1f. Minutes 11
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 24, 1991
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman and
Councilwoman Dimler
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch,
Jo Ann Olsen, Sharmin Al-Jaff, Todd Hoffman, and Scott Harr
AUDIT PRESENTATION:
Mayor Chmiel: . . .an audit and general purpose financial statement for the City
of Chanhassen that Deloitte and Touche has done for us. We thought that just a
brief summarization of this to the general public just to let you know where
' we're going as a city and how we're faring within the past year. So with that
I'd like to turn it over to our representatives from Deloitte-Touche to bring us
up to date as such.
Cliff Hoffman: One of the measures that people in the community frequently look
at from a governmental standpoint is, they wonder how efficient are we. How
effic:ien't is a city like Chanhassen as compared to larger cities or cities the
same size in the suburban Twin Cities area. The first slide that we +rave here
shows the relationship between population and number of households the city
. employs. The City of Chanhassen fares very well on these comparisons. In the
1990 column the population per employee, this stands for every 245 people in the
population there is one city employee. Other statistics for comparable suburbs
to Chanhassen are in the neighborhood of 190, 220 to 230,. Your number looks
very good compared to that. Also the households per employee. Part of how you
' accomplish this is the City contracts out for services rather than adding
permanent employees. For making major construction improvements, that type of
thing, do not have a major public works department. The City of Minneapolis for
instance has a very large public works department. Their ratio comparable to
your 245 is under 100. One of the things that's important for the City to focus
on and keep in mind as far as keeping track in the budget in the future. As the
City grows, the number of city employees will also grow but your efficient as
long as the ratios don't change. Another factor on this transparency we'd like
to point out is that there was a rate increase from the water and sewer
standpoint this past year. Two things were a problem in your water and sewer
' fund down here. 1990 was a relatively wet year compared to 1989. Another
factor was that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission increased sewer
charges by 5253,000.00 which is a 71% increase. Those costs were passed
directly to the City and really the City Council and their management had no way
of knowing it would be that much and be able to react to them. One_pf the
things that's important to focus on for the future that we have discussed with
management is the issue of any time the sewer charges change, that has to really
be reflected in rate increases immediately because you don't control that and if
you. . .change the fuel costs and the power bill. The City cannot. control that.
Turning to the next transparency is the ratio of debt per capita compared to the
national average. The City of Chanhassen is a young city and as you would
expect , the debt per capita is higher than the national average. However, only
11 1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Counci?. Meeting - June 24, 1991
$318.00 of the total of $1,771 .00 is actually paid directly by the general
taxpayers. The rest , the $1,453.00 per capita is assessed against specific
owners of property who have specific improvements made. It is not a general
obligation of all the taxpayers. The next line below we show what the operating
ratio is and you can see how tight ,the profit margin is with the water and sewer
fund as compared to the national average. Nationally most cities make much more
on their water and sewer funds than the City of Chanhassen does. The biggest
problem once again though that you have is substantially all the costs come from
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. . . Next I'd like to turn to the
transparency that shows what your operating fund balance is. One of the things
that 's important when we look at this slide is this is the balance sheet of your
' equity of what your net worth is. There are choices that cities make in their
accounting decisions and the City of Chanhassen follows extremely conservative
accounting philosophies.. For instance, at the first part of June the controller
for the City of Houston was leading a discussion with what's wrong with the City
of Houston and the big bang that 's coming in governmental accounting. Half the
city of Houston, currently they show a general fund balance of a positive $30
million. Their general long term debt. . .accounts however, they have a liability
for vacation and sick pay of over $280 million. What the government accounting
standards board is saying is that you should budget currently for the cost of
today's government and that liability belongs over in the general fund. So Mr.
Clark from the City of Houston indicated he's going to have a problem explaining
to the taxpayers in 1994 how their real fund balance is not a positive $30
million but it 's a deficit close to 1/4 of a billion dollars. The City of
Chanhassen in 1994 when the accounting changes, your numbers are going to look
the same provide you maintain operations. There are no skeltons in the closet
and you're following the most conservative accounting policies possible.
Overall, looking at your operating fund types, your general funds, special
revenue funds and enterprise funds, there's an increase in what we'll call a net
liquid assets of about $365,000.00. Now that was very good considering that the
City suffered a loss of local government aid of $310,000.00 that it didn't know
' about when you set the 1990 budget . I've already talked about you had a
difficult year for water sales. Almost $253,000.00 increase in Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission costs that you didn't know about . Overall the City is
charging for today's taxpayers for today's services. Turning to the next
transparency. Looking at the amount of equity that you have in your general
fund, which is your main operating fund, the City has slowly grown that balance.
As you'll note, the size of the City has grown as necessitated by the change in
population. One of the reasons why the City has to maintain a fund balance is
because how the cash comes into the City. Approximately 10% of the revenue
comes into the City the first 5 months of the year. Your property tax revenue
' and most of the State revenue does not come in until the month of June and only
a portion of ;t comes in there and then most of it , the second half of it comes
in in October-November. So what happens then is really the City needs a fund
balance of almost a million dollars just to cover financing the operation of the
1 government for the first 5 months of the year. If you didn't have the fund
balance, what would happen is the City would have to use what's called tax
anticipation borrowing. Borrowing short term money and paying interest to pay
' current operating costs.. .salaries and that's a little bit like using your
credit card to buy your groceries. That's considered to be a big negative from
a governmental standpoint. The City is well to maintain the fund balances and
they're going to need to grow as the size of the city grows. Turning to the
next transparency, looking at where the City's revenues come from in 1990 which
2
1
City Council Meeting - June 24 , 1991
is the solid column versus in 1989, there has been a big change in property
taxs that had to happen because of what happened in intergovernmental revenues. I
You lest 4310,000.00 of local government aid. That was not changed. . .by City
Council or management . That 's what happened to the .State of Minnesota. Made up
with teat , your property taxes, through charges for services, licenses and
permits are down. Not down as much though as they are in many other cities in .
the Twin Cities area so you do have still a relative building boom going on _ -
compared to most places. But you have seen a slow down in the economy and that
is reflected it the licensing and permits. One of the encouraging signs is if
we go back to 1985, there was a time when the City's budget was also about 52%
property ' axes . The difference though back in 1985, close to 25% of the revenue
was coring from State Aid. Now the City is in more control of it 's own destiny
right now because where you've made up for the drop in the intergovernmental is
through licenses and permits and user fees. So the City is more controlled
• locally over what 's going to happen as far as it 's destiny. So that 's a good
sign. Turning to the next 5 charts, one of the things that you look for in
government on the expenditure side is for government to be born. Today's
taxpayers should expect to have the same level, same. . .of governmental services
as those 5 years from now. You maintain adequate fund balances so the
government can be consistent in the future. The City of Chanhassen for instance
spends a little over 34% of it 's budget on public safety. That is consistent
with what last year wa° and if you go back over the last 5 years, you'll find
that that hasn't varied much. Also the other areas on the revenue pie are also
very consistent . One of the things that 's often asked is what is the right
level to spend on public safety. Normal range in our client base is we're
seeing a neighborhood of 35% to 45%. You're on the lower end of that range and
the main reason is because you have a volunteer fire department . If you had a
full time fire department it would be closer to 45%. National statistics, the
City of Miami spends 65% of it 's budget on public safety so you cannot say that
necessarily how much you spend on public safety is necessarily indicative of the
Quality bf life. Turning to the next transparency, we're taking a look at the
enterprise funds. The black column is revenue and the column on the left are
the expenditures. You can see that expenditures have exceeded revenues for the
last 3 years. The biggest reason for that is in the operating expenditure
column, 55% of the costs of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the City
Council and management have no control over what those costs are going to be.
Those have increased substantially. In 1989 those costs were 46%. Those have
been going up tremendously. Turning to the next transparency, one of the
questions that a lot of people have is when the City has taken out debt , they
reduce the capacity for the city to grow in the future because you have so much
debt outstanding. There are a lot of organizations, the way they've taken out
their debt , they used a lot of zero coupon bargaining. If you look out at the
future, the amount of debt service payment is huge in the future. All the debt
is gone by the year 2004. The lower part here is the general obligation bonds
which are supported by all the taxpayers. You can see that's a relatively low
amount . That also disappears by the year 2004. The upper bars are special
assessment bonds which have been assessed against specific owners for specific
improvements. The top part of the graph is tax increment financing which are
paid by specific projects. Not the general taxpayers of the City of Chanhassen.
The City's future I think is very bright. In fact when you have the next wave
of growth that 's going to occur in this city,- you have the capacity to levy. ..
more debt in the future. Now there is the capacity to borrow and make the
necessary improvements to your infrastructure to grow in the future.
3
1
City CoLncir Meeting - June 24, 1991
I
Mayor Chmiel : Thank you.
Cliff Hoffman: Dan will briefly go through the management plan.
Dan MultbF-rr : In addition to the comprehensive annual fund management report ,
we did iesu= a management letter to the City of Chanhassen. We have discussed
observations, background and our recommendations. . .management and they have
agreed to implement our recommendations in the coming year. Just one brief
' comment . We did observe the City. Management and City Council has done an
exceptional job of controlling the finances of the City. . .
Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. Appreciate that .
Councilman Workman: Excuse me. I didn't hear you. Would you repeat that?
' Mayor Chmiel : Okay. Thank you for bringing that to our citizens indicating
what our year end of December 31, 1990 has been with our management statement .
With that we will now call the meeting to order.
Mayor Chmiel called the regular portion of the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Limier seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions and changes: Mayor Chmiel
wanted to discuss under Visitor Presentation the DNR pilot project , under Public
Hearing to add final plat under the Bryne Subdivision and under Council
Presentations discuss request participation by the Senior Citizens to volunteer
their services to the City. Councilwoman Dimler wanted an update on the
billboard ordinance and District #112 garage sale under Council Presentations.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the followin; consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
' recommendations:
a. Approve Three Day On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Liquor License, July 3, 4 and 6,
' Chanhassen Rotary Club.
c. Resolution #91-58: Accept Feasibility Study for TH 5 Frontage Road
Improvements at Lone Cedar Lane; Call for Public Hearing, Project 90-9.
g. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Planned Unit Development Regulations,
Final Reading.
h. Approval of Accounts.
i. City Council Minutes dated June 10, 1991
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 5, 1991
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
r
4
I
I
D. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOUTH LEG TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 ; AUTHORIZE
ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, PROJECT 90-20.
Councilman Workman: I didn't get a chance to look at the plans and I wasn't r
su, c nari r that I was able to glean from your note here. I'm excited that
we 're going to be doing this and getting going on this. It appears as though
r`e`_cr U-c 're going to do this temporary is kind of confusing to me. We're
racing to be removing an awful lot 'of extra trees it would appear in this area.
Clearing, grubbing, grading, construction of a rural roadway section. Ditches.
Stc-m sewer and we're spending an awful lot of money. Can you give me a little
clearer idea why want to do this? Is this just to get it rerouted now before
TH 212?
Charlee Folch: That 's primarily the basic impetus. As you mentioned, the ,
permanent alignment of TH 101 likely won't occur until the TH 212 improvement
project is taking place and that may not occur -for a few more years from now.
And MnDot has stated very emphatically that they would not approve a
redesignation of rerouting of the current TH 101 without having that temporary
connection down to the existing TH 101. Therefore at this point in time it does
seem some of the concerns and issues we are dealing with in the downtown traffic
situation, it seems an appropriate time to try and relieve the burden carried by
the downtown traffic system of this thru traffic for TH 101.
Councilman Workman: So `-he rerouting will take place simply by signs? The old
TH 101 will nct , Frontier Trail will not close with this? Or will it?
Charles Folch: Frontier Trail or the old TH 101? '
Councilman Workman: Frontier Trail. Great Plains.
Charles Fcich: Great Plains. No, that won't close. In fact MnDot is requiring '
at the present time that there be an intersection realignment with the old TH
101 until the middle section of Lake Drive is completed. When that is
completed, then it will be disconnected from the old TH 101. North leg if you
will port`.. North of that point .
Councilman Workman: Okay. I would move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Resolution #91-59: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve plans and specifications for South Leg Trunk Highway 101 and to
authorize advertising for bids on Project No. 90-20. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. '
F. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, CITY CENTER PARK/CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PLAYGROUND AND TENNIS COURT REVITALIZATION.
Councilman Workman: I just wanted to say with this. I have not followed this
that carefully. It seems there's been a whole lot of effort into it and a lot
of people are happy with it . However, we're moving ahead a little quicker than
I feel comfortable with but it seems like a lot of effort went into this by Park
and Rec and everybody and I just wanted to. . .good job.
5 '
1
City Cou;___ hoc -c. - June 24 , 1991
Ma yc :',. _c_ " And -tut even a used car salesman.
rCouncilman Workman: An electricity salesman? I'd move approval.
' Ccu'isilman Ma:tc:r,: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve plans and
specifications for City Center Park/Chanhassen Elementary School Playground and
tennis court revita_ization. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel : I'd just like to take just a couple minutes just to sort of hit
.on the article that we had in the Chanhassen Villager covering the mosaic that
was presented to us by the Department of Natural Resources on reforestation
' within the City of Chanhassen. It 's sort of a pilot project that they have with
us. Maybe if the camera can pan over to the far side of the wall and they can
hopefully sec that mosaic showing the amounts of trees that we have within the
city. We're looking at the different species of trees as well and hopefully if
we pull this together and get someone from the Department of Forestry. A
student to go through the city of Chanhassen and record exactly what we have
' within the city. Cucliti the sizes and types of trees. I think being chosen
by the Department cf Natural Resources as a pilot project within the City is
somethinc i.n itself . As everyone well knows, Council and staff have all been in
favor of keeping the trees that we have. It 's that old adage I keep using,
' they're great in the summer to shade our houses and absolutely great in tfie
winter wh_n; the:' lose their leaves so the sun can come back into the house and
warm it up. Sc it 's something well worthwhile as far as I see and we will be
pursuinc that particular project. Next item is a public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: ROGER .BYRNE PROPERTY, 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, CARVER BEACH:
A. PUBLIC HEARING VACATING WILLOW ROAD.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT AND LOT AREA VARIANCE.
' Sharmin Al-Jaff: This proposal is located in the Carver Beach subdivision. It
predates the zoning ordinance. This subdivision was created in 1927. The
applicants are in ownership of three lots that- are substandard in area. They are
proposing to recombine them into two *parcels. Parcel A is going to be the
future site for a residential single family. Will have an area of 13,550 square
feet . Parcel B is an existing home. Is proposed to have an area of 11,326
square feet. Both parcels have lot area variances attached to them. We
surveyed the area within 500 feet as required by ordinance. The average lot
size was 11,100 square feet . Both those lots exceed the average within the
neighborhood. We find it reasonable to support this variance as no precedence
' will be set . Also, Parcel B is going to improve in lot area. Currently it has
7,100 square feet . It will be increased to 11,326. The applicants are also
requesting the vacation of Willow Road. This road was never improved because of
the steep grades. We are in favor of the vacation with the understanding that a
' 20 foot wide drainage easement be preserved in favor of the City. We are
recommending approval of the proposal with conditions outlined in the report .
t
6
1
Cit. Ccur c__ fleeting -- June 24, 1991 1
rc 2ka> , fine. Thank you Sharmin. Is there anyone at this
time who would like to address the public hearino? If so, please
st a t E your name and your address.
,-r, Roo B rne , 6724
- _ y Lotus Trail. The only thing that I don't really II rhino,, that I have a problem with is tae , well we had a deal
were going to share the driveway with the property to the south. I
don't !.now, I suppose you all read the report . Anyway it 's the driveway is
existing ie there. They've got it down as a 20 foot driveway which we can't
have IDE _aucs a hill on one side and a fire hydrant on the other side so they
said t he> 'd nrobabi-,' u.coh with us on that . I was looking at it a little harder
here since the Planning Commission meeting and staff said they wanted us to
share the driveway because they didn't really want two curb cuts right next to
each other from a safety standpoint. Well, the more I looked at that driveway
• that 's, th-roe, that driveway is not very safe. I mean I built that driveway in
the fi'-et place about 20 years ago and I didn't have safety in mind at all. The
more I look at it right now, it 's not too hot . Because right to the south side
of there is a big hill. You go at a 45 degree angle or 90 degree just about off
the street . It goes up immediately. There's an incline. Where you're coming
down Lotus Trail , you turn on the driveway and you have to walk. Well with the
fire hydrant now, of course the fire hydrant wasn't there when I put the
dr_vEw - and that 's in my own defense. But with the fire hydrant there now,
you can't go around the driveway and give her some gas to get up because if you
slip, be-" , cu'rc into, the fire hydrant . Well, when the same thing when you're
coring out of the driveway. It 's a down grade. If it 's slippery in the winter,
or it the s..;mmer , the hill is right there and you can't see the cars coming
down. It 's really an unsafe driveway anyway. So I guess what I'd like to
pror.ose is I'll have E0 feet along there, I'll make my own driveway down a
little bit fErther on the ether side of the fire hydrant somewhere. Have an
enginee- lock or something. Another one of their concerns was the erosion
problem. :s_11 as far as erosion, most of the erosion comes in the street . I
mean some washec out of there and apparently it 's
pparently it s gravel and it 's sloped. It
washer a little bit but it 's not like a creek coming down there when it rains.
'.:Et whatever falls, runs you know. Most of the erosion was from the road.
It 's not from coming out of that driveway. I guess they wanted it paved for
that reas:.r, for the erosion and stuff. I guess I'm not really against the
paving and stuff but the more I looked at that driveway, I think I could make
myself a better driveway down a little bit farther than sharing that driveway
with two people and having two curb cuts I think would be safer than having one
curb cut in that location to serve two houses. In fact , I don't know if the
City Engineer is here that was out there tonight. He didn't want to back out of
there. My wife said he turned around because you can't see and the fire
hydrant 's right there and the hill's on the other side. It's just one of my
concerns. In fact that 's the only concern I had. The rest of the report and
the recommendations I thought were really good. Were some things I never
thought of and I was glad they came up with them. But just that driveway
business. The more I look at it, the more I don't like it.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, that wasn't your fault. It's the City's. They put the
hydrant in afterwards.
Roger Byrne: That 's right . They put the hydrant there after I made the
d' ivewa) .
7
City Ccun:__ h',..: ' c - :une 24 , 1991
11
Councilman; Workman: Can we make approval with all these changes on this?
rMayor ChriLM I that 's something probably we'd have to have discussion
with Staff to see. What their position would be on that .
Roger Byrn I didn't talk to them either after that . I was just looking the
last few days and I've been out of town. I had to go to work and I didn't get a
chance to talk to them about it either again you know. I was going to talk to
' them but I didn't . 3ut the more I looked at it the more I thought I'd better
say something about this.
Mayor Chmiel : I'm glad you brought it up.
Roger Byrne: That's all I have. Well, I have one other thing. Small letter
9 9
' from my neighbor. The people who live to the south there.
Mayor Chmiel : That was one of the questions was whether or not you had gotten
any agreement .
Roger Byrne: Yeah. They're happy to do it . I guess that 's all I have.
Thanks .
' Mayor Chmiel : Good. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the public
hearing?
' Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chris' : Charles, do you see any problem with that drive from the existing
tc the suggested that Roger brought up?
' Charles Folch: I guess I would tend to agree with him. It is, after viewing it
tonight , it is a difficult location. The hydrant is very vulnerable. In fact I
would probably recommend that if we were going to go with a common driveway,
' that we protect that hydrant with some bollards because it's right out there in
the middle. As far as relocating it to a different location, I guess my intent
tonight , while I wasn't looking at that option so I haven't taken a close look
' at that . Off the cuff my guess would be that the only difficulties you may run
into with a separate access as far as from having too close together from a
safety aspect is you're going to probably lose some more trees. Your tree loss
will probably be the same, if not more going to a different location and you'll
have difficulties cutting into that slope. I understand they're looking at
possibly a tuck under garage type setting but you will have to do some cutting
of that hill and your side slopes accordingly so the tree loss would be fairly
extensive I would think.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I just drove past there and I didn't look to see what you
have to cut with the new suggested drive.
Roger Byrne: I don't really know what kind of house. . . We're not really
looking for a building permit right now and when it comes the time to build. . .
then we could design a driveway with that in mind. Something that's a lot
8
CY y .inc - June 24, 1991 1
better than what 's there at that ooint in time. There's probably almost 25 feet
; Fe w_tF r..o trees at all down from there on the other side of the fire
h;-drat . But those trees, there's kind of a parking lot thing there now. The
d could go ir there somewhere. . .
Sharmin. do you have any comment?
Shsrn.ir A -Jaff: The reason why we recommended that the driveway be paved was
to ccrt -cl erosion. That 's the only solution that the engineering staff had.
FL. fo' the trey_ removal, we will work with the applicants to preserve as many
tree: a: po:sible. Or allow them to remove as little or as few.
Mayor Chmiel: Minimal.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: As minimal trees as possible. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Any discussion by Council?
Councilman Mason: Just real quickly on the paving thing. I live in Carver '
Beach also and I got elected on a really strong environmental stance so I hope
I 'm not doing a disservice here but that road isn't and if we're talking
lking
abcut putting culvers ir: there too for erosion, I guess I would just as soon
see number 5 recommendation changed to if and when Lotus Trail gets paved they
would their, pa'.e their driveway. Right now it stands with the staff
recommendation that when a house gets built there they have to pave a driveway
regardle_: c' whether Lotus Trail is paved.
Sharmin AI-?aff: That was the recommendation the Planning Commission had. It
shcuic' b_ cr, the last page of the report .
Councilman mason: Right . Yeah. Any maybe that whole erosion thing for Lotus
Lai.: is something that needs to come up at another time because Lotus Lake is in
kind :.f tough shape but that 's not the issue here I guess.
Mayor Chmiel : You're right it 's not. Okay, Tom? Ursula? '
Councilwoman Dimler: My concern was that we got that letter signed off. Are
there any other property owners that need to sign off there besides the one we II just received?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Not really. . . .ownership of those three lots or parcels.
Those are tax forfeit lots. This parcel has frontage on. . .Drive. This parcel
has it 's entrance on Lotus Trail and this one accesses on Carver Beach so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Everyone's taken care of?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess I don't have any problems with this except maybe ,
having just one more condition. Maybe this is part of the building permit.
Prior to any digging that the. . .to make sure t ;at the applicant is aware of that
as well. So there's no need for it to be on there or should it be? I
9
11
•
Ci' y Cc•un-ii Meeting - June 24, 1991
1
5harmin Ai-Jaff: You can make it a condition and have it on there.
Mayer Cihmi:_l : Oko . Why don't we just add that . Any digging, any utilities
with:-; the are , they come out and stake it and tell them where it 's at so
the no' c..,: on to p o',ide problem services within the area. Just a small
thin . " " t ni Lig. Okay. Yes, Roger .
Rog.^'- Knutson' One small item. Just so you're aware of the potential problem.
' Not that it will happen but once the building permit is issued and a home is up,
we ask servo . later to put in a paved driveway, enforcement can be difficult.
Mayor Chmiel : What you're saying is rather than.
Roger Knutson: We don't have any. leverage at that point .
' Mayor Chnie' : Okay. That it be still part of the condition within, and I think
that prc.5obly from the applicant 's standpoint , I would think you'd want
something with a paved driveway in there.
Roger Byrne: I have no problem with paving the driveway. I guess the only
thing is, that 's not the driveway I want to pave. The driveway that 's there
' now.
Mayer Chmiel : P=-t . We're talking the relocation of the driveway in the other
direction. Is what we're talking. So with that , Mike?
Coonci'_mar Macon: Co we need to change recommendation 5? He's talking about
putting in another driveway?
' Mayor ChnS ei : Yes. Charles, can you make a suggestion in there being it's
going to be by your approval?
' Charles Folch: I think we can just stipulate that when a home is built on
Parcel A, you can eliminate the common section portion and just reword it
accordingly that if in the future when the main road is improved to bituminous
section, that the driveway also be paved accordingly. I guess I would also
stipulate some timeframe that would be appropriate to have the driveway paved
at .
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the applicant is saying basically he has no problems with
putting the driveway in now. Or when he does build it rather than when the road
becomes paved and that 's the point Roger was bringing up.
' Roger Knutson: Right . If you tied it to the construction of the new home, that
way when someone comes in for a building permit.
' Mayor Chmiel: Alright . Let 's use our counsel. Mr. Emmings, would you like to.
Steve Emmings: I don't know if this helps or just adds confusion but the
recommendation that 's in the Planning Commission Minutes is not what happened at
the Planning Commission. That number 5 that you-have in front of you is not
from the Planning Commission. If you read what Erhart who made the motion, he
10
Cii ,. r 1_ ' _ng - June 24 , 1991
I/
o1c' t tie an>' h:ng. . .the house on Parcel A to the paving of Lotus Trail which
is `,,a -tly what you said. . . What appears on the very last page of the packet I
which is t;,e mction, or the. . .proposed by the Planning Commission, not . . .
i nc . hoL. tha' happened. We never even discussed. . .building of a homy:
on 'BrCE_ , but . at 'e= to ' he paving of Lotus Trail. '
Councilman Workman: But then how can we, getting back to your point Roger, how
can we m a' e them rave when.
Roger Knutson: can do it earlier . You could say on the construction- of
th= hc,..`. c - t paving cf the street , whichever first occurs. That way you have
SoME' b II
Councilman Workman: But when they pave the street , how do we say to them okay
now ycu 'vc got to pave the driveway?
K-utson: tiou can say it and it's difficult.
Councilman Workman: Even if it 's tied in to the paving of Lotus. '
P_ccr Knutson: At least we've got them and they're trying to get a building
permit . You don't lose ,nything by putting that in.
Councilman Mason: As long as the applicant is talking about paving anyway, why
-do'l't you just put in it will get paved when the house is built .
Mayo- ch,,.ie_ 2 think that could be done. Any other discussions? Can I have a
matio; .
Maccr.: I move approval of #91-4, #86-2 and #91-6. Lot combination
replt fr- the vacation of Willow Road with the conditions for the paving of the
driveo/ a: stated.
Mayor Cho_c_ : As well as the other conditions ,
so indicated.
T .ank you. '
Councilman Workman: So we're going to be vacating, we're going to be
prci.im.ina:-y and final platting and lot variance? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Correct.
Councilman Workman: Second. '
Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution *91-60: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve Subdivision Request 191-4, both preliminary and final plat and lot
combination with a 3,674 square foot lot area variance on Parcel B, #91-6
Variance and #86-2 Vacation of Willow Road subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall reflect all of the typical drainage and utility
easements on Parcel A (Lots 1164-1169 and Lots 1178-1179) and on Parcel B
11
1
Ci4 'y Ccur l Meeting - June 24 , 1991
(LciE 1170-117? ).
2. p,_ , ; anc trail E!sc'ication fees will be required in lieu of land dedication.
Fes,: Lill f, . paid when a building permit is requested for Parcel A.
'
3. T r spcsnt shall supply grading and drainage and tree preservation plans
along with the building permit for review and approval by the City Engineer .
' 4. C. structural eno' neer must design the foundation for the future home on
Parcel A (Lots 1164-1169 and Lots 1178--1179) due to the nature of this lot .
Soils info-ration must be provided.
' 5. A cornice curb cut shall be utilized to serve Parcel A and the home located
to t `:c south that is currently served .by a gravel driveway located in the
right-cf-way. When a home is built on Parcel A, the common section of the
driveway shall be paved to a width determined by the City Engineer to
rinir.iz tree loss and grading and remaining sections serving Parcel A paved
to minimize erosion and maintain drainage. Driveway plans, incorporating
appropriate drainage provisions, shall be prepared for approval by the City
Engineer.
6. Provid_ the following easements:
a. ct.. ... ., dre.i.i =.e and utilities easements.
.I b. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement in the former Willow 'Road
right-of-way.
' c. A c:.rron driveway easement in favor of Parcel A and adjoining lot to the
south over common sections of the driveway.
ci. ` 1E foot temporary access easement over former right-of-way to serve 3
located west of Parcel A. Easement may be vacated if lots are
accuired by the applicant and combined with Parcel A.
' 7. Prior to any digging, the applicant must identify and stake all utility
easements on the property.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' AWARD OF BIDS: IMPROVEMENTS TO WEST 79TH STREET EAST OF TH 101, PROJECT 91-8.
' Charles Folch: You'll recall at the last meeting I recommended that we table
this awarding of the bids pending two outstanding items. I have got information
from Jean Msuwisson that we have received the cash escrow for the security
amount arc I'm aware that the easement are in the process of being taken care of
' so at this time, in order to stay consistent with the construction schedule of
the Valvoline Rapid Oil development , I would recommend approval of the award of
bid to Midwest Asphalt Corporation for the West 79th Street Improvement Project
' #91-8 for contract amount of $59,018.05.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
12
1
City Cc,_ rci. '`se4ing - June 24 , 1991
M cr Chmiel : Motion's on the floor. Is there a second?
!•,anon: Second.
•
Resolution #91-61: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award
the bid to Midwest Asphalt Corporation for.the West 79th Street Improvement
Project #91-8 in the amount of $59,018.05. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Mayo- Chmiel : T_ being the sole. '
Councilman workman Mr . Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel : Yes Tom.
Councilman Workman: I would like to maybe exercise the option to advertise.
Mayor Chmiel : Very good. Okay. We will advertise in the paper.
Todd' Gerhardt : in next week's edition. '
Mayor Chmiel_ : And we 'll get this back to Council July 8th. That 's being
consistent with what we've done in the past and I'd just as soon do that . So at
this particular time we'll table this item until July 8th Council meeting and
ad r-+ ise jnr that pa,rticUlar position.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: '
Mayor Chmiel : I just wanted to touch briefly one more time to the citizens,
that is our senior citizens, in regards to the request of participation of
volunteer _zerviccs to the city. That being in the types of typing that can be
done or with filing or assisting staff in some precise way. In addition to
that , basically within our beach area that we have at Lake Ann and our other
parks, to have our citizens patrol those parks with a city vehicle as well as
av:r them in uniform to watch over our kids within the city. Last year as you
rr�;' know we had a few funny people in this community which I don't like, doing
some exposing to kids and I'm thinking that possibly by getting this II
participation from the senior citizens, this will defer a lot of those kinds of
funny problems within our city. So those of you who are out there who may watch
this, and I don't know who would but those of you who would, I would certainly
appreciate your participation to the city. And please call in and ask for
either Don Ashworth or Todd Gerhardt and have your names on our list so we can
get this moving rather quickly. That's all I had for that. Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I wanted to thank Paul Krauss, our City Planner and
also Roger Knutson, our attorney, for the check-up work they did on that
billboard ordinance and I just want to make absolutely sure that our ordinance
or what we have in place would stand up against any court case. I know the rest
of the Council does share that concern so Roger , I read it in the administrative
packet that it does. '
to
1
City Ccur:i.J Meeting - June 24 , 1991
I
Roger Knutson: Guaranteed only until after we've litigated it . I believe you
hau; a gccd ordinance and I believe it 's enforceable.
Ma> cr Cn- i_ '_ My understanding is as I understand that Roger talked to someone
t, 'e - _ E cuite a bit about that . That was Lady Bird Johnson.
Councilwoman Dimier : You did call her? Okay, I'm just real pleased with what 's
been dor:.
Mayor Chmiei : And your other item was?
' Councilucriar Dimier: I also asked at the Council meeting several weeks ago to
get us a drop off point for District #112 Garage Sale that 's to be held in the
fall. Was anything done on that Todd?
Todd Gerhardt : Yes . I talked to Kay.
Councilwoman Dicier : Kay Boyle?
Todd Gerhardt : Kay Boyle and I had a nice talk with her. First location would
be what was tir old Hooked on Classics warehouse space behind the hardware
' store . They were waiting discussions with the School District 's insurance
company to sec that the items would be covered under their insurance. And a
second location would be in the basement of City Hall over here. It was the
second location, just because of the door. They need wide doors. They have a
1 variety of wide objects, couches and stuff so that was their first selection and
this being their second.
Councilwoman Limier: Okay, and we're still check to see if those.
Todd Gcch .'-dt_ : She said she'd get back to me if there was going to be a problem
'
with the insurance but from administrators down at the School District said, it
shouldn't bu.
Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, great . Thank you.
Mayor Chr.iei : Okay, any other business?
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tom.
' Councilman Wokman: If I could quickly, tomorrow at the Chamber o-f Commerce
monthly meeting, I would have been startled too if I saw that large rubber band.
Tomorrow at the Chamber lunch, I'm just going to briefly try and provoke the
' downtown Chamber members to come to the meeting that we had scheduled for July
2nd here at City Hall. I didn't know if you. . . I sent that with Pat and she
set the meeting up for July 2nd I think at 6:30.
Councilwoman Dimler: A.M.?
Councilman Workman: Yes. 6:30 to 6:30. And so I didn't know if everybody knew
' that .
14
Cit, Council fr ,ting - June 24, 1991
I/
Mayor Chmiel : Yes. I won't be here but I'm aware of it .
Councilman Workman: Downtown traffic study.
ME 7r C i ei : Traffic signals. Okay, if any administrative presentations
was.Y4. _.,, icated. Can I get a motion for adjournment .
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor a, J the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. .
Submitted c; Don Ashorth
City Mina'_" '
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
•
15
(. .
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION UNEDITED
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 19, 1991
1 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:50 p .m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings , Jeff Farmakes , Brian Batzli and Annette
IIElison arrived late .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad and Joan Ahrens
1 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior .
Planner ; and Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I
We can 't act on any proposal . We 're a body that makes, holds
Emmings: Y P P Y
public hearings and then make recommendations to the City Council and they
1 take the final action on it . Any action that we take is. only a
recommendation to the City Council . As far as maybe all of these things
I guess go with the possible exception of the bed and breakfast item, I
1 don 't want to pass those onto the City Council without a recommendation -
from the Planning Commission which means that since we can't take action
tonight , there 's no point in meeting . On the other hand , all of you have
I taken time to come here and I guess what we might do is hold 4 short
meeting . Once we close our meeting, is just hold a short meeting with the
Planning staff and I 'm going to stick around and maybe , whether or not the
other people on the commission want to stick around , and talk to you and
1 find out quickly what your concerns are so that maybe those can be taken
into account the next time it 's brought before us . . But I still think it's
very important that you come back when these items go back on our agenda to
1 get your testimony in . Put it on the record because a verbatim transcript
is made and passed along to the City Council .. Frankly, this is very
embarrassing to me . This is the first time we 've ever failed to have a
I quorum . We 've got 7 members and there 's no excuse for not having 4 here
but apparently the other 4 people had conflicts tonight . Some of them we
know about . Some of them we didn 't and I don't know what else to tell you .
1 Walter Whitehill : Sounds like a good idea that you're proposing .
Emmings: Okay . Well I would think that- maybe on the Bluff Creek Bed and
1 Breakfast item we could pass that one along to the City Council without any
recommendation from us . Let me just ask . Paul , we 'd like to pass along
item number 2 on the Bluff Creek Bed and Breakfast item . The three members
that are here support the staff report . You can let the City Council know
that to permit what they 're requesting there . And if there 's anything
further that we have to do with it , you'll have to bring 'it back but
otherwise that could go to the City Council .
1 Krauss: I just spoke with the applicant for the Ches Mar Farms proposal
and we 're not looking at just a 2 week delay here . We 're actually looking
at a 4 week delay because our next meeting falls out July 4th week and was
cancelled and the schedule is set up . This is going to put that back into
August sometime which does interfere with his need to get building out on
the site . I throw that out for your consideration .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 2
IBatzli : Can we have a special meeting_ next week?
Olsen: What we can do is put it onto the July , what I was suggesting with
I Ann with the Bed and Breakfast is that we can rush . The next Planning
commission is July 17th and that we can get it to the next Council meeting
that following Monday . Make an exception so it 's just a 2 week delay , not
a month .
IKrauss : Do you think we could do that for Ches Mar Farms as well?
IWalter Whitehill : Before this goes any further , can I ask a question?
Emmings : Sure .
Walter Whitehill : Can we use the mics? I 'm hard of hearing and I have non
idea what is goin<g on .
I Emmings: Okay , right now they 're talking about the Ches Mar Farms proposal
and the,' 're talking about the fact that if we don 't hear it , the fact that
it might rrot be heard tonight may mean that it 's pushed a month or even
1 furthel and that 's not good for the developers is what we 're hearing . I 'll
tell you what . Ches Mar , I have so many questions on that proposal 'and
maybe we ' ll have in the informal part of this meeting , after this is over
I when we discuss it , maybe I can discuss my concerns with him too . Maybe we
want to have a meeting on that and a meeting on the bluff ordinance or
whatever . Or whoever 's here on anything but I 'm not willing to pass that
along without the Planning Commission looking at it because there 's a whole
I bunch of things going on there that , you know there 's a long history on
Ches Mar . I was here when we took action on that in 1985 and when we split
off the property for the Grose ' more recently and there were things done
1 then that I don 't see in the packet which really bothers me . We put
conditions on that property at the time the Gross property was split off
and I don 't see that discussed in the packet . So there 's history that 's ,
I for example all of the rest of that property had one building eligibility
imposed on it at that time . It said that 's all there would be and I don 't
think we 're stepping on the toes of what we did before but I 'm not sure and
I didn 't see it discussed in here so there 's a whole bunch of things like
I that that bother me about that one . So I 'm not willing to pass that along
without us taking a hard look at it .
I Krauss : Item number 1 , is that also something you 'd like brought back or
can that go forward?
Emmings: Well , I don 't have any problem I guess passing that one on but I
II guess maybe we can put the comments of the people that are here on-the
record but I don 't know . Do you want to look at that one?
I Farmakes: I read the request . I thought it was just fine . It conformed
to our other concerns .
1 Batzli : My comments were technical on the conditions that we put on there
more than anything else .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 19Cil - Page 3
Emmings: Okay , so maybe we can' do that one . Okay . Now let me ask you-
this Paul . As a technical matter , can we have a public hearing without a
quorum here? Can I open the public hearing? Get the comments from the
people who came on the record?
Krauss: I honestly don 't know the answer to that . I would think that you
could but I can 't be certain .
Emmings: Is the .applicant here on the recreational beachlot? Would you
• like us to do that? Here 's the risk . If we do it and then we 've done
something wrong , we may have to do it again .
Joan Skallman : We ' ll have to take that chance because we 're trying to get
this done before July 4th .
Emmings: Okay . We 're going to do that one then . I 'm going to open the
public hearing on our first item here tonight .
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILET ON AN
EXISTING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT , LOCATED ON MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ACROSS FROM
LINDEN CIRCLE , MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present: ,
Name Address -
Nancy Nilson 3891 Linden Circle '
Jan Feuerstein 3880 Linden Circle
Billie Windschitl 6591 Joshua Circle
Joan Skallman 6590 Joshua Circle
Richard Wing 3481 Shore Drive
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . 1
Emmings: Have the applicants had a chance to review the conditions that
have been imposed by the City? Okay . Is there anything you 'd like to
address on this item?
Joan Skallman: Good evening . My name is Joan Skallman and I am currently
co-chairing the Presidency of the Minnewashta Homeowners Association so I
am representing the Association . I was the Secretary 2 years ago when this
all began and I just felt it would be beneficial to recap the concerns that
we have behind this . Number one being our health concern . We have got I
many small children . In fact , 44 of them under the age of 10 and I- stress
under the age of 10 because these are the kids that are not allowed to
cross Minnewashta Parkway to go back to their homes to use their facilities
without a parent to help them get across the road . Many children when they
get active down at the beach forget to tell mom and dad and therefore the
lake becomes their alternatives . If you are a parent then you know the
frustrations of small children that does not give you a lot of advance
warning . Also , again the adults that may not use or leave the outlot to go II
i
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 1G , 19"11 - Page 4
Ihome and use their own facilities . The only solution that we .felt would'
help this is to have the chemical toilet on the outlot itself . Our second
concern being safety . We have to cross Minnewashta Parkway to get to our
II
beach outlot and again home and although there is a 30 mph speed limit , not
many motorists abide by that . We have had many close calls by the
homeowners that have gone down to the beach and we have felt the best thing
I to do was to minimize the crossing on Minnewashta Parkway and we felt by
putting the chemical toilet on the beach outlot , that would minimize
crossing . BFI is who we have chosen to go. with and they have sent or they
I have Faxed how they will maintain it . There would be lattice on three
sides . You will not be able to see it from the road . We will take good
care of it . Our lake is our pride and joy and we want to keep it that way
so it won 't be anything that is an eyesore and we will take very good care
I of it and we are trying to get this to go through before July 4th because
we will have many families down there that weekend . Thank you .
I Emmings : Alright . Is there any other members of the public who want to
address this?
Richard Wing : I 'm Richard Wing , 3481 Shore Drive . I 'm just aware that
there was one complaint that the lot is not in compliance with the beachlot
ordinance . That question involved the overnight storage of boats and
I believe there was a pontoon boat on that lot at this time . I am assuming
I that belongs to your association . That pontoon and boat lift would be in
non-compliance with the beachlot ordinance and prior to approving this I
would like to see that issue clarified by staff .
IEmmings : Okay . Can someone from the homeowners association tell us about
the pontoon boat?
Joan Skallman : It 's not our association 's . . .
Emmings: Are you aware that there 's one out there? And you don 't know who
I owns it? Is it someone in your homeowner 's association? Have you made
them aware that that doesn 't fit within your conditional use permit as
something that 's allowed?
Joan Skallman: I don 't know . . .
Emmings: Okay . Is there anybody else that wants to address this item?
IBatzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
1 Farmakes: This issue about the non-compliance on the boat . Is that.
enforceable by the City or is there a separate issue that governs the lake
Iitself?
Krauss : No , it is a valid concern . It is enforceable by the City .
It just takes me a little bit by surprise . Councilman Wing has told us
I about several of these things and we 're trying to follow up on them . I
don 't know that this was one that we were aware of previously .
II
Planning Commission Meeting I
June 19 , 1991 - Page 5
Farmakes : Is this a long term problem? Has the boat been parked there for I
quite some time? Or is it moored on the dock or is it moored on a float? .
Joan Skillman: It 's on a lift . I
Farmakes : On a lift itself? Okay .
Emmings: I think we could just add a condition . . .a condition that they II
comply with their conditional use permit .
Farmakes: Okay . Well I have no problem with the actual facility itself . I
None at all . You 've done a good job . Of working that out . It
_incorporates all the concerns that we had when we worked out the original
amendment to the ordinance . Those are my comments . 1
Batzli : Paul? Or Sharmin or who did this one? I was just curious as to
the conditions that we chose to put in here . It seems to me that these
conditions are in the ordinance . For example the first one and the second
one . Is there a rationale for why we chose certain conditions to be here?
. Is this just to emphasize to the applicant?
II
Al-Jaff : Tc make them aware that they have to come back next year
Batzli : But we didn 't include things having to do with other things in the II
ordinance like screening or any of those other types of things . I guess I
was just curious as to the rationale of why we chose these particular two
items. out of the ordinance .
II
Krauss: Well the licensing , the annual licensing is a new item that came
in with this ordinance and when we send somebody a confirmation letter , the
only conditions that are in the confirmation letter are those that are
specifically called out and it was just a matter of re-emphasis . One of
the conditions , the third condition requires compliance with all past and
current approvals anyway so it gets back to the ordinance but we 're just
II
trying to put them on notice .
Batzli : It would seem almost better to send them a copy of the ordinance .
Anyway , I was curious as to why we chose those two . It seems to me , well II
here 's the next question . As part of the application process , if they
wanted to move the portable toilet from one location on their spot to
I
another , could they do that just under the annual process or would they
have to come back to us?
Krauss: I don 't know . We haven 't been posed with that issue . I guess we II
would have to evaluate if it 's still consistent with the understanding of
the approval of the CUP . On this lot I w".:ld dare say there is no other
location that would be acceptable without cringing it back to you . If this II
lot were 300 feet wide , there may be several options that would allow
movement consistent with your approval . I don 't think that exists here .
Batzli : I guess I would have chosen to put in here that they would locate II
it as specified in the drawing that they provided . We really don 't have a
II
il
Piannirj i
II
`.cgi sloe eeting
Tune 19 . 971 Page M 6
Iplan ctrrmp - _ such and such but do it in accordance with their application .
And last and mabe least . I don 't remember . What 's the footage we require
the portable toilet from the ordinary high water mark?
II Al-.Taff : 75 feet .
I Batzli : Okay . So if the lake came up a lot , that would be part of the
annual renewal process I suppose . If they were unable to physically locate
the portable somewhere in the lot , I don 't even know if that 's possible on
this particular one .
IKrauss: Minnewashta doesn 't do that .
I Batzli : Well , if we get a rain of 13 inches . I guess I 'm thinking of even
hypothetically on any lot , what happens in that kind of situation?
II Krauss : Normally you 'd ;measure from the ordinary high water which is
suppose to take into account the fluctuations . Minnewashta doesn 't
fluctuate as much as all our other lakes do . It 's pretty well a fixed
elevaticn that we 've seen .
IBatzli : If there 's flooding for one reason or another , we can revoke a
permit because of a safety and health hazard . That 's what I 'm getting at .
II 'm not talking about these particular . . .
Krauss : If we have an extraordinarily wet year and we go out there in the
II springtime for renewal and the thing 's under water , sure .
Batzli : Okay . That 's all I had .
IEmmings : Alright , Annette .
Ellson : I apologize for getting my days mixed up to everybody who came
Ihere as well . It 's not very good of me but moving right along . I think it
looks just like what we wanted to put together and just the type of
application we 're trying to do . We made the ordinance in the first place
but I don 't believe we should reward a beachlot that 's not meeting their
Ioriginal conditions with the chemical toilet if that boat 's out there and
they 're not allowed to have a boat or a dock or a lift or anything so I
think it should be tied together with getting that out of there .
IKrauss: Now that we 've been made aware of it . First of all the City
Council doesn 't address this item until July 8th so that 's the earliest
I this could be and we would not allow that to be erected or a permit to be
issued for that until the lot 's in compliance .
Emmings: Anything else?
IEllson: No . I just don 't know how you can stick it in there to make sure
that it gets done .
IKrauss: Add a specific condition .
I ,
f
Planning Cor mission Meeting
June 19 , 1 991 - Page 7
Emmings : Yeah . I think we should add a specific condition that say ` that
it will be resolved before it goes to the City Council on July 8th and that
boat and lift will be gone . I live on Lake Minnewashta and I think they do
a nice job at the beachlot taking care of it . Lots of times we 're
yelling at people up here but I think you 're to be commended for the way
you keep your lot . It 's very heavily used by the neighborhood there and I .
think they 've done a nice job of putting a plan together . I have no
reservations in supporting the application . Unless there 's any other
comments , is there a motion?
Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional
Use Permit #91-5 in accordance with the 3 conditions set forth in the staff
report and a fourth condition that indicates that portable chemical toilet
shall be located in accordance with the application received by the City on I
5-20-91 .
Ellson: Do you have that other one?
Emmings : .Do you think it 's good enough?
Batzli :- I thought condition 3 already covered that . Do you not feet that
way Annette?
Ellson : I don 't know the ruling . That 's why I said . . . ,
Emmings : You 've made your motion .
Ellson: I ' ll second it . '
Emmings : I think it 's fine because we.'ve made it clear I think what we
mean by it . So I think it 's okay . '
Ellson: Alright .
Emmings : Is there any other discussion?
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #91-5 to allow a portable chemical
toilet on Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association Recreation Beachlot
(Outlot B ) with the following conditions=
1 . The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis
prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet .
2 . The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day I
to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of
the year .
3 . The beachlot shall be maintained in good conditiona in a manner
consistent with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements .
I Plannin4 Commission Meeting
Jun€ lc) , 1P91 Page 8
I4 . The portable chemical toilet shall- be located in accordance with the
application received by the City on 5-20-91 .
IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A 5TH BEDROOM IN A SEPARATE
STRUCTURE TO THE BLUFF CREEK BED AND BREAKFAST SITE LOCATED ON PROPERTY
CONED A2 AND LOCATED ON BLUFF CREEK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE NORTH OF
I .-
HWY . 212 , ANN KARELS .
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Emmings called the
Ipublic hearing to order .
Emmings: Is the applicant here? Do you wish to add anything to what 's
I alread, been said or make any kind of a presentation? Now would he the
time to do it .
Ann Kargils-: No . I think it 's fine . If you have any questions I 'd be
happy to answer them . •
Emmings : Thank you . Are there any other members of the public here who
I want to be heard on this? If not , is there a motion to close the public
hearing?
II Ellson moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Annette?
IEllson: I like it . I think that the changes she made , the fact that it 's
a conditional use , we wouldn 't be able to prevent somebody from coming in
Iand trying to slip in under something else so I 'm all for it .
Emmings : Alright . Brian?
IBatzli : In regard to the first condition . I may be slightly confused
here . Won 't be the first .time . Basically we 're saying that this approval
is contingent on the City coming in and doing this right?
IOlsen: Right .
I Batzli : I would prefer then to word it that this is contingent , not the
City shall process . I mean it almost seems like we 're binding ourselves to
do this and I guess if we word it such that this approval is contingent on
the City processing and approving , then the rest of that sentence and even
I
maybe another sentence that says something about this condition shall not
bind the City passing such an ordinance .
IIOlsen: Oh okay .
II
.
II'
Planning Commission Meeting I 3unc 29 ` 19(:,-1 - Page 9
'
Batzli : Becsuce I don 't know that the _City Council will go for it . I mean N�
it would sail through but I didn 't want it to look .
Olsen : Okay , approving the definition change?
II
Batzli : Yeah .
Olsen: Okay . NI
.
~ Datzli : In this particular instance I guess I like it . I haven 't thought
through it enough in a generic sense to know whether I Like the way that I
we 're going to change the ordinance .
Farmakes : I thought it was a low impact solution to the problem . I
I
thought it , in spirit anyway , it 's conforming to the ordinance so I would
vote to approve it .
Emmingr : Okay . I basically agree with other comments that have been made II
up here . I think it might be a good idea when you bring us a zoning
ordinance amendment to talk about the fact that except in rare
circumstances we 'd expect all of the units to be in the principle dwelling . N�
Leave us a way to fudge on that in particular circumstances but let --
everybody know that 's what we expect .
Farmakes : And I think that probably would be useful because a majority of I
these houses are probably going to be old type houses that you can probably
look at creative ways to use them without destroying them .
I
Emming= : Alright , is there a motion?
Ellson: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of an I
amendment to Conditional Use Permit #85-4 allowing a fifth rental unit for
the Bluff Creek Bed and Breakfast establishment to be located over the
carriage house garage with the conditions listed in the staff 's report . I
Emmings: Is there a second? I 'll second it . Is there any discussion?
Batzli : I would ask that she amends her motion to read , this approval is NI
contingent on the City processing and approving . First sentence and then a
second sentence in the first condition which reads , this condition shall
not bind the City to approving such an amendment .
I
Emmings: You meant to include that in your motion didn 't you Annette?
Ellson: Yee ' I 'd like to amend my motion to include what Brian seid ' I
Emmings : Just like you forgot the meeting tonight , you forgot that . And
I meant to include that in my second . .So with that change . Any other II discuooion? You "re going to 'take a beating '
Ellson: I ' ll never hear the end of this will I? 0I
II
11
I Planning Commission Meeting
Tune 1 9 , 1991 Pea(DE 10
IEllson moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #85-4 allowing a fifth
rental unit for the Bluff Creek Bed and Breakfast establishment to be
located over the carriage house garage with the following conditions:
1 . This approval is contingent on the City processing and approving a
zoning ordinance amendment changing the definition of a bed and
breakfast establishment from an owner occupied principal dwelling to an
owner occupied establishment . This condition shall not bind the City
' to approving such an amendment .
2 . The bed and breakfast establishment shall not contain more than five
' rental units .
3 . The structure shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code
requirements .
I4 . The structure shall meet all requirements of the Minnesota Department
of Health .
IS . Two off street parking spaces plus one additional space per rental room
must be provided .
I6 . There should be no more than one employee in addition to the residents .
7 . Th_= had and breakfast establishment must be owner occupied .
I8 . (-1 unit/room shall not be rented for more than 7 consecutive days to the
same person .
IAll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ICHES MAR TRAILS , PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND RR, LOCATED ON HWY. 41 ,
APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE NORTH OF WHY 5 , CRAIG SWAGGERT:
I A.. PUD AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CHES MAR FARM PUD TO CREATE 4 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT.
B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.
IC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CREATE A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
D . WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL A BOARDWALK THROUGH A CLASS A
WETLANDS.
IPublic Present:
' Name Address
Craig Swaggert 2800 Stone Arch Road , Wayzata
Walter & Melba Whitehill 7250 Hazeltine Blvd .
IGeri Eikaas 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road
Ginger Gross 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 11
Jo Ann C ,:n presented the staff report . Chairman Emmings called the
public hearing to order .
Emmings: This is a public hearing . We usually give the applicant the next I
shot at the floor .
Craig Swaggert : I don 't have much to add to what .
Emmings : Would you just state your name .
Craig Swaggert : Oh , I 'm sorry . I 'm Craig Swaggert . The applicant . I
don 't have much to add to Jo Ann 's presentation except that I would like to
clarify one thing . I 'm not a developer . I plan to live on this piece of
property and my object was to enhance all the properties in the area rather
than increase density . By reducing the density from 7 units to 4 units I
feel like I 'm accomplishing that . If there 's any questions that you have ,
I 'd be clad to answer per them .
Emmings: There may be some as we look at this up here . You 've reviewed
the condition that they 're attached to their recommended approval?
Craig Swaggert : Yes I have .
Emmin<ga : Are there any of those that you might want . . .or- are they
acceptable to you?
Craig E :aggert: They 're acceptable to me . I didn 't know about the 20 foot
wide trail and I don 't know if that would be in the form of an easement or .
Olsen: Yes .
Craig Swaggert I
_ _.. It would be? And what would the use be? Did you say what.
the use would be?
Olsen: It 's planned for the Year 2000-2010 and he couldn 't tell me exactly I
if it 's going to be paved . If it 's just going to be a mowed path but the
use is to pedestrian for access up to the park above you .
Emmings : We 're trying to link a lot of the major park areas and so forth
in town and I think the one that goes along there links that park hopefully
down to the Arboretum . And it may be a bike path . It may be a hiking path I
but we 're not talking about snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles .
Craig Swaggert: That would be my only concern . I 'd like a little more
information about that . Thank you .
Emmings : Are there other members of the public that want to address this?
Geri Eikaas: I 'm Geri Eikaas and I live at 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road which
means I live in the duplex next to the property . I 've met with Mr .
Swaggert and I 've gone through the plan'. I 'll have to say it 's the fisrt I
plan I 've seen where I feel the proposer is really sincerely interested in
'
.
.
I 3Plannir, 3 C1o9l o�c.ission Pago 1�Me�ting
une 2 ` -
Ipreserving Ches Mar Farm and it 's very nice to see finally . And if �ou
look at what he 's proposing , it 's definitely not a get rich quick scheme .
He 's going to make every thing that he 's doing better and they 've already
I started tn dn tha . 5o anyway , Z ^d llke to encnurage your approval but Z
do have information on the roadway that we 're talking about . The way it 's
set up , thc actual lease or ownership or whatever you call it of the
roadway gnes with my mortgage and with my ownership of the last piece of
I land on th� road . �nd un that it say� , no lot ownor may w�ive or oth�rwiae
escape liability for his proportionate share by non-use of the roadway or
abandonment of such owner 's lot . This is the only one I have so you can
Imake a copy '
Olsen : Okay . Was that an agreement?
IGeri Eikaas : Well this is what I got when I bought the property and it 's
calle Deolaratlon of Roadway . Thank you .
.
I Emmlngs: I "m cssuminQ that whatever we do that affects Lot 4 where the
road we 're talking about runs through for her to get to her house from TH
41 . The mcre fact that we 're fooling around with the zoning doesn 't change
I any underlylng agre*menta between the property nwners ' Z ,m opersting on
that ace—imption .
.
Olsen: It was n'y understanding that that easement still applies on the
I frontage road . Ws can add something to it but it 's already in the title .
Emmings : Ye�h , Z think that 's right .
~~ Ba±zli : They can always negotiate between each other .
IEmmlng�: Ohay . Ia thero anybody elsa where who wants to addresa this?
Walter Whitehill : I am Walter Whitehill and I own the property just south
of this proposal . Between Tanadoona and the park and Ches Mar , they 've got
I me ringed in there . I still didn 't understand , again because I 'm hard of
hearing ' What about the roadway on the north side of Lot 4? Is it going
be the reeponsibllity of the applicant to maintain that or not?
Ito
Emmings : It sounds to me like that 's the subject of easements and other
private agreements between the parties and it isn 't something . It 's
something we 're interested to be sure that there are agreements in place to
I take care of it but' it isn 't something that we deal with . '
Walter Whitehill : Okay . The second question is , the applicant is a single
I person here . Mr . Swaggert and he 's not the only owner . I wonder why he is
the applicant . He doesn 't control Lot 4 and without having control of Lot
4 , how can the application be granted to just him?
IEmmings: Do you have a purchase agreement on all of the property that
we 're looking at tonight? Or an option?
I
'
.
.
.
��
��
PlanninT.2 Commission Meeting
I 3uns 19 , lV91 - Page 13
Walter Uhitchlll : Well a purchase agreement . Options , you know you can I
exercise o` pass .
Emmings: Yeah but they may be contingent on our approval which is common ' II
Craig Swaggert : It is contingent on your approval and this application was'
entered into with Gary Kirt who is the principal who oWns it . So Gary Kirt
is a co-applicant . I
.
' '
Walter Whitehill : Okay , then I think this shond be amended . And the
application to grant the two people . In fact , there 's another owner or two N�
involved is there not? You were mentioning a couple other names I 'd never
hear-3 of the other day .
Olsen: Of owners? I
Craig -.4gert : You mean Gary Kirt?
I
Olsen: The only people I mentioned involved in this was Gary Kirt and
Craig . I mioht have mentioned Brad Johnson from the past? ,
Walter Whitehill : And then there was some lady 's name and I have no idea --
who e!-. ues?
Olsen: Ginger Gross who lives adjacent to it? II
Emminos : Let my butt in . Who signed the application here?
Olsen: The person that signed the application was Craig Swaggert .
Emmings : Alright . Mr . Swaggert do you have , what kind of an interest do
I
you have in the Ches Mar property? What 's marked up there as 3 and 4?
Craig Swaggert : I own 3 . I own 2 and 1 and I have an option on 4 . I
believe Jo Ann , Gary Kirt did sign the application . 11
Olsen: Actually I couldn 't read the signature .
Craig Swaggert: That 's Gary Kirt 's .
Batzli : There 's two signatures . I
Walter Whitehill : Okay , so we have a joint applicant?
Craig Swaggert : Correct . I
Walter Whitehill : We do have a joint applicant then rather than just a
single applicant? N�
��
Emmings: Apparently so .
Walter Whitehill : Okay . And Gary owns 4? I
1
I nlann? r� , Cer mi l ion Meeting
Juno ' r , 2c)1 Page 14
Craig Swe : t Yes- ho does . -
Walter Whitehill : Okay . The next question and I guess most of these will
II be directed to you Gary . I haven 't had a chance to , I mean Swaggert . It
says acceptable septic sites . What do we have in the way of rules that say
a septic site is acceptable?
IEmming : I d:nn 't want to get a conversation going this way so you talk to
me and I ' ll try to direct you to the person who knows .
I Walter Whitehill : Okay , I 'll talk to you then . Steve , what is an
acceptable septic site?
I Emmin; : : I have no idea . No , I don 't know the exact specifics but I can
tell you this because I was here when we put these rules in . We require
thcrn to derienate two septic sites and they do all their tests on those
sites and submit all the data to the City and it must be done by a
licensed , e person who 's licensed to do these things . Someone who 's
independent . We get that information and two septic sites are preserved on
each site and the one that isn 't used has to be roped off during
I construction so there 's no , so that it 's not ruined as a septic site and
the reason it 's done is so that if the one septic site fails , we 've got an
alternative . Wa also have very strict rules on how often these things have
I to be pumpcd out now . They have to be pumped every 3 years . We 've really
toughened up our ordinance on this because we were having problems with
s,yster : failing co we had consultants come in from the University of
I Minnesota who told us how to properly maintain septic sites and I think
we 'v= ,c-it an :,utetanding ordinance on this . If it 's followed and if it 's
enforced , it ought to work .
I Walter Whitehill : Okay . So according to your best information and advice
from this co,rsultant , the site will be in such a way and a manner that it
won 't come down on my property? The effluent from that septic?
IEmmings : I hope not .
Walter Whitehill : That 's been my concern over the whole thing . When the
I
first time they applied to build a number of houses up there .
Emmings: Yes . The answer is yes because the information we had from the
I University of Minnesota , the people who came here and talked- to us told us
that , they really turned our heads around . Good septic systems are
outstanding and they say here 's good ones and here 's bad ones . So we put
I in a set of rules that we think will make any septic sites that are put in
in our city from the date that went into affect on , very good ones :
Walter Whitehill : That 's good because that 's my main concern . There is a
.I proposal that there 's going to be a culvert under this new road . Is that
going to increase the amount of water that comes down in that existing
ditch area in any manner because I 'm wet enough already?
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
June 1 1991 - Page 15
Emminas : No , I think the culvert is to keep the ditch open to preserve the
same drainage that exists there now because he 's putting a road down . The
culvert 's going to go underneath the road so I can 't imagine how it 's going
to incresoc anything . It 's just preserving the drainage as is .
Walter Whitehill : Okay . Then all conditions that have been stated in
here , that the Planning Commission has recommended , are being accepted as I
understand it?
Emmings: Okay , let me clear that up . He doesn 't have any problems with
the one that are written in here . You haven 't heard ua talk about them
yet . The staff has written these recommendations for our consideration and
I don 't know what other people plan to do but there are several that I 'm
interesting in looking at . But so , whether we 'll agree with all of them in
the form they come out of the Planning Commission I don 't know . But he 's
at least agreed that as far as the conditions that exist in the staff
report are , he 's agreed with those .
Walter !!h,ite hill : Okay . Then I 've got no problem . I think it 's a great
idea . T ha n k you .
1
Emmings: Okay . Thank you very much . Is there anybody else who wants to
address this? Ginger?
Ginger Gross : Ginger Gross . I live at 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road . I agree
with Geri Eikaas where we 're really very pleased with the proposal that is
before you and though I don 't have all of the information having talked
with Jo Ann . We feel that the integrity of the property will be preserved
and this really exceeds our expectations . It sounds as though we will have
people we can work with and will enjoy having there . One question that I
would like clarified is last time this issue came before you , of course it
was a lengthy issue and very detailed . At that time our first suggestion
was that there be a private road accessing the 21 acres . Why is that
available now and was not at that time? Has there been a change?
Olsen: Right . The ordinance has since been amended to allow up to 4 lots
on a private drive .
Ginger Gross : 4 lots on a private drive? That was my second question was
how many . Do you happen to know when that was amended? When that was
changed?
Olsen : Last year .
Ginger Gross: Okay . What 's the reasoning behind that? Why the change , do I
you know?
Olsen: We had had , before it was always felt that you had to have the '
public street to still preserve the safety access and what happened last
year when Paul came to the City , in Minnetonka they had allowed private I
drives up to 4 lots . But what we did was have specifics on the design and
the construction of that private drive so now we feel comfortable that what
1
1
IPlor:r,in:; C_ i i_sior Meeting
I iE t- €- n:: F-rcuidrd still will provide safe access . It still has to be
pa ,,ed . It ha: to he a certain width and so it 's kind of like 'a small road .
I Ginger Gross : Okay . Thank you . Another question . Do I get my right-of-
way back? Now my road is , I now have what was a private road with 35 foot
of a_ce : on my property for the City . Now do I get that back?
IEmmings : Is that an easement in favor of the City?
Olsen: Correct . On her north property line .
IEmmings : Could she ask the City to vacate it? °
IOlsen : 'r c,: h , that 's something that we could look at .
Ging•= Gros That could be done?
IEmmin_5o : It would be a separate issue . You 'd have to come and talk to the
Planking staff about vacating the easement that we took at that time . Maybe
it 's not needed anymore . I don 't know . We wouldn 't be prepared to look at
Ithat with this .
Ginger Gras: : Alright , thank you . But I can address the City on that?
IEnr:mir -_ ' ';'cc.h . I think that 's something that the City Council would look
at directly . Not us .
1 Olsen : a don 't see it .
Ginger Gross : Who do I contact then , Jo Ann?
IEmmings : Jo Ann .
1 Ginger Gross : Okay , Jo Ann . Thank you very much .
Emmings : You get . Is there anybody else? Mr . Swaggert?
I Craig Swaggert: Mr . Chairman , I 'd just like to request one other thing .
In working with the architects , I would like to request the ability to move
the southerly line of Lot 3 along with this request here because of the
I sitinq of our proposed house is getting very close to the lot line . So can
I request that at this time?
IEmmings : Well tell me , what is it that you 're proposing to do?
Craig Swaggert : To move , on Lot 3? -
IEmmings- : Yeah .
Craig Swaggert : To move the southerly line to the south a little further .
IEmmings : How far?
I
P' nr: n; Commission Meeting
June 1? , 1q91 - Page 17
Craig Swaggert : Mc more than probably 30 or 40 feet . Just to accommodate
a better site for the house .
Emmings: So let me just check . That would be something , he 's only I
increasing the size of the lot and that would be something he could put . He
alread; needs to do another site plan for the septic and that could be
somethin7 he could include on there . We could talk about it tonight but
that 's no problem with you in doing that tonight is it?
Craig Swaggert : Okay , thank you .
Emmings: If you 're the guy who 's responsible for burning down the house
that was out there , you 're already , I 'm already a friend of yours . I
looked across the lake at that thing and the fire was spectacular . I
enjoyed it and the site , the view is a hell of a lot better . Okay , anybody
else want to talk about this? If not , is there a motion to close the
publi : wing? _
Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I tried to access this property . I found it difficult to
access . Foul wheel drive . Boat . I wish , I would keep questions with
regard to the proposed beachlot . The dock , it talks about overnight
stcraoe for 3 boats and on the schematic here it kind of shows , it actually
shows two shorelines . I 'm assuming some of that is wetlands . Edge of
wetland- . It shows about 90% of the actual proposed permanent dock .
Olsen: It 's through a wetland .
Farmakes : Would that be proportionately correct? It shows about maybe 10
feet extending beyond the wetland . Is that where they propose storing 3
boats?
Olsen: No , I don 't know if that 's actually portraying where the dock and
the water is going to be . What we asked for him to portray here , it shows
the shoreline and that 's the ordinary high water mark but actually the rest I
is cattails and wetlands .
Farmakes: But as I understand it , Minnewashta does not traditionally vary I
that much?
Emmings: Well it does .
Olsen: But the ordinary high water mark is established . I
Emmings : And what is that? What 's the e: evation of the ordinary high
water mark for Lake Minnewashta?
Olsen: It 's 544 .75 .
Emmings : No .
II
.
.
Plannin; Commission Meeting
I
Jun:: 1 ? ` 19q1 - Page 18
���� Olsen : T -'* w�ter elevation .
Emminqo ; That 's the water elevation on May 24 , 1991 and the lake is as
hig;t cr ti2her , r al high right now .
Olssn : right . Actually for Lake Minnetonka there isn't an ordinary high
�� .
usnd r�t� `
e �ark�'� 'What `thuy not do showing io use up h the e�outlet from up in the northwest corner
� Ito e
�� '
. '
Craia Swaggert : Mr . Chairman , may I address you on that issue?
IIEmmings: Sure .
Craig . �a�oert : The 100 year high from the Corps. of Engineers is whatever
I 95 feet . It 's 3 inches below that right now . The 100 year high . It 's
above the , what 's the term you use? Ordinary high and I do have that in my
file if y�c "d like to know that exact number .
I Emminac : Alright ' But we in looking at , in evaluating these we go
primarily by the vegetation that 's there . Is that right?
IOlsen : Yes .
IEmminQc : Even more so than just the elevations .
Ols,,: : Yeah , like with Lotus Lake . We didn 't use the OHW because our
w*tlan �cs ctually way beyond that . It just so happens that the , well
Iuhat yc�' 'r� showing as the shoralinm , I uas essuming that that wa� thy OH�. .
Cut ��)�be I assumed wrong . But anyway , the wetland , we had them actually
stake out the edge of the wetland and that is shown .
IFarmakes : But that 's the inner circle? That 's the beginning of the '
wetland?
11 Olsen: The wetland goes all the way out and then to the open water .
Farmakes : Okay , so basically that 's just showing the walkway over the
II wetlands?
Olsen: Yes . That 's where the boardwalk will be . It will be a permanent
Iboardwalk .
Farmskes : It 's not channeled or anything . That 's solid wetland and these
3 boats then would go on some extension outside of that that is
I prnportionstely correct then?
Olsen: Usually what it is is a temporary dock. that 's out into the actual
II watar '
Farn'rkes: Okay . That brings me to my second question . It really isn 't
described as a temporary dock . It 's described in here as a permanent dock .
N� So my question would be where they would store that? It 's sort of natural .
II
.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 19
II
Olsen: What is being shown here as the permanent dock is the permanent
dock because that 's going through the cattails and the wetland and that is II
permanent . That 's put in once and that stays there . Where the storage of
the other dock , I don 't know . I know you 're going through DNR to get .
Farmakes : Having Waken out a dock every year , I 'm kind of trying to figure 1
out how you 're going to get that up and out and where you 're going to put
it . And also , why 3 boats? Is there something in the ordinance that
covers the 3 boats issue?
II
Olsen: That 's the limit .
Farmakes: Because there potentially could be more requests than 3 . II
Emmings : That 's in the recreational beachlot ordinance .
I
Farmakes: Yeah , but it doesn 't stop them from asking for that right?
Emmings : For asking for?
I
Farmakes : - Asking for additional dockage .
•
Emmings : Yes it does . They can have , with one beachlot you can have one
dock with 3 boats if you meet all the requirements of the beachlot .
Otherwise you can 't have it . And then you need an additional shoreline to I
have another dock and more boats .
Olsen: And additional square footage .
Farmakes: There 's another item in here that 's listed as deposed HO pad . I
Can you describe to me what that 's supposed to be?
Olsen: On Lot 1? 1
Farmakes : Yes . It 's on the end of Lot 1 .
Olsen: That 's trying to show you where the location of the house would II
approximately be that 's being created for Gary Kirt to construct his home .
Farmakes: Okay . Is that in the process of being built? 1
Olsen: No . No , no . They still have to get approval for the plat . They I
still have to provide the septic systems and show the sites out there . So
no , but I think that 's the only place you 're going to build the house . It 's
beautiful up there .
Farmakes: These easements that are for this proposed trail that goes I
through there . It looks like a lot of road there or a lot of . It 's
talking about grades in regards to that and it looked like visually , from
as far as I could get in there in a suit anyway , it looked like there was a il
lot of rolling country there . These grades , if this road is privately
I/maintained , are these roads going to be accessible to emergency vehicles?
II
•
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 20
II
Olsen: Well they have to be at least the 7% . Again , that 's what the
Iordinance re quires . Actually the private drives we don 't , they 're showing
that they ' ll be up to 10o and we usually recommend around 7% . 10o is still
accessible . And again , I don 't know if I caught your , was that what your
IIquestions was whether or not they 'd still be accessible?
Farmakes: Well it 's left up to a private individual to maintain these or a
private covenant agreement among themselves . If the City doesn 't find •
IIthose acceptable to access emergency vehicles to a recreational beachiot
when they need to . How do they?
I Olsen: Well one of the problems that we have with the lot , as far as the
private drive that goes , as long as it 's servicing the two lots . When it 's
just the individual lots then it really becomes just kind of an individual
driveway . We don 't have specific regulations on that . We have considered
II
doing that where it would have to be paved and it couldn 't be over a
certain slope . Currently we don 't have that but just looking at this , it
looks like it 's going to still be , the most would be a 10o grade which is
I still like I said accessible . It still has to be maintained . You can 't
have a snowdrift across it but you have that anywhere where there 's
somebody with their individual driveways . They have to maintain it . •
IFarmakes : Those are the extent of the questions that I had .
Batzli : Jo Ann , can you explain for me again why Lot 2 has to be an outlot
II right now? Is that because they haven 't shown an appropriate septic site?
Olsen: Well also because , with the Ginger Gross subdivision that piece of
II property which is now being split into the Lot 1 and Lot 2 , there was a
condition against that they 'd only have one building eligibility . That 's
one thing that holds it . Then also , that 's the primary purpose . And then
IIjust becauase there was no intent to develop it we said either combine it
or do it as a , combine it into Lot 3 or as an outlot .
Batzli : Okay . So we 're really going back to the approvals on the other
Isubdivision if you will?
Olsen: Yeah . So we do not want it be maintained as a buildable lot .
IBatzli : Okay . And if we did make it a lot right now , would that imply
that it was buildable?
I Olsen: Yes . Yeah , we would have no way to prevent somebody from getting a
building permit on there .
I Batzli : Okay . You had indicated earlier that the applicant might .have a
problem with that . Something about a mortgage . That 's not a problem?
I Olsen: To combine the two into one lot . No , he agrees with it being an
outlot .
II
1
II
Planning Commis;ion Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 21 1
Batzli : Outlot 's okay? Okay . In condition 3 , we indicated that the
apartment units must be vacated -prior to final plat approval . Is this
whole thing really sort of contingent on that unit also being demolished?
Olsen: Well I think that he 's still looking at renovating that into a
duplex or a single family . I don 't know that it 's necessarily going to be
demolished .
Batzli : Why is it key that it 's vacated? So then once we approve it he
I
can move the 6 back in? What 's the point?.
Olsen: I guess maybe that 's not , our intent was to make sure that it does
become either a single family or duplex and that the 6 unit apartment , that
they are vacated . That the leases are cancelled . That it cannot continue
to be used as a 6 unit building .
I
Batzli : Do we have something in here? Okay , so with 3 combined with
number 7 , you feel comfortable that what I just suggested can 't occur? In
other words , it has to be downgraded . The density has to be downgraded .
I
Krauss : We were just discussing that too . The possibility of financial
guarantees . We concluded that since it 's a PUD , Craig 's going to have to
enter into a PUD agreement which is contractual and yeah . We 've got it
pretty well iron clad .
Olsen: And there 's a difficulty in do we make the people move out now or
I
can it be , so we just finally decided that they have to be , it no longer
can serve as a 6 unit apartment building at time of final plat and at the
time we do record the new PUD agreement . Whether or not this condition
actually , but it is my understanding that you are in the process of
vacating the leases and whatever term .
Craig Swaggert: I 'd like to clarify that one bit . We can still have two I
units in there? Two people . Two families in there at the time of plat
approval , is that correct?
Olsen : Yes .
I
Craig Swaggert: Yes , we fully intend to comply with that . -
I
Batzli : Okay . On condition number 5 Jo Ann. The driveway easement shall
be provided . Do we normally not word it that they have to be recorded
against one another or is that part of the PUD contract or don 't we
normally require cross easements be recorded against the property or
something?
Olsen: Right . They would be , it was the intent here to record it -against I
each of the lots but yeah , the cross easements .
Batzli : Okay . Then in number 7 , we 'll have an amendment by the Chairman I
eventually I think . On the wetland alteration permit . Do we normally
provide that the boardwalk would go in during winter or some other time as II
II
II
Plannin; Commission Meeting
IIJune 1c' , 19c)1 - Page 22
to minimize disruption of the wetland or have we been letting them do this
Iat any old time of year lately?
Olsen: Yeah , actually they have to be , they cannot be installed during the
Iwater foul breeding season is how it 's termed .
Batzli : But we 've been letting them do this during the summer?
IIOlsen : Yeah .
Emmings: You can't do it in the winter .
IBatzli : I thought on a couple of them we made them go in in the winter or
we put a condition .
IOlsen: Well it 's easier . I don 't know if it was in winter .
Batzli : Well I thought it was , we limited it to some time I thought .
IEl1son : I remember that too .
l Emmings : We did something but it wasn 't docks because you couldn 't put the
posts down .
IOlsen: It was the dredging . When you go in and dredge .
Emmings : Yeah , I think ell those involved some dredging projects when they
had to cross a wetland so we said you can only do it in the winter when
Iit 's frozen .
Olsen: Yeah , then we do prefer it .
IEmmings : Oh , it was removing the gravel from Lotus and they had to cross
the wetlands so we did that in the winter . And we 've done other ones .
IBatzli : I guess I 'd prefer to see some sort of condition or talking about
minimizing the impact to the wetland and avoiding that season that they
have to avoid anyway it sounds like . Is that part of. a DNR permit process?
IOlsen: No , that was us . We have that in our ordinance . -
' Batzli : And I had another question but I can 't find it here . I ' ll find it
sooner or later .
Emmings : Okay . We ' ll come back to you .
IEllson: I like this . I agree with the other residents that boy we 've
looked at this stuff before . We 've seen all kinds of weird configurations .
I I do have a couple of questions . I 'm getting mixed up with redesignating
like Lot 2 to be an outlot . Doesn 't that mean we have to find a 2
somewhere? Or do we just take out 2?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 23
Olsen: Right. . Everything will be switched and •at that time then I will
switch all the conditions . It just got to that point where how do I do
this through this report and do it consistently so yeah , it will just be . 3
lots , Outlot A and B .
Ellson: Okay . And like you said , then you 'd go through and when you
referred to it as Lot 4 , it becomes 3 , etc .?
Olsen: Yes . I
Ellson: That was one thing . Let 's see , number 6 . They are being required
to install by a professional engineer . That seems kind of vague . I mean I
it could be a mechanical engineer or a water engineer or don 't we have our
engineers involved in something like this?
Olsen: But they don 't design it . They 'll review it . It has to be by a
licensened , professional engineer that they sign off on .
Ellson: That does this kind of stuff . '
Olsen : Yes .
Ellson: And then our approval needs to be done . Is that an assumption or
should that be stuck in there?
Emmings: Put it in .
Olsen: That we have to approve it? Okay .
Batzli : I 'm sorry to interrupt but was this talking about the improvements
and financial guarantees and stuff , we 're not going to get any financial
guarantees on anything like that or anything else? We 're just going to let
the applicant go in and build?
Olsen: Right . This is not public improvements and again though with the
PUD contract we can , if we find that there 's areas that we do want some
financial guarantees , we can require it . We didn 't see , the engineering
department didn 't feel that that was necessary with any of the improvements
here . But it is possible . We can do it though .
Batzli : And require boulevard trees?
Ellson: The only other thing that I noticed was you discussed that you
were going to ask for a tree removal plan but I didn 't see it in here
either .
Olsen: Right . I forgot to add that as a condition and yeah , on Lot _1 ,
Block 1 you do want to have that .
Ellson: I wondered why that Park and Rec thing wasn 't ready when this was II
all ready and it just seems like it 's a little half baked or whatever . I
also think that we can 't make assurance to the applicant that it might not
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 24
be E:noumcbile trail at this time because it 's so far out there . What I
II think w_ had planned is a lot of greenways to connect these sorts of things
but you know , in 20 years how that evolves and how strong the Chanhassen
Snowmobile Club is or who knows what that it wouldn 't be possible to tie
I that in . It just basically says a trail and that would be whatever the
trail is being designated later on so I know that was a concern of his and
it probably should be because it has a potential of being something like
I that so I didn 't want him to think it never would be . It might . But I
think it looks good . I 'll believe it when I see it I guess is one of the
things I 'm saying because we 've seen so many of these kinds of things but I
don 't have a problem if we add those few items that I had discussed . How
Iabout you Steve?
Emmings : The 185 foot width here , in addition to it being narrower than we
I require under our subdivision ordinance , for people looking ahead to
when Outlot B , that big piece would eventually be developed perhaps into
lots as small as , well we 've got a PUD but perhaps into lots as small as
I 15 ,000 square feet . . a
Batzli : If there was sewer maybe . Is that what you mean?
I Emmings : Yeah . And you clearly understand that what we 're calling Outlot
B here or what was down here as Lot 2 , there will never be any houses on
that until there 's sewer servicing that area? You clearly understand that
I right? But not only is that only 185 feet here but you 've got to have a
road too and at that time the road will have to be brought up to city
standards so we 're going to shave more off again . Is there enough room now
for , in that long column there for lots?
IIOlsen : You might. not be able to have the street in the middle and lots on
both sides but you 'd be able to have .
IEmmings: There 's plenty otherwise if you keep it over on one side?
Olsen : Right .
I
Emmings: To have a city street in there?
IOlsen : Yeah .
Emmings: I agree with Annette that it 's very confusing reading the lot
I numbers and the outlot B 's and all that . That 's going to have to be done
with great care because we flip back and forth in the conditions . I 'm real
concerned about the access from the highway . Have you had any preliminary
discussions with MnDot on the access? How you doing on that?
I
Craig Swaggert : Yes I have . We do have access to the highway . We do not
have it , it 's a controlled access highway and we do not have access at the
I point where we show the driveway . We 're requesting that MnDot move the
controlled access point to where we show the driveway . We currently have
it on the 40 most southerly feet of that , where Jo Ann is showing it but
IIthe grade is so steep there that as you can see on the topographical lines ,
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 25
it 's very steep and there 's a guardrail there . And so we 're requesting
that they allow us to move that access . Close that access and move it to
the northerly 40 feet of it .
•
Emmings: When you say close that access , there 's not an access existing
there is there?
Craig Swaggert : There 's an access existing .
Emmings : Oh , there is? Like a field approach kind of thing?
Craig Swaggert : No , when I say an access , they have given the right to
access the highway at that point .
Emmings: Okay . But that does push it up close to the , because the road
that goes into Ches Mar Farms is right next . There 's another road
immediately north of it and I 'm a little surprised that they 'd allow all
those reads in that small a space . It really is , there aren 't going to be
very many people using this road right now but if that ever develops with
sewer going in there , golly . Okay . If they 'll give it to you , I guess
it 's not ours to worry about . On number 6 I agree with Annette that the
plans for the culvert , we should add language to say that the ,plan shall be I
approved by the City Engineer prior to construction . On number 7 I 'd like
to add the following . It says no more than 4 dwelling units will be
permitted as part of the PUD and then put in a colon and specify what they
are . It should say one on Lot 1 , one on Lot 3 and one on Lot 4 unless the
existing building is converted to a duplex .
Ellson : You 're saying they couldn 't . . . '
Emmings: Right . Number 8 , we 're talking about the demolition permits and
as I understand it , the long , low building on Lot 4 and then the one that
straddles Lot 3 and 4 are the ones we 're talking about those buildings
being demolished . Is that right?
Olsen: Correct . And then we 're also including the apartment building too
if that 's planned to be demolished .
Emmings: Alright . Now , when does the demolition have to be done?
Olsen: I don 't know that there 's any set time that we 're determining a set
time for those to be demolished .
111
Emmings : You know we 've got lots here . We got a building straddling a lot
line and I don 't like that . I think that would there be any reason not to
require that the demolition be done before final plat approval? '
Krauss: Well that may be problematic because Mr . Swaggert wouldn 't have
possession of all the lots in question until then . '
Olsen: Maybe we should do 6 months after final plat approval .
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 26
Krauss : Yeah , if you want to do a date , 3 months . 6 months after the plat
Iis filr=d , I think that would be .
Emmings: This is something new . Do you want to . I 'd like . to have some
kind of a date in there when that stuff gets demolished . I don 't like a
Ibuilding sitting on a lot line .
Craig Swaggert : I believe with the PUD I ' ll have a contract with the City
I and we could stipulate it in the contract . I 'd feel real uncomfortable
doing that kind of work out there without a final plat approval . I have no
problems putting timelines on it after that date but I would feel real '
' uncomfortable .
Emmings: What if we put in 6 months after final plat approval? Do you
have a problem with that?
ICraig Swaggert : That 'd be very acceptable to me . Very acceptable .
I Emmings : Then I think we should do that . I think we should add to number
8 .
II Batzli : I was going to suggest that we wouldn 't issue any building permits
until it wa:, demolished .
Emmings: But he may never need one for 4 if he converts it to a duplex .
I
Eatzli : But he ' ll need it for 1 .
IEmmings : Oh , you wouldn 't issue any?
Batzli : An; . On the whole thing . Well , if he agrees to 6 months .
IEmmings: Okay . Let 's put in language in after number 8 . Just put a semi-
colon . Demolition of all buildings to be razed shall be completed 6 months
after final plat approval . Now on the driveway , it 's my understanding that
I the common , the part of the driveway that will be used in common . In other
words up to the Y and around that circle , that will all be 20 feet wide and
paved right?
IOlsen: Correct .
IEmmings: From that point on they can do what? Whatever they want?
Olsen : We don 't have anything that requires it to be paved . Again , it
could be , well I believe you could probably do it as a condition of the
IIPUD . The ordinance doesn 't specify that it has to be paved .
Emmings: Are there any concerns from the City about liability? If Lot l 's
Ihouse is on fire and we can 't get a fire truck down to it , are we concerned
about making sure we can?
I
I
Plannin? Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 27
Olsen: Sure , yeah . We 're always more comfortable if we have a condition
in th- i that it has to be maintained and a passable condition . We do that I
with like any fire lane or emergency access .
Emmings : To make this safer should there be some kind of a turn around at I
the end?
Batzli Yeah .
Emmings: So vehicles can get back out once they get in?
Krauss : There is a turn around provided . The ordinance provides that a
turn around be provided at the point where you go from 2 units using a
driveway to 1 and there is that provision in there .
Emmings: Where is that Paul? The Y we 're talking about way up at the
front end?
Olsen: Yeah . '
Emminga- : I 'm talking about down by the beachlot .
Olsen : Well you could .
Krauss : The ordinance works in most situations . This one is about the
longest private driveway I 've ever seen . It 's an unusual lot .
Emmings: We also have to think about it ultimately being a public street I
think . That 's not impossible . •
Krauss: No , but we certainly have a lot of means to require that it be
upgraded suitably at that time . ,
Emmings: Okay . I don 't know . I 'm uncomfortable with that . That 's an
incredibly long driveway . What is it? Is it almost 1 ,500 feet?
Batzli : At least . More like 1 ,700 .
Olsen: We could maybe work out some sort of , I mean it 's not necessarily I
just in the outlot too . You probably want some way to turn around on Lot 1
too . Maybe we could just do T or make sure that there is something for
them to back up into .
Emmings: Well I think we ought to have some condition in there that that
road is built to a standard that will accommodate emergency vehicles and
that there 's something down there at or near Lot 1 where they can turn
around and get back out .
Olsen: Do you want to also add something that it must always be maintained
and passable?
Emmings: Fine .
•
II
Planrin; Commission Meeting
IJunc l ';' , l nf71 - Page 28
Olsen : :.'c- Eimzyr , when we do those kind of conditions we always add . Okay .
IEmmings : Sure . And then number 10 . In number 10 it says if •a new
residence is constructed on Lot 4 , Block 1 it must meet all required
I setbacks . Is it real obvious that that means that that sixplex gets torn
down?
Olsen: Well it wasn 't clear whether or not they were actually going to
I tear it down . What I 'm saying is if they do , if they do tear that down and
make it into just a single family residence , then at that time it does have
to meet the setbacks . Right now it does not .
IEmmings : Yeah but this says a new residence . This is only referring to a
new residence .
IOlsen: Okay . All structures . Well that 's .
Emmings : It would only have one eligibility . You could only have one
I dwellin3 on it if he doesn 't use the old one but I want it real clear that
that one gets torn down if they build a new house on 4 is all I 'm saying .
' Olsen : Okay .
Emmings: So I guess I would say if a new residence is constructed on Lot
4 , Block 1 .
I
Olsen : Cr a new residence replaces the existing?
I Emmings : No , is constructed because it 's new . Then all other buildings
have to be torn down . All other existing structures have to be torn down .
I don 't want to see the sixplex stay there and a new house come on .
IBatzli : All other existing buildings on Lot 4 .
Emmings : On Lot 4 . Then we 'd add a tree removal plan as a 12th item . You
Ibrought that up . I think then we should have a 13th one that says that the
revised preliminary plat should show the southerly lot line of Lot 3 moved
30 feet to the south and should also show the trail easement required by
I Park and Rec . Now that 's all I 've got . I was up there today and the place
is , once you get past the first two houses it 's very poorly kept and it
really is a mess up there . There are vehicles sitting around and old trash
I dumpsters and it was a mess and I was going to put something in about that
but I think after seeing the proposal and talking to Mr . Swaggert , I don 't
think he 'd do anything else . I guess I 'm not as worried about it . But on
the recreational beachlot , our ordinance requires 200 feet of lakeshore and
III don 't see it . .
Olsen: Well what I was doing , I measured the shoreline where the open
Iwater is .
Emmings: Not just wait a minute . You 've got two shorelines on here so
when you say that I don 't know what you mean .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1q , 1991 - Page 29 '
Olsen: l!=ll , one is where the ordinary high water mark is and where is the
T? e other one is the shoreline where it 's actual open water .
Emmings : It 's the lake side of the wetland? -
Olsen : Right .
Emmings : - Which one are you looking at?
Olsen: I was looking at lakeside of the wetland . Where the actual
activity would be taking place .
Emmings : Okay , now if you do that , what result do you get?
Olsen: I came up with 200 . If you go with the meandering line it 's like
just at 200 .
Emmings: Is that what we should be doing or should we be measuring it at
the ordinary high water mark?
Olsen: My feeling is yes , we should do it where the open water is since I
that 's where the actual activity is going to be taking place . That 's where
you want to , again this is an unusual one because it has the wetland .
Emmings : And you came up with exactly 200 feet? I don 't know how you
measured it .
Olsen: I used the scale and I kind of went ert , ert and yeah . '
Emmings : It 's 200?
Olsen: Reel close to it . '
Batzli : Sounds like a precise measurement to me .
Olsen: It was really , it was definitely a little bit over so I felt
comfortable that you do have it . I didn 't use a string . Dental floss .
Emmings: Under the approval of wetland alteration permit for the boardwalk I
do we have , I know we 've required these boardwalks from time to time . Do
we have any specifications for , we got in a little trouble with somebody
about what it meant or whether it could be on the ground or had to be
elevated . Do we have any specifications now?
Olsen : It has to be elevated .
Emmings: But is that in our ordinance now?
Olsen : We amended it to say that it had to be a boardwalk and then '
I believe we defined .
Krauss: We fixed it after that . I
,
IPlanning Commission Meeting
Jun( 19 , 1991 - Page 30
I
Emmings : I thought so but I couldn 't remember for sure . If you remember
that , ic 'a good enough for me . And then number 1 it says there be no
I filling m grading permitted in the wetlands ' I put down dredging . There
shouldn 't he dredging either . Now I don 't know if in everybody 's mind if
gradinq and dredging are the same thing but I would add that word to make
I sure . The proposed driveway has to be 1O feet away from the wetland I juat
wonder how we came up with that number . We 're talking I take it about the
little wetland in the corner of Outlot A?
II Olsen : Right .
- .
I Emmings : Why not 2O?
Olsen: Well , why not .
I Emmlngs : Huh?
Olsen: Yeah . The more the better . I just picked , the minimal , at the
I l�
least 10 feet would Biv us some sort of buffer . I mean right now actually
the road can go right on top of it and have no buffer .
Batzli : That was my question .
I
Olsen : Actually you could swing it around so yeah .
I `
Emmings : Do we allow parking of vehicles on a recreational beachlot?
Olsen : Well you can 't have the access across it but it happens all over .
IEmmings : I don 't think we do .
Olsen: You can 't launch boats and you can 't drive , where is it?
IEmmings : Yeah , number 3 . No boat , trailer or motor vehicle , including but
not limited to cars , trucks , motorcycles , all terrain vehicles ,
snowmobiles , minibikes shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational
I be�chlot ' Okay ' So whet `o the ro�d for? Why do we need a road at all?
Olsen : Well , I 'm sure they 're going to use it 'to .
-- EmminQs : What? Do something improper . ^
IFarmakes : I would think it 'd be an emergency access if somebody needed it .
Elloon; Injury or something .
NI Farmakes : If somebody got injured .
Yeah but you know what 's going to happen? There 's going to be
I oars parkad down there '
Olsen: That 's true . That should be removed and just have it as a trail .
I
Plannin Cmmmis:lon Meeting
June 2o , Paac 31
Emmincc : I think there should be a trail from Lot 1 unless the Public
Safety Department tells us we have to have a road down there . That N�
eliminjates any impact on the wetland . That 's why I like it primarily .
Secondly , when you 're on the lake you don 't like to see a bUnch of cars
parked by the lake . It looks bad . We 've got some beachlots on Minnewashta
now that have roaLz down onto them and people park down there all the time II
and it doesn 't look good . So I think we take the road away and give them a .
trail . A trail that stays , well I don 't care if it 's 10 feet . And if
Public Safety says they want a road down there , then it ought to have a N�
barrier to prevent vehicles from going on there except it can be removed
'
for emergency vehicles . The other concern I have about this beachlot is
right now it 's a rural recreational beachlot . You can have up to 50
dwelling units with access . Now nobody outside the PUD can have access or N�
use of a beachlot . Is that correct?
Olsen: That 's correct . Actually we were going to have a condition that N�
just Lot 1 and 3 would have access to it .
Emmings : Why not Lot 4:' N�
Ellson : you 're saying if 2 is developed they wouldn 't?
Olsen: He was just saying that 's the only one , again you were telling me N�
those, the only two lots that were going to get service . He wasn 't
going to have Lot 4 to have access to it .
Emmings : Let 's get some input from you on this .
Craio Swaggert : I guess that is what I told Jo Ann . I would prefer not to N�
have it restricted from Lot 4 in case that 's a possibility of them using it ~~
too but that would be the limit of it is the 3 lots .
Emmings : Okay , then we don 't have to say anything because there won 't be N�
any houses on Outlot B or A and people can use it from 1 , 3 and 4 . Okay .
But again when , and this I think you should be interested in because when
this , if sewer comes in here and this becomes an urban rather than a rural N�
beachlot , now 80% of the dwelling units which have right of access have to
be within 1 ,000 feet of the recreational beachlot .
Olsen: But that would be new lots . N�
Emmings: Yeah but do you know what? He might not have the right to use
the recreational beachlot because he 's back a couple thousand feet . N�
Olsen: He meets the existing .
Emmings: So what? m�
Ellson: He 's grandfathered '
Olsen: Yeah , I would think that he 'd be grandfathered in . That he has the
right to continue .
Pl .nninj Commission Meeting
IJune 19 , _991 - Page 32
Emr : -,gs : Okay . I dar 't know but it 's something I think he ought to be
I arc of . It could be that anybody who developed that long neck of
propert , is going to want to give everybody access to the lake because
that 's where the value 's going to be but it 's only going to go up . Once
I you get to the 1 ,000 feet , you can only have a few more lots on it because
you 're you know another 20% and I don 't even know if that will get up to
his house . He may be excluded from the area . I don 't care .
II Batzli : As a PUD , can we grant variances in that regard for beachlots as
part of a PUD? .
•
IOlsen: You mean if they would come in again?
Batzli : I don 't know .
Olsen : You mean in the future?
Emmings : The quest ion is whether you would want to . If we decided not to .
IBatzli : But that issue would be crossed when they came back in to develop
that Outlr.t B as part of an amendment to the PUD .
IEmmings : Right . It 's a future issue for sure . I guess that 's all I 've
got . That 's all I have . Has anybody got anything else?
IBatzli : I 've got a motion . I move that the Planning Commission recommends
approval cf the PUD amendment #91-1 shown on plans dated May 28 , 1991 ,
varie,n_ r to the lot width requirement for lot width requirement for Lot 1 ,
IBlock 1 with the following conditions . The 11 listed in the staff report
with the following changes . In condition 5 , at the end of the sentence
include , and recorded against such properties . The driveway must be
Iconstructed so as to accommodate emergency vehicles and must be maintained
in good passable condition . In condition 6 , after the word engineer in the
second line insert , and approved by City Engineers prior to construction .
I Is that where you wanted that to go Steve?
Emmings: Yeah .
I Batzli : Okay . Number 7 . Add a parenthetical at the end of the sentence ,
( one on Lot 1 , one on Lot 3 , and one on Lot 4 unless the existing building
is converted to a duplex ) . Number 8 add , demolition of all the buildings
I to be razed shall be completed within 6 months of final plat approval . At
the end of condition 10 , all other existing buildings on Lot 4 must be
razed . Add a new number 12 . A tree preservation plan shall be submitted
by the applicant for city approval .
IEmmings : She said a tree removal instead of tree preservation .
IBatzli : Well is it called a tree removal or tree preservation?
Krauss: We 'd like to access the positive .
I
Plennin-_� Commission Meeting
Jun_ 19 , 1991 - Page 33
Batzli : New one 13 . Revised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the
appli _=, .t snail reflect revised 'southerly lot line of Lot 3 , the trail
easement across Lot. 1 , Block 1 in accordance with Park and Recreation
recommendations , and elimination of the driveway onto Outlet A . A barrier
shall be erected over the driveway at the lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot
A to keep vehicles from driving or parking on the Outlet A .
Emmings: I ' ll second the motion . Is there any discussion?
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the PUD Amendment #91-1 shown on plans dated May 29, 1991 with
a variance to the lot width requirement for Lot 1 , Block 1 and with the
following conditions:
1 . The PUD agreement will be drafted and recorded against the property . I
The PUD agreement will contain all conditions of approval for the PUD .
2 . A revised preliminary plat must be submitted redesignating Lot 2 , Block
1 as Outlot B .
3 . The residence on Lot 4 , Block 1 shall either be a duplex or single
family unit . The 6 apartment units must be vacated prior to final plat
a-pprotal .
4 . The applicant shall receive an access permit from MnDot for the
proposed access servicing Lots 1 and 3 , Block 1 and Outlot A and B .
5 . A driveway easement shall be provided across Lot 2 ( Outlot B ) , Lot 1 I
and Outlet A and recorded against such properties. The driveway must
be constructed so as to accommodate emergency vehicles and must be
maintained in good passable condition.
6 . The applicant shall be required to install a culvert sized by a
professional engineer , and approved by City Engineers prior to
construction, to accommodate anticipated flows through the existing
ditch on Lot 1 , Block 1 .
7 . No more than 4 dwelling units will be permitted as part of the PUD:
(one on Lot 1 , one on Lot 3, and one on Lot 4 unless. the existing
building is converted to a duplex ).
8 . Demolition permits are required for all demolition; demolition of all
the buildings to be razed shall be completed within 6 months of final
plat approval .
9 . A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted showing all existing and II
proposed on-site sewage treatment sites and proposed house pads and
elevations .
10. If a new residence is constructed on Lot 4 , Block 1 , it must meet all
required setbacks . All other existing buildings on Lot 4 must be
razed .
1
PlenninD Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1971 - Page 34
I
11 . The Epplicant shall meet any and all conditions of Conditional Use
IPcim t #91--4 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1 .
12 . A tree preservation plan shall be submitted by the applicant for city
approval .
I
13. Revised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the applicant shall
reflect revised southerly lot line of Lot 3 , the trail easement across
I Lot 1 , Block 1 in accordance with Park and Recreation recommendations ,
and elimination of the driveway onto Outlot A. A barrier shall be
erected over the driveway at the lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A to
• ' keep vehicles from driving or parking on the Outlot A.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
IEmmings : Next we need a motion on the Comprehensive Plan amendment .
Ellson : We didn 't have any changes in this one did we?
IEmmings : No .
I Ellson : Okay , I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Condi t ion,_:1 Us.c Permit #91-4 for a recreational beachlot on Outlot A as
shown on the plans dated May 28 , 1991 .
IBatzli : That 's okay . We can do it out of order .
Emminc You said 91-4 .
IBatzli : That 's because she was doing .
I Eileen: Oh , you 're right . I would would to change that and say 91-1 .
changing the Land Use Designation from residential medium density to
residential low density . Is that what you want me to do?
IEmmings : Just hold on . Ours are different here . Oh , okay . I see where I
screwed up .
.' Batzli : You screwed up?
Emmings: Yeah . I was looking at this one .
•
IEllson : Do we have it right now or don 't we?
Emmings: Which one did you read?
IOlsen : She was doing recreational beachlot . -
IEllson: I started with that one and then you got me confused .
Emmings : Alright , make your motion over and I will not interfere this
time .
I
1
Plan-lin17, Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 35
Ellson : Which one de you want me to work on right now?
Emminge : Whichever one you like . This is next in line . '
Ellson: Oka/ . I ' ll move the Planning Commission approval Comprehensive
Plan Amendment #91-1 changing the Land Use Designation from Residential
Medium Density to Residential Low Density .
Batzli : Second .
4
Ellson moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment #91-1 changing the Land Use
Designation from Residential Medium Density to Residential Low Density . All I
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Emmings: Next we 're on a conditional use permit for recreational beachlot .
Is there a motion?
Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional
Use Permit #°1-4 for recreational beachlot on Outlot A as shown on plans
dated May 28 , 1991 with the four conditions set forth in the staff report
• and I guess I don 't need to do that with the driveway .
Emmings : It does reference the PUD amendment and I think you 've got it up
there . That 's okay isn 't it? He 's talking about the changes to the road .
Olsen: Yeah .
Emmi ngs : They 're're included by cross reference . '
Batzli : Okay . with the four conditions set forth in the staff report .
Ellson: Second . '
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I
approval of Conditional Use Permit #91-4 for a recreational beachlot on
Outlot A as shown on plans dated May 28, 1991 with the following
conditions:
1 . The recreational beachlot will be permitted only one dock with
overnight storage of up to 3 watercraft .
2 . Launching of boats from the recreational beachlot is prohibited .
3 . The conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot is only for
the proposed dock improvements . Any additional improvements to the
recreational beachlot shall require a "_ther conditional use permit and
wetland alteration permit .
.1
1
II
Pl .. T.nin: Comn;i _ =ion Meeting
II ?une 19 , 1 991 - Page 36
I -
II 4 . The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD Amendment
#91-1 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1 .
IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Emmings : Is there a motion On the Wetland Alteration Permit?
IBatzli : I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #91-1 , construction of a permanent boardwalk through a
1 Class A wetland as set forth on the plans received by the City dated May
28 , 1991 with the 6 conditions set forth in the staff report with the
following amendments . Before the word grading in the first one we ' ll
I insert a dredging/gradi.ng . In number 5 I would add at the end of that
sentence , further , all approved alterations shall be undertaken at a time
and in a manner so as to minimize disruption to the wetland . And number 3 ,
the" word drive shall be amended to read trail .
IEmmings : I ' ll second the motion . Is there any discussion?
I Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1 for construction of a permanent
boardwalk through a Class A wetland as shown on plans dated May 28, 1991
with the following conditions:
I1 . There shall be no filling or dredging/grading permitted within the
wetlands .
1 2 . The applicant shall receive a permit from the Department of Natural
Resources for the permanent boardwalk .
I3 . The proposed trail shall be constructed at least 10 feet away from the
wetland located in the southwest corner of Outlot A .
I 4 . The wetland shall be permitted to return to its natural state after
installatin of the boardwalk .
I S . No other alteration to the wetlands are permitted without receiving
another wetland alteration permit . Further , all approved alterations
shall be undertaken at a time and in a manner so as to minimize
disruption to the wetland.
II6 . The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD Amendment
#91-1 and Conditional Use Permit #91-4 .
IAll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 37
PUBLIC HEARING; I
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A BLUFF PROTECTION ORDINANCE SECTION
TO THE CITY CODE .
Public Present:
Name Address .
Al & Gerty Lebens 460 Flying Cloud Drive '
.Dick & Jane Niemi 10460 Bluff Circle
Maynard Happe 495 Lakota Lane
Roman Roos 1450 Park Court
Mike Sorensen 7600 Erie Avenue
Lee F . Anderson 10441 Bluff Circle
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Lee Anderson : My name is Lee Anderson . I live on 10441 Bluff Circle .
I didn 't see and I just got this copy and I didn 't see the part that it
allowed additions to the house .
Olsen: Well it 's on page 2 of the ordinance . It says .
Emmings : 1401( 2 )?
Olsen: Right . Number 2 under there on page 2 . On parcels of land on
which a building has already been constructed on June 1 , 1991 , the setback
from the top of the bluff is 5 feet .
Lee Anderson : I didn 't see the word additions in there . I
Olsen: Well if your house is say 15 feet away , you can still , that says
that your setback isn 't 30 feet but it 's 4 feet .
Lee Anderson: What if it 's currently 5 feet now but you wanted to put an
addition onto the house was my question?
Olsen: We 're not permitting that .
Lee Anderson: That 's my question .
Olson: The 5 feet is as much as we 're giving for that .
Lee Anderson: I guess I have a concern about that . I have a 2 bedroom
home there . There 's a lot of land and where it is , I can 't tell you where
it 's set back . It was built about 5 years ago but I think that 's really
basically taking something away but I 'm not sure .
Olsen : We do still have the variance procedure which is what you 'd have to
go through that to get an exception to the rules . It kicks you into having
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 38
to prove hardship . We did want to accommodate it but still not allow right
up to the edge .
Lee Anderson: I guess I feel that 's really confiscating some right that
I have and I 'm not convinced that that 's totally right for this thing . The
other question I had was the ability to subdivide . I don 't quite know how
I 'm addressing that one but I don 't see anything on this right now .
1 Olsen: It doesn 't really , you know if your lot is say 5 acres .
•
Lee Anderson : 6 .3 .
Olsen: 6 .3 and say 6 of the acres is within that bluff impact zone.
Lee Anderson : About 5 would be .
Olsen: Weil that would be .
Lee Anderson : So you 're basically saying that , I 'm not against the
philosophy but you 're also saying , hey you . We just cut you out because .
Olsen : Well , we also have in another section of the ordinance and you 're
in the area that doesn 't have the sewer and water .
' Lee Anderson: Right , Hesse Farm .
Olsen: And under the existing regulations , you have to have I believe it 's
1a. cre . I ' ll have to check but you already are controlled that you have to
have at least a certain amount of buildable area that 's below the slope
that would be in the bluff area . So already you 'd be restricted on how you
subdivide and whether or not you could .
IILee Anderson : It all has to be the 1 acre totally has to be buildable .
1 Olsen: Maybe I can check on that .
Lee Anderson: I don 't want to get into my problems specifically but the
other comment I have is that I 'm not sure that all the people that got that
card , and I respect the need to get this out . I 'm not sure more people
considering the property that 's covered here , shouldn 't get a copy of this
document so they really know what 's going on . I applaud your intent but
II I 'm still not sure that part of this isn 't basically confiscating in some
way . Some land that people may want to develop under an appropriate manner
and so I think it needs more study really than an approval or disproval
Itonight . Thank you .
Emmings: Thank you . Yes sir .
IIRoman Roos: I 'm Roman Roos . I 'm at 10431 Heidi Lane which would be just
down the road from Lee . I guess my concerns addressed to the Planning
Commission are very much the same . I also have about a 6 acre parcel . I
1 don 't see it in the foreseeable future that I 'd be subdividing or trying to
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 39 '
do this but in paying the kind of money and paying the kind of taxes we pay
for that area for "the view" , if the City 's going to try to constrain or
refrain or stop even an addition to an existing dwelling , for example maybe
a gazebo or something of this nature , that 's really destroying some rights
that I bought and paid for and are paying for every year with very high II taxes . It has no bearing on it being not sewered . I too believe there 's
got to be a lot more study and it 's not just the Hesse Farm area alone . All
the houses on the bluff . Those lots are all sold and all developed but if I
you move to the other side of the bluff going along towards the Hesse Farm
East and then move across south to the Bluff Creek Course . That area .
• They have the same problems . Now their bluff area is a little more steep II
than what the Hesse Farm area is with the exception on the east side . I
just think that the philosophy , the intent is beautiful : I think it 's
perfect but I think we have to really do some studying with the individuals
that are in existence there for what they have , what they 've paid for and ,
what they 're going to continue to pay for . One other question I have also
has to do with the land in the business fringe area and of course the
residential land that we 're talking about on Hesse Farm East and West and I
that land that would be to the right . I guess it would be to the east of
the business fringe area . How far does the business fringe area run up TH
169 Jo Ann?
Emmings : You 're talking about the area now where TH 101 comes down to 212 . 1/
Roman Roos : Right . From the motel there if you will , moving up TH 169
I
with the junkyard on one side .
Krauss : Jeff , if you could possibly slide over .
Batzli : 4 ,000 feet . I
Roman Foos: That 's very good . I guess , that 's fine Jeff . I guess my
concern would be that again one of the areas of study that I think has to II
be looked at very , very clearly is the business fringe area . I was on the
Planning Commission when that was put in existence back in the late 70 's . I
Emmings: So you 're the guy . ,
Roman Roos: I 'm innocent , believe me .
I
Emmings: You shouldn 't have admitted that .
Roman Roos : At the time gentlemen and ladies , it seemed like a very good 1
idea and I believe it still is a good idea . It has to be controlled .
There 's no question about it . I think what I 'm trying to say is the study II
that has to be , I think has to be accomplished yet is if you 're going to
create a zoning change . If I understand it , you 're going to try to change
the zoning of that business fringe? I
Krauss: I think we. have to separate out issues . This is a bluff line
protection ordinance . It has nothing to do with the BF district except
that part of the BF district backs up to the bluff line . The BF district I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 40 •
' discussion is something that started a year ago with the comprehensive
plan . It 's something that has to be picked up again . We need to notify
everybody down there and work with that . You know , I think there 's a lot
of valid concerns being raised in terms of study of the bluff line itself
but I think it 's only fair to say that we have studied it quite a bit . We
have hiked it . We 've seen instances where construction even 50 and 60 feet
away have changed the drainage going over this thing where the first heavy
' rain we get , this stuff collapses . What we have is an extremely sensitive
bluff line that 's covered by a few inches of clay and the rest of it is
sugar sand . We frankly have some horrendous examples of where people have
messed with it and they 're on the verge of losing some buildings as a
result of it and I don 't know that there 's a good answer once that thing
starts . So we 're trying to balance the rights of the individual . We 're
trying to recognize the rights of people who are already there and treating
' them somewhat differently because we don't want to come in after the fact
with an onerous ordinance . But 5 feet from a bluff that is that unstable ,
or could be that unstable , is pretty close . It 's frankly closer than I
' would prefer to be but if that 's where some of the homes are , we 're saying
we ' ll live with that . But closer than 5 feet , I can 't , I probably be hard
pressed to find an engineer I think who would tell you that it 's safe to
build that close to the bluff line .
11 Roman Roos: I guess I have to somewhat differ with you . I came from
California and believe me . Believe me , the engineering they can do
marvelous things on the bluff . I mean your paying tremendous dollars for
the view just as you 're buying lakeshore for example . I guess what I 'm
trying to say , I think we need more study on this . There 's a lot of issues
that are dovetailed together Paul . Like I say the business fringe is not
part of this issue but it is married to it because you 're talking about
visibility . Views . Okay? I don 't have the clean answers . I 'm just
saying that I don 't know if we 're ready , at least the average citizen who 's
' going to be affected by this . I don 't think he has enough knowledge to
really make some valid comments tonight and to give guidance to the
Planning Commission that they may make a recommendation to the Council at
this point . Thank you .
Emmings: Thank you Roman . Yes sir .
Maynard Happe : I 'm Maynard Happe . I live on Lakota Lane . I already have
a piece of property there that the road will make your setback so far . If
you have 30 feet , I couldn 't have a building on the lot and it 's already
' been approved as such . What would you do?
Olsen: Again , that 's one of those cases where you 'd go through the
ordinance but since this is an existing lot of record , essentially what
we 're saying is that is most likely a buildable site and that 's where you
would be able to prove a hardship for a setback . A variance to that
setback .
Maynard Happe: Anything that had been approved wouldn 't be affected by it?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 19 01 - Page 41 ,
Olsen: Well you 'd have to go through a process -to have approval to locate
a home on that site but that 's where the City would have a difficult
position saying that there isn 't a hardship when you can 't even use it for
anything . If we deny that variance to that 30 foot setback or from the
setback from the street perhaps , then we would be denying you a home on
that lot and your use of it .
Maynard Happe: All of the homes that are there are close to .
Olsen: Right and we use that . We look at that too in the variance .
Maynard Happe : They 're all within , well I don 't know , 30 feet but there 's I
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , there 's 7 homes along there .
Olsen: And that goes into consideration too with that . I don 't see that.
removing your right to develop that lot .
Emming Thank you . Does anybody else want to be heard on this? And it 's
my understanding that notice of this public hearing went to every lot owner
of record that 's affected by this proposal . Is that right?
Olsen : Yeah . I went through all of it . I can 't guarantee that we didn 't I
miss one but we went through the whole list and it was a substantial list .
Emmings : Is there any other comments? Alright . Is there a motion to
close the public hearing?
Ellson moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ellson: I sound like a broken record but I 've liked everything we 've had
today so .
Emmings: You 're just afraid to .
Elison: To stir things up and drag it out any longer , right . No , I think I
that we 're on the leading edge of a city doing something like this . I
think it 's really important and I commend the people who brought it to our
attention . Who knows how much more would have happened if we hadn 't so I II
appreciate the citizens who brought it to our attention and it really
wasn 't something that was on the priority until we did take a look at it
and realized that it is in accordance with our city goals of maintaining
natural greenway and open spaces and the preservation of the natural
environment . I like it and I believe we have done the research that 's
necessary too . I can see forwarding it to the City Council without further I
research .
Emmings : Okay . Brian?
Batzli : Jo Ann? In Section 1 , number 2 under Bluff . We keep on having
this toe of the slope . I 've always been confused as to what the toe of the
slope is because that 's the one thing that isn 't defined .
I
Planning Commission Meeting .
IIJune 19 , 1991 -- Page 42
II Olsen: Right . That was supposed to be changed to toe of the bluff .
Sorry .
Batzli : Yeah , I asked you last time and I guess since you didn 't change it
1 I thought they really meant toe of the slope .
Olsen: It 's supposed to be toe of the bluff . Sorry , we forgot to have
Ithat changed . It started from the bottom up so it 's supposed to be bluff .
Toe of bluff .
Batzli : Okay . In Section 20-1403 , Removal or Alteration of Vegetation . I
I would really prefer that we talk about the removal or alteration is
prohibited except subject to the following limited . I didn 't really even
write this out so much as I kind of wanted to bounce it off the fellow
I commissioners here . It looks like we 're permitting it except and I think
the intent was originally to prohibit it except . I don 't know how we 'd
word it . I haven 't really looked at it that carefully . And then in
I Section 12-1406 in the -official map section . Do we really mean that we 're
talking about bluff impact zones located on and/or within the official
bluff impact zone map?
II Olsen: I think what we 're saying is yeah . It has to be on the map but it
also has to meet the definition of bluff so if something is shown on the
map that actually isn 't a bluff , then they can get out of it that way but
1 at the same time it had to be officially mapped .
Batzli : I was just curious about whether we have this line and the
I question is whether it means you 're on the line or you 're anywhere within
that zone bounded by the line .
Krauss : Well , you have a line . For the sake of drafting purposes , we
I worked off the 200 scale aerials which show the property lines . We had
engineering staff figure out where that bluff began given the criteria that
the ordinance establishes . There 's an elevation that follows through there
Iand we picked it up and it might be the 942 elevation in one spot and the
936 in another . What we 'll do on the official city maps is then you have
an area below that and above the toe and it will be shaded in . We couldn 't
do that on this map just for the sake of drafting but we want to make it
IIclear too that we realize that while our information is the best we have ,
we didn 't go out with a survey crew and run the whole 6 miles of bluff
line . If somebody comes in with better information than we have off our
I official maps , we want to correct our official maps . We 'll accept the
better information .
I Batzli : So if somebody came in and said I 'm covered by the ordinance . I 'm
on your official map but I don 't think I should be , what would be
satisfactory information?
IEileen : Based on the definitions .
Krauss : Based upon a survey , a registered survey that shows more accurate
IIinformation . In fact , if I might suggest , there 's language that I can lift
r
II
Planning Cmmmiss ion Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 43 I
from another ordinance that I can 't recall exactly right now but it
outlines an administrative procedure . I 've done this in wetland ordinances
whereby if you get more accurate information by registered survey or the
City Engineer can just change the map . We don 't even have to ask the City
Council to do that I
Batzli : How big of a hurry are we in to do this? Are we in any kind of
hurry? Other than we want to protect the bluff as soon as possible .
Krauss: I don 't think there 's imminent danger that something 's going to
happen . There 's some ongoing situations there . We 've been talking about
this over a series of probably 4 meetings over a period of 3 or 4 months .
II
We wanted to get it on the table . We wanted to notify all the residents .
We wanted to get their feedback . If there are other directions to go in ,
we 'd be happy to do that . If the homeowners would like some opportunity to
meet with us so they can figure out where the bluff is as we think it is
relative to their specific property , we 'd be happy to do that too .
Batzli : I was just kind of following up on Roman 's comment that he thought !'
there should be some kind of cooling off period to the residents . Now that
they have their hands on a copy of the ordinance , they can figure out what
it really does to them and what it means before we pass it onto City
II
Council .
Krauss : That would be reasonable . We had intended to send copies of the
ordinance out with the notice but we didn 't have them in time to do that .
This is not something where there 's something horrendous going to happen
tomorrow if we don 't pass this today .
II
Batzli : I think if I was a homeowner I would like the opportunity to take
a look at this and meet with staff now that I 've got a copy of it in front
of me and I 've got a chance to look. at my own property . They may have
II
better comments or their concerns may be satisfied if we allow them a
little bit more time .
Krauss : I might add too that we 'd like to prepare a video . We intended to
do that for tonight but we wanted to bring in some graphic evidence of why
we think that this is a concern . We have at least 4 sites we 'd like to II show you .
Batzli : I 'm all for this and I 'm a huge proponent . I think Jo Ann has
done a good job . I love the concept but I 'm just thinking as a homeowner I I
think Roman has a good idea to kind of .
Jane Niemi : Can I? You 're being kind of loose and I know I 'm out of turn 11
but seeing as you 've etablished looseness here in not following rules .
Emmings: We can clamp down .
Jane Niemi : We got a notification that says we 're amending something . We II
had no idea what you were amending from the notice so we didn 't know what
the original statement said and what you 're changing it to . I think that II
r
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1 991 - Page 44
' th-se- Lluff lot people should have a copy of the original and what you 're
' Dick Nieni : I don 't think they understood the ramifications .
Jane Niemi : It says something 's going to be amended . Well what is going
to be amended? That 's what we 're here to find out , what are you amending .
' and what is this amendment going to be so I think that the original needs
to be sent out , brought forth to the people that this is effective along
with your proposed change .
Batzli : So I guess what I 'd propose is that we table this once we talk
about it here and we instruct staff to send out a copy to the affected
' people .
Krauss: If I could add one thing . That 's fine with us . We 'd be happy to
do it hut the thing that we 're amending is the zoning ordinance . It 's this
' black binder here and everything that 's in it but there is no specific
bluff protection regulation at all right now .
Ellson: It 's like bringing something out that was never there .
Dick Niemi : . . . .this is a drastic change .
' Krauss : Well no . It 's the same terminology . We 're amending the zoning
ordinance by adding Section .
' Dick Niemi : If you live there on that bluff line , you think of it as a
drastic change . I don 't think anyone here or on the City Council lives on
the bluff line .
Emmings: No , and we pass things about various things . I don 't own any
commercial property and we pass things on commercial property all the time .
You know , I guess this is a real small turnout which bothers me . It either
' means that people aren 't interested , which I can 't believe , or that they
really were not informed and that scares me .
' Jane Niemi : It was a very cryptic letter . It said hey , this is what . . .
It really said nothing .
Emmings: So it may be but on the other side of this I guess is the
' property , the existing property 's are exempted so I didn 't think people
would be too excited about that because we 're not even making them non-
conforming uses . We 're totally exempting them so that 's going a long way .
Dick Niemi : But we 've got 10 1/2 acres which . . .subdivided . . .
' Emmings : Right , and you just don 't know now . It creates an element of
doubt and that 's always horrible but I guess that the , I have a hard time
thinking that your planning to build over the edge of the slope . And as
long as we allow you to go up to 5 'feet from it with your existing dwelling
or within 30 with anything new , those don 't seem like real onerous
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 45 '
proviE-ions to me but maybe they are . So maybe Brian 's suggestion is a good '
one . C,_ ahead .
Maynard Happe : The notice that I got was very vague . I had been to a
meeting about the sand pit and everything going on there . I thought it was !'
some more to do with along there but I decided I best come and see just
what or who was affected and who they were talking about . I didn 't have
any idea what was going on .
111
Olsen: We wanted to send out the ordinance and Paul was going to do that
• but by the time we had it in final form , it wouldn 't have gotten out in I
time . Before this meeting anyway so it was kind of like we 're just going
to have to go with it . When we sent out the notice , it °was one of those
where we weren 't sure exactly what we could say in there more than we 're
doing a bluff protection ordinance and call . '
Emmings: I guess it 's small enough so I guess . . .but we can fix that by
just continuing the hearing and getting more input . And you know , talk to I
your neighbors . We 'll table it . Maybe if everybody agrees with that .
Talk to your neighbors and read it and let us know what your concerns are .
Do it in writing or come in when we look at it again . It sounds like
that 's the way it 's going to go . I thought everyone who was here , when I
walked in the room and saw a lot of people , I thought everybody was here on
the bluff protection ordinance because I thought that was going to be a big
draw and I was real surprised when I saw . Jeff , we skipped over you and
I don 't want anybody accusing me of running a loose meeting so we 're going
to go over here right now .
Farmakes: I wouldn 't be against tabling this for a period of time . I think '
this is an important thing . I realize that it may interfere with property
rights . Some of the owners in this area but that happens in many cases in
the zoning ordinance . For instance on a lakeshore lot . In an effort to
preserve the lakeshore , I am not allowed to build within a certain distance II
of the lakeshore that I want to the lake . The effort there is an attempt
to keep the entire lake looking like a developed lot . It 's an effort to
offer the community something and to preserve the lakeshore . The basic
philosophy of this protection on the bluff area is an attempt to preserve
the natural area itself because it is subject to deterioration . It 's a
sensitive area . I 'm sure since you live there you probably, in heavy rains
and so on , seen what can happen in that area . The intent is not to destroy
your property investment or to limit your rights for development . I know
I would be sympathetic to grandfathering or issue the people who want to
amend their homes or so on . The intent here is to make a community effort
to protect this area and things are going to change here . With these
highways and this development and so on, 10 years from now this is not
going to be the Chanhassen that it is now . You yourselves are talking
about subdividing and so on and the issue here is an attempt to try and
preserve some sensitive areas of Chanhassen . I realize that with that
attempt there will probably be some infringement on your property rights .
It 's something I think that hopefully we can work out in the issues of
grandfathering . But I am not against spending more time notifying property
owners . If you ' ll let me finish . I 'm not against notifying further the
11
.
.
IIPlannlrJ Comris�ion Meeting
June 2 (,7 ` 29c2L - Page 46
.
property owners and having further discussion with this . I fully encourage
I sny ar� e'. cry preporty owner tu 'oomo in here and dlsouss this at longth .
I 'd like certainly any property owner to be part of this process and '
hopefully together we can attempt to protect some of the areas of
Chanhassen that are worth protecting . You 're fortunate enough to talk
I about the view that you want to look at . We need to change some of the
ways that we develop these areas or we 're going to wind up with an inner
city look in this community that I don 't think a lot of people want here .
I Hopefull/ if it "s just a matter of 1O feet away from a bluff line or 5 feet
or 30 feet , many of these things , if these developments are taken or
slightly altered , create a lot of giving the overall effect of more open
II spaoe and protecting oertaln senoitive areas ' So hopefully we oan do that '
The other issue , when we were talking about California ' ' There are several
homes here that have washed into the bluff area in the rain and I was
fortunate enough to be out in California in the last earthquake . Several
I of these expensive homes were severely damaged , at least from what I can
see ' Even ones where a great deal of protection went into trying to keep
these homes up . There 's no question in my mind that there are some places
I whcre development is foroed simply because of the property values ' It
requires it . The terrain and so on . I would not think it would be a good
` idea for us sitting here on this side , not owning property there , not to
say that there are some areas there just as a matter of public concern that
I
that cr*c ` besides the aesthetic differences , physically should not be
built on . That 's of course always up for discussion but that 's what we 're
here for . Anyway to sum it up , I would like to see perhaps more effort in
I nctifylnJ people for continuing this public hearing and I would not be
remiss to vote to table this for the time being .
IEmmings : You 're burning to say something .
Jane Niemi : I guess the whole presentation of this is telling us as
1 homeouners , we 're all saying yeah . Let 's protect it but this is coming on
as a negative rather than a positive . Why not say if you 're going to own
it , if your obligation to maintain , to keep from erosion . To keep from and
do it from a positive level than say what you cannot do with what you own
I and what wa are paying dearly for ' ' ' ,tax situation is not here but we ,ve
just been socked with a lovely increase so I think we 're all a little on
the edge and we 're kind of don 't want something jammed down our throats .
I We juot have . ' 'presented in a positive that oince you own this " it "s your
obligation to keep erosion from happening then I think it might go a little
bit better . This is a negative presentation .
IMike Sorenson : Can I say something?
Emmings : Yeah . You haven 't told us who you are though .
I Mike Sorenson: I 'm Mike Sorenson . ~ '
N1 Emminos: I don 't know if she did either . Why don 't you tell us who you
are for the record .
Jane Niemi : Jane Niemi . I live in Heese `Farm '
--
Planning Commission Meeting
June I ? , 1 q'11 - Page 47
Mike Sorenson : I know you 've already gone through the public discussion
but I am-, ore of th. land owners in the business fringe area . I 'm the
Saddam Hussein of Chanhassen . It says it right here . I was just wondering
how this new bluff protection ordinance . First of all when they were
building this highway out here .
Emmings : Which one?
Mike Sorenson: Highway S . Cutting trees down . Taking up you know and in
these types of areas , this is what has to be done . If you have to build
buildings , you have to' remove trees. You have to remove vegetation . You
have to remove things . I 'm not opposed to not doing it and I 'm not opposed
but I did buy some land and Pat Blood here , he 's my neighbor down there . He
bought some land based on a zoning that the City of Chanhassen put in
effect . We didn 't buy it to look at . We bought it to develop and to build
buildings and things like this you know . And I was just wondering how , I 'm 11
asking here . I 'm not getting up and I 'm not ranting and raving or nothing
like that . I was just curious to see what the city of Chanhassen has in
mind for the fringe area .
Emmings : That 's going to be a separate discussion . We don 't know .
Mike Sorenson : I got the le tters . '
Emminge : That 's because your property is affected because you 're at the
bottom of the slope but we wind up doing with , the business fringe area is
something we 've talked about many times . We 've rezoned it .
Mike Sorenson : I seen this article in the paper , you know that front page II
article in the paper saying how , you know the one I 'm referring to?
Emmings : I don 't know . What paper? '
Krauss : That was about a year ago . At least a year .
Mike Sorenson: Well it was a big full page article . I have it at home .
Maybe E months , a year or so ago .
Krauss : I think it was the last time we discussed it .
Emmings: Whatever . We 've looked at it a number of times . We 've rezoned
it several times . We 've fooled around with it and we 've just never found a
satisfactory answer . There 's a number of people on the Planning Commission
who think there shouldn 't be any commercial development on that property at
all . There 's a number here that think yeah , maybe there are some low
intensity commercial uses that would be appropriate there so we 're having
those kinds of discussions and you 'll be notified when there 's more . . .
Mike Sorenson : Okay . Like I say , our concern is people that own the
property in there is like Pat . He 's trying to sell his and me , I 'd like to II
finish developing mine . I 'm kind of in an area where I don 't know where .
I
Plannini; [onrisslon Meeting
3une 1c;'"2 - PaCC- 40
Emmings : Have you Oot the storage?
Mike e Sorenson : Yes . I have the storage . And we just don 't know where we
can go . I came in with a plan and it didn 't fly at all .
m=
Emmings : I remember .
Mike Sorenson : But anyway .
Emmings : The thing is, this .is a real dynamic situation . Especially down
where you are . But it 's dynamic throughout Chanhassen and the reason for
N�
that is , we 're going from what was once kind of a rural community to what 's
becoming very much an urban community . It 's just a very dynamic situation
and you may own a piece of property right here and yesterday it wasn 't
N� within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area but today it is . Yesterday you
~~
couldn 't build . You had to have 1 house in 10 acres and now you can have
15 ,000 sqJare foot lots but the point is , whenever you decide you 're going
to develop , you 've got t:o come in and find out what the rules are in effect
at that tim-J because those are the ones that govern what you do . And
there ': that keeps those rules static . The fact that you bought a piece of
property under one set of rules , doesn 't mean you get to develop under the
N� ruleE then in effect . You get to develop under the rules in effect at the
time you ask to develop and it 's a risk you take as a landowner . We all do
it . It 's hard down in that area and it 's hard in Chanhassen today but it 's
N� juat the way it is . I can 't offer you any comfort because things are
|�
m� really changing fast ' We change ordinances just about every time we sit
down and it 's not because we think it 's fun or we 're preverse . It 's just
necessary . Well , to get back to the subject at hand . I think a bluff
N�
protection ordinance is very important . I think that Brian 's comment on
that one section , that section on removal or alteration of vegetation to me
said nothinQ . I could literally go out and do anything on my property that
I wanted to do and fit it within the language that 's on that page and that
really bothered me because I really wonder if we 're doing anything at all
here as far as vegetation is concerned . But it helps a little bit if you
do what Brian said but I still think it needs some work . Plus number 2 ,
N�
clearing has become cleaning and we don 't really care if they go out and
clean their vegetation . We don 't want them to clear it . And I think there
should be specific language in 1404 that says that there will be no
N�
increase of drainage toward the bluff . That no development activity will
create any increase drainage . If there 's some drainage there now or
there 's some drainage before you develop , fine . That 's what 's there but
N� you can 't do anything to increase the drainage towards the bluff . See
we 've had some people come in and talk to us and I don 't know if it 's right
or wrong but the information that 's in front of us is that bluff 's are
incredibly sensitive pieces of land . They 're very fragile . That even
putting up a building and having the roof collect water and direct it or
channel it or make it heavier toward the bluff can erode the bluff away and
they 've had examples of this apparently in Eden Prairie . And we 're not
N� only interested in preventing those situations to protect the bluff ,
which I 'm sure essentially everybody here would be in favor of , but we also
want the bluff to be an amenity as you look towards it . You know not just
N� looking out from it but looking towards it as well so when , we think of 169
��
��
Planoi r._ Commission Meeting
June 1c. , O1 _ ,-,_. 43
or 212 going . The old 212 . That that area will be left very much with
t =:'i•., lopment . There will be development on the bluffs hut
below that and out into the area that the U .S . has there in the river
valley , it 's going to be kind of left looking the way it does now or better
if possible . And part of that is making sure we don 't have development in
right up to the buff . Or like some people like to do and build out over
the edge of the bluff . You do read about California . You do read about
mud slides and houses sliding down hills and I just don 't think it 's going I
to happen here but we want make , we don 't even want the bluffs to be
eroding away . So we think that this is important stuff . Something 's going
to be passed . I think enough concern 's been raised here so that we should
table this for tonight and put it on our next , can we put it on our next 11
meeting?
O r e I
cure .
And Emmings : And get copies of this ordinance out to everybody but make sure
when yc'.; t-lk to your neighbors that you tell them , that you don 't just say
we pay a lot of money i-ir taxes . I pay a lot of money in taxes so don 't
talk tD mg about that . That doesn 't help with me and I can 't build within
75 feet cf the lake that I live on . That was a good point . I can 't my
house within 5 feet of the lake or stick it over it .
plc ! "'iF i : What if you had 300 feet and someone said you can 't sell 100
of it? That 's the analogy . . .5 foot setback . '
Ellson: I think this would give people a chance to take a look at their
individual parcels and see if it would really be affecting them .
Farmakes: The analogy that I actually made was , if you misunderstood it ,
was that the effort of doing that is I am giving up some of my landowner
rights in an effort for the community good . I mean that 's what 's being
asked of me and the question is , that 's the only way we 're going to
preserve some of this stuff . I mean that 's it . That 's the only way you
can preserve .
Dick Niemi : My question was the feasibility or lack of feasibility of
subdividing it if necessary down the road and that 's why using the analogy
of if you have 300 feet of shoreline and you want to sell 100 , you 've got 11
some regulation that prohibits you from selling that .
Farmakes: It 's how it 's developed . '
Emmings: And the other point is , when I hear you say to me I 've got land I
want to develop on the bluff , all the more important that I want
- regulations on how that 's done . I don 't want it to just happen any way .
You may have the best intentions of protecting the bluff in the world you
know and I concede that to you but you 're not everybody and I don 't know
everybody is going to do it and I think the bluff is a real unique physical
feature that we have in this city and it 's got to be protected somehow .
Maybe we haven 't done it exactly right here . Maybe you 'll come up with
1
II
Pl ;nninj Commission Meeting
IJune 2° , 1 °^1 - Page S0
where we can make this better . We 're going to give you the
ci'' to d'.✓ that by tabling it . -
Roman Roos : Just a couple of quick comments . Number one . . . I think Jeff 's
II right on target . . .analogy of the shoreline . . .bought land and developed on .
We 've been real lucky . If you look at the development we 've got along the
bluffs so far , most of it has really turned out quite well . We 're really
1 fortunate . Absolutely fortunate but I think every property in designing
his home en how that sat on that bluff was considering . : .bluff because
that 's part of what he bought . .
IEllson: But if we make that assumption ongoing .
Roman Foos: I understand but we need some control now , and Jeff I agree
II 100% but what I 'm thinking right now , a typical scenario . You buy a lot .
As a contractor , the guy hires me and wants me to place that house on that
bluff for the view okay . So what I do is I go in there and I 'll take a
I look at the contours and I 'll try to cut that house into the bluff and into
the hillside to somehow make it fit in . To tuck it in the land so they get
the view . Give it some isolation . What you try to do is plant that house
on that land . L!3 haven 't addressed that issue . In other words , I 'd come
I back to the City and say here 's my site plan . Here 's the grading permit
Paul . This is what I 'd like to do . Now I 'm going to change the toe or I 'm
going to change the top of that roof a little bit to accomplish this
II okay? Sc when you talk about the top of the roof , what Paul 's driving at
but hat if we modify the top of the roof because the land will permit it
to be done okay without taking a lot of trees out . . There 's just some
I variables we haven 't addressed yet guys that we have to address and that is
in the building process , the grading process , how you tuck a house in
there . To categorically say a 30 foot limit or a 5 foot limit , I don 't
think we can say that .
IIEmmings: Do you think a 30 foot setback is a lot?
I Roman Rooc : By golly I think Steve that sometimes you might have to have a
60 foot .
Emmings: No , do you think that 30 is too big a number?
IRoman Roos : No , not necessarily but again the bluff is so unique and the
trees , the foliage is so unique , I don 't know how you can just
Icategorically say a number okay .
Emmings: Well it 's a minimum .
IRoman Roos : Yeah . There 's got to be some control . There 's no question
about it but I don 't think we 've addressed that issue because there 's so
many variables that just a 3 page ordinance I don 't think can address it .
IEmmings: Paul , do you want to address of the things he 's raised?
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1 ('-'1 _ Pace El '
Krauss : Well , you know there is the potential you could go for a site plan
revieu an individual house . - We 've always tried to stag away from that .
I mean you want to give the latitude to the homeowner to do what they 'd
like to do . We know that this is a sensitive bluff . We know where it 's
been tinkered with all hell breaks loose . We know that there 's properties II
that arc being threatened . Yes there 's probably some sites where you could
sculpt something out in there , although I 've got to say that I think you
would be very risky to do it . We know that the tree line comes back a
short distance and in some places a long distance but the tree line is
usually the bluff itself in many areas and as soon as we start tinkering
• with that , as soon as we start excavating it . If you plant a house there ,
you 're certainly going to change the drainage going over the top . But
every time we 've seen that happen , there 's been extreme amounts of damage
occurring . Either it occurs to that property or it occurs to the trees
down below . They get wiped out as the erosion occurs or it occurs in the
creeks and the rivers that accept all the sediment and now we 're being
asked to clean that up . We can 't get away with Chanhassen washing over
the hill anymore . The Federal EPA is suing the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission to reduce the sediment load , the waste load in Minnesota River
by 4C° by the year 1996 . The MWCC is in turn threatening us to sue , and
they 're doing this to every community in the river valley . We can 't get
away with that kind of stuff anymore , even if we wanted to . '
Roman Rocs : I would encourage , I would really encourage the Planning
Commission , members of the Planning Commission to take a drive down the
road . I now what Paul is saying . There are some isolating cases that are
gc) _ng to cause problems . It is not the majority of cases . I can look at
every home that 's been built on the Hesse Farm , east and west and on the
far Fide of TH 101 and . . .you will not see that condition that Paul 's
talking about on almost 95% of the homes that have been built onto the
hilltop . I think we have to have some controls but I don 't know the answer .
I don 't know the . . .I don 't know how you control a contractor going in and
cutting and putting a house . I 'm just saying there are some remote
situations that we 've got a problem with . Paul , I agree 100% . We 've been
very fortunate .
Emmings: You don 't want to take , our attempt to control or protect , really
to protect the bluff isn 't in any way a criticism of any people here or
development that 's taken place to date except for a few maybe , but
generally speaking the 95% we agree with you . It isn 't a problem but those
properties probably wouldn 't be affected by our ordinance anyway . Maybe
they would have fit in the ordinance anyway . Well , and they 're going to be I
exempted so I don 't know if it 's a problem .
Roman Roos : I 'm just saying there 's got to be more study .
Emmings: I don 't agree with that I guess . The only other thing that
I want . I don 't want more study . The input from people who live there .
If you have specific things you want to say about the ordinance to us , I II think we 've got to listen to that before we pass this onto the City Council
but other than that , there 's not going to be further study in terms of
.
^
IPlanning Commission Meeting
S.Jml lc' ` lc.'?1 - Page 52
.
ccn�u] tirg r *cple or looking at property . But we do want to hear from
I landowm rs . 1 think we ^ve e*hausted this ' � '
Batzli : But I think I would be interested if people came in with real life
examples as to what we 're doing how , whatever I 'm trying to say . In
I essencc , hrw is it going to impect their lots? What is this going to do?
Ellson : A before and after analysis or something .
NI Emmings: Would it have made a difference in the way they developed it?
Batzli : But they may have an undevelopable piece of property and they may
I say . .
Emmings : Yeah , that 'd be useful .
I Krauoo : We 're gning to have some , well there 's some vacations in the
department coming up and we want to give people enough time to come in and
sit down with us and we can go specifically over their property . The
I g:7ntic�.an who has 11 acres . He may or may not have an issue . He may not
have any right to develop that property because of other ordinances right
now but we 'd like to be able to sit down and explain that to him . What
I we ^d like to do ' is if you hold thls over , if you oould hold it over to the
first meeting in August and then that will give everybody enough time .
I Emmings : Okay . And in tho meantime you " ll send a copy of the ordinanoa to
all the owners of property on the bluff . And ask them in a letter to tell
us how it affects their property , particularly undeveloped pToporty '
Because it 's not really going to affect developed property that much except
I to the extent that you have plans to subdivide . Now we ' ll need a motion to
table this .
Batzli : I move that we table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create a
��
bluff line protection ordinance .
I Ellson: And Z ^ lI aecond that motion '
Batzli moved , Ellcson seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance amendment to
create a bluff line protection ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The item was tabled until the first meeting in August '
Jane Niemi : August when?
I Emmings: I don 't know .
I Ellson: You 'll get a notice .
'
s.
Emmings : The first Wednesday .
IRoman Roos : . . .miles of bluff line . I mean that 's a lot of people . Other
than the golf course .
Planning Commission Meeting
June ic , l' ;i - Page 53
I
Elison And shy said she got 15 calls .
Emmings: . - '� s ��
The; cot a lot of calls and people said it sounds great .
Lee Anderson : My thing is I got a kick out of when the assessor came out I
last year and he said . . .raised the value $125 ,000 .00 on the lot . . . It 's
like I 'm going to get you and he did . Now if part of that goes away , I
wonder if he 'll understand that part .
I
Ellson : Look into it . Does, it go away?
Lee Anderson: I didn 't like the attitude when he arrived . I 'm going to
I
get you . . .
Emmings: Well ,, who likes the assessor?
I
Leo Anderson : Yeah but when he says , I soaked your neighbor for just as
much it LEE: like .
I
Emmin`r : By the way , the person who said who likes the assessor was Brian
_ Batzli for the record .
Krauss : There is an issue with assessors . We try to get them to talk to
us and not assess wetlands , not assess bluffs .
Emrincd : They shouldn 't assess bluffs . They shouldn 't assess the property I
or yours that 's on the slope .
Roman Pc,c)s . . .additional assessments for my land .
I
Emmings : For land that you could never develop?
Roman Pocs On the slope . 1
Krauss : See in a way , in the worst sort of way having an ordinance on the
books helps you because then we can maintain that you can 't develop it .
It 's not developable . Don 't charge me .
Emmings : I want to get out of here . Let 's get back to order here . I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated June 5 , 1991 as presented .
I
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Emmings: I don 't want you to read this to us . Is there anything on here 1
people want to talk to Paul about or that „paul , you especially want to
bring to our attention?
Batzli : We just got it tonight . We haven 't had a chance to read it . I
Emminggs : Oh no . This was in the packet .
I
II
'
II .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 54 .
Batzli : This was?
IEmminao: The report was .
Batzli : Was it?
-- Emmings: Sure .
I Batzli : Wel ] Z didn "t read it ' Are acceosory otructures grandfathered in
if you 've already got them close to your lot line?
Krauss: On the bluff , yes .
Emmings : Sure .
Krauss : In fact I can show you one accessory building on the bluff that 's
��
pretty soon going to be over the bluff .
Batzli : What about if �t "e not on the bluff?
Emmings : Make sure you take pictures of it .
IKrauss : Well yeah Brion ' If it was erected before the date of the
ordinance , sure it 's grandfathered in .
I Batzli : 5o my sandbox io okay huh? Z don ,t have to move it?
Emmings : This guy wants a 1 ,240 square foot sandbox?
IKrauss : That 's no joke .
Emminqs: That 's a hell of a sandbox . He 's got a bulldozer . He 's got a D6
I Cat '
Krauss : But he didn 't want it near his house . He wanted it near his
Ineighbors property .
Batzli : I feel so inadequate . I built my kids a 36 square foot sandbox .
IEmmings : I 'm sure it 's adequate .
Elloon: I 'm sorry I missed your corridor bus trip . Sounded good huh?
1
Emmings : That was outstanding .
IBatzli ; The buo tour? Did you guyo go on the bus tour?
El}son : No , I was in Red Wing .
IBatzli : Tell us about the bus tour briefly .
Krauss : I wrote about it but I gave it to you tonight .
I