7. Ches Mar Farms 'm,- 7
1 CITY O F PC DATE: June 19, 1991
11 CflANflAEI CC DATE: July 8, 1991
, .
il .1y CASE #: 91-1 PUD
By: Olsen:v
f
i �
STAFF REPORT
1
flPROPOSAL: 1. PUD Amendment
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment i 3. Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot
4. Wetland Alteration Permit for a Boardwalk
11 +U
li: LOCATION: Ches Mar Farm - Approximately k north of Hwy. 5 off of
Hwy. 41.
Q APPLICANT: Craig Swaggert 181tm It city Pei", "ell
2800 2800 Stone Arch Roadp.:A
Wayzata, MN 55391
allt 1-:- x :; G.,•=kwmac
;11 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development -ti_yi-
RR, Rural Residential �'.- ,. 1u c�+w
IIACREAGE: 28 acres -
DENSITY: .14 units/acre (gross) .44 units/acre net
( )
IIADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RR; Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
I. �
- S - RR; Camp Tanadoona
t II E - RR; single family
Q
W - RR; Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
WATER AND SEWER: Not available.
-t. W -
1} PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site contains steep slopes to the south
MOM M and vegetated areas, lakeshore _ .on- Lake
Minnewashta and wetlands.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Medium Density
1�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.,
OI, 1
.,
.......
�'�� +� e NIIIII
. •
...
,..„..,
v,..c/...s. t ..*.\
,_ .
b
`
! Irk....Liiiii .
1
ir ,..)''
to iv
1
\\ 4
„...
.: • f
41.7
, i.;
., ----,,,,..
I
4r
S H T A I.
•• , .A -
I
Loc.A-ncv-4 cf.
- 47v...opp5st-.) AbliZe
---- *IMG 4 PUD .
I ./4 . .IMM. 1
Ilk IIIIILIIIIM
r ,
,-
...,
i
, 1
RR
J j
�, TIM f i
40 0,` DRIVE t
`+c •
7 ' sr/j
t
rimt
; 1
ID:Z
r---LOND n
:7"..--L----------.--..s.
U
IA2 '
- t
% - '""
Ches Mar Trails
June 19, 1991
Page 4
Outlot A Contains 2.7 acres and is proposed to be used
as a recreational beachlot for Lots 1 and 3.
Lot 2, Block 1 will be under the same ownership as Lot 3, Block 1
but is shown as a separate parcel for mortgage purposes. Staff has
stated to the applicant that Lot 2, Block 1 either has to be
combined with Lot 3 or designated as an outlot with the .
• understanding that it can not be developed unless the property, is
replatted. The replat would not be permitted until the land is
within the urban service area. The applicant has agreed to
designate Lot 2, Block 1 as an outlot. The existing six unit
apartment building on Lot 4, Block 1 will either become a duplex or
a single family residence. The applicant is in the process of
getting bids on the building being converted to a duplex or a
single family. The applicant would prefer to convert the building
to a single family residence but if that is not economically
feasible, it will be converted instead to a duplex. The applicant
has stated that no more than two units would remain on Lot 4. The
existing home on Lot 3, Block 1 has been removed and. will be
replaced by the applicant (Craig Swaggert) with a new one for his
own residence. Lot 1, Block 1 will be the location of a new
residence for Gary Kirt. Both Lot 1 and Lot 3 will have access to
Lake Minnewashta through Outlot A.
Lot 1 and Lot 3, Block 1 will be serviced by a private driveway.
The proposed private driveway will be located through Lot 2 and
will be designed to the city private driveway standards. Lot 4
will continue to be serviced by an existing drive from State
Highway 41. The private drive and driveways will be fairly steep
with slopes up to 16%. Typically, staff recommends driveway no
steeper than 12% but this is not required by City Code. The
private driveway will require an access permit from MnDOT for
access off of State Highway 41. A driveway easement is required
across Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and Outlot A to ensure driveway rights
for the residents. The proposed driveway crosses an existing ditch
on Lot 1, Block 1. The applicant shall be required to install a
culvert sized by as professional engineer to accommodate
anticipated flows.
The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential and is regulated by the
one unit per ten acre density requirement of the rural area. The
existing PUD (containing the two lots remaining from the original
PUD) contains 7 dwelling units on 6.6 acres with a net density of
1. 1 units per acre. The two lots exceed the minimum 2.5 acres but
do not meet the 1 unit per 10 acre requirement. The proposed
amendment to the PUD adds an additional 21.5 acres to the subject
property and reduces the number of units from 7 to 4. The new net
density is .14 units per acre. Although the property still does
not meet the 1 unit per 10 acre density, the proposed amendment
I
I Ches Mar Trails
June 19, 1991
Page 5
IIgreatly decreases the number of units while adding a substantial
amount of acreage to the site and therefore is more in conformance
with the ordinance than the existing situation.
IIThe applicant is in the process of having soil borings and
percolation tests performed on Lot 1, Block 1 and is also required
Ito confirm the existence of two acceptable septic sites on Lot 3,
Block 1 and must confirm the location and suitability of existing
. sites on Lot 4. Outlot A and Lot 2 are not required to have two
I approved septic sites since they will not be developed. The
preliminary plat must be amended to show the proposed house pads,
elevation and septic sites prior to final plat approval.
ICOMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE
Lot Lot Lot Home
IIArea Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 2.5 acres 200' 200' 50'
1 unit/10 acres
II BLOCK 1
ILot 1 2.5 185* 589' n/a
II Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Lot 2 (outlot) 16.3 228' 206' n/a
, Lot 3 2.7 514 ' 221' n/a
I Lot 4 3.9 684 207' 30' front**
80' rear
II Outlot A 2.7 200' 680'
(lake frontage)
* Variance required - existing lot line limits the width - the
' 200' requirement cannot be met.
** Existing non-conformance. If not structure constructed
II • setbacks will be met. .
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
IICurrently, the land use plan designates this property as
Residential Medium Density. This was designated to accommodate the
existing Ches Mar Farms PUD. With the addition of more property
II
II
Ches Mar Trails I
June 19, 1991
Page 6
and the reduction of units, the land use plan can be amended from
Residential Medium Density to Residential Low Density. This will
bring the property into conformance with what the zoning would
normally peri..it. Amending the land use plan from a higher density
to a lower density should be easily accepted by the Metropolitan
Council and staff is recommending approval.
Recreational Beachlot
Outlot A is proposed as a recreational beachlot to provide lake
access to Lot 1 and Lot 3, Block 1. Outlot A contains 2.7 acres
and meets the lot area and lake frontage requirements for a dock on
a recreational beachlot. The applicant is proposing to install a
permanent dock through the wetlands to the open water. The
recreational beachlot has only enough lake frontage for one dock.
The zoning ordinance permits one dock with overnight storage of
three boats. Lannching of boats is not permitted from the
recreational beachiot and the applicant understands that the boats
would have to be launched from the public boat launch in the
Minnewashta Regional Park. The applicant is not proposing any
canoe racks or other improvements and expansion to the recreational
beachiot will require another conditional use permit and wetland
alteration permit.
Wetland Alteration Permit '
The applicant is proposing a wetland alteration permit to install
a permanent boardwalk through a Class A wetland adjacent to Lake
Minnewashta. A boardwalk is permitted by the. City Code and is what
is recommended by staff. All other wetlands on the site and shown
on the preliminary plat will not be disturbed. The proposed drive
to the recreational beachlot should be moved away from the wetland '
in the southwest corner of Outlot A to prevent any disturbance to
the wetland. Staff is recommending a 10 foot buffer between the
drive and the wetland. Any filling or grading of the wetlands is
not permitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION -
PUD Amendment
At the June 19, 1991, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and
approved the PUD amendment with the following additions and changes
to staff's conditions as indicated in bold.
5. A driveway easement shall be provided across Lot 2 (Outlot B) , 1
Lot 1 and Outlot A and recorded against such properties. The
I
i
I Ches Mar Trails
June 19, 1991
Page 7
Idriveway must be constructed so as to accommodate emergency
vehicles and must be maintained in good passable condition.
II6. 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
Iexisting 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.
I 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 12. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted by the applicant
for city approval for Lot 1, Block 1.
1 13. A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the applicant
and shall reflect revised southerly lot line of Lot 3, the
trail easement across Lot 1, Block 1, in accordance with Park
I and Recreation Commission 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
Ikeep vehicles from driving or parking on Outlot A.
omprehensive Plan Amendment
I The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment by changing the land use designation
from Residential Medium Density to Residential Low Density subject
II to the conditions of the PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and
Wetland Alteration Permit.
Conditional Use Permit
IIThe Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for the recreational beachlot with staff's
1 recommended four conditions. .
Wetland Alteration Permit
IIThe Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction of a permanent
I
II
1
Ches Mar Trails 1
June 19, 1991
Page 8
boardwalk through a Class A wetland with changes to staff's ,
conditions in bold.
1. There shall be no filling or dredging/grading permitted with '
in the wetlands.
3. The proposed drive trail shall be constructed at least 10 feet '
away from the wetland located in the southwest corner on
Outlot A.
5. 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 minimise disruption to the wetland.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves PUD Amendment #91-1 shown on plans dated
May 28, 1991, with a variance to the lot width requirement for Lot
1, Block 1 and the following conditions:
1. The PUD agreement will be drafted and recorded against the
property. 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 approval.
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 and Outlot 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. II
•
1
Ches Mar Trails
' June 19, 1991
Page 9
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.
i8. 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 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.
11. The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of Conditional
Use Permit #91-4 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1.
12. 'A tree preservation plan shall be submitted by the applicant
' for city approval for Lot 1, Block 1. •
13. A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the applicant
and shall reflect revised southerly lot line of Lot 3, the
' trail easement across Lot 1, Block 1, in accordance with Park
and Recreation Commission 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 Outlot A."
' "The City Council approves Comprehensive Plan Amendment #91-1
changing the Land Use Designation from Residential Medium Density
to Residential Low Density subject to the conditions of PUD
Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit."
"The City Council approves 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
another conditional use permit and wetland alteration permit.
I
Ches Mar Trails
June 19, 1991
Page 10
4. The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD .
amendment #91-1 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1.-" -
"The City Council approves 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:
1. There shall be no filling or dredging/grading permitted with 1
in the wetlands.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit from the Department of
Natural Resources for the permanent boardwalk.
3. The proposed trail shall be constructed at least 10 feet away
from the wetland located in the southwest corner on Outlot A.
4. The wetland shall be permitted to return to its natural state
after installation of the boardwalk.
•
5. 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.
6. The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD 1
Amendment #91-1 and Conditional Use Permit #91-4."
1
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. City Council minutes dated October 7, 1985.
2. Planning Commission minutes dated September 25, 1985.
3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated June 13, 1991.
4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated June 11, 1991.
5. Letter from applicant.
6. Application.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated June 19, 1991.
8. Plans dated May 28, 1991.
1
1
1
1
' Council Meeting, Octot. 7, 1985 \ -11-
Councilman Horn moved to approve the final plat for South Lotus Lake, Phase I .
I Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
I FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST. 3713- SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE,
This item CLIFFORD PEDERSEN:
em was approved at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting.
Therefore, no Council action is required.
1 4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CREATING FOUR LOTS CONTAINING MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
UNITS LOCATED ON PINE CIRCLE. GARY KIRT:
II Barb Dacy: One recommendation that I would like to point out is that we recommended
the lot line be as close to 2.5 acres as possible. Especially in the northwest
corner. This lot is shown as 2.4 acres. The surveyor has contacted me and said that
it may actually be 2.5 acres when they do the' final plat. This represents the recom-
' mendation of staff and Council .
Councilwoman Swenson: I have only one problem there. On the second recommendation
there should be no increased density. In looking at the structure of the lot, it
Iwould appear that, from past experience, it is not inconceivable that someone would
want to separate one of those in the future. I wonder if we could word this some way
so that would encompass the future as to opposed to just now. There should be nor
I increase density at any time. There is always somebody who is looking for some tech-
nicality that puts us in a difficult position down the road. I would welcome any
suggestions as far wording is concerned.
IICouncilman Geving: The only concern would be the multiple family unit. They are so
large and it seems to me that they could be split even further.
I Councilwoman Swenson: I wasn't so concered about the apartments as I was about the
actual lots and the subdivision of the lots.
I Mayor Hamilton: If they want to subdivide it a couple of years down the road that is
something we can 't decide today that they can't do 20 years from now.
Barb Dacy: If somebody does want to plat lot 3 onto lot 2, they do have the right to
Imake that rotation and a future Council could simply base their decision on the fact
that the increase in the structure is too intense for the intent of the district
itself. The Planning Commission is just trying to say that what is there now is
Iappropriate and that is it.
Councilman Geving: I would like to refer to the City Engineer's memo of December 5,
1984 particularly in terms of the street recommendations. Do you feel strongly
I about that , Bill? _
Barb Dacy: That has been implemented on the plat.
ICouncilman Geving: How about the private wells and septic systems?
I Bill Monk: There will be no change with that either because of the present:zoning
and the utility availability.
' , Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan
request 084-2 for Ches-Mar Farms including rezoning to P-1, Planned Residential
Development based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985."
Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor
II Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
II
a
Planning Commission Minutes II
September 25 , 1985 .
Page 2
II
PUBLIC HEARING II
7-X7 Planned Residential Development #84-2 Creating Four Lots Containing
Multiple Residential Units on Property Zoned R-la, Agricultural II
Residence , located on Pine Circle 1 Mile North of Tanadoona Drive,
West of and Adjacent to Hwy. 41 , Gary Kirt , applicant
Public Present II
Mary Sapa Camp Administrator - Camp Tanadoona
Dacy stated that the intent of the a pplicant 's request for a II
Planned Unit Development with rezoning to P-1 is to eliminate the
non-conforming status of the existing structures. She noted that
II
the P-1 District not only allows single family dwellings as a
permitted use, but also allows two family and multiple family
structures as a permitted use. She explained that a homeowner's I
association will be formed to maintain the private drive and
regulate other matters concerning the subdivision. She noted
" that platting the property will also allow the sale of individual
lots and structures as in other subdivisions. She stated that no II
additional development is proposed. She stated that by approving
the proposed request , the plat will eliminate a lengthy metes and
bounds legal description; the non-conforming status of existing
II
structures will be removed; and each structure will be indivi-
dually owned and maintained.
Mary Sapa of Camp Fire Girls and Boys, stated that they were con- 1
cerned that eventually this property would be made into even
smaller parcels and also sewer and water will come through and
they will be forced out of the area by increasing property
II
values.
Dacy stated that the site is located well out of the Urban I
Service Area. She stated that this site and the Tanadoona Camp
Fire Girls site are located to the south of it. She stated that
if and when sewer service would be made available, it would be
- after the year 2000 and even after then it is doubtful because II
the City's sewer capacity is regulated by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission and the Metropolitan Council. She stated that
as far as further subdivision into smaller lots. She stated that ,
21 acres is the minimum lot size in that area.
J. Thompson moved, seconded by Emmings, to close the public
II
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
J. Thompson stated that it was a solution to "cleaning up" the
situation . II
Conrad asked about justifications for approving this request and
its implications for future PUD's. I
Arran I
MIA F-�t1T s�
II • 1
Planning Commission Minutes
II September 25 , 1985
Page 3
Dacy stated that the Zoning Ordinance was established after these
structures were built. She stated that the lengthy legal
11 description will be eliminated, the non-conforming status of
these structures will be removed, and each structure would be
maintained better because of individual ownership. She stated
II that this is an existing situation which the city had no control
over when the buildings were constructed.
Noziska felt that a condition should be placed in the recommen-
' dation that stated that thera will be no increase in density.
Emmings moved, seconded by J. Thompson, that the Planning
1 Commission recommends approval of Preliminary and Final
Development Plan request #84-2 for Ches Mar Farms including
rezoning to P-1 , Planned Residential Development based on the
preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985" with the
Afollowing conditions:
1 . A homeowner' s association maintain Outlot A;
II2. There should be no increased density.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IISite Plan Review #85-7 for a 15 ;000 Square Foot
Manufacturing/Warehouse Facility on Property Zoned P-4, Planned
II Industrial Development District and Located in the Southwest
Corner of the Hwy. 5 and Park Drive Intersection, LSR Properties ,
applicant
IDacy stated that the applicant is requesting site plan approval
for Phase I construction of a 15,000 square foot production/storage
and office building for Lane Envelopes. She stated that the pro-
' posed site is located at the southwest corner of Park Drive and
Highway 5. She stated that the proposed driveways will be from
Park Drive and Park Court and that there is adequate separation
II from the intersections. She stated that the site plan provides
30 parking spaces for Phase I which is based on the ordinance
requirement of one space for each employee on the major shift.
She stated that the applicant is proposing a two foot berm along
; ' the perimeter of the parking areas adjacent to the road right-of-
ways. She also noted that along the top of the berms, the appli-
cant is proposing six Green Ash trees complimented by eight 5
I foot Austrian Pine trees which should provide adequate screening.
of the parking activities. She noted that the elevation of the -
area adjacent to the loading dock will rise two to four feet from
Ithe pavement of the loading area. She noted that the combination
of the fast growing vegetation and the rise in topography will
adequately screen loading activities. She also noted that all
areas of the site are designated for sodding except for the area
•
,
. .
CITYOF
lir 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ,
- (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612)937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
I
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician ���;.
�v v
DATE: June 13, 1991 II
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Ches Mar Trail II File No. 91-8 Land Use Review
Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Schoell & Madson
dated May 14, 1991, revised May 28, 1991, I offer the following II
comments:
1. The applicant will need to obtain a driveway access permit
from MnDOT for access off of State Highway No. 41. II
2 . Due to the topography, the proposed driveways will be fairly
steep. Slopes will range from zero to 16%. Typically, staff
II
recommends driveways be constructed in the 10% to 12% slope range.
3 . Plans do not propose any site grading at this time. It is
recommended that a development plan proposing house pad
location, elevation and septic sites be submitted for review
and approval prior to final platting. I
4. The proposed plat is outside the MUSA boundary; therefore,
municipal sewer and water service is not available.
II5 . On Lot 1, Block 1 the proposed driveway crosses an existing
ditch. The applicant shall be required to install a culvert
sized by a professional engineer to accommodate the II
anticipated flows.
6. Since there are no proposed public utilities, a development
contract may not be necessary. Conditions of approval may be
II
stipulated in the PUD Agreement.
7. The appropriate driveway easements should be conveyed over .
II
all of the lots to insure driveway rights for future
n residents .
ktm - 1
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
II
1
il
CITYOF
II , ,-,‘
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
'■.. r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
II TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner
IIFROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official (''/1,L„
DATE: June 11 , 1991
IISUBJ : Planning Case 91-1 PUD (Ches Mar Trails)
IThe following conditions should be included with the planned unit
development : -
1 . Demolition permits required for all demolition.
All buildings and foundations require a demolition permit .
Wells associated with the proposed demolition that will no
I longer be used must be abandoned by a licensed well
contractor , with proof of abandonment furnished to the
City. Septic systems associated with proposed demolition
must be abandoned by a licensed on-site sewer contractor .
I
Tanks must be pumped prior to abandonment . Furnish proof
of abandonment and pumping to the City. Applicant must
notify City of destination of the demolition debris . Dump
Isite must be approved.
2 . Identify existing on-site sewage treatment sites that will
I continue in use, if any.
The number of tanks, their size and location must be deter-
mined. Distribution trench locations and lengths must be
determined. It may be possible to use all or part of
II existing systems . Existing on-site sewage treatment sites
should be shown on the preliminary and final plats .
3 . Identify proposed on-site sewage treatment sites.
Two proposed sites , a primary and an alternate, for each
proposed dwelling must be identified and roped off. Sites
' must be determined by a licensed site evaluator. Each site
must be a minimum of 50 ' by 100 ' . A perc and boring should
be done on each site, with logs submitted to the City. The
site evaluator should submit a brief description of each
II proposed site detailing soils , topography, vegetation, pro-
posed type of system, and site limitations . Sites should
be shown on the preliminary and final plats . The City must
IIverify the acceptability of sites prior to final approval .
'1
B g g ' C D
_ 8S
IE
Q" ^a■-ms ��` /I T
�'■-"_•��I` �� � bd ''.��":Z�•_/alp ���r g∎_ ' 4 t r
■c Q�ar. W ..iii'- -41ii �.
�1. � �c !C` �I ji � » d��.y� ii 1
lUliflIthIfflhllib( �' :,, ., f} iI1
=rat' „s X=1:1'
� 'r4 Q! tit 969111
,@� ., ,3, a ^new,•. �r'.[:gii.! -r:! �i tir t��gea,"a n III "Fltal ,''1117 -':s'', am‘,.,,ii.„..,,,,.:3,,,,.,..„.,,,..„„,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,..,,..R...iii% i�K ; ��s 1 IFT. o ' i
1'i����' :+ice h},1,� < r a��
3t ,'
LAKE • � '., „ ','-_ r . N •�` ',;•z-o ' .! I .. d P
Y N E w A S T A , -a-.i' -{;..,-,-,;,..;,,,,,„-0-,... -.c.....:,....5,:'x _ .-,,,,,,,z-o- ilk.. , 40kitlio.
'11111----- MIN ri
\r�'. :ill, r T't\ I«f f. r.•R.?Z+: '� Q LAKE LUCY Ei!i!�'7
it\ +<; .1:: 4 L• I
r .r 4- t a '
• � 10 /90 , off,
�I
t LAKE ANNA
•
199 S I -=_ _-
_ . �`61DY , �,I. ����� '`:ice;: �.��:.;<:L-
C.N.L'.:�zti'S .'„Li.
. . it* lin •......,,t- ..cc,- :t:. t...1",..‘,
•Aci,11111::
IIIIIIMIIII
ILL_A N.
\t" , "'.'•-•• , .-::ifiii. , *s‘‘N‘,.\ .1r i a g'' .
1::::::-.7_--i-:_ZT-7.7;-_--:::::_:-_----:_-_---37E--_::::::,=.---:- :. .4 014,,i,,\ ‘ ,•'...."---- Ni \
i.- — 't':.-=._ ‘. k-')'/'.' .
n � .''�• . .��� ° '.cam I ! _I ��� . � ` .'"__-"====-= _ _ = E j ` 4` �t1B►'0 •
1 �� . ..�A. v
_ • \ / �`,•. •M,e�nfstti{,►vim fI`�`a
iro°I ! + yet,/�\�Y nit*
o ( i aloe- `\\ = - \ ?•
8800 ._. ..iA-lr• A 4,.� .
DRAFT \ ; PWAIIIIIIIiiiiirliV,ii3,c414..eico— Etec. "kg
Substation \r �'t�y :Y S�Sr j
1 r �: E �'
9000 y.. . -•
_. 110..
Craig T. Swaggert
2800 Stone Arch Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
Jo Ann Olson
City of Chanhassen
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Dear Jo Ann, _
As requested I am sending you a brief outline of our proposed
' changes of use at "Ches Mar Farms". Currently there are seven
living units there. Our proposal would reduce that number to no
more then four. The following are the major points of our proposal.
' * To reduce the number of units on lot four to no more then two
units.
* To remove the underground garage on lot four.
* To remove the existing out building on lot four.
* To replace the dwelling on lot three with a new house.
* To build a new house on lot one.
* To create a recreational beach lot (outlot A) .
1 * To create a new shared driveway off of Hwy 41 to service lots
one and three.
Our intent is to get this property as close to conforming use as
' is economically possible. We hope our plans will meet with City's
approval.
' Sincerely/I Aal
Craig g T. Swaggert
1 _
1
- ,
1
4 i
E
I-z;_-:--.-/-", ___,-,5:107.t,‘''') •\ 1 ,A, ' '-'774 1,1
• • - ! : :
,,--
• •' i , m_j-
,\:, '•- ,. -( / -•Ik. 8
. P v..
i 1 lat,
1 ,.1 1 :I; lig ;N. 41 1
; i E!I f • . .. 1 , \,,,4',II 4 ; I
1
. iiii ., i.,„ ),.:,...,..,.
r• ', . ,*...,.,, L le
1 i! 3 i 4k.-.-.-i • 1 . t f ,- r ;
- ..-• I FEEEt il
, .
'1-1 1 II
' "1 • 41E/, f ,
i"I '
I
,o,,- I
- ,:i., -
,
_-:
I
i R , Iil
i
1 t
i g
, • ..,
. •,..s., ,..7
I
■■I- ',, IP gl:
r- Iii 's•-•
0
I -1- `VII
, . ! In
I
1 II
pig
1, 111
Id
_.k.). Ili a 2 c I
2
M--.',•-• 11
-:.
ii
Cl) I
R E
30.
.1../
--i
....1 I ______
F• ------_-:
a/
' \--,"- --" ----,-.;,_ -. - -
....,.
if
/, ----1--•--.,----
f
I
' --..-- -• ....—.05---,--- r-
,U---)„ "■--- i -7" - 1
\\,, ,,...-'-'=•:---.-,,, 7,:,„ .. — I
- 2-- i .,t, -:-•:•-.-:' .
■
g
II 4--''
i.` Di
a t ', , 1 . . .^ ' •-'ts
iF_, . • --..-‘s, - •-.,..2.7e, ty '
1,\.-'i '. ::— /•,* •#
. ; . ri--VsS's i-'11 I ■ .:,,-.1 f—. ''
I
/ 1 t t t- -11!44 //',/` r•-•- .
t ' • • ''• .;':.-- -/-.._ I %L.
' i'l ' , • f• . !-- . i":•-- j.
,I6. ,, . / , : ‘-'.• • ,--. i r,
--- -441,. ,7,---z.-__,, ,-..:--,,,ic --. • \ i g
I
7 -----_4.&---7•--'
El! c
--„---„ /7/....t‘
.. _, b
- '-',A 2) , • 'J., -,-- .,_.
- ,
.,• to • - //-..-- ' , .
, • ,•-, i P •
• .e..W.IM,-'-11:i- _ e• i
, ...
....- ,v
f•-• • - ,,... • %.
,.,..,
•ai,-,;,-3-ii-t.i. ,
I
f rll
..,._ _, •
._,
; 411
.
t t_tt
-•
•4
4•
- 1 111
.1
8 Il
, 1
_ .
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE .
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' (612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: 6/41 G s GG� OWNER:AN d fi
�vest / fkkw6at,
' ADDRESS: O ,57-041E WOW 10 ADDRESS: mob STMe4/02i, 1R.0
1 ),4X A 1 i�ill 5 '-'9/ Gi 'z,a NA) T.57)9/
TELEPHONE (Day time) q7 9-- 904(5 TELEPHONE: 7 4// -/0T' R
1. v Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance
4. Interim Use Permit 14. `------Wetland Alteration Permit
5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal
6. I Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost
' 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees
9. Sign Plan Review
10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ 6 Qv
1
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
included with the application.
I I Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8W X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
si
1
PROJECT NAME a!1 G J X"0.9/9
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,
i
PRESENT ZONING LJQ
REQUESTED ZONING POD 074-49006q
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION 4i2r /27iX Eft /Y1f2D• ,eLc. <00
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information '
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying I
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further '
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge. I
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
-Xa/f•
Signature f Applican/ Date
I/Z s
Signature of Fee c;wnee Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
I
This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on
1
1
DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE
' O Comprehensive Plan Amendment L
a. $500
' b. $100 Moor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers
0 Conditional Use Permit •
a. RSF uses - -
b. All others - 10
' 3. Grading Permits
a. Under 50 cubic yards$0
• I b. 50-1000 cubic yards $50
c. Over 1000 cubic yards - processed
as IUP-use UBC
4. Interim Use Permit
a. RSF uses - $75
b. All Others - $400
5. Notification Signs
' $50 rental
$100 damage deposit
/6 Planned Unit Development
`.J a. Concept Plan $750 + $50/acre for combined application
includes a., b. & c.
b. Preliminary Development
Plan
tc. Final Development Plan
d. Amendment •
• Minor Amendment 1
Major Amendment - ame As PUD
' 7. Rezoning - $500
8. Sign Permit
a. Temporary - $35
b. Permanent - $50
I 9. Sign Plan Review $150
(if separate from site plan)
I
10. Site Plan Review
I
a. $250 + $10 per 1000 sq.ft. of building
area for commercial and industrial districts + $5 per dwelling unit in residential districts
1
b. Administrative Site Plan $100 •
11 Subdivision Ordinance I
a. Create less than 3 lots $150'
b. Create over 3 lots - 30'00 + $15/lot Li - I
/
c. Final Plat - .Included in one time fee � I
d. Metes and Bounds Division $150 + $50/lot over 3 lots
e. Consolidate lots - $100 w L
12. Vacation of ROW/Easements $100 -` 7
13. Variance - $75 0 I
14. Wetland Alteration Permit .
I
a. Single Family Residence
b. All other uses - . -.1
I
15. Zoning Appeal - $0
16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - $0 I
17. Filing Fees/Attorney Costs
a. Recording Documents $10 + County Fees I
b. Recording Plats & Related Documents
1) 1-3 lots $100 + County Fee
2) 4-10 lots $125 + County Fee
3) 11-30 lots $200 + County Fee
4) 31+ lots $350 + County Fee
I
•
. Attorney's time to ensure Cost billed back to applicant
I
proper drafting &documentation
18. Consultant Fees
• Consultants required by the Cost based upon prior written - I
City to review development proposal and agreement. Fees
proposals including but not placed in escrow.
I
limited to traffic and water
management issues
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 10
' Ellson 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
Ilocated 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
1 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.
I2 . The bed and breakfast establishment shall not contain more than five
rental units .
I3 . The structure shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code
requirements .
I 4 . The structure shall meet all requirements of the Minnesota Department
of Health .
ti S . Two off street parking spaces plus one additional space per rental room
must be provided .
6. There should be no more than one employee in addition to the residents .
II 7 . The bed and breakfast establishment must be owner occupied .
I 8 . A unit/room shall not be rented for more than 7 consecutive days to the
same person .
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHES MAR TRAILS , PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND RR, LOCATED ON HWY. 41 ,
' APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE NORTH OF WHY 5, CRAIG SWAGGERT:
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.
C. 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
rt ' Craig Swaggert 2800 Stone Arch Road , Wayzata
Walter & Melba Whitehill 7250 Hazeltine Blvd.
Geri Eikaas 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road
IGinger Gross 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 11
Jo Ann 02 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 I
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 glad to answer 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 .
Emmings : Are there any of those that you might want . . .or are they
acc ec tab] e. to you?
Craig Swcz.gert: 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: It would be? And what would the use be? Did you say what I
the use would be?
Olsen: It 's planned for the Year 2000-2010 and he couldn't tell me exactly II
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
plan I 've seen where I feel the proposer is really sincerely interested in
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
IJune 19 , 1891 - Page 12 .
I preserving Ches Mar Farm and it 's very nice to see finally . And if you .
look at what he 's proposing , it 's definitely not a get rich quick schema :
He 's going to make every thing that he 's doing better and they 've already
I started to do that . So anyway , I 'd like to encourage your approval but I
do have information on the roadway that we 're talking about . The way it 's
set up , the actual lease or ownership or whatever you call it of the
roadway goes with my mortgage and with my ownership of the last piece of
I land on the road . And on that it says , no lot owner may waive or otherwise
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?
I Geri Eikaas: Well this is what I got when I bought the property and it 's
called Declaration of Roadway . Thank you .
Emmings: I 'm assuming 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 mere fact that we 're fooling around with the zoning doesn't change
' any underlying agreements between the property owners . I 'm operating on
that assumption .
Olsen: It was my understanding that that easement still applies on the
Ifrontage road . We can add something to it but it 's already in the title .
Emmings: Yeah , I think that 's right .
IBatzli : They can always negotiate between each other .
IEmmings : Okay . Is there anybody else where who wants to address this?
Walter Whitehill : I am Walter Whitehill and I own the property just south
of thiE 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
to be the responsibility of the applicant to maintain that or not?
IEmmings: 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
Itake 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 end 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?
1
Plannincl Commission Meeting I
June 19 , 19 91 - Page 13
Walter Whitohill : 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 . I
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 1
is a co-applicant .
Walter Whitehill : Okay , the I think this should be amended. And the
application to grant the two people . In fact , there 's another owner or two 1
involved is there not? You were mentioning a couple other names I 'd never
heard cf the other day .
Olsen: Of owners? I
Craig SUl=.gger t : You mean Gary Kirt? I
Olsen: The only people I mentioned involved in this was Gary Kirt and
Craig . I might have mentioned Brad Johnson from the past?
Walter Whitehill : And then there was some lady 's name and I have no idea 1
who sh was?
Olsen: C:inaer Gross who lives adjacent to it? I
Emmings : Let ms butt in . Who signed the application here?
Olsen: The person that signed the application was Craig Swaggert . I
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 I
believe Jo Ann , Gary Kirt did sign the application.
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? . 1
r Emmings: Apparently so.
Walter Whitehill : Okay . And Gary owns 4? II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
IIJune 1c , 1991 - Page 14
Craig Swa?cjer' Yes he does .
Walter Whitehill : Okay . The next question and I guess most of these will
be directed to yo(' Gary . I haven 't had a chance to , I mean Swaggert . It
I
says acceptable septic sites . What do we have in the way of rules that say
a septic site is acceptable?
I Emmings: I don '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 .
II Walter Whitehill : Okay , I 'll talk to you then . Steve , what is an
acceptable septic site?
Emmings;: I have no idea . No , I don't know the exact specifics but I can
I tell you this because I was here when we put these rules in . We require
them to designate two septic sites and they do all their tests on those
sites ar.:: submit all the data to the City and it must be done by a
• licensed , a 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
1 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 . We also have very strict rules on how often these things have
to be pumped out now . They have to be pumped every 3 years . We 've really
II toughened up our ordinance on this because we were having problems with
systems failing ,so we had consultants come in from -the University of
Minnesota who told us how to properly maintain septic sites and I think
I we 've e_ t an outstanding 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 consultant , the site will be in such a way and a manner that it
won 't come dawn 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
Ifirst time they applied to build a number of houses up there .
Emmings: Yes. The answer is yes because the information we had from the
University of Minnesota , the people who came here and talked to us told us
I 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
in a set of rules that we think will make any septic sites that are put in
II 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?
. II
: I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1 1991 - Page 15 II
Emming_ : Nc.o , 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 increase anything . It 's just preserving the drainage as is .
I
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 us 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 .
WhitEhill : Then 1
Walter Whi :._ hi11 : Okay . hen I 've got no problem . I think it 's a great
idea . Thc'nh yon. .
Emr*inas: Okay . Thank you very much . Is there anybody else who wants to
II
address this? Ginger? .
Ginger Gross: Ginger Gross . I live at 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road. I agree II
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 I
with JD 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?
I
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 1
how many . Do you happen to know when that was amended? When that was
changed? 1
Olsen: Last year .
Ginger Gross: Okay . What 's the reasoning behind that? Why the change , do II
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
drives up to 4 lots . But what we did was have specifics on the design and II
the construction of that private drive so now we feel comfortable that what
•
II
11 _
Planning Cc•rrmission Meeting
ildune. 19 , 1991 - Page 16
II is rein; provided still will provide safe access . It still has to be
paved . It has to be a certain width acrd so it 's kind of like a small road .
Ginger Gross: Okay . Thank you . Another question . Do I get my right-of-
I way back? Now my road is , I now have what was a private road with 35 foot
of access on my property for the City . Now do I get that back?
IIEmmings : Is that an easement in favor of the City? •
• Olsen: Correct . On her north property line .
IIEmmings: Could she ask the City to vacate it? .
Olsen: Yeah , that 's something that we could look at .
IGinger Gross : That could be done?
I Emmings: It would be a separate issue . You 'd have to come and talk to the
Planning 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
that with this .
1 Ginger Gross: Alright , thank you . But I can address the City on that?
1 Emmings : Yeah . I think that 's something that the City Council would look
at directly . Not us .
1 Olsen: You don 't see it .
Ginger Gross: Who do I contact then , Jo Ann?
IEmmings: Jo Ann .
Ginger Gross: Okay , Jo Ann. Thank you very much.
. I 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
. siting of our proposed house is getting very close to the lot line . So can
II request that at this time?
Emmings : Well tell me , what is it that you 're proposing to do?
Craig Swaggert: To move , on Lot 3?
Emmings : Yeah .
Craig Swaggert: To move the southerly line to the south a little further .
Emmings: How far?
II .
•
Fla r,r:inj Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 17 1
Craig S:•j:.cot=rt : No 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
increasing the si=e of the lot and that would be something he could put . He
already needs to do another site plan for the septic and that could be
something 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
public hearing?
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in 1
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I tried to access this property . I found it difficult to
ac:ess . Four wheel drive . Boat . I wish , I would keep questions with
regard to the proposed beachlot . The dock , it talks about overnight
storage 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-L . 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 II
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
is cattails and wetlands .
Farmakes: But as I understand it , Minnewashta does not traditionally vary
that much? •
Emmings: Well it does .
Olsen: But the ordinary high water mark is established . I
Emmings: And what is that? What 's the elevation of the ordinary high
water mark for Lake Minnewashta? '
Olsen: It 's 944 .75 .
Emmings : No . I
I
' Plannin3 Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 Page 18
Olsen: The water elevation . -
Emmings: That 's the water elevation on May 24 , 1991 and the lake is as
high or higher , real high right now .
Olsen: Fright . Actually for Lake Minnetonka there isn 't an ordinary high
water mark . What they do is use the outlet from up in the northwest corner
and it 's 94S . It 's not showing up here .
Craig Swaggert : Mr . Chairman , may I address you on that issue?
Emminas: Sure .
Craig Swaggert : The 100 year high from the Corps of Engineers is whatever
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 you 'd like to know that exact number .
11 Emmings : Alright . But we in looking at , in evaluating these we go
primarily by the vegetation that 's there . Is that right?
Olsen: Yes .
Emmings : Even more so than just the elevations.
Olsen : Yeah , like with Lotus Lake . We didn 't use the OHW because our
w€tlarJ wz.s actually way beyond that . It just so happens that the , well
' what ;'o 'r- showing as the shoreline , I was assuming that that was the OHW .
But ma; bc,. I assumed wrong . But anyway , the wetland, we had them actually
stake out the edge of the wetland and that is shown .
' Farmakes: But that 's the inner circle? That 's the beginning of the
wetland?
IOlsen: 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
1 wetlands?
Olsen: Yes . That 's where the boardwalk will be . It will be a permanent
boardwalk .
Farmakes: 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
Iproportionately correct then? -
Olsen: Usually what it is is a temporary dock that 's out into the actual
Iwater .
Farmakes: 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 .
So my question would be where they would store that? It 's sort of natural .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1091 - Page 19
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 taken out a dock every year , I 'm kind of trying to figure '
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?
Olsen: That 's. the limit .
Farmakes: Because there potentially could be more requests than 3.
3
Emmings: That 's in the recreational beachlot ordinance .
Farmakes: Yeah , but it doesn't stop them from asking for that right?
Emmings: For asking for?
Farmakes : Asking for additional dockage .
Emmings : Yes it •does . They can have , with one beachlot you can have one II
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
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 .
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
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
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 r
lot of rolling country there. These grades, if this road is privately
maintained , are these roads going to be accessible to emergency vehicles?
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 20
Olsen: Well they have to be at least the 7% . Again , that 's what the
ordinance requires . Actually the private drives we don 't ,• they 're showing
' that they 'll be up to 10% and we usually recommend around 7% . 10% is still
accessible . And again , I don 't know if -I caught your , was that what your
questions 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
those acceptable to access emergency vehicles to a recreational beachlot •
when they need to . How do they?
• -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
' 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 10% grade which is
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 .
' Farmakes : 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
right nog:? Is that because they haven 't shown an appropriate septic site?
Olsen: Well also because , with the Ginger Gross subdivision that piece of
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
just 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
subdivision if you will?
Olsen: Yeah . So we do not want it be maintained as a buildable lot .
' Batzli : Okay . And if we did make it a lot right now , would that imply
that it was buildable?
Olsen: Yes . Yeah, we would have no way to prevent somebody from getting a
IIbuilding permit on there .
Batzli : Okay . You had indicated earlier that the applicant might have a
IIproblem with that . Something about a mortgage. That's not a problem?
Olsen: To combine the two into one lot. No, he agrees with it being an
outlot .
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 21
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? I
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 II
demolished .
Batzli : Why is it key that it 's vacated? So then once we approve it he
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 .
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.
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 II
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 II
units in there? Two people . Two families in there at the time of plat
approval , is that correct?
Olsen: Yes . '
Craig Swaggert: Yes , we fully intend to comply with that.
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 II
each of the lots but yeah, the cross easements .
Batzli : Okay . Then in number 7 , we 'll have an amendment by the Chairman II
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
1
I Planninq Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 Page 22
IIto minimize disruption of the wetland or have we been letting them do this
at any old time of year lately?
' Olsen : Yeah , actually they have to be; they cannot be installed during the
water foul breeding season is how it 's termed .
1 Batzli : But we 've been letting them do this during the summer?
Olsen: Yeah .
IIEmmings: You can't do it in the winter .
Batzli : I thought on a couple of them we made them go in in the winter or
Iwe put a condition .
Olsen: Well it 's easier . `I don 't know if it was in winter .
1 Batzli : Well I thought it was , we limited it to some time I thought .
II Ellson: I remember that too .
Emmings: We did something but it wasn 't docks because you couldn 't put the
posts down .
1 Olsen: It was the dredging . When you go in and dredge .
I Emmings: Yeah , I think all those involved some dredging projects when they
had to cross a wetland so we said you can only do i_t in the winter when
it 's frozen . •
: 1 Olsen: Yeah , then we do prefer it .
Emmings : 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.
Batzli : 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?
Olsen: No , that was us . We have that in our ordinance.
1 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 .
Ellson: 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 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
I somewhere? Or do we just take out 2?
•
I
= 1
Planrin; Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 23
Olsen: Right . Everything will be switched and at that time then I will
switch all th conditions . It just got to that point where how do I do II this through this report and do -it consistently so yeah, it will just be 3
lots , Outlot A and B .
Elison: Okay . Aid like you said, then you 'd go through and when you
referred to it as Lot 4 , it becomes 3 , etc .?
Olsen: Yes . ,
Elison: 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 II
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 ,
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 24
1
be a snowmobile trail at this time because it 's %so far out there . What I
I think we 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 %
that in . It just basically says a trail and that would be whatever the
I 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
that so I didn 't want him to think it never would be . It might . But I
1 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 acid 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
require under our subdivision ordinance , for people looking ahead to
II when Out-lot 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
15 ,000 square feet .
IIBatzli : If there was sewer maybe . Is that what you mean?
=1 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
right? But not only is that only 185 feet here but you 've got to have a
I 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?
II , Olsen: 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 .
IIEmmings: To have a city street in there?
IOlsen: Yeah .
Emmings: I agree with Annette that it's very confusing reading the lot
numbers and the outlot B 's and all that . That 's going to have to be done
I 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?
ICraig Swaggert: Yes I have . We do have access to the highway. We do not
have it , it 's a controlled access highway '.:- nd we do not have access at the
point where we show the driveway . We're requesting that MnDot move the
Icontrolled 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
the grade is so steep there that as you can see on the topographical lines ,
1
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
accesa 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 roads 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 I
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 bell
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
existin2 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 II
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.
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? _ I
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
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 26
I
Kraus: : Yeah , if you want to do a date , 3 months . 6 months after the plat
Iis file -! , 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 � , 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 .
IIEmmings: what if we put in 6 months after final plat approval? Do you
have a problem with that?
Craig Swaggert : That 'd be very acceptable to me . Very acceptable .
I Emmings: Then I think it should do that . I think we should add to number
8 .
Batzli : I was going to suggest that we wouldn't issue any building permits
Iuntil it wa_ demolished .
Emmings: But he may never need one for 4 if he converts it to a duplex .
IIBatzli : But he 'll need it for 1 .
IEnimi n`Y_: Oh , you wouldn't issue any?
Batzli : Any . On the whole thing . Well , if he agrees to 6 months .
I Emmings: 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
' 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?
II Olsen: Correct .
Emmings: From that point on they can do what? Whatever they want?
IOlsen: 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
IPUD . 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
house is on fire and we can 't get a fire truck down to it , are we concerned
about making sure we can?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 27
Olsen: Sure , yeah . We 're always more comfortable if we have a condition
in these that it has to be maintained and a passable condition . We do that II
with like any fire lane or emergency access .
Emmings: To make this safer should there be some kind of a turn around at II
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 . ,
Emmings-: .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
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 II
and passable?
Emmings: Fine .
1
IPlanning Commission Meeting
Jun( 1 ? , 19r'1 - Page 28
Olsen: We always , when we do those kind of conditions we add .always add Okay .
Y 0 y .
I Emmings : 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
setbacks . Is it real obvious that that means that that sixplex gets torn
1 down?
Olsen: Well it wasn 't clear whether or not they were actually going to
II 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 .
I Emmings: 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
dwelling on it if he doesn 't use the old one but I want it real clear that
IIthat one gets torn down if they build a new house on 4 is all I 'm saying .
Olsen: Okay .
IEmmings: So I guess I would say if a new residence is constructed on Lot
4 , Block 1 .
1 Olsen: Or a new residence replaces the existing?
Emmings : No , is constructed because it 's new. Then all other buildings
I 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 .
1 Batzli : All other existing buildings on Lot 4 .
Emmings : On Lot 4 . Then we 'd add a tree removal plan as a 12th item . You
I brought 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
Park and Rec . Now that 's all I 've got. I was up there today and the place
1 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
dumpsters and it was a mess and I was going to put something in about that
I 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
I don't see it .
1 Olsen: Well what I was doing , I measured the shoreline where the open
water is .
IEmmings: 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 .
1
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 19 , 1991 - Page 29
Olsen: Well , one is where the ordinary high water mark is and where is the
wetland . T'r;c other one is the shoreline where it 's actual open water . I
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
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: Real 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 II
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 .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 30
Emmings : I thought so but I couldn 't remember for sure . If you remember
'
that , it 's good enough for me . And then number 1 it says there be no
filling or 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%
grading and dredging are the same thing but I would add that word to make
' sure . The proposed driveway has to be 10 feet away from the wetland I just
wonder how we came up with that number . We 're talking I take it about the
little wetland in the corner of Outlot A?
Olsen: Right .
•
' Emmings : Why not 20?
Olsen: Well , why not .
Emmings: Huh?
Olsen: Yeah . The more the better . I just picked, the minimal , at the
least 10 feet would give 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 .
Olsen: Actually you could swing it around so yeah .
IIEmmings : 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 .
1 Emmings : I don 't think we do .
Olsen: You can 't launch boats and you can't drive , where is it?
Emmings: Yeah , number 3 . No boat , trailer or motor vehicle , including but
not limited to cars , trucks , motorcycles , all terrain vehicles ,
1 snowmobiles , minibikes shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational
beachlot . Okay . So what 's the road for? Why do we need a road at all?
Olsen: Well , I 'm sure they 're going to use it to.
I Emmings: What? Do something improper .
Farmakes: I would think it 'd be an emergency access if somebody needed it .
Ellson: Injury or something.
Farmakes: If somebody got injured .
Emmings: Yeah but you know what 's going to happen? There 's going to be
cars parked down there .
Olsen: That 's true . That should be removed and just have it as a trail .
Planning= Commission Meeting
II
June 19 , 1991 - Page 31
II
EmmingF : 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
II
eliminiates 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 I
now that have roads down onto them and people park down there all the time
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
II
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 II dwelling units with access . Now nobody outside the PUD can have access or
use of a beachlot . Is that correct?
Olsen: That 's correct . Actually we were going to have a condition that
II
just Lot 1 and 3 would have access to it .
Emmings: Why not Lot 4? II
Ellson: So 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 II
those were 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 . II
Craig Swaggert: I guess that is what I told Jo Ann . I would prefer not toll
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 1
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 II
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. II
Emmings: Yeah but do you know what? He might not have the right to use II the recreational beachlot because he 's back a couple thousand feet .
Olsen: He meets the existing.
Emmings: So what? II
Ellson: He 's grandfathered. I
Olsen: Yeah , I would think that he 'd be grandfathered in . That he has the
right to continue .
II
IPlannin Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 32
Errmi n2s: Okay . I don 't know but it 's something I think he ought to b
9 E
aware 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 butit 's only going to go up . Once
you get to the 1 ,000 feet , you can only have a few more lots on it because
' you 're you know a -ther 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 .
Batzli : As a PUD , can we grant variances in that regard for beachlots as
part of a PUD?
Olsen: You mean if they would come in again?
Batzli : I don 't know .
tOlsen: You mean in the future?
Emmings: The question is whether you would want to . If we decided not to .
I Batzli : But that issue would be crossed when they came back in to develop
that Outlot B as part of an amendment to the PUD .
' Emmings: 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?
I Batzli : 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 ,
variance to the lot width requirement for lot width requirement for Lot 1 ,
Block 1 with the following conditions . The 11 listed in the staff report
I with the following changes . In condition 5 , at the end of the sentence
include , and recorded against such properties . The driveway must be
constructed so as to accommodate emergency vehicles and must be maintained
I in good passable condition . In condition 6 , after the word engineer in the
second line insert , and approved by City Engineers prior to construction.
Is that where you wanted that to go Steve?
IEmmings: Yeah .
Batzli : Okay . Number 7 . Add a parenthetical at the end of the sentence ,
I ( 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
to be razed shall be completed within 6 months of final plat approval . At
I 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 .
' Emmings: She said a tree. removal instead of tree preservation .
Batzli : Well is it called a tree removal or tree preservation?
IKrauss: We 'd like to access the positive .
•
1
•
Pl•ennir,g Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1891 - Page 33
•
Batzli : New one 13 . Revised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the
applicant shall 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 Outlot A . A barrier
shall be erected over the driveway at the lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot il
A to keep vehicles from driving or parking on the Outlot 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 .
The PUD agreement will contain all conditions of approval for the PUD . I
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
approval .
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
and Outlot A and recorded against such properties. The driveway must I
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 I
plat approval .
9 . A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted showing all existing and '
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 I
required setbacks . All other existing buildings on Lot 4 must be
razed.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
Jung, 1C , 1991 - Page 34
11 . The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of Conditional Use
Permit #91-4 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1 .
I12. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted by the applicant for city
approval .
13. Revised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the applicant shall
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 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 uniimously. °
Emmings : Next we need a motion on the Comprehensive Plan amendment .
Ellson: We didn 't have any changes in this one did we?
IEmmings: No .
Ellson: Okay , I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
I Conditional Use Permit #91-4 for a recreational beachlot on Outlot A as
shown on the plans dated May 28 , 1991 .
' Batzli : That 's okay . We can do it out of order .
Emmings: You said 91-4 .
Batzli : That 's because she was doing .
Ellson: Oh , you 're right . I would would to change that and say 91-1 .
I Changing the Land Use Designation from residential medium density to
residential low density . Is that what you want me to do?
Emmings: Just hold on . Ours are different here . Oh, okay . I see where I
screwed up .
Batzli : You screwed up?
IEmmings: Yeah . I was looking at this one.
•
Ellson: Do we have it right now or don't we?
Emmings: Which one did you read?
IOlsen: She was doing recreational beachlot .
Ellson: I started with that one and then you got me confused.
Emmings: Alright , make your motion over and I will not interfere this
time .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 35
Ellson: Which one do you want me to work on right now?
Emmings: Whichever one you like . This is next in line . '
Elison: Okay . 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 .
Elison 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 II
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Emmings: Next we 're on a conditional use permit for recreational beachlot . I
Is there a motion?
Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional
Use Permit #91-4 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 .
Emmings: They 're included by cross reference.
Batzli : Okay . With the four conditions set forth in the staff report .
Ellson: Second. '
Batzli moved, Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
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 another conditional use permit and
wetland alteration permit.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
IlJune 19 , 1991 - Page 36
I 4 . The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD Amendment
#91-1 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1 .
1 All 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
Class A wetland as set forth on the plans received by the City dated May
il28 , 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
insert a dredging/grading . In number 5 I would add at the end of that
1 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 .
'1 Emmings: 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 .
I2 . 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.
,YI 5 . 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
I disruption to the wetland.
6 . The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD Amendment
#91-1 and Conditional Use Permit #91-C".
IAll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I
1