond that. So effectively right now it's 30 feet from the closest building wall to the curb line. Normally we have an 8 to 10 foot boulevard in the street. We use it for utilities and snow piling and everything else. I don't know how much this clarifies it. What we would have remaining from, if it's built as proposed. Here's the outside building wall. Here's the curb line. There'd be 18 feet. 8 feet to the property line. It's 18 feet to the curb. So visually when you're looking at a street and you're looking at the curb and not where the property line really is. Is there anything else I can add on that? Mayor Chmiel: No. I guess what I look at is the total amount of distance to what the city boulevard section is to where basically utilities go in. They don't go in on a private property per se. With that maybe I'd best let the ' property owner can indicate their concern. Councilman Mason: The deck would be 8 feet from the curb or 18 feet? Paul Krauss: The deck will be 18 feet from the curb. 8 feet from the property line. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Which is well within the requirement of the setbacks. Right? Paul Krauss: The required setback is 20, yeah. • Councilman Workman: That's kind of confusing. Paul Krauss: It's the best I could do. 1 10 11 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I/ Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Please state your name and your address. Sharon Peterson: Sharon Peterson, 180 Fox Hollow Orive. I just have a couple of things to say. I had a big long speech at the other hearing. The minimum lot size in Chanhassen is 15,000 square feet but because we live in a PUO, Rottlund Construction was allowed to put our house on a 10,500 square foot lot. We don't feel that it's fair to relax the rules for the builder and then impose the setbacks for a 15,000 square foot lot on us. Also, the amount of house that the City allowed Rottlund to build on that lot would not accommodate a walkout. The only other place for a second exit to our house is on that side of the house. We don't feel that we should be penalized before the City's only been checking the plans for sliding glass doors for 2 years. Our house was built in 1986 and we're not builders. We had no idea about any of these rules. I also have a petition signed by all of the immediate neighbors saying that they have absolutely no objection to the deck or the porch. The immediate neighbors being anyone who will have to look at it every day or drive by it every day. I also have pictures of the house for those of you who weren't able to go past the property. Was anyone but the Mayor there? Councilman Mason: I drove by it. Sharon Peterson: I also have a copy of the letter that Brian Batzli wrote if you would like to see that. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I've seen it. Maybe if someone else didn't get it in their packet. Oo you wish to say something sir? Steve Peterson: No. I'm just saying everybody knows our problem. I have nothing to say. ' Mayor Chmiel: You're there for support. Sharon Peterson: I think we're done. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Councilman Mason: I've got angry notes written all over this wondering how, let me backtrack a little bit. When Lundgren Bros. was in here talking about what they do, didn't Terry Forbord say something about they give a packet to each homeowner about what they can and can't do? This comes up so often that builders, in my humble opinion are clearly trying to jack people around in some instances. Not all builders. I'm not going to make a blanket comment. Before I get into this specific issue, what can the City do so we don't have to put up with this kind of stuff? I think we're starting in the right direction by reviewing that. And I'm not yelling at you Paul or even asking necessarily for an answer from you but these things come up all the time and as sitting up here I feel like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I want to know, should we be, as a Council, considering some kind of action to force builders to be a little bit more responsible? And if so, how so? I Mayor Chmiel: I think we tried that and unfortunately we can't be there on each closing of the property. It gets to be difficult policing but some instances I , think through may be our inspection department can advise and oftentimes maybe 11 , I City Council+ Meeting - August 26, 1991 it's consummated. A deal's consummated between a builder and the proposed buyer ' where that house is already going and we don't know what the requirements are. Make some kind of a commitment to a property owner is rather hard for the city to take a position on. As you say, all builders within the city, most of them ' are all reputable really but you do have a few who try to sneak a few things in and more specifically with PUO's and I think that's something that we can probably look at when we're looking at those proposals and make sure that those requirements are there. And if not, maybe have it as a condition that that builder is responsible for whatever. Paul? Paul Krauss: Over the years I've tried many times to get developers to be up ' front and it's kind of antithetic to the trade I guess but we're not there when they're negotiating with the buyer. We don't know what anybody's saying to whom but what we certainly can do is in PUD's, if we are going to allow residential PUO's in the future, and in fact one's being processed right now but it's not a small lot PUD. In fact it's a very large lot PUD for Lundgren but where small lot residential PUD's are considered in the future, we can tie down these loose ends. We can have development contracts. We can record the development contract to individual lots. There's lots of things we will be doing to avoid some of the more direct problems that we've been having with this. On the other hand, property owners are going to have to be somewhat responsible too. Let the buyer beware is really meaningful. We are here as a resource for people. When you're going to plop down $100,000.00, $80,000.00, whatever it is on a house, if you have some questions about the ability to expand that home in the future, you really have something of an obligation to pursue it yourself. Now when we tell a builder that we won't allow a patio door where we think it's not legitimate to put a deck, we're probably overstepping our bounds. I mean the builder has every right to put that patio door in and we've sort of administratively said if you're going to go ahead and do that, we're going to require that you put a notice in the chain of title saying you can't put a deck there. We're trying to protect the property owner, future buyer from themselves. We're not doing this because we have to or because if we don't then they're automatically entitled to a variance because I don't think that that's necessarily the case. Everybody needs to take some responsibility for learning what they can do. Likewise we don't tell a builder what model house they can put on a piece of ground. If it meets the setbacks, walkout, 2 story, 1 story, ranch, we don't care. It's not something that we get involved with. As long as it meets the setbacks and sometimes the type of house is a bearing on whether or not you'll have flooding ' problems. We got involved with that. Beyond that it's individual choice. Mayor Chmiel: Well anyway, as I really looked at this thing rather closely with ' the existing 20 foot setback that's there to the building, totally goes out to the easement which is the 30 feet and I'm not sure that easement is really on their property for that 10 feet. Paul Krauss: Yes it is. Mayor Chmiel: It is? Paul Krauss: Yeah. It's like, it shows up here. Mayor Chmiel: Well that should be incorporated in the 30 feet. ' 12 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I/ Paul Krauss: This is the 10 foot easement. The property line is over here. Here's the inside of the easement. So when I say that there's 18 feet to the curb, it includes 8 feet of this plus 10 feet of this. Councilman Mason: So it will be into the easement by 10 feet? Paul Krauss: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Now, if the property owner were to cut it back to 10 feet, it , wouldn't be within it? That would be from this? Paul Krauss: No. It's better that it's not in the easement but then it would ' require, what are we? We're at a 12 foot setback variance so it would require a 10 foot setback variance. Sharon Peterson: Can I ask a question? What if there is no utilities where ' we're proposing to put the deck? Would that be different? Mayor Chmiel: I think it probably would because I don't know what would be needed there. Your area is underground is it not? And I see no need for that cable I would assume is also in there, and telephone. And that area is completely developed. On that side street there is not any extensions that would be made through that area. It'd be utterly impossible because of the cul-de-sac off on that side road. So I think that if there's not those requirements maybe we could stipulate that as a condition as well. That one may be required to contact Gopher One and call to find out what's within that area. Two, if their utilities is not going to be that encroachment because that easement is not going to be needed, as I see it. And three, if there is, there could be that 10 foot deck cutback from the 12 to the 10 and carry it through but if there isn't, then I think we can go with these other conditions. I think that appearance wise it's not going to cause any problems. If you've seen those petitions that have come through here, all the neighbors have really basically signed that. Have to meet those specific criteria as I see it. Councilman Mason: Isn't one of the reasons we have setbacks is to keep things away from the road and universally do that? If this is granted, what kind of milestone is it? I mean I understand that it is just on a cul-de-sac and I appreciate that but someone that wants the same kind of variance who isn't on a cul-de-sac. , Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the difference between the two then. Councilman Mason: They're not going to see it that way. I Mayor Chmiel: No, that's probably true. But I think you have to look at it from the use of that particular property that that individual has. I'm not all for giving all variances up. But in this specific case I think it has to be a case by case situation. At least in what I have looked at and what I have seen. I feel comfortable enough. Any other discussion? , Councilman Workman: My comments were a part of the Board of Adjustments and next year when Mike or Richard are on that Board, elected official beware. Because boy, you put up and look at these things and you always look for an out. 13 I I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 The one that I think of most recently in this regard and Judy and Leigh Colby on 11 Laredo. Go all the way down Laredo where it ends in a circle with a cul-de-sac. They had kind of a pie shaped lot and we had this same thing. What was their front yard and what was their side yard and they were probably less into Laredo, ' they weren't into the easement. Paul Krauss: No. ' Councilman Workman: And there was a big pine tree situation there and everything else and we said no. So I don't know what solutions. I did drive out there before the Board of Adjustments meeting last time. It does really, and I just remember what the Colby one we discussed this side yard, front yard issue at very great detail and for us to make this a side yard and not a front yard or whatever it is, it's really tough. It's a whole lot of house and a whole lot of deck and a little lot. Very obvious place. That is very difficult for me to approve just because of everything that is backed up. And I know people hate to hear that because it doesn't sound like you can be flexible but. Remember the Colby's? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I remember the one you're talking about. ' Councilman Workman: You know I don't know that the Peterson's could build something smaller because an 18 foot wide deck, and I used to just always hate that when some past Council members used to tell people how to build their garage and decks and everything else. That's not my place. However, I just did it. I don't know if it could be smaller. Obviously if the deck were smaller, then the screened room would maybe. have to be smaller and that might make it not worthwhile for the Petersons. I don't know what the solutions are. I'm not 1 prepared again after the Board of Adjustments to discuss to put that thing that close to the road. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well, Richard. Do you have anything? Councilman Wing: I also went out and looked at it and I noted that it's been denied by staff. Recommended for denial by staff and the Board of Adjustments. Doors have long been an issue and I'm convinced that we've dealt with that issue through inspections. And this is kind of a leftover where we have porch doors going nowhere. I guess I didn't like Brian's letter. I think that he discusses the intent of the PUD and the PUD is to allow variances and allow us to be lax on the variances. It kind of says we're going to go from what's normal and put 8 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound bag which is okay. That's the intent of the ' PUD. And this particular one, if I can stay with layman's terms, I kind of see us trying to go with 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound bag. So to me the project exceeds the needs created by the doors. Had there been an intent to come in here and get some access from those doors into a deck and a 6 foot deck coming out of the atrium doors and then tucking back into the house as we were shown earlier and cutting the deck back down to 6 and 4. Down to 12 foot along the house area itself. I think it's a major project that exceeds the needs. I ' think it's appearance is going to have a major impact on that street. I look at Lake Minnewashta where they allowed someone to put in a swimming pool and a tennis court. To this day I'm wondering who allowed that. I think this project clearly exceeds the needs existing by those existing door$ so I guess I would tend to uphold the Board of Adjustments. I would have been much more ' 14 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 1 comfortable had this been a small deck just to get access from those doors. But not a major 12 x 12 screened porch going to a 17 foot deck. I think that exceeds the needs and clearly impacts that corner and that lot beyond it's limits. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What I would like to do is to make a motion to approve the front yard variance request and appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Is there a second? Without a second the motion fails. I Councilman Wing: I'd like to make a motion denying this particular request. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? , Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor. So the record is clear. The basis for your motion of denial is the Planning report and the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Wing: Would you repeat that Roger? ' Roger Knutson: Is the basis of your motion the Planning report and the recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals? So the record is clear. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, clarification. It does include staff's report. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to deny Variance 191-7 based ' on the reasons outlined in the planning report and the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated July 8, 1991. All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE FENCE SCREENING HEIGHT FROM 8 FT. TO 15 FT., 7851 PARK DRIVE, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT. STEVE WILLETTE. ' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in 1988 the City issued a conditional use permit for Lakeshore Equipment. Outdoor storage was a part and parcel of this request and it was an issue at the time it was approved and there was a fair amount of testimony and emphasis placed on it. As a result an 8 foot high wooden fence was required and ultimately was installed. The City Council also required that no stored materials be placed higher than 8 feet to keep the visibility of materials down. In 1990 my staff was doing regular site visits for conditional use permits, which we've begun to do on an annual basis and we noticed that this fence had fallen in one area. I believe it was the result of a fairly heavy wind storm. We did ask the owner to restore the fence and we did notify him of the 8 foot height limitation. The applicant obtained a building permit and we put notice of the limitation on that. In October the building inspector went out there to update the project or do the final inspection, I don't recall which, but he noticed that the fence had been constructed as high as 15 foot in some places. Staff then requested that the fence be cut back to the allowable height that was a condition, a stipulation of the conditional use permit. We also indicated that one option for the owner would be to petition the city to 15 , 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 change the condition. We didn't indicate one way or the other what our preference would be and we did indicate that that would be an alternative and that if they wanted to do pursue that, we would delay action until that occurred. The applicant is making that request to repeal that condition, or to modify that condition. We believe the issue here is more than one of simply the height of the fence. It basically revolves around the visual impact of outdoor storage, and particularly a fence of that magnitude and our belief that it detracts from the overall quality of the industrial park. We note that because of problems with this site, primarily problems with this site and some others around the city, when we're reviewing the landscaping standards to change the zoning ordinance, we're actually looking at banning the use of wooden fences for ' outdoor storage areas. They just haven't worked well. This one predates or this one was part of the learning curve but knowing what we know now, we sure wouldn't do it again. That doesn't have any particular bearing on this request. It's just that we're trying to rectify what's happened in the past. The ' Planning Commission did review this in November and on a split vote, we didn't have all the Planning Commissioners there that night but I believe they voted 4-1 to allow the large fence to remain contingent upon the applicant working a ' revised landscaping plan. Basically to break up the massing of the fence. The landscaping plan was submitted and frankly it's not really the applicant's fault that this was November when this occurred and we have it now. We thought we could get this done by spring and we tried to work with him to do that. There's ' been some delay since then but the revised landscaping plan that's been submitted would add an additional 8 spruce trees and 20 pots of ivy which presumably would climb up the wall and break it up with some green. We think it's an improvement but frankly we don't believe that it's really going to serve the goal. It's very tough to screen or to break up a wall that big. We're therefore continuing to recommend that the fence, or the modification to the fence be denied and that the fence go back to it's original height and that the storage of materials inside the fence also go back to the original height. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Would anyone like to address the situation? Steve Willette: I'm Steve Willette, the owner of the property. I'm President of Lakeshore Equipment Company. I think Paul has got some misinformation in ' reference to this. The Planning, or what do we call it? The City Planners? Mayor Chmiel: Planning Commission. Steve Willette: The Planning Commission also felt that there was probably some prejudice or problems within the Planning Director's office. First of all he's got a lot of facts that, since he wasn't here probably are not his fault that he doesn't have clear but he doesn't have them clear. First of all the conditional use permit was granted on conditions that the outside storage area be totally screened. And an oversight on the Planning Commission and my part and the City ' Council and the contractors and everybody did not take into consideration the hieght of the road and the height of the storage area. We did build the fence at 12 feet and it was approved by the old city, what do you call, Building ' Inspector. By the old Building Inspector and was approved by him at 12 feet. He did see it. There were several Planning Commission people that came out that day. Walked around the fence with me. The fence. Part of the fence did blow down. Part of the fence was reconstructed. Part of the fence that goes towards the road was reconstructed at 15 feet. At 14 to 15 feet,`maximum height along ' 16 I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 1 one small area which faces the highway. Because of the height of the highway being 20 feet higher than the storage area, at the storage area's highest point there's no way that it can be done any differently other than a 15 foot high fence to keep it so you can't see inside. I think that's what we're all after is to try to keep the product so you can't see it. I now have a building that is built specifically for Lakeshore Equipment Company and Lakeshore Equipment Company is reliant on that building. My source of income is reliant on having that building and having this company. I an trying to do what is right to try and keep the city nice looking. I look at the building north of me and there are several tenants there. Instead of having any kind of storage area, all they do is park all the vehicles and equipment outside. I looked at the buildings to the south of me, because we're in an industrial park. Same thing happens. There are vehicles stored outside. Junk cars. Heavy equipment. Walls. Gas tanks. Same thing to the north and I'm right inbetween these two people and everytime I look either north or south I see this stuff. When I take a look at our area, I see a cedar fence. Cedar fence that cost me over $35,000.00 to construct so I could try to keep it so it looked nice. I also exceeded all of your Planning Commission's or all your ordinances in reference to landscaping when I first did it. I said I have no problem with trying to come up and make it look a little more presentable by putting in some more landscaping again. When I did the original trees and shurbs I exceeded what was required of me by almost 50%. I am willing to put more in. I'm willing to spend more money. I do think that it does have to be screened. I want it to look nice. It is part of my business too. I don't want to look like I'm running a junk yard. I want to make it look like I'm running a nice reputable business. We're are the largest in the nation of docks and boat lifts. We pull people in from all over the 5 state area. We have a dealer network. We sell to dealers as well as sell to retail consumers. We sell lifts as far away as Alaska. Down in Arizona. So we do do some things for the community. We pull people in. And all we want to do is get by in the community and I think that I'm willing to spend some money to try to make it look a little bit better by putting in the extra shurbs and the vines. The fence is well constructed now. It's not going to blow down ' again. There is some areas that haven't been complete because I'm not going to spend any more money until I get final approval on it. There's some boards missing that didn't get put back on. Call the contractor out as soon as Sharmin started raising her voice and getting mad and so I just said well Sharmin, let's go through the process so I put a hold on all the remaining parts to the fence as far as fixing and making them look nice. The fence will look nice. It will weather. It will fit into the area. I have taken a big portion of my 4 1/4 acres and left it into the wild to go with the green strip for the river. I'm really trying and I just don't know what the problem with the Planning Director and his staff is. But it seems like the Planning Commission did say well if you put some more shurbs in or some more trees in and did something, if I could come to terms with Sharmin from the Planning Commission, it would be taken care of but it just seems like it's kind of like pushing a pencil with your nose or something. It's kind of tough. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ,t I • 17 , I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 Don Ashworth: Can I respond to some of the points brought up by Mr. Willette? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Don Ashworth: I do not believe that the Planning Commission made a mistake in the review and original conditions. The sight line from TH 5 is very minimal. You cannot observe the fence if you are heading easterly. From anywhere along TH 5. If you're heading westerly you will have obtained 55 mph. You will potentially see that for 3-4 seconds. I mean you just don't see it from TH 5. The contention that it needs to be 15 feet in height because of TH 5 is, in my own mind, not a concern. The area that is a concern is if you're in the lower portion of the business park and you have one of the abutting properties. Mr. Willette's property is like it's up on a hill and you then put a 15 foot high fence on top of that hill and it's just kind of mind boggling to anything below it. It's not solely the Planning Department. I think any of the departments have referred to that back area as kind of Fort Apache and it looks like it. Mr. Willette brought out some of the neighbors and there's no question but that some of the illegal conditions have continued to mushroom around him. The Dayco property. Merit property to the north. The Roos property to the west. But to allow one violation. To say yeah, that's okay. You can go ahead and violate what it is you had agreed to do is sending the wrong message to Merit. To Dayco ' and to Roos. I really believe that the issue was debated at significant length before the Planning Commission with Commissioner Emmings saying, you agree that it will be 8 feet. You will not see anything and Mr. Willette said, I'm going to make it even shorter than the 8 feet. I mean this is not something that no one really thought about. I mean it was questioned and requestioned and requestioned again. I don't think it has anything to do with the Planning Director. Staff recommends denial. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Paul, did you have anything more? Paul Krauss: Only on the matter of Merit and Dayco. I've had my staff going out there trying to document what's there so that we can start working with them to clean up those problems. We are aware of them. It takes some time to get ' people to comply but we are beginning to work with them on those matters. Councilman Workman: The reason that Mr. Willette wants a 15 foot high fence is to potentially store things higher in there correct? Paul Krauss: That 's our presumption, although I think Mr. Willette disputes that. Now my staff has been out there on different occasions with the Building Inspector and measured materials of 11 feet, 10 foot 6 inches, 9'3", 8'6" and 12 feet. I don't know what the real intent was but it sure seems to us that that is the case, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Steve, would you like to come up here? Steve Willette: That is not the case of what we're trying to do. One of the big things that came up in the meeting was to keep things out of sight. Okay, whether it be 5 seconds or 10 seconds, I didn't know that there was any clarification on that as far as. As far as the 8 foot high fence goes, that ' would not have screened it. That wouldn't screen a pair of tennis shoes sitting on the ground inside the storage yard. There were berms built to try to keep 18 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 the height to a•minimum. What with the difference in elevations. There's no way you could do it from that area. As far as the height of the fence from looking down and looking up, as you look into the skyline going towards the north from the south part of the road down south of the property, you'll see in the skyline above the so called Fort or whatever you want to call it. It's not really a joking matter to me. It's a livelihood but you'll see in the skyline a whole bunch of vehicles and I'm not just pointing my finger at Merit. I'm pointing, I'm saying that in the skyline if you look up above this 15 foot high fortress, as Don calls it, you'd see a whole bunch of vehicles, equipment, signs, mobile signs. All kinds of different things as well as sticking and protruding above that you would see the complete building to the north. So as far as it hurting the skyline, I can see that. Eventually the pine trees and so forth that are screening that fenced area will grow to this height of 24 to 30 feet. They have grown a couple of feet now since we planted them. There are some that are missing and that's what those I'm going to put back in but like I say, the Planning Commission, whether they were all here or not, did see that we could probably come to terms and figure out a way to make it work so that it looked nice. I wanted it to look nice and I maybe want it to look nicer than what you're recommending because if we have an 8 foot high fence in there so you can see a pair of tennis shoes on the ground, it just doesn't make sense to me. I want to get it so you can't see in there. It's probably better advertising for me if I could have an 8 foot high fence and for that 5 or 10 seconds you could see a bunch of docks and boat lifts stacked in there, yeah. Councilman Wing: That wasn't the issue here. I think Don was talking about the issue that we're worried about the low area. You're talking about the higher elevation. That's not the issue here. It's the lower area that's the issue as Don pointed out. And it's true, an 8 foot fence won't hide a pair of tennis shoes from the majority of that area. From the lower area. ' Steve Willette: From the upper area? From the road? Councilman Wing: From the lower area. , Steve Willette: An 8 foot high fence, yeah. Councilman Wing: We're really discussing the lower area. I agree with Don. TH 5's not the issue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to start from one end to the other. It's your I turn. Councilman Wing: I came on right as this was being discussed I think last 1 November and on the recommendations here in our packet, the current fence was constructed in disregard to previous actions by the Planning Commission and City Council. I believe that to have been true. I think the discussion I walked in on at my first Planning Commission meeting was wondering how it went from 8 to 15 feet. Nobody was in agreement and I don't think it's fair to take light or make light of the appearance of your fence. Fort Apache was frankly my first, to be honest with you, it was kind of my initial reaction. I said it kind of looks like a stockade. I don't say that sarcastically or to be flippant. But • I also noticed the difficulty with the terrain and that troubles me. The terrain at that point looks difficult to fence. It goes down and I guess I tend 19 , City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 11 to support the staff's recommendation here only because I think it was 11 constructed in a way that it should not have been. I think they were aware of the fact that it should not have been put to 15 feet. That there was the 8 foot and I think it does currently visually detract from the area but I am concerned about the terrain and can that terrain be fenced properly. And very frankly I'm just really looking for a solution. I don't think the 15 foot fence is necessarily the solution. I think it's an excellent business. I happen to be a customer and I don't wish to put a hardship on this. If we want an 8 foot fence and that makes people happy and if that seems to go along with staff recommendations, would that 8 foot fence requirement cause a hardship? A severe hardship. What's at stake here Paul? What's involved here correcting this? Paul Krauss: Would it create a hardship? I don't know if it creates a hardship on the business or not. I think Mr. Willette would have to get at that. The fact is is that's consistent with the way the project was approved and I guess ' if there's a hardship we didn't create it. I'm more concerned I guess with the visual impact here. We've got a fairly high quality industrial park. We've got a couple of sites, particularly some of the older ones and old is 4, 5, 6 years 11 and beyond that aren't up to the standards of the newer ones and somewhat detract from the newer ones. And you know industrial parks are like residential neighborhoods. If you have a house that is starting to look shabby in a residential neighborhood, it devalues the others and you can have a neighborhood go down hill. We'd like to maintain and where we can improve the quality in there. As I said, we're beginning to work with some of other property owners to get at those same issues. We're aware of them. Mayor Chmiel: Steve. Steve Willette: Can I address it from back here if I speak up? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. ' Steve Willette: Okay. Richard, as far as going ahead with the height that was approved. Your building inspectors were out and we discussed the matter of an 8 foot high fence and what it would do. You would be able to see materials inside ' the area. They told me to go ahead at that point and they approved it after they had looked at it. So it was your building inspectors that told me to go ahead and do it. I didn't just all of a sudden say let's automatically have a ' 12 foot high fence. I didn't take it out of the top of my head and say well we won't worry about the City Hall people because they don't mean anything. I asked the people at that point, I asked your building inspector when they were out on the site what did they think and they recommended that I build it higher so it would be totally screened. So I said the problem is that you're asking for it to be totally screened. The only problem is you're asking me to put an 8 foot high fence. With the terrain and the way things are, there's no way you can totally screen anything with an 8 foot high fence. Councilman Wing: Do you see a solution to this? A compromise, may I ask? If I were to say that I'm uncomfortable with the 15 foot high appearance and the break from your use permit. Steve Willette: Richard, if you went with solid pine trees along there. . .pine trees in 2 or 3 years, those pine trees will be up to the:height of the fence ' 20 11 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I/ and you'll see very little fence and you can put some ivy on there. According to the landscape people, there's no fix it you're going to get for next year. I There's no fix for next year but in the future you'd have all these gorgeous pine trees and that's all you'd see. Councilman Wing: So your solution is landscaping? I Steve Willette: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: That's about the only thing that will really address it. Even with that 15 feet as was indicated at the Planning Commission's concerns. With that there was a 4 to 1 vote on that. Nothing else is really going to take care of it other than having evergreens. It can't be a deciduous kind of tree because the leaves are gone and it's still open. Steve Willette: Can I address one other thing Don? The 15 foot is at the , highest point. Okay? It's not the average height. Mayor Chmiel: You're saying basically what's facing TH 5 is the 15 foot height. ' On the back side of that it's less than 15 feet. Steve Willette: Right and it goes up in the front. Like the planning people say, they have no problem with any area other than that one area where we don't have any pine trees. Now they address the pine tree issue and now there's another issue because. . . Well I think the cedar fence looks better than most things around. I don't see anything myself attrocious to it other than the fact that it's not finished or complete. When it's weathered it will look nice.. . I don't understand. Mayor Chmiel: Aesthetically I really see what you're trying to achieve. Plus probably trying to keep some of your equipment there and go up just a little bit higher and of course I understand that but I think the overall purpose for what you're saying, you want to achieve what's best for your business as well as to be in compliance with the City. Steve Willette: I want it to look nice. , Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right. And I think maybe what I would like to see us do is to sit down with staff and come up with a conclusion as to what is best and it may be one of us to sit on that particular meeting. Councilman Workman: Not me because I know I'm still confused by this issue. This is kind of a. Councilman Wing: I'd be happy to. Mayor Chmiel: And reach that solution. I think what we're looking for of course and a lot of things that we're doing with TH 5 is looking at how we can have additional businesses coming in to the community adhere to what we're trying to establish as an aesthetic kind of view along TH 5 and not have the kinds of things that are happening in other communities. This being where it is, and it's set back further as well and it's right at the direction as you're going. If you don't look for it you're not going to see' it. And those that do 21 ' City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 11 see it, does it make that much of an impact as well for that short period of time. 11 Councilman Wing: But it does from the lower elevation. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And that's something we have to address from that lower part. And I think what Steve is saying is he's willing to do the landscaping, the additional landscaping to make it look decent because he has pride within his own business as well and wants to see that look good for his clientele coming into his business. Councilman Wing: I'd support your suggestion to table this allowing that to 1 occur. Steve Willette: Don, can I bring up one thing about tabling? The Planning Commission said that I was supposed to work with staff so I've already tried to work with staff. And staff and I came up with the plans that you're presented with right now. Which staff is also saying that they're recommending. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Don. Don Ashworth: I think your suggestion is a good one. I have not sat in on some of those meetings. I think the idea of having a Council member sit on some of those or a meeting like that would be beneficial as well. I guess I would like to take and look back at this building permit that Steve had referred to because that's kind of a new issue in my own mind and it's come up tonight. I think that our job as a committee is going to be tougher in that to the best of my II knowledge the only company that was allowed outside storage was Mr. Willette's so where you have Dayco for example who currently has outside storage, that was prohibited as a part of their original permit. Where Merit has outside storage, ' that was prohibited. My biggest concern is if we grant approval to a firm that right now has more than anyone else within the business park, is it not logical that the Dayco people who are 20 feet below him will come back and ask for a fence of whatever height to screen stuff that they have. We'd be more than I happy to sit in this type of a meeting and try to come back to some type of solution but understand my concern is I'd like to see all of the businesses in that area working to make that the quality business park that it is. We have some wonderful businesses there. Councilman Mason: If I could piggyback on what Mr. Ashworth is saying. I agree I with that completely. My concern too is what the other businesses around Lakeshore are going to say because if this doesn't get cleaned up satisfactorily to the City, Don I think it is logical to assume that they're going to come in and say well I get a fence too. I'm hoping that this meeting will work and we can come to an agreeable compromise but if there are people that are violating what's going on now, it certainly adds fuel to their fire. Mayor Chmiel: Well the fence is there. It's been there for years. It was granted. I 22 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 1 Councilman Mason: Right. And the fence will be there. I understand that. I understand the issue of height and I understand the issue of what is going around on there. I know the fence will. . . Councilman Wing: I'd be comfortable serving on that committee with Mr. Willette understanding that we could well come back and say we agree with staff recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What I'd like to do if the Council's in agreement is establish a date for them to get together. Sit down and reach that compromise. As we're looking at this week and I don't know what staff's schedule is. Paul Krauss: I'd prefer for consistency sake I'd prefer that Sharmin be involved in the meeting and she's on vacation until Friday. She'll be back Monday. I Mayor Chmiel: No, she'll be back Tuesday. Paul Krauss: Tuesday. Exactly. I Mayor Chmiel: Steve, is that alright with you? As it's sitting there nothing's hurting right now other than. ' Steve Willette: Next week is a horrible week for me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the week of the 2nd? , Steve Willette: The week after that is a better possibility. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's establish that week and set up a date. Maybe you can get back to Steve and let him check his books and come up with a conclusion on it. ' Councilman Workman: Not Tuesday or Wednesday. Don Ashworth: That's the week of the 9th. , Councilman Wing: Are you intending the Council to be kind of a mediator at this point? Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd like to have that Council representation there. Not that I'm trying to take away from staff. I just think by having one more person there to reach that conclusion as well as the City Manager. Don Ashworth: I would like to do this type of meeting either having the meeting out at the. site or at least starting at the site because I really think that a full 360 degree vista is necessary before we start meeting. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Okay. I Steve Willette: I'll do whatever you people. t 23 ' city Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: And I get that feeling from you so that's why I'm trying to up with something here. 9 come Steve Willette. I just want it to be logical.. . Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well that's something that I think can be discussed back and forth accordingly. So with that I'd like to just have a motion to table this. ' Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Until, does it come back to Council on the 23rd of September? Councilman Wing: And have we ruled out this week? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Evidentally. Don Ashworth: The 23rd of September. 1 Councilman Wing: Was I supposed to be on that committee? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: And were you going to be attempting to make that? Mayor Chmiel: If I can. Councilman Workman: I might just try to hook up with Steve here. Paul Krauss: We'll notify all of you. Steve Willette: If any of you would like to come over and take a look. . .from my standpoint anyway. Councilman Wing: And you're. . .a resolution of this? Mayor Chmiel: I would certainly hope so. We'll move on to the Lake Ann Picnic/Recreation Shelter location, Park and Recreation Coordinator. 11 Councilman Workman: I don't think we voted on that table. Mayor Chmiel: No, we just tabled it. We don't have to vote on it. I had a ' motion and a second. Right Roger? On a tabled item it's not necessary to have a vote? ' Roger Knutson: I believe that's correct, yes. Excuse me. The Council's practice has been to vote on a table. Mayor Chmiel: Have we? It's not needed but let's do that then. I 24 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I/ Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the Condition Use Permit Amendment regarding the fence screening height for Lakeshore Equipment until the September 23, 1991 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION: LAKE ANN PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER LOCATION, PARK AND RECREATION COORDINATOR. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. In planning for the construction of the Lake Ann Park community shelter, the identification of it's exactly location is one step. As can be seen from your attachments, the three locations labeled A, 8 and C on both diagrams were studied to better understand the implications of locating the shelter at each location. In breaking them down really three main issues, attention issues stand out. Those being the need for overall accessibility to the general public. The increased cost of construction and maintenance of Options B and C due to the necessity of retaining wall construction. And then as well the proximity to the beach overall. The report presented to you is comprised of three separate summaries of the advantages and disadvantages of each location prepared by the City Manager, Mr. Mark Koegler and me. What can be derived from them is that there is a consensus based upon sound reasoning that Location A as shown should be the location of the building and as such it is staff's recommendation that the City Council approve Location A for the Lake Ann Park picnic/recreation shelter building. Councilman Wing: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: I need discussion before I make a motion, or request a motion. ' Councilman Mason: I think site A looks wonderful. • Mayor Chmiel: The only reason that I asked Todd to bring this back is when we looked at it and we had the ground breaking, it was approximately probably where Site B is located. And I wanted to make sure that everybody is in agreement with the location of it if it were to go on Site A. It's a little farther from the beach and one of my only concerns I had was your children having to go to Site A. Councilman Mason: They can handle it. It will be a struggle for the little one but. Mayor Chmiel: A little longer. But that was one of the concerns that I had. Site A from a cost aspect is much better. It's less to run the utilities as well in distance. Cost of the electrical, sewer and the water would be much less so that's something that I'd like to make sure what was proposed and that those costs, if they were included in that, that we be reimbursed back for those. Councilman Wing: Is this your recommendation? Is this the location you personally are supporting and recommending? I/ 25 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 11 Todd Hoffman: Yes. In catering to the beach it certainly would be nice ice to have gone with Option C but with the circumstances which present themselves and the layout of the overall park, Site A is the chosen location. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And the other thing I thought of was the emergency access ' as Todd mentioned too. We're close to the proximity. . .but there are other problems involved with B and C because of the topography of the land. ' Councilman Workman: Are we going to get a final layout on this before we go? This is kind of rough because that's what I was a little startled about. Could I go ahead adminstratively with siting this or were we going to, us or the Planning Commission or anybody else involved in that or how was that going to be 1 done? How is this all of a sudden just going to be put down and was there going to be an approval process for that? ' Mayor Chmiel: We have approved basically. Councilman Workman: The design but will we have. 1 Mayor Chmiel: The cost and design for that particular A location. This is not siting it for the location. 1 Councilman Wing: Considering the amount of money that's into this, was there any consideration given to putting in a roadway to Option C? Being the most desireable or first choice. Mayor Chmiel: It's just more dollars. And putting a road in of course would be rather costly. 1 Councilman Workman: I just don't remember ever, I remember approving the concept of the building and everything. I don't remember approving this specific site. Are you saying that we did do that? 1 Don Ashworth: That's really tonight. That's what this is. If you would like to take and have staff put a, from this point on now Mark's firm will go out and I they will look at Location A for the spot where you have the walk in from the top and also the ground level from below. We could mark that spot so the Council could take a look at it but right now it's probably a lot of small vegetation in there. 1 Councilman Workman: Is this right here a turn around? ITodd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: To your west from that location. 1 Todd Hoffman: The turn around is right here. This is the entry being to the bituminous walkway which runs this way. This is an open area. Open grass area.. . So as you walk in and if you look to your left there's just a natural II opening. Councilman Workman: I guess I would just warn maybe Richard and Mike about how buildings have ended up in this town and everybody kind of says well how'd that 26 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 1 happen and if we don't pay a little closer attention. Councilman Wing: I was in that motion being just a little bit sarcastic. Councilman Workman: I mean buildings can turn and then all of a sudden after it's in you say well wait a minute. And I know Scott Harri and those guys are very competent people. I just don't know that I have a full grasp on it from this as to what exactly we're doing and whether or not I would change it I have no idea. Don Ashworth: If you would like we could, Todd could put out a memo at the time that they have stakes and we could put stakes in for literally all of the corners. The upper elevation I think that's going to be back in some of the wood area but at least the upper, the footings adjacent to the lake would be highly visible and those could be marked. In other words you say, they're out there. If you get a chance to stop and take a look at them. Councilman Workman: Are the stakes out there? Are they up? Todd Hoffman: Currently there are two stakes there for borings which were delayed. . . Don Ashworth: But he could literally put in all of the corners and then you'd say gee, this is too close to the oak tree. I thought it was going to be further back or whatever. We could do that. ' Mayor Chmiel: I mean it could shift one way or the other too because of the borings that they find. If the borings are fine and then of course that's the location. But if the soil conditions are such that it does present a problem, then that facility could be moved either to the east or maybe a little more to the west. Councilman Wing: I agree with you. I think this is too rough to sit here and make a decision on it. There's no dimension that I can come up with. There's no scale. There's no elevations to work with and I'd really have to go and look at it make a decision. Todd Hoffman: If you'd like the schematics which were presented earlier, if you recall. The views. We could overlay those onto a view from the lake perhaps is the most concern or from the trailway or from the front of it and give you a sight line back. I would caution the Council on slowing the process any further. They're in detailed specifications right now for the shelter with the construction set for the beginning the first week of October so obviously we're in about a month and a half to 2 months construction schedule this fall. Mayor Chmiel: let me make a suggestion. Maybe what we could do is approve this conditionally or with a condition contained in there that this be brought back to Council for final decision prior to that October date. Or within the next 2 weeks or something. ' Todd Hoffman: Sure, and if I could ease your concerns at all. If you take a walk down there, Site A, as you take a walk down there is, it draws your attention to the location where this would fit in nicefy. Site B would stick 27 ' I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 out fairly abruptly with a large retaining wall behind it and then Site C brings itself right down onto the beach and presents a very ominous type of a location so Site A, as far as conducive, fitting in to the natural surrounding of the remainder of the park, it should not be by any stretch of the imagination be an eyesore. Councilman Mason: I like your suggestion Mr. Mayor. I'd also like to see some more stakes put in so I could go down there and see what it looks like. I think that's a good idea. Councilman Workman: I guess on the 4th of July when we were breaking ground, I kind of asked. Where's it going to go? Well, it's going to be right here you know. Vote for that. I'm not trying to delay the thing. Let's get on with it. It's going to get built. I just would like a little bit more warm fuzzies on this. ' Mayor Chmiel: On a motion, could I have approval of this with the conditions as I so stated. Councilman Workman: And those conditions are what? Mayor Chmiel: The condition is that we have an opportunity to review this and that we feel comfortable with it that they can proceed. But if we don't, we can recall the question and react accordingly. ' Councilman Workman: So we're approving it unless somebody says no. Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Councilman Mason: Did you just make a motion? Councilman Workman: I move that. ' Councilman Mason: Oh okay. I'll second that. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to choose Option A as the location for the Lake Ann Picnic/Recreation Shelter with the condition that Council can bring the item back for reconsideration if they do not like the location as staked out. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Mayor Chmiel: Next item on the agenda is for adjournment. 11 Councilman Mason: Can I just say something? Mayor Chmiel: No. It's not on the agenda. Sure, go ahead. Councilman Mason: I wanted and I think I may have missed my chance when we approved the consent agenda. I was not at the meeting 2 weeks ago and I just wanted to comment on the section of the City Council minutes. Can I do that now? Councilman Workman: It won't make any difference to the approval. 1 ' 28 I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I/ Councilman Mason: I know it won't make any difference. I know that. It will be very quick. As I'm sure everyone is continuing to be very concerned about , what is going on at Market Square, I was also. I saw that about the median cut and some of Councilman Workman's comment about the shurbs. Well I kind of like the shurbs. Councilman Workman: Oh I do too. Councilman Mason: I'm concerned, and I don't know if maybe nothing can be done about it at this point but I'm really concerned about a median cut there. I'm also concerned about what's going to happen to West 78th all the way to Powers as it looks like the city is going to end up growing down that way which was not anticipated. Mayor Chmiel: No, it was. Much of that has been taken into consideration. Extending west on 78th Street. Councilman Mason: Okay, but how the road is going to lay. I mean none of that's in cement yet right? ' Mayor Chmiel: No. It's not in cement but the road cuts are there. There's going to be a road coming in. Existing 78th, right-in/right-out is what it's termed as right now. There will also be a road that will extend to the north that will be the road that will go onto CR 17 and also eventually the road that will go onto Lake Ann Park as the service road. Paul? Paul Krauss: We have schematics of how that lays if you'd like us to. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll take a look at that. Mayor Chmiel: That has been a discussionary thing and those people have been trying to sell their property for some time. In fact on the corner of CR 17 and 78th Street, Target has been looking at that. Councilman Wing: Can I piggyback on what Mike said? I think there's some real big things going on. Obviously Market Square is one of them. Development on West 78th Street is a question we all have and it's HRA and God bless HRA. We have two of our members on it but I am feeling a lack of communication between the HRA and the Council. Can we somehow improve that? Get more into the loop of what they're doing. What they're thinking. Mayor Chmiel: Come to the HRA meetings. I/Councilman Wing: But if I'm going to do that, then I'm going to have to ask questions and I'd ask to speak and I'm not too sure. Mayor Chmiel: Anytime you have any questions regarding anything, I think you have the opportunity to call Tom or I at any given time. Councilman Wing: Absolutely, I think that's true. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think we can address that and if you'd like to know anything, Don's here. 29 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I Councilman Workman: Maybe we could make Richard a member of the HRA. Don Ashworth: We recently were talking Paul and I, the Planning Commission would like to take and get together with the HRA and the timing is right with the update of the Comp Plan and now there are several acitivities that the HRA is talking about doing but they'd sure like input. For example you own the Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus property down there. What are we going to be doing with that in the future? Do you really want to see a library there? The idea of the ' central park. Is that a good idea? Maybe we could expand that meeting and have City Council, Planning Commission and HRA. 1 Councilman Wing: I'm just concerned that staff, Council, HRA and Planning Commission are paralleling their goals and directions and I'm sensing a lack of communication between those groups and I think it's. . .meeting level. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't agree with that fully. I think everybody knows what direction we're all going and through planning, they know exactly what they're looking at. What their ojectives are and I think all objectives are really tied together and that's why we've been having these specific meetings between Commission and Council to update everybody. Councilman Workman: In defense of myself as an HRA member and trees, the curb I cut I think is important because I think that business is not viable on that corner unless there is a curb cut there. I enjoy trees and bushes. More in my yard possibly. There's a big trailer, Allied Van Lines trailer sitting out west ' on TM 5 out there. Is that a billboard now that it's been sitting there way before the U.S. Open and don't we have a billboard ordinance? It's been sitting there forever. Mayor Chmiel: I had that same question. On the farm property just west of Chuck's place there. The next farm over. The old, is that, not a Kerber farm? IITodd Gerhardt : I think they're using it for storage. Mayor Chmiel: Well they can't store it where it's on the highway. ICouncilman Workman: I know in other communities it could be considered a billboard. II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and it is as far as I'm concerned. It's selling Allied Van Lines. I Councilman Workman: Secondly quickly, there's a street light out at the corner of Saddlebrook and CR 17. Do you think we could get NSP on this right away? Then I'm dealing with Charles on a request for a sign on CR 17 telling you that ' here comes Kerber Blvd. Just like we have one for Carver Beach because some people have asked me, you know there's a lot of older people in there and inviting their friends down. Where's Kerber Blvd. so we can get a nice big sign that says this way to Kerber Blvd. . I know you're continuing with the letters I and maybe I need to call Roger myself. Voting machines. Are we going to get some new voting machines? Mayor Chmiel: That wasn't on the agenda. 30 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 I/ Councilman Workman: I know. I wanted to bring that up. We did look at them. Those that stopped in. I think it's a good idea and would give us instantaneous voting records rather than waiting until 3:00 or 4:00 or 6:00 a.m. . Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see the cost first. I Councilman Workman: Right and there's all kinds of deals we can work with Chaska and Carver County and everything else. I'd like us to look into that. That's all I have folks. Mayor Chmiel: Amend. Motion for adjournment. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth r City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim ' I 1 31 I II CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION 11 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21 , 1991 IIChairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p .m . . MEMBERS PRSENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Annette Ellson , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens IISTAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; and Kathy Aanenson , Planner II IIPUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY ZONED A2 , AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT RR , RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT . ITO Public Present: IName Address Jane A . Poulos Lot 12 , Deerbrook IDavid M . Halla 10095 Great Plains Blvd . Eric Podevels 200 South Shore Court Bjorg & Jerry Hendrickson 900 Homestead Lane Don Halla 10 ,000 Great Plains Blvd . II Mark Halla 770 Creekwood Mark Danielson 11150 Sumter Circle Charlotte Morrison 1051 Homestead Lane IIBlair Bury 5537 Co . Rd . 4 , Minnetonka 55345 Sunil Chojar 7480 Long View Circle IIKathy Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . II David Halla : I 'm David Halla . I sold part of this property to my brother here when I retired . I kept 10 1/4 acres for myself . Now we 've been out here before this was even a city . When it was still a township . Now of I course when it became a city it had all of these people come in and all this bureaucracy to run everything but these people in the Planning Commission don 't represent the people . They represent their own political I little aim . The things that we 've been doing with these large acreages haven 't interferred or caused conflicts with other people . But now they 're coming in and wanting to change the way we do things and I don 't think they have a right to do that . But they 're going to ram it down our throat and I I think this hearing is probably going to turn into a dog and pony show just to legitimize their way of coming in the back door and changing things without allowing the people to have a say . And I don 't think that 's right . II I know the past history of Chanhassen , you people rubber stamp everything that the Planning people come in and do and that isn 't right . IIEmmings: It isn 't true either . David Halla : Well , a lot of it has been in the past . And you know when you come out and invest a lot of money in property 30 years ago and then I you have people come in here and now want to tell you how you can use that property , then it doesn 't become a democracy anymore . I take strong II IIPlanning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 -• Page 2 II objections to them coming and doing that . Another thing , you 've got this I bluff rezoning thing . Now when I built my house out there , I built my house right on the edge of the bluff . I would like to know how these people in the Planning Commission get the expertise to tell a homeowner or a developer how far to have a setback . They don 't know the ground I conditions in each area . I 'm sure they 're not that smart . I think each location has it 's own uniqueness . Now my house is built approximately 5 feet from the edge of the bluff . I would have never built it that close if II had thought that I 'd have had a problem but it took a D6 dozer 3 days to dig the basement . That 's how hard the ground was . I haven 't had any problems with erosion . I haven 't had any problems with runoff . I even 1 bettered it . I took and planted crown vetch on the hillside which grew a real good ground cover and prevented erosion but now they come in with this rule and say you have to build the houses 30 feet back . Of course I understand mine 's grandfathered in but the point of it is , we 've got too I damn much government . You know a little common sense like the Village Fathers in the township went a long ways . But now it doesn 't seem that common sense prevails . We 've got people coming in here with their own I little ideas and not representing the interest of the people and wanting to ram it down our throat . The same thing with changing this from A2 to Rural Residential IIEmmings: What effect does that change? David Halla : It 's going to increase the taxes . It 's going to increase IIyour taxes and already we 're being taxed out of house and home . Emmings- And how will it increase your taxes? IDavid Halla : Well they 're going to take away the Green Acres classification when they go to Rural Residential . IIEmmings: Is that true? Aanenson : No that 's not . I didn 't mention that but that is in the memo . I I did speak to the Orlin Schafer at the County Recorder 's office and he said that the underlying zoning is not the criteria for Green Acres . They have a checklist of criteria , one of those being acreage . 5 acres I I believe and the use that they 're using has nothing to do with it . It could be RSF and still quality for Green Acres so the underlying zoning is not the criteria that they use . II David Halla: But years ago I used to run registered Angus cattle out there and I had a pretty good sized herd . They change this from A-2 to R that 's not going to be allowable anymore . IResidential , Emmings : That 's right . Is that right? IDavid Halla : And that certainly was an agricultural use . Emmings : Can he run cattle if he 's changed to RR? I Aanenson : Agricultural says that they can have cattle and if he continues to have it , he can . II I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 -- Page 3 Emmings: So that 's not right either . ' David Halla: Yeah , but not if they change it from A-2 to RR . Aanenson: No , agricultural is still a permitted use and cattle is one of II those criteria . David Halla : But it 's going to increase the taxes when you go from A-2 to II RR . Emmings: Is his property one of the ones that is being changed from A-2 toll RR? Krauss: It is but there 's something that I 'm not certain of here . What 's confusing me is 3 years ago I believe the Halla 's had approved a 5 year variance to the ordinance that changed to 2 1/2 acre lots when the Lake Ann agreement with the Metro Council . We gave a couple of variances for plats . Preliminary plats that were filed and they were given at least 5 years to . come in and final plat the property . This is the first time tonight that we 've heard , well it 's in a letter from Don Halla that there 's no intention to subdivide the property I think I read until the turn of the century . That is not the understanding that we had with them 3 years ago . If that II in fact is the position , then we will assume that this is rural land not subject to the subdivision and there won 't be any inherent grandfathering for those 2 1/2 acre lots . We 're more than willing to do that . Emmings: Okay , so if they don 't want that land changed to RR , they could say they 're not planning to develop the property . Get out of the arrangement that presently exists and keep it agricultural . Is that what you 're saying? Krauss : Sure . 1 Emmings: Alright , so they basically have a choice to go one way or the other? Okay . So we 've addressed two concerns of yours is the tax and using it for agricultural purposes . Do you have any other specific problems with changing it or can you tell us how else you think this might negatively affect, you? The change from A-2 to RR . , David Halla : I sold this property to my brother when I retired from the business . Emmings : So it 's his problem? David Halla: It 's his problem with the subdivision . However „ the 10 1/4 acres that I 've got are divided into 3 lots that go with the subdivision . Now I don 't intend to develop that into 3 lots . Whomever I sell it to , and I hope I can sell it and get the hell out of Minnesota as soon as possible but whomever I sell it to then has the priviledge of developing those other two lots into additional acreage out of this 10 1/4 acres . So if my brother wants to drag this thing out and procrastinate , that 's his business but then I become the victim if he doesn 't perform . Emmings: And how does the change from A-2 to RR affect any of that? II Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 , 1991 -- Page 4 IIDavid Halla : Well first of all , they may be telling you here , these people in the Planning Commission that the taxes won 't increase but I 've talked to those people down there at the Assessor 's office and they have told me that when you change it from the agricultural to Rural Residential , the tax is 1 different than what it is on the agricultural rate . Emmings: Okay , and who 'd you talk to there? IIDavid Halla : I talked to Scott , it starts with a W the last name . Olsen : Winter . IIDavid Halla : Winter? And I also talked to the main Assessor . In fact we had a real go around here a while back . I went down when my brother did II this final plot on the subdivision because I am still involved in that to a degree and I hand carried the papers in there and saw that all the taxes were paid and everything and it went through to the registar and all of I this and I was about to go out the door and the accounting office , the gal called and said hey Mr . Halla . Come back here . So I came back and she said you owe $750 .00 for Green Acres change . I said what do you mean Green Acres change? And he said , well he said according to the assessor you II only have a 2 1/2 acre lot . I said what do you mean I 've only got a 2 1/2 acre lot? I said I 've 10 1/4 acres . I said that qualifies me for Green Acres . She said no , it 's been changed . So I went over to this young fella II who did the changing in the Assessor 's office and I said what did you do changing this back here? I said I was over here talking to you not more than 10 minutes ago and I says now , I says I 'm telling that I have to pay $750 .00 for the Green Acres classification . I said that 's wrong and you II flat out lied to me . I said you were the one who did it . I said this is your initials isn 't it? He said yeah . I said okay . I said why didn 't you tell me you had done this? And so then the head assessor came along and he II looked at it and he said , you 're right . He said we made an error and he went across the street to the accounting office and told her . He said hey . He said he 's got 10 1/2 acres here . Not 2 1/2 . He said you had no right I doing that . And so they changed it all back but that 's the same thing that we 're talking about here . When you change it from A--2 to Rural Residential that changes the classification and the tax base . Now if these people want to increase the taxes on everybody that has large land , why don 't they have Ienough guts to come out and say it instead of coming in the back door? Emmings : As a matter of fact , in the information they gave us , there 's 1 information here that they talked to Orlin Schafer who 's the Carver County Assessor and he says that the residential zones qualify for Green Acres and that lots that qualify or meet the criteria under A-°2 would also qualify I under RR . That 's the information we 've got from staff that they got from the County Assessor . Now you 're saying something quite different . I don 't know . I David Halla : They 've told me that if you change it from the agricultural classification to rural residential it 's a different tax base and they 're going to assess you at a higher tax rate . I think these people know that . If they don 't know it , they 're confused . II II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 5 II Aanenson: The misunderstanding is the lot size . I think what Orlin said is there 's a minimum 5 acre lot size so if someone 's zoned RR and has 5 acres , they can apply for Green Acres . Emmings : I thought it was 10 . 1 Aanenson: Maybe it 's 10 . So if he has 10 then he 's fine . So whether II you 're 2 1/2 and you 're A-2 , then you couldn 't get it . If you 're 2 1/2 acres in RSF you couldn 't get it . It 's the lot size . Not the zoning designation . The lot size . David Halls : Yeah but what you don 't understand young lady is that large II acreages are still Green Acres until it becomes less than 10 acres in total . So like in my brothers situation where he 's got 100 and some acres . II Emmings : I think she 's saying the same thing you are . David Halls : Yeah , he can sell off all of those lots individually until hell gets down to less than 10 acres . At that point or it has to be 10 contiguous acres . So after it becomes less than that , then they go into this rural residential rate which is a higher classification . So if they come in here and want to do this on these large acres and change it from A-2 to rural residential , you 're going to increase the tax rate no matter what they are telling you . I mean that 's the bottom line . II Emmings : Okay , and I guess you 've raised some questions here . Our motivation in doing this . Now this move was motivated by us sitting up here . When we wet e working on the Comprehensive Plan there were some II issues that came up and it seemed to us to be a good idea to change subdivisions in the A-2 to RR . We thought it was better for the subdivisions . Not motivations about taxes . No motivations about anything else . Just that it seemed like it fit better than it does in A-2 . Now it may be that and I guess I 'd still like to know if you feel , right now you have control over a parcel that potentially could hold 3 houses where now II there 's one . Is that right? David Halls : Correct . Emmings: And it 's presently A-2? II David Halls : Correct . , Emmings: And I guess my question to you is , will the change from A-2 to RR adversely affect you? Not your brother . Not everybody but will it affect II you negatively? David Halls : Yes it will because it will increase my taxes going from A-2 to RR . I Emmings: And you think that will happen , once this is passed you think that will happen immediately regardless of what you do with the development of your land? I II II Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 , 1991 -- Page 6 I David Halla : That 's correct . And that 's why I am adamantly against it and I think some of these large parcels of land that are set apart that are unique like my brother 's situation there with a nursery where it 's IIlandlocked with the golf course on one side . With the canyons on the other side . That 's not going to have a negative effect on the surrounding areas because it 's kind of like an island in itself . It has natural boundaries that surround it that 's separated away from the other residential so . It 's IIjust like the Graffunder that moved down there . Now he was a city slicker that come out of Bloomington . Emmings : I was a city slicker from Minneapolis . David Halls: Well okay . When Dave Teich 's pigs would squeal up there at II his house , he 'd come up there and holler at him that his pigs were squealing . When I had my cattle out there and in June the cows get in heat . That 's when the cycle comes . The bulls beller . Well he was always Icalling the Sheriff up and saying Halla 's bull are bellering . So finally I told the Sheriff , I says tell him if he wants to come down and put a muzzle on that 2 ,000 pound bull , to go ahead and do it . I mean I think some of these things are a little bit asinine to come in and say hey , we 're going II to categorically change all of this stuff now from A--2 to Rural Residential . Limit the use on everything when some of these areas are unique amongst. themselves . I think you have to judge each individual area . II You ,just can 't categorically go across the board and say hey . This is right for everybody . Emmings: Let 's back up . You said limit the use . This won 't limit the use IIof your land or do you feel that it will? David Halla : I feel it will . It 's already spelled out in here certain IIthings that they wanted it limited to . Emmings : And what way do you feel that it will limit the use of your IIland? Again , let 's stick to your land for purposes of your comments because I want to know if it 's going to harm you . David Halls : Okay . I used to run cattle out there . Now if I go and put II cattle back on that land again and I 've got all the squeeze chutes and the scales and the corrals and the pins and all of that are in there . If I go and put cattle on that Land again and they say that you can 't run it IIagricultural and it 's rural residential . Well rural residential won 't classify for running cattle . Emmings : Okay , we covered this once . I Resident: You couldn 't build the shed for the cattle though . Emmings : That 's true . You can 't build the accessory buildings that sometimes you have associated with farm use . That 's true . That is a way it would limit your use . IIDavid Halls: Right . But the main thing is that I know that going from A-2 to RR is going to increase the taxes and we 've got enough damn taxes right now . The only other thing that I 'm objecting to is this classification of I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 7 the bluff setback . Now I think that has to be addressed individually . , Emmings : Wait a minute . Can you hang around because we 're going to address that individually in just a few minutes . That 's the next item on the agenda so why don 't you hang around and give us your comments on that . David Halla : Alright , fine . Thanks . Emmings : Is there anybody else that wants to be heard on this? Yes sir . Mark Danielson: My name 's Mark Danielson . I have a lot over in Lake Riley Meadows and my concern is too about the taxes . To me it doesn 't make sense that if you 're going to go from agricultural zoned area to something that 's called a residential that the taxes are going to stay the same . I think that we as property owners need to have an assurance from somebody that taxes may go up but we 're not going to be in a classification that 's going to jump us up . The other thing is at Lake Riley Meadows there 's only a couple of lots left and I don 't think that anybody 's going to come in there I and put a cemetary in it and I would assume that if it 's zoned A-2 they can 't just go in and put a cemetary in . They 've got to come in and talk to the commission or whoever before that can be done . Some of the things II about buildings or stables or that type of thing , I would think that that would have to go before a commission and I think it does say that there 's some variance for that and that 's keeping with the large lot development . If somebody wants to have horses , that 's nice . It would make sense to me , I at least from my perspective and where we have a lot , that each one of these areas be looked at to see where there 's a potential problem . Obviously there must have been some reason that you decided that maybe I these should be RR versus A-2 . Whether it was a specific problem that you had with fear that somebody was going to come in and want to do something , but some of these areas , especially if there would be a change in the taxes , are basically developed . I don 't know as well the other large lot areas but I can speak for our area on that . Thanks . Emmings : Thank you . Anybody else? ' Charlotte Morrison: My name 's Charlotte Morrison . I live in the Pioneer Hills area and I just want to tell you that I 'm happy that you 're changing II this and I think in the long run it will be beneficial to us and I know that things can be put on these lots without getting permission for it that might be detrimental to neighborhoods and I just wanted you to know I 'm happy . Blair Bury : My name is Blair Bury . I have a lot in Timberwood and my concern also is the possible tax increase . I have to agree we have plenty of taxes now and I really don 't appreciate any more if we don 't need it . I think the limitations are reasonable that are on there now and I think that 's everybody 's concern is going to be the tax change . I agree . They 're going to have to go up but I think the mil rate should stay constant if we can . Sunil Chojar : My name is Sunil Chojar . I have a lot in Timberwood ' Estates . It 's only a lot at this stage . My question is , how is it going to impact the large size that is already existing here? Can they be II II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 19P1 - Page 8 ' further subdivided or what 's going to be the effect of A-2 to RR with our sizes? I Aanenson: It 's the same minimum lot size . Same setbacks . 2 1/2 acres . The same setback requirements in both zones . Emmings : Okay . So on items you 're mentioning , there 's no difference I between the A-2 and the RR? Sunil Chojar : So the size is going to stay the same? IEmmings : The size is going to stay the same . 1 Sunil Chojar . Thank you . Don Hallo : Good evening ladies and gentlemen . I 'm Don Halla . I 'm concerned about changes that would affect the nursery business . If you read my letter , you incorrectly read or stated what I said in the letter . Our intention was to stay in the nursery business in this area and not to be forced to subdivide . But in fact I was forced to go into 2 1/2 acre I lots because I had just purchased the property from my brother . Taking into consideration the cost and the value of the land with the anticipation that it would remain at 2 1/2 acre lot sizes . Then it was determined that I it was changed to 1 lot per 10 acres . In order to preserve the value of my land and not lose 3/4 of it , I was forced to come in with a subdivision for 2 1/2 acres . It was not something I wanted to do . It was something that was forced upon me by economics by a purchase that had just been done and I then a change in zoning ordinances had put me in a box . We have tried and I asked permission to drag my feet as much as possible . I think you know that , so I could remain in the nursery business . We have met all the rules II and regulations . We have given up property for road easements , etc . . We have three lots that have been subdivided and when you talk about Green Acres we were back charged in Green Acres prior to the subdivision even I going in . Prior to the 2 1/2 acre lots happening and that was done because it was determined that we were going to do it in the future so we would lose our Green Acres advantage of those areas and we were charged at regular lot values . Supposedly January 1 when the subdivision takes place , I you 're supposed to be appraised on January 1 . We actually had it signed by the city sometime I believe in February or March . It wasn 't registered until that time . Our land values actually were looked at and the Green I Acres removed as of January 1 because they anticipated us doing it sometime this year which is incorrect but it was done and nobody 's reversed it and we 're paying taxes on the higher rate . So how that preserves Green Acres for other people and how it would be involving them , I don 't know . It did II adversely affect me personally . As far as the intention of subdividing and so forth and continuing with the project , I only want to do so as rapidly as you folks force me to do so . It is my intention , as I have said right Ialong , to stay in the nursery business . Maintain, probably at least 10 acres or 12 acres for my nursery operation in the center core of this . Any changing from A-2 to RR could adversely affect my ability to put up I buildings and so forth that are needed to operate in the agricultural method that we have been operating on . We still would continue to grow plant material . We still have those plans on doing so . I am only doing the subdivision and I will only do the subdivision in order to preserve the il I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 9 value of my property . Based upon putting myself in the box of having paid way too much for the property if all I 'm able to get is 1 lot in 10 . And that 's , I think the letter is self explanatory . Even now we have really growing on almost 2 1/2 of the 3 acres area is still in agricultural . It 's still in trees , shurbs and evergreens . We still harvest it . We have lost the Green Acres on those two lots that are still being used for agricultural purposes , even though they are right attached to the rest of the nursery and are being used for agricultural purposes . I think RR II changing would probably make this even worse . I don 't know . I don 't know the exact ramifications of that but if it 's already happened under A-2 , I certainly think it would get worse under RR . So I would prefer to keep it the way it is and of course at this point there 's nobody else living there that it affects except one person and that 's Mark Halla . Well actually two . Dave Halla would also be in that area Any questions? Emmings : Are you going to stay around? They may have questions for you later , Y.�a sir . Mark Halla : My name is Mark Halla and I 'm currently the only resident at Great Plains Golf Estates . I own the one lot that is sold and Don does have a point that it 's currently being used for mainly nursery use . The other two lots that have been subdivided are 100% nursery use at this time . Of course as everyone else is concerned about taxes , I am as well . There 's no need to get them any higher than they have been and we 're all hoping to keep them as low as possible for as long as possible . I also have concerns I want to stay in the nursery business as well . It 's been a family operation for a long time . We 've been here from the time the City started . Basically a township to a city . We 've helped employ quite a few citizens . We basically are a sanctuary in ourselves . We 've got the natural boundaries . As has been pointed out , we grow the trees . Basically it seems to me that we 're an ideal thing for a city to have . A working nursery is open space that you didn 't have to take from a developer . You didn 't have to fight for it . It seems to me you 'd want to preserve it as long as possible . I don 't personally believe that 's going to continue if we convert to RP . We have enough problems as it is under A-2 and forced to subdivide as Don has pointed out . Some of the things don 't seem right . It seems like we 're growing a method that in a sense doesn 't make a lot of sense . Growth is important but I think it needs to be a little bit better I planned and organized and each individual area needs to be evaluated separately as an individual area . We 'd like to maintain our nursery operation . We think it 's a plus for the city of Chanhassen but obviously we can 't do that if we 're not allowed to put up a truck building if we need to store our equipment and keep it maintain . . . increase rapidly because out in the weather things age quicker . Certainly you understand that . You wouldn 't want to park your car outside in the winter if you didn 't have to . The same thing with us . We need to have the ability to do that . We don 't need to pay the extra taxes and I guess the change in time is a good one and I 'm all for it but it needs to be done at the end of it all . Once ever> thing is developed . I don 't really think that in this city I think things are watched carefully enough . There isn 't going to be a problem with someone coming in and doing something that you really didn 't want to be done that was that big a problem . Little things may come through . I may put up a shed on my property that my neighbor doesn 't like . It 's not a major deal and in time that can be changed by the City ordinances but I I/ 11 il Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 10 I don 't believe to change it ahead of time is the right move . I think once the areas are more developed that it might make more sense . Unless you 're going to point out separate places and areas and say okay , these are exempt I from these changes and that may be something you want to look into as well . That 's where I stand . Emmings : Okay , thank you . I 'd like to ask the staff if there 's a reason I maybe to distinguish Great Plains Golf Estates from the rest of them that are listed here on the basis that we 've got an operation going on that property which is the nursery operation going there whereas in the rest of I these we 've mostly got a lot of houses or just land sitting empty waiting for houses to come without agricultural use . I think they might have a point about being able to erect buildings for their operation . So is there I some kind of a basis here for distinguishing Great Plains Golf Estates from the rest cf these? Krauss : Well Great Plains Golf Estates is different from the rest in that. I for the most part it doesn 't exist yet . It 's only been preliminary platted . IEmmings . And it 's in active use which this change might. affect . Krauss : It could conceiveably . You know it was our intent in putting it I in with the rest of the subdivisions wasn 't any part of a grand conspiracy . It was the fact that it was a rural subdivision much as the way the others were . If there 's some desire to keep it out of that designation until additional subdivision occurs or if it occurs in that time period as been I oI-a•yed by the Council , that 's fine with us . We have no secret or otherwise agenda . Ha did go to the point of contacting Orlin and we 've done in the past , I think you 're aware we had him testify at the Comprehensive Plan on I some related , similar types of issues . He confirmed for us that this in and of itself will not raise taxes . Of course Orlin would always then say the taxer:: are always going to go up as property values . . . If it would put people 's minds at ease , we could have him at your next meeting or the City ICouncil mooting or get something from him in writing . Erhart : Can I ask a question? IEmmings : Yeah . IErhart : When 's a subdivision a subdivision? Krauss : Well , that 's real difficult to say on the Halla 's request . IErhart : I mean at what point in the process does it become a? Krauss : Well it 's been final platted . We accepted the final plat a few Imonths ago which platted most of it into outlots and knocked off the three lots along the road into the golf course . IErhart : I 'm referring to the either 20 or 30 lots . Olsen : They 're an outlot . They 've been platted as an outlot . I I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 11 1 Don Halle : We only platted 3 out of 35 . ' Erhart: So really Halla Nursery really isn 't a subdivision as yet? Emmings : Well there 's been a plat that 's been approved and filed and it is II a subdivision plat so I think it is a subdivision . That 'd be my guess . Do you know? Ahrens : It is if it 's a final plat . Emmings : That makes sense to me but it 's still , it feels like it's different to me and I just wonder if that , do you think that the factual difference that we 've been talking about here would be a reasonable basis for distinguishing that one from the rest of these? Krauss : I think so . I mean clearly all the others are either fully developed or becoming so . And it would be probably reasonable to leave the Halla in it 's current state until or if they decide to proceed with the full subdivision . Emmings : Okay . Is there anybody else? The public hearing 's still open here . Is there anybody else here that wants to speak on this? Erhart moved , Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Erhart : I think this is a real good ordinance . I think from what I understand the purpose was to protect those people who are in rural subdivisions . So I also think it doesn 't make really any sense to throw Halla 's into this . It doesn 't serve the purpose we 're setting out to do so . The only thing I had is I think we missed a couple . What is West 96th Street? Krauss: To the best of my knowledge that 's a condition that pre-dated anything . ' Erhart : It 's a bunch of 1 and 2 and 5 acre lots all essentially in a subdivision . Why wouldn 't we throw that in here? Protect those lots as well . Krauss : Conceiveably you could although if the Halla 's character argument has some validity . West 96th Street area is a little bit different than most of the rural subdivision that we have . They 're larger lots to the best of my knowledge . I know there 's a number of people that keep a lot of horses out there . We can include it . Erhart : Some are 1 acre . One side of the road they 're almost all 1 acre and the other side they 're . Krauss : They 're pioneers . Erhart: I just assumed that we would include that since it 's basically the same average density as all the rest of them . I suppose we haven 't notified them . I guess my paint would be , I guess I assumed that they 1 I Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 1991 Page 12 II would be included . I would suggest that we table it until we notify them . Unless we can find if they have some objection because I think it 's the same character . In fact along the street it 's actually much higher I density . The lot width is only 150 feet there . For all the other ones it 's at least 180 or 200 so in a sense it 's actually more dense . Those are my comments . II Conrad: I like the ordinance . It makes sense . It protects people who are moving into large lots . I agree with leaving the Great Plains Golf Estates out of this . It 's a different animal altogether at this point in time . I II don 't know what triggers bringing it under . Back into this ordinance . Somebody has to tell me when that 'occurs and I guess I 'm still interested in the tax . Don said he 's seen the tax . The implications of this and by 11 no means was this intended to change tax rates . It 's intended to protect people . People that are moving in and the people that want to experience the rural area and that 's why we 're doing this . I 'm sure there are better ways to mak '? mon So I guess I 'd like to see the Assessor at the City ICouncil meeting and talk to the City Council about the implications of this when this comes to their table . That 's all . Emmi.ngs : On Ladd 's question when this question might arise . Assuming Great Plains Golf Estates were left out . The question is then when will we reconeid:_ , rezoning it RP? And now whenever they want to develop II something , they 're going to be bringing in an outlot with a plat right to subdivide it into lots and we 'd have an opportunity to consider the question ,_.t that point . Would that be right? Okay . Annette? I Elloon : I think it makes sense . I don 't know that we communicate enough to t hr people what we 're motivated behind here . I know that I remember thinking if I lived in Timberwood I wouldn 't want a mobile home moving in right next to me and right now it could and I couldn 't do anything about it . And I might have a $250 ,000 .00 house and there 's a nice mobile home sitting there . And we were looking at it from the standpoint that a lot of people are out there trying to be spread out and trying to have homes and II it 's not set up to protect homeowners . That 's why I appreciated Charlotte mentioning that. . We did a had job of communicating our intentions I think mayb e. in that letter so . As far as the qualification for Green Acres and ilthings 1iJe that , I agree with Ladd and Tim and everybody that what we need to do is bring in the County since we 're getting two different people 's reports and I 'm not doubting every person believes what they heard was I right . You know David heard from one person and we heard from another as far as the City so let 's get him in here and find out . Like Mark was talking about maybe it 's not , it 's based on the same , what they 're basing the t.aH. on is the same . We won 't be able to promise that rural residential II versus A will never rise next year but they should always be based on the same thing . So if one rose so would the other anyway but . When, we did this we thought boy , there 's a lot of people out there that could have some nasty things coming right behind their backyard and they wouldn 't have anything to say about it and we couldn 't stop it . It doesn 't matter that it comes forward and we don 't like it . The law would allow those people to I hav that and we couldn 't do anything about it so we had good intentions . And I agree with the nursery but I also think that somehow it has to trigger going back into it if it 's no longer used for that purpose . Nothing new I guess, II . II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 13 E mminga : Oka/ . Brian? II Batzli : I agree entirely with Ladd 's comments and I also agree with Tim that if there are additional areas in the city that fit into this kind of a mold , that we should take a look at them and I would love to be at the ' Council meeting to hear the Assessor tell the Halla 's why they were apparently treated somewhat differently . Farmakes : I think it 's a good piece of city ordinance . People deserve I protection when they move into that type of situation . I think one person 's dream may be another person 's nightmare . When you exercise or I come and say that , we 've seen this before that if you buy a piece of property or if you 've been here for many years , you should have a special right to utilize that property . That goes to a certain point . That 's why they have grandfethered . But it also stops at a certain point . If , someLod, purchases this property , I think they have the right to some protection under zoning . And the issue of the taxes , I 'd agree . I myself have problems at the County level getting a straight story sometimes and that would be great if they came to the City Council meeting and respond to , that issue . I don 't have any further comments . Ahrens - Whet about this letter from Marlin Edwards? Did you get a copy of II that? Aanenson: Yee . He sent it to me . I Ahrens : In this , where is this? Aaneneon : The subdivision? I Ahrens No , I mean . Aenencon: It 's Sunridge Addition . II Ahrens : Oh , _hat 's in Sun? idge? I Aanenson: Yes . He has a 10 acre lot . Ahrens : It says he has an agricultural business? I Aanenson: He 's using it as agricultural . He doesn 't have a home or anything . It 's a 10 acre lot . He has 10 acres that he 's using II agriculturally . Ahrens : So he has a wholesale nursery going on there? - II Aanenson : I don 't think so . I think he 's just growing crops on it . Olsen: I don 't think it exists . I think he 's saying that he would want to do that . Ahrens: He calls it his intensive agricultural business of breeding new II varieties of vegetables and fruit trees . I/ II Planning Commission Meeting 11 AUgue4- 21 , 1(:)91 -- Page 14 1 Aanen_on : He works at Green Giant , yes . Ahrens : Did c'u read this? 1 Patzli : Yeah . Ahrens: I guess if we 're going to consider special uses for a special 1 category for Great Plains Golf Estates , if other subdivisions have active commercial nurseries on their property , maybe we should exempt them too . I Emmings : I think the difference here is , I 'm not sure but I think the difference is , Halla 's have basically their entire property in a large operation . This guy 's got one lot in one subdivision that he says he 's got an intensive agricultural business . I don 't think that . . . 1 Aanenser : He 's an anomaly . He was concerned that he would be able to continue what he 's doing to the property because he 's different than I everybody else in the subdivision and he was saying , you know if this gets , can I continue to use this? Are my neighbors going to be concerned? 1 Emmines . And the answer is yes he can . Correct? Aanensen Right . 1 Ahrens his concern's are unfounded? Emmings: Well his concerns aren 't unfounded but this isn 't going to hurt 1 it . This isn ' t going to affect him in any negative way . I don 't. think . Ahrens : Well , I 'm going to recommend approval of this zoning change too II because I think it 's a good idea with the exception of , with excepting out Great Plain: Golf Estates for the reasons everybody else has said . I think there 's a lot of misinformation about the taxes and I think it would be good for everybody to show up if Orlin Schafer does show up at the City 1 Council rneeting . . .some answers out of him . Emmings: Okay . And I don 't have anything new . I think it 's a good thing I to do . I think the tax question has to be answered and I think that can be done at the City Council . The only question that 's come up is whether we ought to table it to be sure we 've included all the subdivisions that ought to be included or should we send it along and amend it later . I guess I don 't know . Conrad : City Council can open it up for public hearing can 't they? IKrauss : They generally do . Conrad : Yn h . So we could table it here and bring it back or we could vote on it and send it along to the City Council With the fact that . Krauss : I should add though the official , the legislative public hearing 1 is held by you so we could not add another subdivision . Conrad : Couldn 't? I I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 15 1 Krauss: We could not . That would have to come back through you . Emmings : I wonder if , do we think it 's just one? Olsen: Yeah . I don 't think you really have much else down there . It 's just in the A--2 district and I don 't know of any other ones like Tim 's . Emmings: My only thought would be that if we move it along having a public !' hearing for one we 're adding is not going to take that long and we won 't have to renotify everybody that 's here . That 's my only thought Tim . Erhart : So your recommendation would be what? ' Emmings : You can do what you want . Erhart : I didn 't follow you . Emmings : Will it be quicker for us or will it take less time for us to move it along now and just have a public hearing later on the individual one we 're considering adding? Otherwise we 're going to have to renotify everyb_,d, . Erhart : We could do that? Aan-cnr:on : Sure . You could always rezone .property at any time . Erhart : So what do you want the motion to be then? Conrad : That 's your choice . ' Erhart : CL , so you 're saying we move to approve it and then that comes back? Emmingc : I think those are our choices . Either we table it or we move it along and then later on if we want to add something , we can always . ' Erhart: How long is it going to take to discuss this the next time around? If I move that we leave the Great Plains Golf Estates out , is it going to II take that much time on another Planning Commission meeting? Conrad : Shouldn 't . Emmings : Don 't know . Erhart : Let me try that one . I 'll move to table the ordinance at which time we can review additional subdivisions and ask that Great Plains Golf Estates be removed from the proposed ordinance at that time . Batz l i : Second . ' Emmings: Alright , is there any discussion? Conrad : Yeah . I just would want to make sure that those that are here that are tracking the item , and I 'm sure the Halla 's will follow it but II Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 , 19?1 -- Page 16 Iwhen WE table it and bring g it back , it 's a way that people lose sight of where it is in the process of moving it up to the City Council . Co is there an official mechanism of making sure that these folks are aware , other than the city paper , when it goes to the City Council? IAanenson : If you want us to renotify everybody , we can do that? There 's a couple hundred people . IErhart. : Okay , so if we table it tonight we have to notify everybody that we notified again? IAhrens: Do we have to renotify? Aanfenson : He 's asking us to track it that way . IAhrens : Why ian 't publication sufficient? I Conra. Yeah , it is but again it 's one of those things that keeps people out cf touch . You 've got to be kind of diligent . I Eri-•._Irt : If you have a continuation of a public hearing , that 's something we 've done . Emmings : Yeah . IIErhart : N-ay , does everyone have to be notified then? IKr nu_. _ • •r ' you moving on? Emmin a : No , he 's saying if we table it and just continue the public hearinj to the next time it comes up on our agenda , do you have to renotify Ieverybody that was notified for this meeting? Kra _el'a : Well we probably would be because the notice that we sent them I told them that it would be at the Council on an appropriate date . That 's not the worst thing . We don 't object to doing it . IEmmings : No , we 're just asking what happens . Conrad : Co when we reopen the public hearing , we have to recommunicate to everybody . Big deal . And then when it goes to the City Council , people I would be aware of it only through our official paper . I guess they 're motivated enough to track it that way . That always bothers me . When we send along here to City Council , they know what day it 's going but that 's Imaybe a minor issue . Erhart : This here doesn 't bother me about it too much because a lot of I times we ' ll talk about zoning changes , we generally have two public hearings anyway I believe . We commonly have had two public hearings . Got a motion . IEmmings: Alright , any other discussion on the motion? El l so - I forgot what it is . Planning Commission Meeting I August 21 , 1991 - Page 17 Emmings : To table . I Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to table the Rezoning #91-9 for property zoned A-2 to RR for staff to review any additional subdivisions and to remove Great Plains Golf Estates. All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried 6 to 1 . Conrad: So it 's going to be tabled everybody that 's here . Be brought back for one other subdivision and I guess the message is , you 'll get a message about it but to track , to watch for it in the City paper so you know when II it goes to the City Council . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SECTION TO THE CITY CODE . Public Present: Name Address ' Nancy Lee/Pat Blood 10500 Great Plains Blvd . Jim Sulerud 730 Vogelsberg Trail Ari Fuad 6645 Cherokee Trail , Eden Prairie Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane Jane A . Poulos Lot #12 , Deerbrook David M . Halla 10095 Great Plains Blvd . Bjorg & Jerry Hendrickson 900 Homestead Lane Don E . Halla 10 ,000 Great Plains Blvd . Mark Halle 770 -Creekwood I Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . Ari Fuad: My name is Ari Fuad . I own a lot in Hesse Farm Addition . The west side . I think it 's the last lot on the bluff in that subdivision . All the rest have houses on them already so I 'm the only one who 's really affected by this . I think one reason , I bought the lot a year ago and one reason it hasn 't been developed yet is because the obvious site by the road is , though it 's on the bluff it doesn 't have any view of the valley because I of trees immediately between that site and the bluff and I don 't know what limited clearing means but there 's some substantial trees there . Unless you can cut down a lot of big oak trees which I wouldn 't want to do anyway , you couldn 't appreciate or you don 't get any benefit from that site . This property is 11 acres and it runs down the whole length of the bluff . All the way down to a railroad bed which has just been taken out and perpendicular or running the length of the lot is a ridge . When I bought the property a year ago I walked down there . This is actually an existing road that maybe Hesse may have put in sometime or somebody put in many years ago that runs down this ridge . The attraction of the lot to me was II another potential site and Jo Ann went and looked` at it and said what this ordinance is trying to do was prevent development of such sites within the bluff . The site may not actually be buildable if it 's indeed a sandy soil there though I believe , from the evidence , walking down this roadbed where IIPlanning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 -- Page 18 II there 's very little erosion on either side , that I think this site is buildable . I haven 't done any soil testing yet . I didn 't buy the lot so I I could build right between two neighbors . Maybe 50 from each side of the house . I wanted to build on this other site down the bluff . I feel that this ordinance is discriminatory to me uniquely . There may be others in my I circumstance just because there aren 't any other lots in this subdivision . Maybe in some of the other subdivisions that haven 't already been developed . I pay a lot of money for this lot . Probably more than I should I have but I really love the bluff . The basic intent of this ordinance I 'm in agreement . I wouldn 't want to see damage done to the bluff . At the same time , this is an 11 acre site and I feel that within limits I have to be able to put a house on a buildable site on this lot and a house doesn 't I take up that much space . It takes up maybe a quarter acre or half an acre . That 's the area that 's impacted . The rest would be left natural . Now I think as an alternative , and I 'll keep this same , I like the lot size . To I be 10 acres or greater but I think this is penalizing those people who haven 't rushed out there or haven 't built in a hurry and I think the intent could possibly be achieved for such sites through more normal permitting I process . I 'm not familiar with how permits are achieved or gotten in Chanhassen but I know if you ask for a required comprehensive soil test near the bluff . I think you could probably find some sites where you could put a house closer than 30 feet . For example your house , he said his house I was within 5 feet and he has no problem . I think also with regards to erosion you could also have strict requirements to put in erosion control devices and stuff that would limit the damage to the surrounding bluff . I I have built a house before and I know how much ripping and roaring construction activity does to a lot . But if there is a site that 's buildable , I 'd rather see the restrictions be placed just because , not I because of adjacency to a bluff or because of a certain soil conditions that would make it likely that a house there would fall off the bluff for example . I guess that 's all I have to say . I 'd like you to take my opinions into consideration when you consider this ordinance . Thank you . IConrad : Just a quick question while you 're up there . In your mind why is that 30 feet setback so detrimental? That 's the size of this space right Ihere . What does that do? Ari Fuad: In my particular circumstance , I went out there with a tape il measurer and because of this road going down one side of the bluff , I mean this existing road is in the bluff itself and it is cut into part of this ridge . So do I measure from the edge of the road or do I go down to the other side of the road which is some maybe 15 feet below either place . But II went out and measured the width that I 'd have to build on and I didn 't have a surveyor go out and say this is your lot line on this side but my estimate is I might have 100 feet with a loose restriction of the Iordinance . With a really tight restriction I might only have 70 feet of relatively flat area on top of the ridge . Now I should mention that one side of the ridge slopes off much more gently and that 's the side which my property line runs down . So I don 't know what the setback , is it 10 feet I or 15 feet from the property line in Chanhassen? Emmings : If it 's a side lot , it 's 10 . I Planning Commission Meeting IF August 21 , 1991 - Page 19 Ari Fuad: 10 feet so if I have 70 feet , if I have to be 10 feet from there , then that leaves me 60 feet which then gives me , if I go 30 back feet , I only have 30 feet in which to put a house which is pretty narrow . That 's using the narrow interpretation . If I consider the whole , go down to the edge of the road bed maybe 100 feet , then I 'm dealing with 60 feet which is possibly workable . But when I bought the lot I actually walked it I with an engineer and we talked about how we could excavate this area down to this roadbed . Have it more flatted the top and I could see where you wouldn 't want me to just dump all the dirt off the edge of the bluff and I I would certainly think it reasonable to haul a lot of that fill away . Then you 'd have a building site that could be approaching 100 feet in width . Then you take 30 feet off and you 've still got 60 feet , 60-70 feet which is is plenty of room to put a house on . But if I have to take . Emmings: Let me interrupt because I know it 's clear in your mind these distances end everything but at least for me I 'm real lost for these . But if his lot , let 's say his lot , the ordinance was in place and we went out there and everybody determines that there 's no place on this lot that he can build a house . Ari Fuad: There is a place though . Emmings : Okay , so you say there is a place . 1 Ellson: There 's a place that would meet it but it 's not . Ari Fuad : It 's not the place I want it . It 's a place that makes it a very ordinary lot . Emmings: But if there were no place to build , then he could apply for a variance could he not? Ari Fuad: But there is a place . Emmings: But there is a place , it 's just not desireable . Olsen: Right . , Emmings : I understand . Ari Fuad: And I think the value of the lot is greatly diminished . In fact II I would argue that it might be half what I paid for it if you had to put a house on that one site . Conrad: Does everybody understand what the situation is? Emmings: In general terms . When he starts talking about 60 or 75 feet , I don 't have any idea what he 's talking about . But I think what he 's saying is there 's a place he can put , the important part is there 's a place he can put his house . It isn 't the best place on the lot or where he wants to put his house and this ordinance will prevent him from putting his house where he wants . I . Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 20 II Ari Fuad ' And it might reduce the value of the property to both myself and I any other purchaser who would be constrained to follow this ordinance and that 's not a small lot . It 's 11 acres . IFarmakes : Can I ask a question? Ari Fuad : Sure . I Farmakes : You said you didn 't do any soil testing . Are you sure that that part of the lot is buildable? I Ari Fuad: No I 'm not but this ordinance might even preclude me from doing the soil testing because in order to do the soil testing I 've got to put a cat down there to clear out an area for the truck to get down there to do I the soil testing . And I 've a whole big question of how do I even go about applying for a variance to put a house there? Because I do the soil testing and then do I have to spend $3 ,000 .00 or $4 ,000 .00 to get a building plan for the site the way I 'd want it and then apply for a I variance and then have it turned down where I 'd lose my investment and then have to come up with a new plan for the other site if I decided to build there? 1 Ellson : No , you 're talking at the right time . The right time to come forth with it . IAri Fuad: And also , I like the intent of the ordinance . I like the bluff but as one of the last lots in this particular subdivision , and I can 't speak to any of the other ones that 's on the bluff , I 'm really the only one I being impacted . I don 't think there 's anyone else from Hesse Farm there because the rest of the lots that haven 't developed there aren 't on the bluff . They 're up on the flat area and you can put a house anywhere on Ithose lots . Emming : Okay . Thank you . Anybody else? David H.3l.la : I agree with the gentleman talking about the impact in decreasing his value on not allowing him to put his home where it affords him the most view of the bluff . That 's what he bought it for . I think you II people have to look at some of these things in a little broader perspective instead of taking the narrow view and categorically saying this rules applies for everybody . Now when I built my house , going back to that I again , I had a D6 Cat in there and it took them 3 days to dig the basement . Why? Because that was virgin ground . Never been touched . He couldn 't even push that dirt . It just kind of rolled up in front of the cutting edge because it was that hard . We knew that we weren 't going to have a I problem with erosion but to prevent that we seeded crown vetch on top of the grass cover that was on the bank and that has literally taken over and just covered that whole bank . There 's no way that can erode . Even when I you 're talking about the water runoff , sheets of water running off a roof . Well , I 've got a deck on the back but water runs on my deck and is dispersed even before it hits the ground . So I think you have to use a I little common sense on some of these things and can 't say categorically we 're accepting one rule that applies for each and every lot because it doesn 't . Now I 've got two other lots there , or at least one other that I I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 21 I looks over the bluff . I would assume that in the future , if whomever buys that wants to subdivide it and let someone build a lot there , they should II be allowed at least to remove some of the big trees that are right on the edge so it affords them a view . In the beginning on this ordinance when it first came out and I got this letter it said they were restricting the clearing of the trees there so they can 't have a good view . Well , if you do that , that 's again decreasing the value of the lot because why did they buy it in the first place? They bought it to have the view . Now when you say that it 's got to be back 30 feet , that doesn 't apply . They could amend this and say hey , if you want to put it less than 30 feet , you have to meet certain requirements of soil tests . You can 't put it on obviously sandy soil because that 's not going to support it . However , they can do that too I if they wanted it hard enough or bad enough , you could pilings down there and support that house on pilings . There 's another way of doing that too . So I don 't think you can come in here in a broad sense and say hey , it 's got to be 30 feet . That 's it . We 're drawing the line in the sand . Anybody that walks over it , we 're going to blow them out of the water . This gentleman has a very good argument . You know he bought his lot for the view . If he 's not allowed to take advantage of that view , it decreases the value of his lot and he spent good money on it . The same way with the lot that I 've got in the future there . Somebody 's going to want to take advantage of that view of the bluff . If they say it 's got to be back 30 feet , it decreases the value of the lot . Now if it doesn 't meet the requirements because the soil is sandy or it 's not buildable , then the person should come back in and prove that they can put a house closer than 30 feet without impacting the environment and there are a number of ways of doing it . I 've got a house in Florida that 's built on the intercoastal waterway . It has 58 pilings under it . No problem . If somebody wants to put a house closer than that , they 've got bad soil , if they want that view I bad enough , they can make it work but to come in and say hey , it 's 30 feet . That 's it . That 's wrong . I think each instance , each lot has to be looked at individually and you have to make allowances for people to take advantage of the view that they paid good money for . By coming across and saying hey , it 's 30 feet . That 's it . Then you 're decreasing the value of the lot and that 's wrong . That 's my opinion . Thank you . Emmings : Alright . Thank you . Yes sir . Don Halla : I really just have a question that I 'd like answered and that I is , how much problem have you had with this difficulty? How much erosion problems have you had on lots? Has it been a severe problem? Krauss : It 's been a very severe problem . We have some major erosion ' sites . In fact we just had a bus tour where we took members of the Minnesota PCA , the DNR , the Metropolitan Council , both Watershed Districts that are in there , Soil Conservation Service . In fact all these agencies we gave copies of this bluff line ordinance and most of them that have responded are encouraging us to be more restrictive then we 've proposed to be . I point out too that in Bloomington , the Watershed District just got I through with I think it was a $6 million dollar project to repair erosion to a creek bluff system along Nine Mile Creek that was basically caused by development and lack of foresight . What we 've learned is that once these problems start , there 's really hell to pay because they 're very difficult to stop . A couple of the sites that are highly visible and I 'd be glad to I IIPlanning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 -- Page 22 II take any of you out there . There 's the Dypwick property and Bartal II property . There 's even been one that involves the City with the road to the golf course . That one probably is coming the closest to be resolved at this point . But Dypwick is on the verge of losing some buildings and Bartal is concerned that if the erosion continues he ' ll lose his swimming Ipool . When we took the Bluff Creek tour , the hiking tour that we had earlier this spring , I think walking around the bottom you saw , those of us who were there , saw very visibly where these problems were starting to II occur and you don 't see them from the top . I know one site we looked at with a little bit of care was the new house that 's being built by the Redmond 's and it 's perched out over the bluff . Once these problems start . II Hopefully they won 't start . Clearly the desire is to prevent these things from happening in the first place because once they start , they 're extremely difficult to arrest . I Emminge : And other information we had is that the bluff areas in some places arc just very fragile and that even the change you get from building a house and just changing , getting runoff even from the roof in some of IIthese fragile areas can cause erosion to begin to occur because you 're just getting it more directed . I guess we saw some of those places . We went for a hiking tour along Bluff Creek last spring and we saw some examples of it but the people that were along from I think the Soil and Water Conservation IIDistrict? They were aware of many other examples where there 's similar land in other cities where they are having problems . That 's one of the . reasons we felt we had to get on top of this . The other thing is , you 're IIlooking at it from one end only and I think to some extent I 'm thinking about it in terms of looking at it from the other end . Do we want buildings hanging out over all over the bluff? It 's one thing to say. I setba: k 5 feet . It 's another thing when you talk about being out in some of thosc natural areas and seeing homes hanging out over the bluff and is that something we want . I don 't know but that 's another issue . I Don Halle : Okay . I 'm familiar with two of the properties that you 're referring to . One is the one that the City filled against without our permission on our property and running off of our property . Never asked I permission and hauled in several thousand yards of soil . Thinking it was somebody else 's property and never checking it . They didn 't properly put in the drains . They didn 't properly put in culverts . They didn 't connect Ithem properly . They didn 't extend drainfields properly . They didn 't put vegetation back on it properly . They did everything wrong that they now through their ordinance of anybody filling or anything , they 're extremely critical of those people of doing it right and yet during all of this I period of time the City has not come in and corrected the problem that they created . What they did wrong even though now they 're very restrictive on others . Dypwick 's property that you 're talking about , whether he was II allowed to or whatever , he filled that area and built on fill . I mean the guy was crazy to do it in my estimation . It had been there and hadn 't been eroding for years because of the fact that it was a sheer drop off . He IIwanted an extra 10--20 feet of property so he filled it with garbage literally . Demolition of buildings . Barrels . E(✓erything that he could get hauled in . Not clay fill . If he had put clay fill in there , he wouldn 't have had a problem . It was dumb on his part in my estimation . IIHe 's got his problems caused by it . Maybe he has to spend like , if you 'd like to take a look at a couple of the walls in Edina where people have 11 I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 23 1 spent a fortune to make buildable lots . I live one block from one that I think the lot 's still unbuildable but there 's a $2 million dollar house on top of it , that they 've put in 75 foot of retaining wall . They have no erosion problems . It 's pure sand . It was done and engineered properly . They have a driveway that goes up at almost a 40 degree angle to do it and they have to have heating coils and everything else but in fact they corrected the problem . What I 'm really just pointing these things out is there 's probably other remedies and necessarily building restrictions that if somebody gets themselves into these problems , they can work themselves back out . Now certainly in the nursery business we deal with them every day . There 's many different products that can be put on slopes . Anything from retaining walls to vegetation that will hold almost any slope there is . Crown vetch that David mentioned is what they use on the coalfields out east . That 's where it was originally developed because it 's such a sturdy plant and takes over and it has a deep root system so it does prevent erosion on crackly ground that has no food value in it whatsoever . How you write the ordinance and what you do with it I guess is purely up to you but what I 'm trying to say is that there may be other remedies to some of these things and I don 't think people should be allowed to put. in 15-20 foot of loose fill and then build buildings on them and then come back and complain about them later . I don 't think that 's right either and yet I think that the City should be an example . If they go ahead and do these thing` , they should remedy the problems that they create in their own making . We have a problem that we have been trying to prevent being a more major problem . That is we have soil erosion control structure . This is going to come up again so I will bring it up tonight and it will be affected by this ordinance . That is we 're back 15 years probably at this point through the Soil Conservation to prevent runoff on the nursery and to keep the valleys from eroding further up . We put in a dam and the dim was engiri rc :! and so forth by the Soil Conservation Division . In that 10 inch rain it wee weakened substantially . We have water running out of it and then mn of these days it 's going to go . With the new ordinance on grading and eo forth we can 't even really correct it . Certainly we were given a choice of putting in , we put in about 600 yards last year behind it . Frank?; the red tape I had to go through , I was going to do it again but put up 110 ,000 .00 bond in order to correct a problem which could be a major problem for the people down in the valley later and to fill a valley that 's been eroding for a million years and try to prevent the problem , it wasn 't worth it to me to go through the fight to correct a problem that. I know someday is going to harm somebody else because it 's eroding out . We 've got somebody right now that says hey , we 'll give you 30 ,000 to 50 ,000 yards of soil to fill this behind this dam to prevent it . He wants to move II it off the road out here this coming week . He can 't do it because it will take 60 days in the process to be able to do it . And yet it 's something that would prevent the type of problems that you 're talking about right now because if the dam structure goes , it would be a major problem : Where do all these things work? How does an ordinance handle situations like that? That 's why I asked about how much of a problem it is because I think there 's a lot of different ways of controlling erosion besides just having an ordinance which would prevent people from using the property and the view that they bought the property for . That 's all I have to say . Emmings : Thank you . I II . Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 , 1 9^1 -- Page 24 David Halls : I have one more comment . I 've been sitting here listening to thi':, and I think there 's a rather easy solution to this situation . You people require a building permit . Okay? In that building permit it could curtail someone going out there and I think it 's already being done , IIphysically inspecting the site and making a determination whether it looks feasible . At that point they can say , okay . If they want to put this house within 10 feet of the bluff or make the variance over the 30 feet , IIthey have to do soil borings to substantiate that the ground is solid enough and it 's not going to erode . You can also make it a requirement that they provide proper vegetation on the slope if the slope is disturbed by the excavating so that you put it back in as good a condition or better than what you found it . I think most homeowners would be more than willing to spend the extra dollar to preserve their own property . Okay? So that 's an easy way to do it . Instead of coming along and arbitrarily saying hey , Iit 's going to be .30 feet . That 's written in blood . That 's it . No deviations . If you want a variance you know , we may or may not go about it and people coming along from the Water and Conservation or Soil IIConservation saying hey , it should be 50 feet back you know . I think each site has to be looked at individually . You can do that in your building permit section when someone says hey . I want to take advantage of my lot . I want to put my house closer to the bluff so I can appreciate the view and get the value of my property from doing that . Now my brother 's talking about this dam and he was telling me all the hoops and everything that they wanted him to jump through . I built that dam . The Soil Conservation IIpeople came out and designed it and then they didn 't want to cost share with it because they felt it wasn 't enough watershed to protect . Well , the thing , the erosion was going back up in the field for about a city block and it was my determination at that time that we wanted to preserve that Iproperty and not continue to have it erode back farther up in the field and by puttin;i this dam in , we did that . Okay? Now over the years , I told my brother that he had to keep maintaining that thing you know and he got a Ilittle hit lax in it and he did have some erosion from the big rains and so forth and when he wanted to go back there and repair it , the Planning Commission here literally made him jump through hoops . Wanted him to put II in all kinds. of bonds and guarantees and stuff like that and I in plain langauge , that 's asinins . Here again you 've got bureaucracy getting in the way of common sense . A situation like that where the people took it upon themselves , at their expense to prevent the erosion of soil . Protect the Ienvironment . Anybody walked out there and looks down in that canyon and can see how what we did prevents the further erosion of that canyon down there . Hey , it 's a good deal . But now to come in and say you can 't keep Ithat maintained . You 've got to have a permit to come in there and put soil on it , I think that 's stupid . Now Dypwick on the other hand , that was an under the table deal that the city concocted and allowed this Ingram to I haul in his demolition materials and I saw those trucks go by and I called up here and complained about it . I said hey , you can 't be dumping demolition in there and building on top of that so that 's why Dypwick did . He created his own problem and the city then should , if you want to do I something like this , put some teeth into it and say hey . If people screw up and de stuff like this , they 've got to be responsible . It 's the same way with the Pollution Control has on underground storage tanks . If they IIleak , ; ou ;=':_;y for it . Okay? If these people do stuff like that , they can come in and be held responsible for it and you know , if you make a person responsible for building closer to a bluff when they have an erosion II 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1 9°?1 - Page 25 1 control problem and they take care of it on their own , they 're going to do it right because they don 't want to spend that money to clean up if they screw up and do it wrong . But people like Dypwick that did that where the City allowed them to haul in that debris for years and years and years and never scrutinized it and as far as I know , they are still hauling that stuff in there . It 's a good cheap way for Ingram to haul in his demolition material and his stumps and stuff like that and that 's not good fill but it was allowed to go on . You know that stuff is wrong but you could write this ordinance in a way that you make people that build closer to the 30 foot that you 're talking about be responsible for the erosion and be financially responsible for the clean up if something happens . Emmings: Okay . Anybody else that wants to be heard on this? Mark Halle : I just wanted to add a little bit on the dam that we have and I that we built since I 've been working on it myself mainly trying to get Cit,' approval as recently as 10 or 20 phone calls today to the City Manager . We have had this dam for years . I believe it was built in 1972 . It 's maintaining a rough estimate of 300 ,000 to 400 ,000 gallons of water . It drains approximately 35 acres . The torrence from the rains that we had just this spring moved boulders that probably weighed 400-500 pounds each . Moved them into the middle of the pound so there 's quite a bit of drainage coming into this area . What I don 't understand is if you 're going to adopt a bluff preservation item like this to protect it , then why is not the City helping protect it on it 's own . It has an area that is right across the road from mf site where I built my home that they filled without permission . Dumped lousy fill in there . Chunks of concrete . Chunks of tree stumps . All sorts of things . They did it exactly dead wrong yet now we mention that to them and said you didn 't even have permission . Can you at least push the piles down so I don 't sit here and look at these piles from my new house . So they did that but ever since then now we have a problem in r3verse on trying to maintain our own dam . If the City really wants to adopt an ordinance and help the bluff , then they really should really feel that way rather than allowing something . If' our dam goes to pot and that water runs through , I personally have seen it 3 to 4 feet deep and like I said , it 's rushing so quickly that all the rip rap we put in , probably 40-50 tons of it , washes into the pond and we need to dredge that out with a backhoe . When you have that much water running , maybe you want to sometimes help the citizens that are trying to work on I guess preserving that bluff . As far as I 'm concerned , if we don 't get help , maybe we 're best off to let it go to pot and we maybe will lose some field but I can afford to lose that if in the return the City realizes that it was a big mistake not to allow us to fill and maintain it . It can be quite costly if you have that many acres of ground letting the water through . The big damage was done in that 10 inch rain . We got it maintained last year by putting in some fill and restored it a bit but even this spring we didn 't have a problem with the washout simply because we restored it . We probably would have but like I said , if we 're moving boulders that big , it seems to me we should consider allowing people that are trying to repair things to keep the bluff looking good , we should consider allowing them to do so and not restricting them . Less they get the attitude of really not giving a damn about the bluff and letting it erode simply because they were not allowed to maintain it themselves . So I would hope in your planning that you would consider trying to work with the concerned citizens as well 11 IIPlanning Commission Meeting Augua t 21 , 1991 - Page 26 II and not simply adopting something that does shut out those people that are trying to do good by the bluff . Thank you . IIJim Sulcrud: My name is Jim Sulerud . I live within the area . IEmming : What is your address? Jim Sulerud : 730 Vogelsberg Trail . I think one thing that would be IIhelpful and probably worthwhile because the area has a diversity of problems , every parcel of lot is not experiencing the same problem . Something that might be helpful is to develop a specific plan like you do similar to a land use plan in minature but as to what specific actions you 're looking for on each parcel of land because I think you 've got some situations where you truly want to maintain the status quo . That is leave trees . Leave the current bluff line . Maintain the slope at what it is and I other situations you have erosion that has occurred that you want to actual1,• bring about some repairs . Maybe some filling is appropriate Other places there may be situations where you 've had fill that is inappropriate that ought to be removed or may take some special action to repair . So I think you have a variety of circumstances existing that you 'r7 trying to solve with a non---specific ordinance . I would think that it would be very helpful . The area is not that extensive and I know IIthen - 's miles and miles of line that you 've identified but I think it 's well worth your while looking at all the headaches over the years , to ge through ear_ h pareel and identify which of the areas that you intend to IImaintain the specific bluff line . That would help this gentleman . It would help the Halla 's . Are you trying to restore? Is filling appropriate in that ravine by the Halla 's or is it riot? Certainly there 's a natural erosion that occurs , has occurred over hundreds , thousands of years that Ihas created what you 're calling the bluff line right now . It wasn 't the bluff l in SOO years ago . So you 're picking a point in time and saying well this is what 's appropriate . Maybe in my neighborhood I 've looked for IIthe City to develop a fill plan to just keep TH 101 from falling in and we haven 't ycached accommodation there . It doesn 't either add or detract from in, propel ty . It 's just something that ought to be done because the erosion Ihas occurred over recent history but I think that would be a way of addressing each of the people on each of their sites in a way that 's very helpful to thc.rn and to the future owners to let them know what your intentions are . What that may mean is you have to define a more specific Ipurpose for the ordinance in the first place . That is what is it you 're trying to do . Are you trying to maintain the status quo? Are you trying to get to a position of holding a certain bluff line or I don 't think II that 's real clear . I think in general people appreciate what you 're trying to do but the questions that are raised seem to indicate that there are problems with that . I know there 's some very obvious problems that you 're I addressing . In the business fringe area a pole barn was erected . A metal shed that has tremendous erosion behind it . Through the bluff creek area there 's various sites of some places where there 's extensive erosion . Other places where there 's garbage filling and all of this would address all of IIthat . I think one big problem that the Planning Commission faces all the time and is again raised here tonight is the question of variances . I don 't knew you can get at it . Probably not through this ordinance but IIif there ' s always an avenue for someone to come to you to say well my situation is a little bit different . It 's really the out that hopefully II 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1091 - Page 27 1 wouldn ' t support the ordinance but if for instance the example that this gentleman has . He would like to have a certain view . Well what is the intent of the ordinance in that regard? I don 't think it 's been very clear to give him guidance or to Mr . Halla 's other lots . Are those 2 trees or 3 trees critical to the ordinance? I don 't think you 've said whether that 's critical or not to maintain those trees or is that a violation of their own rights of property owners to prevent them from cutting down those trees . I think you need that guidance . However , when someone asks to build within the 30 foot line and have a variance , what guides you on that? Just if it 's buildable? Mr . Halla again pointed out and I think you 've seen in the past a geed engineer can build on any site and can project over the bluff or whatever . They can put a swimming pool anywhere . They can float themin the air . You can do anything so I think to raise the question is something buildable is net helpful to use . Not helpful to the City . I think the City has to develop some firm guideline as to what the outcomes they want are on t` _• different properties . Because someone can always come in with a buildable plan and if that. 's all that 's necessary then you for all practical pu rpo'c,e have no ordinance . I 'd like to see that approach with regard to properties throughout the city because I think the city is on loos fcee ing nH n p-,ogle come to the Planning Commission to appeal bjecause they sag- thEy can accommodate , can prevent erosion . In this particular case erH I think they can make a plan for that but in the long run it may not be in the best interest . Because I live within the buildable area or in the defined area and I 'd like to maybe go from a 1 car garage to a 2 car garage someda , I 'd l i ke to see something specific: on saying that homes within that ar c a could maybe have a 25% or 50% square footage footprint added on . Something specific so that we know what we have to deal with . I think the perspective that you have to take in this particular case , hnceu:c t hcs€. bluff lines are established over thousands of years , is a long term perspective, . As a Planning Commission hopefully you take that , all the time and all your deliberations . Although you 're the Planning Commission for 1q91 , I think that the decisions you make certainly put house in place . Put roads in place that last for 100 years or hopefully 300 /e to at least establish those patterns that people see in the east coast and while I probably don 't intend to be offensive , I think the Halle ' - ere here for a few years and they ' ll be here for a few years more but it 's offensive to me that their approach where they intend to or give the flavor of them being here before the city and will be here after the city . I think you have to hear words of encouragement to stand up and make decisions that are here for the long haul . And the Halla 's are acting in their self interest as probably I 'm appearing here in my self interest . I think you and the rest of the city would be well to think of the , you know they weren 't here 200 years ago . They won 't be here 200 years from now but your decisions will be . Thank you . Nancy Lee : My name is Nancy Lee . I own the property at 10500 Great , Plains . Most everything I wanted to say tonight has already been said by all the other concerned people . I agree that rather than being totally restrictived , we should probably look at each site individually and I think through the building process the City already has the control that they need and that that building will come through with all of your permits , buildin_- permits , plans that the City has the power to make sure that you have proper engineering plans . That you have proper plans that are not going to be destructive to the bluff . I guess I see that if they continue I IIPlonninj Commission Meeting August 21 , 19C1 _ Page IIusing those proper measures , we shouldn 't have a problem rather than being totally restrictive . Then I have another question as far as how many times IIcan this bluff setback affect a property? I guess I 'm thinking in my case , possibly they 're going to consider that it 's the entire property or close to it . What do I do in a case like that? IIEmmings : I don 't understand your question . II Nancy Lee: I guess as far as the setbacks and everything according to the degrees and everything that was laid down , say my property happens to go like that so that I have multiple bluffs on my property instead of just one bluff . II Emmings : Is that in fact what happens? I don 't want to , if we get into hypotheticals here , we could be here all night . Is that what actually IIhappens on your property? Nancy Lee : I haven 't sat and looked at the degrees and things like that . I 'm on the parcel on 212 that goes straight down . Is the railroad tracks II that have just been pulled , is that considered the start of a bluff? TH 1 's another one of my concerns . That happens to be a business fringe district and I guess already we 've gone through some very restrictive IImotions on it to the point that I 'm trying to sell it because the City won 't allow rue to build my business there or anything of the likes so my step is to sell it and if I continue to get more restrictions on it , I can ' t sell it and it does me no good to sit there . I guess one other thing III just wanted to say , it has nothing to do with that last comment is this gentleman rradc a comment that he " loves the bluff " . I think most the peopla that buy property on the bluff and plan on building on the bluff it IIis because they love the bluff and they 're not about to do something that 's goir2 t _. r._ '_ h: bluff . I guess that 's all I had to say . II Emmings : Than!' you . Vei7i cvorrson: I 'm Verne Severson at 675 Lakota Lane . We live on the bluff . W^ have a beautiful piece of property and I guess what I have to IIy. say pretty much the same as what everybody else has been saying but I want to reinforce a few points . That is that we like the intent of the ordinance . We want to be good stewards of the land . As property owners II we 're not going to do anything that 's going to damage our property and when we got this ordinance it looked more like , it looked like it was something confrontational . It didn 't look like it was something there to help us . IIIt 's some kind of an ordinance that 's being put out by an emergency State committee or something . We feel that the people of the City work for us . We 're the taxpayers so we would welcome any kind of guidance that would help us protect our property and as has been mentioned before using IIbuilding permits I think could be a good method . You do it with buildings now . You do it with installing sewer systems and I look at that as a way of the City 's helping me to protect my land and to protect the investment. II I put into it . I think that something like that would be more appropriate in this situation and again as somebody else mentioned , each piece of prop_-nty is different . Each piece of property has it 's own problems and I IIthin! the,/ each have to be looked at individually . I guess what it boils down to is that as a property owner I resent having the City tell me II I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page. 29 1 exactly how I can use my property . I would welcome the City telling me how I can improve on it or protect it from being damaged . Thank you . I Emmings: Anybody else? If riot , is there a motion to close the public hearing? ' Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried _ The public hearing was closed . Emmings: In response , I guess just as a general response to some of the comments or a lot of the comments that have been made here . I think that a lot of people that spoke are looking at this a lot differently than I am . I think that I 'm sure each individual property is very unique but to even suggest that we could develop some kind of ordinance that would be a separate plan for each individual piece of property is just , it 's unthinkable . We can 't operate that way . I think what we 're trying to do her = ie establish some kind of minimal standards so that we don 't wind up with problems with the bluff . Looking at the bluff as a very valuable natural feature of our community . A really unique feature of our community and make sure that there 's some minimum standards in place that everybody will hav to observe _ I don 't think we want to see engineering solutions to building over the edge . I think that 's exactly what we don 't want to see . Are there such things? Sure . I 'm sure there are . You know California , they build on the sides of hills all the time and then they continually have natural disasters that put these houses down at the bottom of the hill . But we don 't even want to see them hanging over the hill . I think what w"- 're saying is , sure the bluff 's been eroding for , you know since I don ' t know how long but since the glaciers went through and cut those valleys or the water coming from the glaciers cut those valleys or whatever and they 've been eroding ever since . And we 're not trying to stop that . That 's not , I guess that 's not our concern . I guess the concern here is for the impact that development brings . The increase in erosion . All of th-: impacts associated with development on the bluff . Looking at the bluff as a unique natural resource . We don 't want to see engineering solutions . We want to just kind of try and preserve them as they are . You say that property owners won 't do anything to hurt their properties and then you talk about Jeff Dypwick . You can 't say both those things at the same time . Some people even when they 're well intentioned hurt themselves and hurt their property and the problem is , again as we 've been told is that these areas are so fragile that once a bad erosion problem develops , it 's very difficult to do anything about it . At least in places . Depending probably on what the soils . . .and that 's why having financial guarantees to have those people be financially responsible won 't even solve the problem . Anyway , with those comments we 'll start down here . Ahrens : I agree with everything Steve has said . I happen to think that this is a very well written ordinance . I also didn 't get a chance to go through all the comments on the Soil and Water Conservation District and Watershed District but I can see that there are some things in here that I think should be included in our ordinance and I think we should table this until we can incorporate some of those changes . Fa.rmakes : I would also agree with most of the things that you said . I think there is a difference between self interest and community interest . II io lermin:j Commission Meeting iu=ue l 21 , 19'2;1 - Page 30 II I i-kelicve that there 's a difference also between definition of development IIan' pr servtion . What I see here is , and I respect your individual right to lc,cL at this from your personal piece of property but the community also has an interest in preservation of natural resources in this area . I think II that this is good legislation to do that . It 's easy for me to sit here becau:e I don 't own property on the bluff and I 'm sure that 's what you 're thinking but the intent of this is to preserve some of that and obviously in any type of zoned community or any type of preservation situation , you 're going to have to give up some right to do that . There 's a give and a take there . If you 're going to preserve , you 're going to have to curtail some development and that 's a given . Getting back to the actual IIlegislation itself , the comments that were made by the Soil and Water District and from the Attorney here , I think that those are valid comments made and I think that also we should table this until those are Iin':crpe rat ec: in there . Detail : Nicely put Jeff . I 'm not doing to repeat what 's been said but I wou l 3 l i _ a chnee at some point to talk about some of these changeo and I whether they 're actually improvements or not . I think it would be helpful to move thv intent section to the start of the ordinance . Emming: I thinl it 's at the start . Detail : Okay , thase other things go in the definition? IIEmmi no" Yeah . Detzli ' Oka_, , good . And I think the intent is in the ordinance and I I afire If ;'a Hen ' t preserve the bluff and we allow other people , no matter ho,-.• well me.e ning they may be , we 're not all going to justice to the L tuff . The) - : going to be erosion . There 's going to be things hanging over it and I 'd like to see the bluff preserved so as not to ruin it because I don 't want to yert around for the next Ice Age to get it back . Emm.i nc1a . It 's coming IE :zly It '.:. getting wa r er I thought . I Emmi ngs: Oh yeah . Annette . Elison: I think we still have variance procedures there but I don 't think II the building permit area would be a very good location to try to handle each individual situation . I can just see everyone saying well you let this guy do this and he had what have you . It doesn 't work in the building permit so I think that 's why we have setbacks for everybody and things like IIthat . I have trouble believing that you lose so much of your view at 30 feet . I don 't know how many people on the bluff right now that meet this . Actually there 's probably quite a few . I don 't like the idea of the I natural bluff having houses sticking out on it just like you said in California or right now that a property owner can go and clear cut it if they wanted to because literally they could and we 'd like to hope that they ha :, intentions not to do that but I 'm not going to be able to stop that IIright now and I don 't like the look of a house sticking out . I don 't think 30 feet is that big a deal . I 'm a little confused about , is it Ari? His I F)l;..iin.. . _;j Commission Meeting C ._ `;us i 21 , 1 9`:>'1 "' Page ?1 II situation . That you 're not positive that your preferential building place is e buildable lot even without it so you went ahead and purchased it II hoping; > cv could get that second . That wasn 't confirmed even when you bought it initially . Ari Fued: No it 's buildable without this ordinance because . I Ellson : You hadn 't done the soil information stuff though . Ari. Fund : I didn 't feel I needed it because the road went through there . . . II and it was actually not even on the bluff . . . Ellson: I think everybody would like this ordinance to be next door to II them so right around them it would all be protected . They don 't want it on their property . I think all the people that have it right now that don 't meet it ar : certainly grandfathered in except if they want to keep adding additions tr, it . Then right now they have more rights than somebody corning in bu that 's where it stops . They can 't tomorrow have additional ones when they want to build and the property next to them wants to build . I II think that 's fair . I don 't think it 's fair to say by the way , you 're grandfathered in and you 're grandfathered in to anything that you add also because where the stand right now . I 'm for it and I think that there is possibly a special circumstance . Maybe for this gentleman and maybe that would b, the variance . If he bought it with that in mind and was given assure nee's that that 's buildable for him and we take that away , that seems to be th = only situation that 's in the middle . You said you had quite a II -ew phone calls and he was one of them I 'ni sure but all the rest were try n;, t "e support it so I think there 's a lot of people out there that are sa', i , _ this sounds great that aren 't here today `o that 's it . I Emrin_;E ` 0J ay , Ladd . Conrad : 1Jhat 's the process that somebody has to go through if they 're I buildinj cn 3 bluff? I saw some words , the permit shall not be granted . Is there a bluff permit that goes along? Olsen : Yeah , we ' re going to like add that in with a grading permit . That I if they 're within that bluff zone and if they are to be extensive grading over the 50 cubic yards I think . 10? 10 . That that pulls you to a permit process . Then also if you 're going to be doing any stairways or the lifts within the bluff but the setbacks . Conrad. So the building inspector would trigger that? I Olsen: The building inspector? Conrad: What would trigger that for a homeowner? Pulling a building I permit? C'lsen They would have to get a building permit for that . I Corr ad : And that would trigger looking at this zone? II I/ I P1arrnin Commission Meeting August 21 , 1.^1 Page 32 II Olsen : Yeah . Then once this zone is on the map , then when those building Ipermits coma through , trigger that that 's in the bluff zone . Conrad : W,_ wouldn 't automatically ask for a permit . What would we? IOlsen : Wc,11 if they 're just building the home and that 's the 30 feet back . If they meet that setback . Then they don 't require any other additional permits . It 's once they get into that impact zone that there 's going to be Ialterat is n within that . Emmings : Or wouldn 't it be true too that if we 're looking at a new I subdivision , that would be for an existing subdivision . But on a new subdivision we 'd have to look at that and be able to set those just like we set the buffer zone along the lake up in the new Lundgren Bros . thing . IYou 'd wind up setting those in a subdivision I suppose . Olsen : flight r°err J it 's going to be treated kind of like a wetland . IIConrad - So they are going to . . .this hypothetical property 's going to build in that impact. zone so they have to fill out a permit? II Olsen: The grading permit , if it 's part of the building permit then we can catch orn of i+ Conrad CO it 's a grading permit? IIOlsen : Yeah , there 's two different ones . If it 's just going to be the c tiding witn_ „ aria like the stairway and removing the alteration and I vegetation , that 's what we 're talking about kicking those in with like the, grading permit or grading out a site within that bluff impact zone . That 's the graJing . That 's when we 're going to try to put that underneath the grading permit . Then you also have a building permit just for the. building II of the staucture . Conrad Oka: . This alteration of vegetation is probably where I 'm going Iand it says it 's not permitted within that impact zone but limited clear cutting _ Limited clearing . Not clear cutting . How is that determined? 3omebod,- who goes out , the building inspector? It 's pretty loose . II Olsen: I think one of the things that we 're going to add is that if somebody calls and we daily get calls about people who want to clear some Iof their vegetation . What we usually do is we 'll go out to the site and that 's what we were going to put . I think I 've got it in here where we would go out to the site . . . IIConrad : And what 's the guideline? Olsen: There really isn 't . IConrad : So it 's staff saying that this is probably appropriate? You know whet T fin3 interesting ng on this ordinance and I think all the comments I heard tonight were really good comments . And some of the requests say take Ia logk 3t the? site individually . I think philosophically I agree with that in a lot of cases . This government can do that . It 's a case where we look il Planning Commission Meeting Auguet 21 , 19'31 - Page 33 i at wetlands individually and we could look at bluffs individually and determine if we had the resources what 's right but as Steve said , practically speaking we just really don 't . This is an example , at least the way I rear it of a simple ordinance . We 're dealing with just a couple numbers an a couple pieces of philosophy . Sometimes those simple things are I guess I 'd rather have something simple than a complex , the complex things in government, don 't work too well . They get too ensnarled . We have an ordinance on two pages and after hearing the comments and I keep challenging the simplicity versus something that technically has merit . Taking the soil . We could develop an ordinance that really has technical foundation in it so we literally go out to every site and we literally , we say okay . Whet are we trying to protect? We 're trying to protect the view . We 're trying to protect erosion . We could set up standards and I guess the question is , that we and the City Council has to answer is , this is a real simple way that might accomplish a lot of that . Could pen.ilize 3 person hcle or there . It might have a bad deal out of it but it might be a simple approach because it reflects back to what we 've done with tr, ing tc adding in our landscaping ordinance . You can have some real technical things or you could just simple require 3 trees for a lot and th-t 'e elm: le approach to making , to getting to an end . Rather than a lot of complex mumbe jumbo that everybody gets confused with in our ordinancee: . Sc anyway I 'm struggling with some of the comments that I heceid saving de we need a more sophisticated ordinance or does this acomplieh it in concept? The other things , and I 'm just going to give you opinion . We have a wetland alteration permit process . Do we need a vavian,_( pieese hare? Yeah , bluff alteration . Do we need that? Again , that 'a run Ho jumbo . That 's more stuff to do . I 've never been , I think it puts us , it allows flexibility . Puts the City on the defensive . Hard to prove . Hard to substantiate . Hard to analyze all that stuff that comes in Herr' don 't have the resources as maybe an individual who can hire a consultant can and we just don 't have the energy to review it as well as other peeplc . Th- last thing is penalty . Are there any penalties for alteraticn? Olsen - Well the whole City Code always has the penalty section and if there 's a violation of the Code you can go the 70 days . Emmi ngs: Misdemeanor . Olsen: Misdemeanor . So that applies to anything in the Code so . Conrad : They 're pretty small right? Basically . Olsen- Yes . Conrad. They 're really not penalties of significance . Emmings : $700 .00 and 90 days . Erhei-t . Force them to face the Planning CommissiOn . ' Corn-aJ . That would he threatening all by itself . Emmings : But it isn 't enforced that way typically . Or maybe never . I/ II Planning Commission Meeting ilAugust 21 , 1991 - Page 34 Olsen: But the permit , the reason I kind of hush on the permits is that we I still haven 't gotten all the , where we do allow removal of vegetation or the topographic alteration . We haven 't really fine lined exactly what permit that 's going to be and what 's required in that . We 're talking the Igrading permit now but that will allow you to kind of look at it site by site . I don 't know that it helps Ari 's position but that 's where the variance application , he can go through that . IIConrad : He could but there 's no , right now there 's no standards for a variance . IIOlsen: It would be a Board of Adjustments . Conrad : But there aren 't any standards . There aren 't any guidelines for a II variance . Didn 't somebody say that if we were ever going to allow a variance , you should have something to tell you when you would grant a variance? IIKrauss: There are standard conditions that apply to all variances . It 's the hardship criteria or we 've added a neighborhood standard whenever it deviates . From what Jo Ann is telling me I 'm not certain whether or not IIthis would meet the hardship criteria . On the face of it , if there 's a legitimate building pad that doesn 't have a problem but the one you prefer does , the answer is build where there 's no problem . II Conrad: Right . IIOlsen: But the neighborhood standards might help . Emmings: No because , well . IEllson : The other houses in the same neighborhood . Ari Fuad: There are houses that are down the bluff . . . .possibility of Idoing ,it site specific . I know I 'm the last lot in Hesse Farm that there 's a question on and there 's a question on my lot because it isn 't a sheer bluff all the way down . It 's just a ridge that runs up . I think I 'm more I the exception than the rule and I think in this , I don 't know the other neighborhoods but you buy a 10 acre subdivision sized say in new areas and have a rule that says cut out the ambiguity about was it a sheer dropoff or was there some kind ambiguity . . . IIEmmings: How about if we put a comma after the ordinance and say , except for Ari? That 's a real problem . We get in a lot of trouble zoning one 1 site . If we do something it 's got to be across the board . Ari Fuad: But could it say existing lots have some grandfathering? IEmmings : We 've done that . We 're doing that for existing dwellings but not existing . • IIAri Fuad : Well this is an existing lot in an existing subdivision . The lot 's been there 10 years and I can see in other subdivisions . . .would know what the restrictions are . I bought the lot a year ago with full intent to II i Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 -- Page 35 build on the site . The way it sounds there is process for a variance there 's an existing pad which there unquestionably is , It 's just a very inferior pad . But I don 't have a choice . I have to build . . . If this ordinance had existed at the time I wouldn 't have bought the lot because , like I say . . . Emmings : Right , we understand . Okay . Ladd , are you through yet? Conrad: Oh boy . So we 're still pretty loose on that permit process in terms of our standards . Going back to vegetation alteration . Tell me the guidelines again . How do you say you can cut that tree down? You can 't . II We 're trying to visually keep the bluff looking the way we want it yet on the other hand people buy that lot so they can build on it . So how are you guided Jo Ann? Olsen: A lot of times there 's a lot of underbrush there that if you clear that , that gives you a pretty good view . There 's also trees that have been you know diseased or dying and those are the ones that you go for first . So those are things you look at . There 's usually some large ones like maybe in clumps like one here and one there but there 's usually some spacing between wh€le you can clear it so , you go out to the site and it is kind of easy to determine . Conrad: So you feel pretty confident that you 're going to be able to give a homeowner a view? Olsen: Yeah . In the cases that we 've worked with like in Deerbrook and stuff , yes we 've been able to and a lot of times we will bring the Soil and Water Conservation District people out because the bluff exists and we do look at what the undergrowth is . And if you need other vegetation there so if we do let them take the underbrush out , then they have to do like a low II growing grass or something to replace that . So that 's one of the things you look at . We don 't have specific standards , although in the landscaping ordinance I don 't know if that would apply . Kraus : I think from an administrative standpoint though it would help for us to be able to clarify exactly what we 're working with the homeowner to achieve . Is some sort of a view corridor is to be created . I don 't know if we define that by the size of the thing or the maximum number of trees we would allow to be cut but we need to clarify that here 's the goal and here are some guidelines on how to establish it so it 's not coming down to II us going out there and if we 're having a bad day saying no , you can 't do that . Conrad : It wouldn 't hurt to do that . I think that would be a helpful , guideline . At least the homeowners , the residents know what we 're shooting for rather than just willy nilly as sort of a gut feel . You know the bottom line for me is , on this ordinance is , I do like it because it doesn 't have a lot of stipulations . It seems pretty simple . And I guess you know I 'm coming down on the simplicity and sometimes I could be wrong . But I do like it from , it seems like one number and some intents here accomplish quite a bit . And that 's my comments . Bat.zli : Could you summarize? II II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 1991 Page 36 IConrad : I don 't think I could . Erhart : I think the comments made by ASCS . Who was that who made the Icomments? Olsen: Paul Newman . Not the blue eyes . IErhart : Actually clarified that , I think the reading quite a bit and somehow I think we ought to get most of that in there . I wouldn 't change the setback though to 50 feet which leads us then to the theme of the I discussion tonight of whether this affects your lot there . Is someone on the staff familiar with this . , . IOlsen: Which part.? Erhart : I forget what your name was . ' Olsen: C';ri . I visited it with one of the engineers . Erhart : Oka . Does the area that he wants to build , does that apply to Iit? Olsen: It 's within the bluff impact zone . He does have a level area above the bluff and then there is , he calls it a road but it 's more like kind of a gravel or just kind of a path that 's been used . Erhart : Why can 't you build on a flat spot in the impact zone? IOlsen: What his is , it 's not really a real flat spot but there 's not much flat there but it 's the setbacks and all of that would prohibit him from 1 using the house there . Erhart : If he had a big enough spot , flat on the bluff , does this ordinance allow you to build? IOlsen: The definition allows you , if you have a distance of 50 feet or more , with slope less than 18% , that 's not part of the bluff . I don 't Ithink his applies . It 's not .50 feet . Erhart : Do you agree with that? Ari Fuad: I guess I didn 't understand . Olsen : The definition of bluff , if you have less than 18% slope for 50 11 foot distance , that 's technology not within the bluff . Ari Fuad : Yeah , I think I 've got that . Oh , it 's 50 feet under 18%? II There 's a crown . , Olsen : Th,A 's something we can look at . 1 Ari Euad : It 's a crown . It 's not a ridge , it 's a crown . II I Planninj Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 37 Erhart : Yeah , I mean that 's the thing with the bluff is it 's not like they I draw in the picture hut there is a lot of flat spots and in fact there 's little mounds that come back up . I 'm assuming that there 's a lot of spots on the bluff even with this ordinance that you could build on . 1 Olsen: Oh sure but it 's the setbacks . Ari Fuad: This ridge or whatever which is actually a crown is maybe 100 I feet across . Maybe more . It 's just if you think of bluff all the way around it . . .you 're turning a 100 foot circle into a 40 foot circle . It 's the setbacks . I Erhart : 100 feet 's not very much area to build on . Ari Fuad: To build a house , lot widths are 80 feet wide . Then they have 10 foot setbacks which give you 60 feet which is plenty of room for a house . Houses are only 40 feet deep so a house fits on a pad roughly 60 x 40 . That 's a fairly large house . That 's 2 ,400 square feet . Erhart : Are you going to have any kind of a yard or driveway? Ari Fuad: You 've got 100 feet square . I Erhart : Are there other houses that are there existing that are similiar? I Olsen: I think there 's one that kind of goes down a couple feet to the west . I haven 't really looked but there 's also septic sites on each lot . These are unsewered so there 's a lot of impact so the setbacks is what 's II hurting him . Ari Fuad: See this ridge is 500 feet long and so it 's not , there 's lots of room laterally to put in septic systems and wells and yard . It 's just the 30 foot setback makes , it could potentially make the site too narrow to put the appropriate sized house on it . I Erhart : This house , does it sit out in the view of the other people that live out there? I Ari Fuad: There 's one house . Erhart : I wonder what the other two houses do? I Olsen: There 's a row of homes . I couldn 't tell you . Erhart : No but I mean you 're talking about having the homes up and then 11 having one down and out further or he had one or two or three out and down . Olsen : Out and down further? He 'd be the furthest down . I don 't know if we can show you . Erhart : That 's okay . Do you think if the house was there , is that I objectionable? You 're one of the existing homeowners . Olsen: If the house were to be located there? 11 il Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 -- Page 38 I Ari Fuad : It would be substantially below them so it wouldn 't really block their view and their trees , there 'd actually be trees between , that would grow up actually on my property that would basically block . IIErhart : Why wouldn 't you just start building the house right now? Befor.o the ordinance . IEmmings : Because he 's got to get a building permit . Ari Fuad : That 's a -good point . IVerne Severson: We 're talking about individual rights tonight . I want to build a workshop on my property but with this ordinance I can 't do that . ' I should have brought a map . Emmings : I 'm going to cut out the talking here . If you want to ask somebody a specific question go ahead but we can 't have . It 's getting too IIloose . We 're going to be here until midnight . Erhart : Have you talked about performance standards as opposed to a Igeneral ordinance? Krauss: We really haven 't and I think it 's been for a number of reasons . I There 's no good model for us to work off of that 's based on performance . Solely performance approach . We 're not dealing with commercial/industrial developers here who can bring in consultants at $120 .00 an hour to give us what we need to react- to to effectively deal with specific standards . You I also become fairly erratic and inconsistent which is kind of a basic thing to avoid in enforcing ordinances . II Erhart : What 's in here to prevent somebody from going in and doing a lot of bulldczing and stuff over the edge of the bluff? Olsen : They 'd have to have a permit . IKrauss : They 're be in violation of the ordinance . I Erhart : If you look at that site and you basically lay out where they can move dirt . Pretty much people do follow that . IOlsen : The grading permit? Erhart : Yeah . I guess what I was trying to get to there was , you know we picked some numbers and things . I 'm not sure , I know where we got the 11 numbers . We got the numbers from the State program that 's putting this out but where I was going was I thought maybe this would be an example to kind of test our numbers . I guess if I had the opportunity to go out and look I at that lot I think would be real useful . On theeother hand I really think it 's a needed , I think we definitely need protection and if you can 't get it through performance standards , then this is our only choice . Again I would have liked to have seen that lot . I don 't know if it 's worth waiting , I don 't know if that 's the only reason why you 'd want to table it . I think we can get the wording in without tabling it . II I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 39 Emmings: Okay . Is that it? I 've got a couple of specific things . I I think Ladd 's comments about this being a simple ordinance . I think those are good comments and I think that 's a good way to approach this situation . I think it does a good job of protecting the people who are already there 11 with homes . How it affects him I don 't know but I think if we wind up tabling it , we might use his property as a test case to see how it affects and maybe we can get the City Engineer between now and then to go out and look at it . Or if he already has . Olsen: He has . Emmings: Alright . Or maybe you could tell us how we get there to look at I it or something so we could see . But on the other hand , I don 't think how it affects one person out of everybody on the bluff makes a difference to the ordinance but still I think it 's a useful test case . The comments that people buy these lots for the specific purpose of having the view . You know there 's restrictions on every kind of lot that you buy . That 's not a reason to have restrictions on the lot . I live on Lake Minnewashta . Bought an empty lot and had all kinds of restrictions . I couldn 't build within 75 feet of the lake . Maybe I could have said , gee if I 'm going to live on the lake I want a house right down there so I can step off my deck right into my boat and go but I can 't do that . So again that argument doesn ' t persuade me very much . But on the other hand , I think we 've got to have , if the view is the major thing that people are interested in , we 've got to have a way to accommodate that . It 's only fair and I think we do that through the further removal or alteration of vegetation . And in most cases that ought_ to be good enough I think . In some cases it might not be . ' In some specific cases it might not be . And that 's where you get down to the desire of these people I think to have a site specific plan because you 've got the general regulation but you can get the staff to go out and look at your individual piece and develop a plan along with the city to accommodate the desire to have a good view . I think maybe that 's the best of all possible worlds . In the statement of intent section , in the third line from the bottom . It says alteration . The sentence starts out , to preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the City , alteration to the bluff impact zone and I wonder if it should say , rather than alteration to the zone . It should say alteration to the land or vegetation • within the bluff impact zone . That was one thought I had . On structure setbacks number 2 . It talks about the setback from the top of the bluff is 5 feet on parcels on which a building has already been constructed . I don 't know why it 's 5 feet . Olsen: That 's what we were trying to accommodate homes that are already within the 30 foot setback , that they wanted to make an addition . Emmings: Why would we let them build closer than they are if they 're less than 30? Krauss : Because we already let them build their home within that area . I/ They may have not added a deck . They may have planned their house for it or planned their house for an addition and we believe that we , the die is cast . The home is already where it should be . They 've already got some vested rights . I II II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 40 I Emmings: To me I would say there should be 5 feet or the existing setback , which is more . That would be my approach to that situation . I think it 's fine that we approve all of the houses that exist . I don 't think there 's I any reason to allow them to build closer just because they 're already there . The other thing , somehow in there we ought to make it clear that that 's for the existing building and not any new buildings . So that 's something that should be added in about that I think . Then the only other I thing , under the official map section , 1406 it says , the Arcticle applies only to the bluff impact zone located on the official bluff impact zone map dated June 1 , 1991 . I just think after that it should say , as amended from I time to time . It does say in the next sentence that it can be amended but it still says that it only applies to what 's on the map so that could be a problem . And I guess I agree with the people who 've talked about tabling Ithis one so we can have another look at all of these . The comments that have f ors made by these other bodies and also maybe get a chance to look at this prop->rty if he ' ll let us go out and walk around . IAri f ueee I 'd be glad to meet you out there . Batzli : Soms of the comments made by these people I don 't think make sense I Either . I don 't want us to just add the comments because some of them aren 't right . Erhart Yeah right. . ' Olsen: You 've got to pick out which ones you think are right . IBatzli : Like for e=sample when the comment , one or more of the following characteristics is incorrect given how we 're defining what the bluff is . That shouldn 't be added . Things that don 't make sense and I don 't know if I we want to go through them now or if we just want to let Jo Ann go through them and take a look at them . Emmings: I would suggest we take another run at this thing . IErhart : I would like to see us set up a time . I 'd like to get the tour . Co out and look at that . IOlsen : Oka,' . Some afternoon? Morning? Night? IEmmings: If it 's a weekend it could be an afternoon . Erhart : Or 6 :00 in the evening . 11 Olsen : Okay . 4 Emming : Yeah , something like that . Is there a motion to do something here Ilike table it . , Olsen : Ma be we can try to get Orlin Schafer here . The other one was tabled also right? IIEmmings: Yeah . II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 19`?1 - Page 41 II Olsen : So we ' ll try to get Orlin here for both of them . I Emmings : Is there a tax question on this one? Olsen : That 's right . Nobody brought it up . Never mind . There were a lot II of people who called . Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission table this matter in order to I allow staff time to review the amendments proposed by the various other entities and so that we can go out and take a peak at some of these sites . -Emmings : I ' ll second it . Is there any discussion? II Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to II create a bluff line preservation section to the City Code for further review . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emming-J : People who made comments tonight should know that your comments , get typed up and will be part of the packet we have when we review this next time . Not to discourage you from coming again but we will be looking at them again . I ( Joan Ahrens left the meeting at this point and was not present in the votes on any further items . ) II PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS . II Public Present: Name Address I Don E . Halls 10 ,000 Great Plains Blvd . Mark Halla 770 Creekwood I Kathy Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . 1 Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II Erhart : First page , page 2 . I would very much like to see the City Attorney , someone work on limiting the power companies ability to clear cut 11 and spray . What 's the next step on that? Aenenson: You would like him to direct him to come back with something that would prohibit that? I Erhart : Yeah , that 's what I 'd like . Emmings : And then we ' ll send it to all the power companies that have I transmission lines in this city . Put them on notice so they 've got no excuse . II Planning C..,;u i i:ssion Meeting ilAugust 21 , 1991 Page 42 IErhart : LJcll we 're going to have to have a public hearing I assume . They 're going to have to come and give us their comments . IIAanenson : I 'll see what his directive is . Emmings : I think it 's important once it 's passed to send it to them . 1 Erhart : Well whatever . I really think we ought to do this . Number 2 , were we going to look at street widths? Was that something that we all agreed that we wanted to look at? IKrauss : I thought we had a directive from you to have the City Council ask the City Engineer to do that along with the Lundgren proposal . IAanenson : You did want that forwarded to City Council? Erhart : I think it 's a good idea . IEmmings : Are you talking about doing this as a part of this or just doing it': IErhart : No , jut in general . It happens to be the first page . Krauss : It 's not part of the landscaping ordinance . It 's part of the subdivision but it affects landscaping through preservation issues . Emmings : Yeah , if you 're interested in getting a canopy . IErhart : Alright now I ' ll get into the ordinance . On the first page of the ordinance , Division I . Is that supposed to say generally or general there? IKrause : Generally . I Erhart : That 's the term you 're using huh? On the bottom of page 1 there , we :_ay whnr : buffering is required by the Comprehensive Plan . Can we use the Comprehensive Plan as a document to refer to in ordinances . . .with specifics? Well I know but there 's a standard then . IAanenson: That 's the guide . ' Erhart : Okay . I 'm just checking . Emmings : We specifically tied those together . I Erhart : Item G , at the very top of the next page . We hav a general statement and maybe , I don 't understand it but it says boulevard streetscape plan shall be pursued by the City . Is that a general statement Ior how is that . Why is that there? , Olsen : Intent . IErhart : That '., in the intent. section . I II Planning Commission Meeting AuguEt 21 , 1991 - Page 43 II Krauss: It 's a general statement . I think the way we 'd bring that about I is when the City looks at public improvement projects we would ask that it incorporate the boulevard planting effort much the same as you 've done downtown . I Erhart : Okay , so that whole section there is general? There 's no real action required . Okay . Item ( a ) in the middle of the page there . I think II we 've seen a lot of plans that they draw these trees that they show the mature size of them . Ellson: You guys would never do that would you? , Erhart : We 're all in agreement that we 're going to show the installation size . I just wanted to verify that . I Emmings : Why wouldn 't you want to show the mature size? Erhart : That 's why I 'm asking . I Krauss : It depends on what they give you . If they get the kind with the tree stamp , then it 's up to imagination . If you get a rendering or elevation where the artists takes some licenses and shows this 2 1/2 inch maple becoming a SO foot high tree . You 're going to have to use some judgment on there . What we ask for though is we get a key that tells you exactly what plant material is going to be planted and exactly what size it is at installation . Erhart : I theiJ the drawings that we mostly see are the mature size . Just II so we understand this is a change . Krauss: I 'm riot so sure it is a change . It 's a clarification . II Don Halls : Frankly the size on landscape drawings . . .relative size of trees . . . It is the landscape artist or designers view of what it looks I proportionate . That 's the bottom line . If you want something to be different , then you have to call it out . It 's proportioned to what 's going to be appealing to you folks . . . II Erhart : Well I don 't know what the answer is . I just bring it up because this is an issue that 's kind of bothered me as we look at these , all these landscape issues . Page 4 , item C( 3 ) . It says the city may require the I replacement of removed trees on a , it actually starts in number 2 . You can 't remove any 6 inch caliper trees unless you can show there 's no way to avoid it . I couldn 't agree with that more . But then we go on to say the II City may require the replacement of those trees if they 're removed and I guess I 've always felt , and I know that 's in the ordinance today . I 've always felt it 's punitive and it doesn 't need to be there . If they show you that there 's no way to avoid removing them , that 's it . We 've done a II good job then . You know this is their property . Their trees and I continue to think that that 's punitive . Ellson: How 's that different from asking the bluff people to not continue I that sort of thing? II II Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 , 1991 - Page 44 I Erhart : Why are you doing that? If you 're going to develop something , put in a street , you 've got to remove trees Then to go back in and replace then adds more expense ultimately to someone and I guess it bothers me more Ithat that same wording is in the subdivision ordinance . Batzli : So if for some reason they have a wetland where the only place they can put the driveway is between the lot line and the wetland and they I have to take out every tree , you wouldn 't make them plant more than 3 trees on the lot if they had to remove 50 trees to get the driveway in? I Erhart : No I wouldn 't . If that 's the only place you could put the . Well we 're not talking about a driveway . We 're talking about a street here . Elleon: We 're hoping they 're looking for alternatives than the clear cut Iway . Erhart : I 'm just giving my opinion . I just don 't think it 's . Page number IS there right after where it says $4 ,000 ,000 ,00 . It says tree preservation is enceura_ged and may be applied to existing vegetation on the site What does that sentence mean? IEmningr Nothing . Krauss : I kndw what it 's supposed to mean . 1 Emmingr : H,Lre 's what I think it means . I wrote a new one . It says tree preservation is encouiaged and the value of existing trees may be included as part cf th€ "minimum landscape value " . Erhart : Okay , that makes sense . IKrauss : Or the value is determined by the City . I don 't know who 's going to d :trrmina what the value is . IEmmings : I don 't either but that 's what you 're trying to say . Krauss : That 's exactly what the inference was , yes . IErhart : That little wording in it would help there . Value as determined by Don Halle . Got a job forever and ever . IOlsen : I 've used him for that before . Don Halls : . . .there is a National Shade Tree Conference method of Ievaluating existing trees . Emmings : Oh that 's interesting . IEllron : Sµ that 's impartial to the City . Krauss : Can we get a hold of a copy? IDon Halls : Yeah it 's available . I Planninj Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 45 Erhart.: On item ( a ) there , if I can read this . It says , I hope you got this too Steve . It says drive thru uses shall be screened or buffered whenever located in any residential , commercial , industrial zone except single family residences in the A--1 , A-2 , RR and RSF . Does that read funny or am I just don 't understand? Aanenson : I 'm sorry , I 'm not sure exactly where you are . Erhart : Page 5 , item ( a ) . About 5 or 6 lines down . It says any residential , commercial or industrial zone except single family residences in the A-1 , A- 2 and so on and so on . I guess I just couldn 't . Ellson : You can have a drive thru in your residence , is that what you 're saying': Erhart : Just the wording seems odd . Maybe I just don 't catch it . Is it right? Krauss . Actually I think it 's worded kind of clunkily but it 's meant to imply that those things wouldn 't exist in a single family district . You could have those kinds of things in a multi-family district . We can clean that up . Erhart : Yeah , ma/be . I don 't know . See what the rofess p Tonal writers say Qy about it down th3 line here . Let 's see . Okay , then let 's go to the subdivision ordinance . Ellson : What page are you on? ' Erhart : I 'm now on page 10 . We just got off the site plan ordinance . When we get down to the required landscaping/residential subdivisions , item 1 . Le require the trees to be installed and I 'm okay with the trees . At least we 're not telling people they have to put in their back yard , which I really objected to that concept previously . Now they have their choice but we ae requiring one to go in the front yard . I think that 's good . When we get down to guarantees acceptable to the City must be provided to insure timely installation . Can one of those guarantees be a tree certificate from Halla Nursery? Krauss : We 've accepted that . This is a process we 've been going with for about a year and a half now and some of the larger builders regularly give sod certificates or presumably they could also give a tree certificate which is a cash redeemable value . That 's fine with us . We 've been fairly lenient on that . Erhart: Okay . Chaska 's ordinance , from what I understand , that is Chaska 's ordinance . Apparently according to Rick Murray it seems to work okay . If it 's okay , do we want to mention that as an alternative? ' Krauss : We 've been doing that administratively . It 's a surety we 're willing to accept basically . Erhart : Okay , well I just question if we maybe want to mention it because it seems simpler than all the rest of this . Okay , the next one here is you I Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 , 1991 - Page 46 Ican waive the requirement for two of the three trees if you have trees already on the lot which makes sense . What I can 't understand the rationale is , why those trees don 't have to meet the same specs that we 're Idefining in the ordinance . Instead , all of a sudden now , if you 're going to USE an existing tree , it has to be 6 inches caliper . I don 't understand the rationale behind that . IEllson: Why are you saying 6 inches? Batzli : He 'd be great to take along fishing . IErhart : You know then you go back and it goes against the one here that 's kind of , what did you say , clunky? The concept in the clunky one says that if you 've got existing material , okay we 'll give you reasonable fair value on that . It just seems to me it ought to be just simple , if I can use Ladd 's concepts . IConrad . P^ 're using those entirely too much . Erhart : The guy 's got. a coniferous tree that 's 6 feet and 2 trees that are I 2 1/2 inch caliper and one of them is in the front yard , why do we have to say that in order to apply that he has to have a 6 inch tree? It just seems life we 're getting punitive on people . So I guess that 's my thought . The other thing is , if we are really hung up on forcing these guys to have I6 inch trees , I think we ought to add in there if the developer can show that essentially the lot is wooded with smaller trees . It 's crazy for us to maLc, the guy put in some more trees . So I just ask that we look at that. I a little bit anal apply a little more sensitivity . Again the same thing on page 11 there . The City may require replacement of removed trees . I just don 't understand that . And you know you guys I love trees more than I anybody around here and think we ought to be , well not anybody but almost as much as Don here . Don Halle : Quick question for you . Something which you might consider with your ordinance and that is , when they 're doing construction near oak tree:. or with oak trees on it and they 're trying to prevent damage , they have to keep equipment off of it . From underneath the canopy . IEmmings: We 've done that . IDon Hello : I don 't know , I didn 't spot that in my quick . . . Elleon : There 's something about the drip line or something . IDon Halla : Oh , it is in there? Emmings : In the past we 've required sometimes , not all the times but sometimes we 've required them to put snow fence around and keep equipment off . Erhart : That 's in the subdivision process we require it usually in the Iconditions . 11 MIN II Planning Commission Meeting A,ug t '1_ , 1991 - Page 47 Don Halle : And you can 't even bury trees . You can put 2 foot of fill on II top of the tree , you can do it right and not damage the tree but it has to be done in the proper method . So some of those things are , I don 't know how you deal with those but definitely as far as driving over the roots of a certain variety of trees , it 's definitely harmful . Also some of the trees , and I don 't know what you have as species but some of the varieties you ma/ not want to be left and count as your 6 inch plus trees . Swamp 11 Rose or Box Elders or some of those types of trees . . Erhart : We haven 't got the list yet so that 's to come from what I II understand _ Lastly item ( e ) on page 11 . Right on the bottom it says , tree removal not permitted under subdivision shall not be permitted without the approval . Who does that apply to? Just sub-developer? Aanen en : Which one are you on? I 'm sorry . II Erhe,-t : Item ( e ) . Page 11 . I just want to make sure that only applies to the pe rsen that 's doing a subdivision . It doesn 't apply to anybody else . Kraus._ : I think what we '1 e trying to get at there is that nobody should, be ahi ? to no out and cut down a grove of oak trees just because they had a h.anke rir:? to do it_ . It 's not meant to apply to an individual homeowner . Erl _ rt ` Yeah , I just want to make sure . Krau And we should clarify it . Erhart ' I just want to make sure this doesn 't apply to Don Halla . So it. II sa,s h.. cannot remove trees . Emr._ r.<i_ Or me . I Erhart : Or Steve . It just applies to someone that 's doing a subdivision right? II Olsen: Right . I think that 's a result of the one north of City Hall here . Erhart : These ordinances only apply to someone who comes in and is doing a II subdiision? Olsen: Yes . He just can 't go and clear cut . I Erhart : Alright . Those are my comments . You 've got it . Next . Conrad: Good comments . I don 't know , he may want to skip around . 1 Sometimes 1-1:', does that . Emmi n Annette? I Ellson : Oh thank you Steve . This is an example of not simple Ladd and because of that look , how long it took them to put this together . I didn 't cc th':�nugh it nearly as detailed but I love it . I 'm wondering has anyone ever done an analysis as to what this is going to change the cost of the development or anything like that? Developers taking a look to say I think II . Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 , 1991 - Page 48 IIit ': going to cost us more to build in Chanhassen and therefore we can 't . And if se , by how much . I like to make these requirements but are people sa, ing that this is going to make low income housing impossible in Chanhassen or something like that . Krauss : Most of the standards that are involved in this ordinance either exist today in the ordinance or are taken from other ordinances that I 've II worked with for years in other communities and have been fairly reasonable . For example the sliding minimum expenditure for the landscaping material based on building cost . In several years of working with it over in IMinnetonka I can only recall one instance where the developer had not met the minimum` and in that case he was lying about the building cost and it was a 7 story office building . It really is a pretty minimum requirement and when you 're talking about the magnitude of building , I 've got to beli3v.. in terms of that expenditure , most everything we 've seen even to data , _'ul exceed it . IIEllson : It 's doable? Kreu t . Yeah . IIEllson: 1 just don 't want to feel like we 're choking people . Krauss : The one impact that is a direct impact though and we 've talked to , Iyou know Councilman Wing 's been a big advocate of the ? trees per lot . He 's spoken t : yeu about it . He 's spoken to us about it a number of times . That ,; s e direct cost that will be passed along to the homeowner and Ilthere 's ne question about it , that ':, going to raise the cost of a home to some extent Ellson : What do these size trees mean to the total percentage? One incree'_. _ ' A half of percentage but no one 's ever come forth and given you that kind of analysis? IKrauea : No , but if you assume the average home , the inexpensive average home p'r ia- .. in Chanhassen is probably $100 ,000 .00 to $120 ,000 .00 for new homes and we 're placing a value on a new tree of $250 .00 , you 've increased the price by $500 .00 because you already require one . So what is that , one half of one percent? Ellson : Well , I love it . The sooner we get it in the better . I think 111 it 's great . Ernmings : Okay . Brian? I Batz l i : I wanted to go after Ladd . IIEmminc;s : Wheat a bunch of . . . The meeting 's out of control . Go ahead . Earn,:,!-e". I 'm glad this is here and I think that this is really good legislation , I 'm glad that . . .will be it. . If the DNR said that 9S' of IIChanhassen is without forestation , we 've got a lot of work ahead of us . This is a good piece . r I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 19^1 - Page 49 Emmings : Ladd , ready? 1 Conrad: Real quickly . Jumping on Tim 's bandwagon . Under the subdivision ordinance . I agree with his comments on trees that are there . If the, ' meet the requirements , I don 't know that we should upgrade those requirements all of a sudden . So I agree in that section ( a )( 1 ) , or wahtever . I think we should look at that . My other comment on that is , where it only applies to 2 out of the 3 required trees . Now I don 't know if you 're in a wooded area , I don 't have a need . If it meets the intent . If we have one tree on the roadside and the other trees are on the other backyard side , I don 't know why we 're saying only 2 out of the 3 trees . That 's sort of , if it meets the intent that we 're trying to establish in the other sections , then this is sort of arbitrary . This is a different intent altogether . So I don 't like that section . It should be consistent with the rest of the ordinance . I think Don brought up a good point about construction during a subdivision and we feel we don 't need any of those requirements in this? 1 Olsen : We ' re working on that part . Krause : L1e 'v� been requiring that for years . We have standard language but it ` _ r--!_.son:Ile. to stick it in here . Conrac - I think it 'd really like that . It just is a real logical thing to do and m> c. : Fe comment is , and we changed it at the last meeting . I 'm baffled et , I don 't understand it so I 'm sure there 's a real simple way to ma Le me understand it . On page 5 of the equations . The last time , if the project value is $3 ,000 ,000 .00 to $4 ,000 ,000 .00 , we slash the $3 ,000 ,000 .00 in terms of how we calculate what they have to pay and put down 2 . So what does that mean? If it 's 1 to 2 , we say you 've got to spend $20 ,000 .00 excess of the base plus 1% past that . Then with the next grade is 2 to 3 and spend 1-30 ,000 .00 plus 0 .75° in excess . Then it acts to 3 to 4 and then all r_ f a sudden we 're back to the 2 . In excess of 2 and that seems like we 'v' comnaundcd it . It doesn 't make sense . 1 Krauss : There is a typo in there . Aanenson: The correction was reversed . Emmings : Should have crossed out 2 and put in 3 . Conrad: P,ll that conversation is all that. simple . Okay . That 's it . I Emmings : Brian? I Batzli : My comments are on page 2 we 're going to get an irrevocable letter of credit from a banking institution and my first thought , said just as kind of joke was that it must be a solvent banking institution . I really thought about it , I think what we want to do is we want to say in here and it 's in hers in a couple of spots that we 're looking for financial guarantees that are acceptable to the city . I mean they can post a bond . They could do a lot of things . They don 't need a letter of credit , correct? r 11 Plant i n` Con rniesion Meeting IIAugust "1 , 1991 Page. SO IIKrauss : True , although the City Attorney has encouraged us not to accept bonds . That bonds are much harder to collect on if you do have a problem . He 's ad,iiocd us to use cash or letters of credit but you 're right . It 's in IIa form acceptable to the City and I understand Don raised a question about. making sure the trees are alive after a year . Our letter of credit is good for a full growing season past the date of installation and that 's when we inspect the material . IIBatzli . I think that should somehow be standardized throughout here . Ever time we talk about it , we say it in a little bit different way . I 'd IIlike to see just proper financial guarantees acceptable to the City or something like that that the Attorney 's comfortable with . I went beyond the intent of this when I was looking at the intent section and that was , I II don 't really , I mean I see us being proactive but I don 't see us educating nybod> or trying to get them to see the point or the people who eventually buy thi property to see the point of why we did all this . Co we 're making the developers do this and then all the controls are off and everything and II I uiidsretarid wa 're not going to say to the property owners you can 't do arrything to any of this stuff necessarily but I would like to see some sort of proactive effort by the City to educate the people who are buying these II properties as to why the stuff is there . Why it 's nice to have trees . Why it ' s good not to , I don 't know . I 'd like to see an intent statement that the City 's going to do something . They 're going to educate the people . I II don 't know . rarmakee : In the newsletter? IIBatzli : l'eah . Going to do something to tell people you know you 've gc.t thie uone d rful stuff . You should keep it . You shouldn 't just cut it down . Or if you destroy this you 're going to be contributing to the non-point IIsource :ellutin or if you do this , I don 't know . I 'd like to see some burdaH o '' on the City in here that they 're going to do something . Conrad : It 's not a bad idea . There 's a lot of Park and Rec stuff . IIKrauss : You 're going to see more and more things in fact like the Surface Water District in the newsletter coming up . I think to a certain extent II though we trust in the , or we have some faith placed in the inherent wisdom of the. homeowner . IBatzli : No . No . Krauss : But. generally . II Batcli : We can 't be two faced . We just told people we don 't trust you to build next to a bluff . We can 't now say we trust you not to cut down your trews . IIKrauss . Well I think there 's two different things operating here . In one case > ou ' re dealing with an environmentally sensitive area and the other IIone we 're dialing with something that 's not a matter of life and death . It ' s a question of good judgment . The homeowner . Batzli : It may or may not be. II • II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 ~- Page Si Krauss: But the homeowner 's paid for these trees . It 's their own value . I I mean they 're cutting their own throats by cutting those trees . Batzli : All I want is an education program to get them to realize they 're ' cutting their own throat . I don 't want the City to say you can 't do it. . I just want the City to educate people . Don Halls : There 's quite a few pamphlets put out by the American II Association of Nurserymen that deal with what you 're asking . Green survival depends on you and things like that . I Batzli : They may never read them but I 'd love to have some sort of proactive program by the City to do more of this . As far as Tim comment that I hissed earlier on page 4 , C( 3 ) . Caliper inch by caliper inch . This 1 is one of those things where I kind of agree with Tim in principle but I don 't want to take it out . In certain instances it would be punitive to make them do that but in other instances they make them go in there and clear cut it because they come up with some cockimamy excuse why they have to do it and you don 't make them replace anything . You may lose a lot of valuable trees , and lose an opportunity to make them reforest something . II Conrad: You don 't like Tim 's idea? The one I jumped on the bandwagon . Erhart : No , he 's talking about this one . I Conrad: Ah ! Batzli : I 'd like to see it in and Tim wants to see it out . We have no I consensus because I don 't know how anybody else feels about it . Emmings : Let 's go home . I Batzli. : Okay we 've two leave in and one take out . Erhart : I think the consensus is going to be to leave it in so I ' ll II reflect that in a motion . Batzli : In 5( a ) . I read that and I didn 't understand it but I didn 't 1 change it . That one where it says , it applies everywhere except not in RSF . I didn 't understand what it was so I didn 't change it because I 11 couldn 't figure out how to change it because I didn 't know what it meant . On page 7 , all landscaped areas shall be connected by concrete curbing . Emmings: That 's interior landscaping in particular uses . I Batzli : Yeah I know . I was just , for example . I seem to recall us approving something in the IOP where we let the guy blacktop and not put in concrete curbing . Erhart: Not me . I voted against it . II Olsen: It got. approved by the Council . II II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 52 Batzli : Does that happen more than just like from time to time and how does that affect this? IIOlsen: It 's kind of rare when it happens . Usually when that happens you don 't get much of a landscaping plan either . II Batzli : Yeah . I mean would this be something that would be waived in a case like that? Or is this just one more thing that you throw at them and say no , you 've got to put in the curbing because our landscape plan says you 've got to do it? IOlsen: Because they don 't have any curbing , they don 't have the storm sewer or anything so it 's where it 's . . . IBatzli : Small matter on a big ship apparently . On page 10 , Section 18-61 , ( a. )( 1 ) . The sentence that reads trees must be installed prior to receiving Ia Certificate of Occupancy or financial guarantees acceptable to the City must be provided . I think that should go at the end of the paragraph . Then it makes sense when you say the next sentence . This requirement may be waived for up to 2 of the required trees because you 're talking about I the sentence before that . I would like to see , I think the Halla 's were mentioning that maybe we waive it as long as the trees they 've got on site are something that 's worth saving . rErhart : From what I understand we 're going to provide a list . Batzli : So we 'll provide the list on , okay good . Those are my comments . IErhart : I thought I read here someplace that a list was forth coming . Krauss: Yeah but the list applies to new plantings . Erhart : It should also apply to . Krauss : I guess I 'd be relunctant , I 've been relunctant to establish a list of acceptable trees that we want preserved because you can have some pretty junky material but en masse it 's a valuable thing to have . For I example , as you 're coming down TH 5 you 're entering the city on the south side in front of the DataSery or as you 're coming through there . There 's a large grove of highly visible trees that separates that area from where the IInew testing station is . That material 's garbage but it 's the only green spot in the entire strip of highway and I want to be able to insist that somebody protect that even if it is junk . IBatzli : But this is just for the purpose of giving a credit for new trees that they have to install . That 's what I 'm saying . I Krause : Well we may want to have that flexibility to do that on that site . We 're going to have to work with whoever develops those properties to save those areas . IBatzli : Yeah , but if they have nothing but junk trees , don 't you want to make them plant a couple of trees that are worth something? II I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 53 II Krauss : No question . I Batzli : But all this will do is , if they have all junk trees , you make them plant a couple more trees because they wouldn 't get any credit for the junk trees . That 's all I 'm suggesting . Krauss: I guess I 'd like to meet it halfway where we do give them some credit for those trees . Possibly not as much as you would if it was maple or oak . Batzli : Well yeah . That 's what I meant . If we have a list of trees that II we would give them credit for . You know , if they 've got maples . If they 've got something , then you give them credit . If they 've got all junk , then you make them plant a couple of trees . Just a thought . I can be II persuaded . Emmings: I 'd like to ask , go back to Tim mentioned as the first one that I had down as a question too and even after you talked to him about it I still don 't understand it . That 's item ( g ) under the intent section . It 's at the top of page 2 . It says boulevard and streetscape plantings shall be pursued b/ the City . What do you mean that the City 's going to pursue it? Batzli : How about encouraged? Olsen: As part of the thing that we 're working with the DNR , one is the II reforestation . That might have been what that was trying to get at . That we are going to look at also the urban reforestation in the downtown areas . II Emming : Okay , but this is under our intent section . What is it saying? What is it saying about our intent because I don 't understand it . Krauss : I think what it 's implying , and it really shouldn 't only be I pursued by the City because we require boulevard and streetscape planting of private developers as well . But what we need to do is flush that out and say that it 's a goal of the City to provide boulevard and streetscape planting . Emmings: Alright , let 's say it that way . You know reforestation , it says II it 's going to be pursued by the City it sounds like the city 's going to pay for it . Krauss: Right , and that 's the wrong impression . Emmings: We certainly don 't want to give them that impression . II Don Halla : One other thing that . . . Some cities do not let people plant within that 13 foot public area in front . Other cities encourage . . . Some II cities say you have to plant it 14 foot back from the curb . . . Emmings : Well if it 's within the right-of-way . . . Krauss : That 's right . We require that it be kept outside the right--of- II way . If the cable company wants to come in and put some TV lines in or something else . Yeah . II II Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 21 , 19 91 -- Page 54 • IEmmings: It 's kind of picky item , the heading for 20-1177 doesn 't tell you want 's in 1177 at all and I would change it . Instead of saying Plans Submission and Approval , I 'd say something like Plans Submission; Time of Completion; Financial Guarantees ; and Alternatives . Something like that . I What 's up there doesn 't really give you any idea of what you 're going to find in the section . Then over on page 4 , item ( c )( 3 ) that Tim brought up . I hadn 't thought about it but I think what Tim says makes a lot of sense , II don 't see any reason and I guess I disagree with Jeff and Brian on this , that if trees have to be removed and there 's no other way to do it , and if we 've already got what we think is a good landscape plan that they 're going Ito have to live up to , then I think you take the trees out . I think it is somewhat punitive to make them replace them because they 're also going to have to go the cost of taking them down . If we 've got a good landscape plan it shouldn 't matter . Brian , you did an honorable job of raising what I I call the hypothetical horrible , what if you have to take down 50 trees to build , wuli I don 't know if you ever will . But I guess that 's going to be the unusual case , not the usual case and so it doesn 't scare me . I agree Iwith Tim on that . Under Division 3 , talk about clunkily . Was it clunkily? The ( a ) there where it says , there shall be provided landscaping meeting . That could be written better and maybe you just want to say , landscaping Ishall be provided which meets the minimum . That will be a little more straight forward . Page 4 . 1179( a ) . Just say landscaping shall be provided which meets the minimum . And then I told you , that sentence that Tim brought up needs to be changed and that will be in the Minutes . . . Over- ' on page 10 , 18-61( a )( 1 ) has drawn comments from everybody here and obviously is a place that we 're going to focus when we look at this again . I agree with Brian 's change for sure to take that sentence out and move it I to the end . I really think we need to develop these lists and I think when we talked about this last time , Tim and I were making some suggestions up here and what I thought we were going to do was maybe , and I don 't know if ' this makes any sense and it may be that we ' ll want to talk to Don or something on this but we should have maybe , one way to do it would be to have 3 categories in our list . I remember you specifically said we have one lint that had a. high valued tree , or what we regard to be a high value II tree . I don 't know what that means but we could kick it around . Probably an oak or a maple , as long as it 's not a little maple like . . .or something like that . IDon Halls : Hard , medium and soft is really want you want . The hardwood would be oak . . . I Emmings : See we could get some . We may want to talk to you about this but to get your , have one tree be one of those high quality trees and then have a second list that would be , there 's been a lot of disagreement up here Iwhether we want to make people put in a conifer . Erhart : What we were trying to avoid was some guy putting in two green Iashes or two silver maples or two poplars . Don Halls : It has to be different varieties but you 've got heavy clay in Chanhassen as such . Frankly softwoods are going to survive . Sugar maple 's Iare . . . Emmings : So this isn 't too bright huh . II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 55 Erhart : You don 't think sugar maples will grow here? I Don Halla : They will grow but most of them drown . . .same thing with soft II maples so you can some of those problems . . . Mark Halla : That 's 6 inches above the ground . . . Emmings : That 's exactly the kind of stuff we need to know . I Mark Halla: You may want to include too that it has to be , if you II record . . . Emmings: But anyway , I thought we were going to have one list where it would be kind of the high valued tree . Whatever that means . Maybe hard woods but not hardwoods that aren 't going to survive . There 's no point in planting trees that are going to have problems . Krauss : We 're going to have the DNR Forester . They 're working on 1 developing this . Emmings: Let me get on with this . Let me finish . The second list I think II ought to be , or could be evergreens of whatever kind but I 'm not sure we want to force people to plant evergreens . We 've had an ongoing argument about that up here and maybe what you want to do is put evergreens and , II thank you for stiffling that yawn Paul . I appreciate it . Evergreens and ornamental trees . What if somebody wants to put up a nice , I don 't know what . A plum , apple , I don 't know what . II Don Halla_ : The only advantage to your evergreen is you 're going to get . . . Emmings : I think a lot of people will choose to put them in but what if ' they choose not to put them in or if they don 't want them? Mark Halle : I would think you 'd have a high percentage that did that you wouldn 't have to require it . They want the winter color so maybe you don 't reed to require it . Emmings : No . I Batzli : Well what 's the difference in cost between those two? Don Halla : Evergreens are going to be cheaper than the shade trees . I Emmings: How about an ornamental? How about a hawthorns or a crab or II something like that? Don Halle : You 're going to have a 15% to 20% variance . . .price . Hawthorne , flowering crab , soft maple , green ash , sugar maple . You 're going . . . Emmings: Okay . But I thought maybe we could put ornamental trees in with the group of evergreens and let them pick one or the other if they don 't II want evergreens . Olsen : We had intended to do that actually . II II Planning Cornn Fission Meeting II August 21 , 1991 Page 6 IIEmmings : Then I don 't know what the third category would be . Other kinds of desireable trees and I 'm not sure what that means . There are lots of them . There are some trees we don 't want to encourage people to plant . IIBox elders . I personally hate cottonwoods because they make a mess on my screens . Maybe we should list some of those things that would be . And then I think we might want to say other things if approved by the City . II Give people an out or a way to come back . I think then that I agree with the comments made down here that , by Ladd and I think Tim really said the same thing . That if what exists on the lot meets the minimum that 's required here under the Statute , it could be for all three . There 's got to II be one in the front yard . It 's got to meet the same size requirements as the trees requiring to be installed . We 're going to have to match the list that we wind up developing but if existing trees did that , there 's no point II in . Olsen: And if they didn 't have an evergreen or ornamental , they 'd have to add that? IIErhart : Yeah . IBatzli : I 'd disagree with that only from the standpoint that you could have a bunch of 60 year old trees and they could die in 5 years . The object is to kind of reforest at the same time . I 'd require at least one . IEmmi I bought a lot and I don 't know how many trees I have but probably 25 or 30 and they 're all old , mature trees and I don 't know , I couldn 't plant another tree on my lot without taking one down and I don 't II know if that makes any sense . Erhart : How long does a tree , if you cut a 60 year old tree , does that die Iin your lifetime? How old do trees get ? Don Halls : It depends on the variety of the trees . . .average life span I is . . . C Erhart : Steve , are you saying that you want to , I agree with everything you said but I like the idea of having one conifer tree . IEmmings: But I think that 's been a philosophical difference and some people up here . I initially was for that position too but I heard a lot of II people say , what if I just don 't want one of those . Why do I have to plant and my thought there was , give that person the choice between the evergreen or an ornamental . IIConrad : I like the conifers . Batzli : I like them but that doesn 't mean everybody likes them . I 'm more Iconcerned with getting some younger trees and making sure they 're planted properly rather than forcing them to plant a particular kind . II Conrad : Yeah , trees have leaves on them for 4 months out of the year . I 'm exaggerating but not much . I Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 57 IIEmmings: I guess the other thing that bothers me , you could go through a subdivision and every one of them has got one , I don 't know . Does that look good to have every lot the same as you go down the street? Each one 's got one , maybe it 's going to be . I Conrad: It 's okay because the houses look similar too . Erhart : I assume they ' ll be different varieties of evergreens . I Don Halle : I don 't think that having a conifer in there is . . . II Emmings: I think they will too but I 'm just saying let 's give them a choice . For the people who don 't like it , let 's give them a choice . On page 11 , number S . That 's the same as what 's on page 4 as ( c )( 5 ) only on page 4 I like the way it 's stated better and I would just change the one on page 11 to be the same . I think we 've got to go around with this one again . II Batzli : But we haven 't clarified . Well I mean I think we have to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on a couple of points here so they know what to II do . Emmings: Okay , go ahead . Erhart : ( c )( 3 ) is one of them . I Emmings: No . We don 't have to do that now . We can do that when we vote on it because we know there 's a difference of opinion . Conrad: We 're not voting on it now . Emmings ' We 're not voting on it now . II Conrad: You need a direction . II Batzli : I would think we 'd want to give them a direction to do a replacement on caliper inch or not . Have it in there or not . I Emmings: But we can 't . There 's not a consensus up here . We ' ll have to wait and see when we vote on it . Batzli : Why don 't we kind of take at least an informal vote to see how II it 's going to , how it may go so we don 't surprise them? Emmings : Well we know you two guys are for it and Tim and I are against I it . So that leaves you two . Conrad: Which one are we talking about? I Emmings: ( c )( 3 ) , page 4 . Erhart : The one where they 're just awful . The City 's asking just I miserably . That one . The one where they may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper per caliper inch basis . II II Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust. 21 , 1991 - Page 58 IIBatzli : MR/ . The optimum word is may . IConrad: The key word is may . Ellson: I think it forces them to look at the alternate of saving a tree . 1 Erhart : Well we 're already doing that . My argument is they 're already requiring them to do that too . I Emmings : Well wait a minute . Yeah , of course that assumes that we 're talking about the situation that 's in number 2 right above . That there 's no other feasible way to develop the site . If they want to take them down I just on a whim , then replacement might be appropriate but if they have no choice but to t.: i,e the tree out , I don 't think we can make them put it back . IBatzli : But the it 's just we may require them to do something . Conrad : I was never uncomfortable with that because of the word may and I Idon 't know the standards that will apply . Er haY t : That ':; the problem with . . .using the word may . IConrad: Se we 're putting the burden on staff to figure it out . Erhart : Yeah , but ie that fair? . . .do we want to have ordinances that IIallow staff discretion like that? Emmi ngc : Sure . IBatzli ' Well look at the bluff line . The City Administrator 's going to go out there and decide whether they can cut down trees so they 've got a view . Talk about subjective . That 's the most subjective thing we 've talked about I in . . . Conrad : Then we get back to Steve 's point . As long as there 's an intent , I then there 's a guideline for that and we can feel comfortable with it . I think most people like that flexibility because every lot is different . Every view is different . Every subdivision , whatever . So it 's nice to he Iflexible when there 's a direcction of intent . Erhart : Okay , I 'd be very comfortable with that if it 's clear what the intent is . IBatzli : Well the intent , we 've got a whole section of intent . 1176 . IEmmings : You know what Tim? I 'm looking at this, a little differently right now . Three might be broader . Does that apply to the City requiring the placement of any removed trees or just trees that are removed as in number 2 where there 's no choice but to remove them? IBatzli : I think it applies to everything . II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 - Page 59 II EmmingE : I do too . I think it 's a little , we 're maybe reading it a little II narrower . Aanenson: It says evaluate , if you look in ( c ) , it says evaluating site II plans and subdivisions . Emmings: Right . But when it says ( 3 ) , the City may require . . .identical to II what was said in number 2 . Trees will be saved unless it 's demonstrated there 's no other feasible way out , Are we talking about that tree that gets removed because there 's no other way to develop this site or are we II talking more broadly about trees that are removed for other purposes? Olsen : More broadly but I think we could clarify it . Erhart : We 're talking about trees that could be saved but for some reason II the developer wants to take them out . Batzli : And not necessarily those that are 6 inches or more in caliper . II Emmings : Okay . So I guess , my position would be that if they 're removing - trees because they have no choice , I 'm not so interested in replacing them . If the/ 're removing trees for their own purposes or other purposes , I am going to recommend replacing them . Do you agree with that Tim? Oka> . So maybe now they can work out some accord . II Batzli : The other one I think we had disagreement on was on page 10 . Emmings : And what do you want clarified? I Batzli : Whether we 're going to have coniferous trees and whether they can get away with for all three of the required trees . I Emmings : When will the , will the list be done by next time we see this? Aanenson : We 're not going with the DNR thing right? We 're going with the I three , high value , evergreen/ornamental . Olsen : The DNR wouldn 't be because we 're working with that with a whole II other ordinance that you 're going to be looking at so no . That list will not be done . But we can get a list . We ' ll put together a list . Working with the nurseries around here with those three you were talking about . I Emmings : I don 't know that three 's the magic number . Maybe you only have two columns . II Erhart: I just don 't think it 's that much magic . Olsen : The list we 've got isn 't that old really ., I Erhart : But that 's too long . Too many . Olsen : We can arrange it into those two columns . I II II I Planning Commi:-� ion Meeting Awt. 21 , 1991 - Page 60 ' Conrad: So the question is , do we want the flexibility on having coniferous tree or not . IEmmings: Oh sure . Conrad : Well you said that . That was your idea . . IEmmings: Oh , whether it should be mandatory? Conrad : Yeah . Thumbs up or thumbs down? IErhart : I 'm a mandatory . IConrad : You ' rc mandatory . They 've got to have it? Erhart : One evergreen , IEmmings: Here you posed the question and now you can 't answer it . Conrad : I don 't have an opinion . I like the coniferous . I ' ll have to say I yeah bccausc I don 't mind the exception . You know what you 're saying is maybe it docan 't. work . Maybe the land is just not right for it . I can see a case where somebody could persuade me . I just don 't have a method of . IBatzli : Should we say we need one coniferous unless the developer , echo ver . . .didn 't need it for some reason? In our sole and arbitrary, I discretion . Ellaon: Here 's where you get all the . . . I don 't think it 's that big a deal . If you don 't want one on your property , you shouldn 't have to have I it but 3 trees is awfully nice . Maybe they want 3 ornamentals or something like that . . . I think a lot of people would do it anyway to tell you the truth . Emmings : Okay . We 've got all the opinions down here . Are you a mandatory ever"grccner? Batzli : I 'm a mandatory evergreener .. Earma kes : Mandatory . IEmmings: Okay , so mandatory 's in . One of those columns is going to be a mandatory evergreen . I 'm going to vote against it but that 's the way it 's Igoing to go . Aanena,on: It 's not. evergreen/ornamental? It 's just strictly evergreen? I Emmings : Just evergreen and I guess we want to do some work on defining what that means . We 're not talking about , there are all kinds of evergr«en-:, . Again we ' ll need a list and they should be trees that are Igoing to survive. . Batzl i : We need a list and we need standards . I 1 Plannin:°, Commission Meeting August 21 1991 - Page 61 II Emmingo : Okay , now the only other question , wait . Let 's get out of here . II Elison : Oh now you talk about getting out of here . Batzli : You 've been hung up with this three list thing for half an hour , that nobody else likes . Emmings : Now are we going to let them replace 2 or 3? I Batzli : I say 2 . FarmakeE : 2 . II Ellson : 3 . I Conrad: 2 . Erhart : 3 . I Emming 3 . Kraus" : Can we clarify that though a little bit? I Emmings : If th-= 3 , if it meets all the other requirements of the II ordi na nce . Krauss : Have at least 1 tree in the front . Emmings : Still got to have the same mix and same list . What if a guy 's II got a 500 foot deep lot and it 's solid trees for the back 200 feet , are we still going to make him do that? II Conrad: yep . Emmings: I think so too . We 're going to table this . Is there a motion? II Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to table Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections regarding landscaping and tree preservation II requirements . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings: Thanks for your input . Appreciate it . II APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 7 , 1991 were so noted as presented . II CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Emmings: Any particular items you want to highlight Paul? I Kraus No . Emmings: The bank was a big improvement . Is that picture here so other II people can see it? II 11 Planning Commission M>_eting II August 2 , 1 91 Page t Krauss : Nc , I 'm afraid it isn 't . Emmings: I saw it at the City Council meeting and it really was , they took I into account a lot of the things we said . They made the windows bigger . They put some awnings on it which really helped a lot . But they also , they shaded in . The/ put shade on that and that was as nice as anything . I I think we should paint that shade in . Krauss : The building wall was pretty monolithic . They brought depth into it with balconies . It looks somewhat like Medican Arts in terms of having Ibalconic3 . Emmings : It was much better . We 've our ongoing items list . Does anybody, Ihav ' .an; comments on that? Batzli : When is the Lundgren Bros . deal going to the Council? IOlsen : September 9th . SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WORK PROGRAM _ IEmrningm : Paul 's looking for input on this . Now it 's still , are you going to -et up a separate? IKrauss : E' all ranks I 'd like to have the Planning Commission designate 1 or 2 people to work with one or two people from the Council and probably go out and get some people from the community . We 'll meet as infrequently as Ipossible . Maybe once a month for a few months type of thing . Emmings : Jeff I know is interested in this issue . Is there anybody else Iwho ' s interested? Batzli : Tim is I think . Erhart : I think Ladd wrote the last sign ordinance so I 'm sure he is . Ellson : I think Joan is very interested . I Conrad: Are we going to , this is a round about way . Are we going to have a committee for the wetland ordinance? IKrauss: That is also needed . We 'll also need someone for that . - IEmmings : Are you interested in that? Conrad: See that one I 'd like to be on . I wouldn 't mind looking at the sign ordinance . IEmrnincc : Dc you want to be an alternate? Conrad : Mn;'Ln an alternate 's not a bad idea . See I would like to see , I don 't, want to be on both committees really . II Planning Commission Meeting August 21 , 1991 -- Page 63 II Emmings : Is there going to be , how about a 1995 study area . The TH S I corridc ,- thing . Is there going to be another? Krauss: The way I 'm trying to swing that is to have on your regular meetings to have a session that 's a joint meeting between you and the HRA to consider that study specifically . Emmings : Okay . So that study will be going on with consultants and so II forth and then we 'll come in at some point in time? So there won 't be a separate study group? Krauss: I would prefer not to on that one . That one is I think something I that you should be involved with on a more frequent basis . Emmi ngs: Is there somebody else who wants to volunteer for the signs? Do I you reail ,. th ' „1, Joan is interested or are you taking a poke because she 's not here? I Ell°eon: I thought it 'd be fun delegating people who aren 't here , Emmings : Yeah , I think that 's only fair . I know I 'm a lot more interested in wetland: than I am in signs . Personally . How about you? Batzli : No interest in signs . I Eileen: Why do we need two? I think Jeff will do fine . I think that signs , he can do what needs to be done . E'atz] i • I 'm not a big sign person . Emmings ' Can we go with one and an alternate? I Krause : That 's probabl ; fine because I would guess that the Council will , not a iii ; gues but probably appoint Tom to work with it and then maybe get a couple of people from the Chamber . That 's probably enough . Emmings : Th,3 only other thing is to ask Joan . Why don 't you ask Joan if she wants to do it . If she wants to do it we 'll have two and Ladd as an I alternate . Otherwise we ' ll have Jeff and Ladd as an alternate . Krauss: Joan 's going to be out for part of the time I assume we 're going to be doing this but we ' ll make the offer , Emmings: Yeah . Why don 't we do that . And the wetlands thing will get underway? II Krauss : I 'm asking the Mayor to set up a task force on that as we speak . Emmi n'g: : And who 's got interest here? Tim . Ladd . Eileen: For which ones? I Emmings : Wetlands . II IIPlannin` Commission Meeting !gu"t_ y r,? a �,4 IKrauss : Well it 's not just wetlands . It 's the whole surface utility program . It 's all the water management issues . Storm water management plan and the water quality effort . ' Erhart : And you 're looking for a sub task force to do that? IBatzli : If you three guys are on it . Emmings : No , I just want you to say whether you 've got interest . IBatzli : I have interest but I think you guys have more interest . Ellson : Come on , it 's 11 : 15 . 1 Batzli : That 's why I 'm saying it that way . It 's 11 : 15 . I don 't want to make any decisions . IEmmings : Jeff , do you want to be on two? Farmakes .• I think the sign thing , maybe if I 'm a solo , that 's enough for I me . Emmings: I guess if they want two members of the Planning Commission on I the sign thing , I ' ll do it with Jeff . If whoever 's putting it together is happy with one , it will be Jeff . I Krauss : I should also tell you too though , we are going to attempt to have meeting•_, for those two task forces at some point either early or late in the working day or immediately after the close of business . To be honest with you , I don 't think we can handle another group of night meetings and I I, don 't think anybody else around here can either . So we 're going to try to avoid setting aside a whole evening for these things . I Farmakes : I have a question for you on the sign committee . When you 're working out , there was sort of a general description of who would be on therD . There 's going to be a balanced group there I 'm assuming . It won 't Ibe just sign drafters and business representatives? Krauss : No . Well , we 've got to look at people who are interested in signage . IFarmakes: I fully agree with that . It just will be a balance . . .because if you just have business owners downtown and people with businesses downtown , Iit would be . Krauss : It 'd be skewed one way or the other . That 's one of the reasons I we 've asked you to consider it because there 's a variety of design image that you might have and maybe somebody like Dick Wing now who is getting very excited about design . We ' ll sure try . We ' ll give names to the Mayor . I Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p .m . ISubmitted by Paul Krauss , Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim • PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 8, 1991 PRESENT: Craig Blechta, Dave Dummer , Dave Johnson, Don Chmiel , Brian Beniek, Bill Bernhjelm 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENT: Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry, Sgt . Julie Boden ' FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENT: Second Assistant Fire Chief Duane Auseth STAFF PRESENT: Public Safety Director Scott Harr , Building Official Steve Kirchman, Beth Koenig. The meeting was called to order at 7 PM by Chairman Craig Blechta. ' Craig Blechta made one correction for the July minutes--that he was present . ' Brian Beniek motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to approve the July 8 minutes as submitted with the above noted correction. All voted in favor and the motion passed. CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT Jim Castleberry commended Scott and staff for the great job they did in handling the transition period this past year . Jim also expressed ' how pleased he is with the Chanhassen Deputies under the supervision of Sgt . Boden. Discussion was had on the Carver County Sheriff ' s Department contract for 1992 . Dave Dummer motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to approve of the 1992 contract as written, maintaining 28 • hours per day of contract coverage. All voted in favor and the motion passed. ' Sgt . Boden advised the Commission that Deputy Dave Selinski has accepted a position with the Civil Process Division. Sgt . Boden also commended the agencies that assisted in the apprehension of five ' suspects involved in the Dinner Theatre burglary. The assisting agencies included the State Patrol and Eden Prairie. ' FIRE DEPARTMENT Craig Blechta recommended that Duane Auseth, the Commission, and Council members ride along with the Fire Department , CCSO, CSOs, and the Building Inspectors. Scott Harr will submit a letter encouraging the ride along program. Craig also brought up the suggestion that ' ID cards be distributed to the Council and Commission for the purpose of gaining access to emergency calls in the City. Concerns were discussed by the members for the reason of safety and securing crime .1 11 I Public Safety Commission August, 8 , 1991. Page 2 ' scenes . The overall consensus was to encourage the Council and Commission to participate in ride alongs and drills . Duane Auseth reported that cancelled medical calls from Rosemount are down significantly. BUILDING INSPECTIONS Building Official Steve Kirchman briefed the Commission on the status of building permits , inspections and revenue. Mayor Chmiel discussed the development of Market Square. Craig Blechta questioned the ' complaint listed in the July 1991 Code Complaint Report at the Riviera; Scott will follow up on this complaint . Steve Kirchman also discussed the proposed code amendments for Chapter 19 , including: 1 ) Septic tanks will require two tanks or compartmented tank (assuming that all homes will sooner or later have ' a garbage disposal ) ; 2 ) Septic cleaning will be required through the manhole ; 3 ) Checking the septic system for cleaning will be required every two years . Discussion was had on fees involved for the homeowner and how often is it necessary to have the septic system ' cleaned. Bill Bernhjelm motioned , Craig Blechta seconded , to endorse the proposed ordinance amendments relative to building codes as indicated in the packet . All voted in favor and the motion passed . PUBLIC SAFETY IDirector Harr informed the Commission that our community is receiving good cooperation from the DNR on a combined effort to fight the milfoil problem. Awareness is being promoted. ' Jet Ski complaints are down from 1990 . The Public Safety Department has only received two complaints on jet skis in 1991 ( these were received in May) . Staff training continues to be promoted by Director Harr . This year three courses have been available to City Staff : CPR training was ' provided by Craig Blechta, NSP trained staff on safety procedures around electricity; and, Scott Harr and Richard Wing conducted a class on severe weather . All classes had successful turnouts and Director Harr has received positive feedback from those who attended. Scott Harr discussed a revised CSO program that has been submitted to the City Manager . Bob Zydowski ' s position would remain full-time and include duties of code enforcement officer and administrative assistant , with the addition of two part-time/temporary CSOs for 30 I r I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION August 8 , 1991 Page 3 hours a week, in place of the existing second full-time CSO position. One part-time CSO position has been filled, and staff is advertising for the second position. The Animal Control Contract for 1992 was discussed. Director Harr feels very confident with the current contract is working well . It was explained that the revenue must go to the general fund. Bill Bernhjelm motioned, Brian Beniek seconded, that the Animal Control Contract for 1992 shall continue. All voted in favor and the motion was passed. Scott Harr attended a SWMDTF meeting with all involved cities to evaluate the status of the Task Force. Discussion was had on the functions and the financial status of the Task Force. The Task Force has been involved with the schools to educate faculty and students , in addition to their enforcement role. Brian Beniek motioned , Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to endorse Scott Harr ' s recommendation to continue with the SWMDTF program, but not to exceed $10 ,040 . 51 in the contract . All voted in favor and the motion passed . Craig Blechta suggested that a sub-committee be created for the purpose of reviewing projections for the Public Safety Department ( including: Fire Department , Building Inspections , Public Safety, Animal Control Program, etc . ) . Scott will follow up on this . Discussion was had on the gambling ordinance. The goal is to obtain local control of gambling in the City. Bill Bernhjelm motioned, Dave Johnson seconded, to submit the gambling ordinance to the Council . All voted in favor and the motion passed. Scott Harr presented a draft for a noise ordinance. Comparisons over the new and old noise ordinance were addressed. Scott Harr expressed concern over how vague the old noise ordinance is . There was discussion over the definition of noise and how could be enforced. Bill Bernhjelm suggested that the commission look at implementing a permit process on a case by case basis which would allow parties/bands to continue after hours under certain circumstances . Mayor Chmiel addressed the concept of total abolishment of construction on Sundays . Director Harr will continue researching in order to create a more specific ordinance. The Building Inspections Department is now conducting a survey requesting feedback from contractors/homeowners on the operations of the Inspections Department . Surveys will be distributed randomly over a six month period in addition to evaluations being provided with permit application packets . Director Harr will submit a report on the findings from this survey after the six month period. 1 11 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION August 8 , 1991 Page 4 r ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT The Commission reviewed the request from the Engineer Department for the installation of a two-way stop on eastbound and westbound Western Drive at Nez Perce. Brian Beniek motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to recommend the request for a two-way stop at Western Drive and Nez Perce. All voted in favor and the motion was passed. Discussion was had on whether or not to install "no parking" signs on the streets of Woodhill Drive and Yuma Road. Brian Beniek motioned, Craig Blechta seconded, to support the Engineering ' Department ' s recommendation to install "no parking" signs along one side of the street to ensure sufficient room for emergency vehicles on Woodhill Drive and Yuma Road, under the condition that the effected homeowners be advised prior to the passing of this recommendation by City Council . The vacancy on the Public Safety Commission was discussed. and Scott ' Harr directed Beth to set up interviews within the week for applicants . ' Don Chmiel stated that he would like Chairman Blechta to write a letter to Deputy Selinski regarding his commendable performance while working in the Chanhassen Division, and for his promotion to the Civil Process Division. Brian Beniek motioned, Don Chmiel seconded , to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 45 PM. i 1 I r I r