9. Zoning Ordinance to create a Bluff Line Protection Ordinance CITYOF
.01;" CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,
MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
Action by City Mri1r r'w,
Edo.mv.✓ L
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager er:=---
' FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 4 '
DATE: September 19, 1991
SUBJ: Zonin g Ordinance Amendment to Create a Bluff Line
Protection Ordinance, First Reading
' BACKGROUND
The City has been observing alterations to our bluff areas in the
form of tree removal, indiscriminate fillingjgrading and damage
from erosion. These alterations -,impact scenic vistas, water
quality and loss of property :through erosion. Staff has been
t trying, with limited success, to eliminate these problems through
our grading and tree removal regulations. After continuing to see
more destruction of the bluff area, the city and staff felt we
should look at the bluff area as a whole system rather than in a
piece meal fashion. An ordinance creating a bluff district which
would be protected by specific regulations was drafted. The
' purpose of the ordinance is to define and map our significant bluff
areas and prevent its destruction from clearcutting, filling,
grading and erosion. The ordinance will preserve a valuable
resource of the residents along the bluff, the city and region.
' On April 3, 1991, the Planning Commissionreviewed a proposal by
staff.to create a bluff protection district ordinance. The general
standards submitted by staff were from the new DNR shoreland
regulations. The Planning Commission, for the most part, was in
favor of such an ordinance. Commissioner Erhart felt that the
' ordinance may be too extreme in protecting areas within the city
that should be permitted to be developed. The Planning Commission
directed staff to further work on the proposed ordinance.
:..
After the Planning Commission meeting, staff met with Commissioner
Erhart and Rick Sathre of Sathre Bergquist to review just how
extensive the DNR regulations are and if there are areas within the
city that would be impacted that should not be regulated. It was
determined that the proposed regulations did in fact go beyond what
the intent of the city may be and it was then decided that a bluff
to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
11
Bluff Line Preservation Ordinance
September 19, 1991
Page 2
protection ordinance should be designed specifically for the
Minnesota River Valley and Bluff Creek area in the city.
Staff has had the Engineering Department denote the bluff areas on
aerial maps. It is staff's intention to formally adopt a bluff
line map and that those, areas designated on the map will be
' protected by the new bluff protection ordinance. The ordinance
will regulate only those areas designated on the map. Staff has
notified the property owners affected by the ordinance and has
invited them to the public hearing on June 19, 1991.
The draft ordinance has been changed to include exemptions for
existing structures, create an official map, setbacks from the toe
of the bluff, requirement for an earth work permit and protection
of existing drainage patterns. The DNR has submitted a revised
definition of top and toe of the bluff. This revision addresses
' the concern that the first definition resulted in more than a 30
foot setback from the actual top of the bluff. Staff has added the
revised definitions to the ordinance.
Staff 'feels that the bluff protection ordinance will be very
beneficial to the city to prevent past problems from occurring.
The bluff protection ordinance will help prevent the destruction of
the bluff line such that has occurred on the Mike Sorenson property
located on Hwy. 212 (clearing and grading) and on the Halla Nursery
site (indiscriminate filling of a bluff valley) .
' On June 19, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the Bluff Protection Ordinance (attached) . Residents affected by
the ordinance attended the meeting. The main concern of the
residents was what exactly did the ordinance say, how would it
affect their existing homes and could vacant bluff lots be
developed and/or subdivided. After hearing comments from the
' public, the Planning Commission made some minor changes to the
ordinance and recommended tabling action until the affected
property owners were sent a letter explaining the ordinance and a
copy of the ordinance.
On July 17, 1991, a letter and a copy of the ordinance was sent to
affected property owners (attached) . Staff received relatively few
' calls in response to the letter. Again, the main concern was how
the ordinance would affect undeveloped property. In one case, the
ordinance could prohibit the owner from building his home where he
' wants it to be located. The owner was asked to attend the August
12, 1991, meeting to express his concerns. Almost all of the calls
staff received were in support of the ordinance.
' Staff worked with the Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR) , Soil Conservation Service (SCS) , and the
Metropolitan Council on ways to resolve existing erosion problems
I
Bluff Line Preservation Ordinance
September 19, 1991
Page 3
on the bluff line. Staff sent these groups a copy of the ordinance
for their comments. The ordinance was also sent to Orlin Schafer,
Carver County Assessor, for his comments.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Bluff Protection Ordinance on
August 21, 1991 (attached) . The Planning Commission recommended
tabling action on the ordinance until additional corrections could
be made. The additions to the ordinance include comments from the
Soil and Water Conservation District and the Riley Purgatory Bluff
Creek Watershed District. The comments focused on protection of
vegetative cover and maintaining soil stability. More guidance was
given to removal of vegetation for visibility. Specific
regulations on the amount or area of vegetative removal were not
provided since it will almost have to be enforced on a case by case
basis. The City Attorney added Section 20-1407 on reconstruction
of lawful nonconforming structures. The Planning Commission also
wanted to visit one site that was discussed during the meeting
where the Bluff Protection Ordinance would limit where the property
owner could locate a home.
On August 27, 1991, the Planning Commission, staff and the property 1
owner met at a site located in the Hesse Farm subdivision to see
how the Bluff Protection Ordinance would affect the lot. It
appears that the requirements of the ordinance would result in the
property owner having to receive a variance to the regulations to
locate the home where he wishes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1
At the September 4, 1991, meeting, the Planning Commission again
considered the creation of a bluff line protection ordinance. 1
Several members who were present at the Hesse Farm site indicated
that they were very comfortable with the ordinance. They believed
that the ordinance would appropriately restrict building on the
bluff portion of the lot that was visited. The ordinance was
recommended for approval unanimously.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of the
Bluff Line Preservation Ordinance and of the Official Bluff Line
Map.
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Bluff Line Preservation Ordinance.
2. Planning commission minutes dated September 4, 1991.
3. Memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated August 28, 1991.
4 . Memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated August 13, 1991.
5. Planning Commission minutes dated August 21, 1991.
1
11
Bluff Line Preservation Ordinance
September 19, 1991
Page 4
' 6. List of property owners and letter sent.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated June 19, 1991.
' 8. Memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated June 11, 1991.
9. Planning Commission minutes dated April 3, 1991.
11
I
1
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Section 20-1, Definitions is hereby amended by
adding the following:
Bluff. Bluff means a natural topographic feature such as a
hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics:
(1) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the
bluff; and
(2) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a
point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff slepe
averages 30% or greater.
(3) An area with an average slope of less than 18% over a
distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part
of the bluff.
Bluff Impact Zone. Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land
located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.
Inte..3ivc Vegetation Clearing. Intcnoivc Vegetation clearing
means the complete removal of trce3 or 3hruba existing
vegetative cover in such a manner as to expose the soil to air
and water erosion
Toe of the bluff. Toe of the bluff means the point on a bluff
where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable
break in the slope, from gcntler flatter to steeper slope
above. If no break in the slope is apparent, the toe of the
bluff shall be determined to be the lower end of a 50 foot
segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope
exceeding 18%.
Top of the bluff. Top of the bluff means the point on a bluff
where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable
break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If
no break in the slope is apparent, the top of the bluff shall
be determined to be the upper end of a 50 foot segment,
measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18%.
Section 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is`amended
by adding Article XXVIII to read as follows:
I
IIARTICLE XXVIII.
BLUFF PROTECTION
Section 20-1400. Statement of Intent.
' Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities
within the bluff impact zone may result in increased dangers of
erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby
endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the
' health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City. To
preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the City,
alteration to the bluff impact zone land or vegetation within will
' not be permitted except as regulated by this Article and by the
regulations of the underlying zoning district where the property is
located.
' Section 20-1401. Structure Setbacks.
(1) Structures, including but not limited to decks and
accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are
prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top
of the bluff and toe of the bluff at least thirty (30)
I feet.
(2) On parcels of land on which a building has already been
constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of
the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever
is more, for additions to an existing building. Any new
buildings will have to meet the 30 foot setback.
' Section 20-1402. Stairways, Lifts and Landings.
Stairways and lifts shall be used for access up and down
' bluffs may be permitted in suitable sites where construction will
not redirect water flow direction and/or increase drainage
velocity. Major topographic alterations are prohibited. Stairways
and lifts must receive an earth work permit and must meet the
following design requirements:
(1) Stairways and lifts may not exceed four (4) feet in width
' on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for
commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
' (2) Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots may
not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Landings
' larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for
commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
I
2
I
•
(3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or
landings.
(4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed
above the ground on posts or placed into the ground,
provided they are designed and built in a manner that
ensures control of soil erosion. '
(5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most
visually inconspicuous portions of lots.
(6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for
physically handicapped persons are also allowed, provided
that the dimensional and performance standards of sub-
items (1) to (5) are complied with.
Section 20-1403. Removal or Alteration of Vegetation.
Removal or alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone
is prohibited except for -(4)- limited clearing of
trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees I
eliowcd to provide a view from the principal dwelling site and to
accommodate the placement of stairways and landings and access
paths. I
Removal or alteration of vegetation must receive prior
approval of the Planning Director or designee. An on site review
will be made to determine if the removal or alteration of
vegetation will require new ground cover. In no case shall clear
cutting be permitted. City staff will work with the property owner
to develop a mean of creating a view while minimizing disturbance
to the bluff impact zone.
Section 20-1404. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. ,
An earth work permit will be required for the movement of more
than ten (10) cubic yards of material within bluff impact zones.
The permit shall be granted if the proposed alteration does not
adversely affect the bluff impact zone or other property.
Topographic alterations/grading and filling within the bluff impact
zone shall not be permitted to increase the rate of drainage. The
drainage from property within the bluff impact zone may not be
redirected without a permit from the City. Fill or excavated
material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones. '
Section 20-1405. Roads, Driveways and Parking Areas.
Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure I
setbacks and must not be placed within bluff impact zones when
other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no
alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must
be designed to minimize not cause adverse impacts.
3
I
11
1 Section 20-1406. Official Map.
This Article shall apply only to the bluff impact zones
located on the official bluff impact zone map dated June 1, 1991,
as amended from time to time, which is incorporated herein by
reference and which is on file with the City Clerk. The official
map may be administratively changed by the Planning Director based
' upon the submittal of topographic survey data prepared by a
registered engineer or surveyor.
I .'
Section 20-1407. Reconstruction of Lawful Nonconforming
Structures.
Lawful nonconforming structures that have been damaged or
destroyed may be reconstructed provided that it is reconstructed
within one year following its damage or destruction and provided
the nonconformity is not materially increased.
' Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1991.
' ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
' (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1991. )
I
4
Planning Commission Meeting I
September 4 , 1991 - Page 18
Emmings: Yeah. I think they'll have to take care of that between now and I
the City Council meeting. Thank you for bringing that up.
Erhart: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Rezoning #91-9 for property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate to RR, Rural
Residential District with the 11 subdivisions listed in the report.
Emmings: I see 10 .
Erhart: Okay , yeah. There 's 10. 1
Emmings: I 'll second it . Is there any discussion?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1
approval of Rezoning #91-9 for property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate to
RR, Rural Residential District for the following Subdivisions:
1 . Timberwood Estates
2. Sun Ridge Addition
3 . Country Hills
4 . Pioneer Hills
5 . Lake Riley Woods North
6. Riley Lake Meadows
7 . Deerbrook
8 . Hesse Farms
9 . West 96th Street Area
10. Jeurissen Addition '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: This will go to City Council when? ,
Olsen: 23rd .
Emmings: September 23rd and follow the issue there. Our action is not a
final action . It 's a recommendation to the City Council and you have every
right to politic all you want between now and then with those folks . They II
will make the final decision.
PUBLIC HEARING: II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SECTION TO
THE CITY CODE.
Chairman Emmings waived the staff report and called the public hearing to II
order .
Emmings: I wasn't able to make it to the visit to this property out on
Hesse Farms . Did anyone who was here go?
Olsen: Tim and Jeff did.
Emmings: Okay , what did you guys see out there?
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IISeptember 4 , 1991 - Page 19
1 Erhart: A lot of trees . What 'd we see? What we saw was a lot that the
person purchased that 's between two existing very nice homes. The lot
itself did not have the view that the other homes had because it faced into
a ravine and therefore the home , the lot owner wanted to build the house
further down the slope on a ridge that went down and over to the right . It
certainly structurally could be done and it would afford him a very nice
view and a yard further down on that ridge . On the other side , the house
I would have been right in the view of a lot of other homes looking down on
it . It would have been quite visible I think it a lot of other homes .
Certainly acutely to those two homes . Quite visible to a lot of other
II homes all along the bluff and if you go around to the other , I drove around
through the other side of Hesse Farms on the east side and my analysis was
that all of the homes were built up and off the bluff. And it's hard to
I tell and I might be wrong if there 's any actually built down into the bluff
area like that one that we're discussing that one. The analysis that I
have of it is that if you 're going to have this ordinance, then the
ordinance , if this ordinance doesn't prevent that house from being built
I there, then there isn 't a lot of sense to have the ordinance. I 'm not
saying that the ordinance is desireable or not. If we're going to have
this ordinance , that house . . .then not much has been accomplished.
IFarmakes: It was a perfect thing to go to. For me it was just what that
ordinance would prevent . I guess I was surprised by how little, as far as
II planning in purchasing that lot work had been done on his part to really
fared out whether or not he could build a home there . You 're saying it
would be possible for him to build out in that area but he 's done no soil
testing . He 's done no, as far as general conversation with him, he 's done
II no work with engineers or inquired as to whether or not how feasible it
would be to build a home down there . I 'm not an engineer but it would
certainly be a difficult operation to put in a house down there I think
' just logistically anyway . But it also seemed to be in an area that this
ordinance , this whole intent would be to stop.
Emmings: Okay . It didn't make you feel bad about the ordinance I take it?
IIErhart: It did what I wanted it to do . I wanted to have the viewing
because I still had some concern about the ordinance . It's not what I
II intended when we started this bluff preservation talk here 3-4 years ago.
Obviously I 'm going after the commercial area and this is the first thing
that got on the agenda so I 've had some doubts about it but I think after
Ihaving gone out there I feel better about the ordinance .
Emmings: Okay. This is a public hearing and are there any members of the
public hear that want to address this? Nobody 's talking.
IConrad moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
IEmmings: Other comments. Tim, do you have anything further you want to
say?
IErhart: No .
Emmings: Ladd?
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 4 , 1991 Page 20
Conrad: No . 1
Emmings: Jeff? 1
Farmakes: No .
Emmings: Me either . Is there a motion? 1
Erhart: Now we know why we have seven people on the Planning Commission .
Emmings: Huh? 1
Erhart: So you can get motions . That's why they have seven people on the
Planning Commission is so they get motions fast .
Conrad: I recommend approval .
Erhart: Where are we?
Emmings: It 's on the first page . 1
Conrad: I know but there 's nothing .
Olsen: Because there 's so many different sections we just , you can just
say recommend approval of the bluff protection ordinance I think will
suffice .
Conrad: Okay, recommend approval of the bluff protection ordinance as 1
found in the staff report dated August 28th.
Erhart: I 'll second it . 1
Emmings: Alright , is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Bluff Protection Ordinance as presented by staff in the
staff report dated August 28, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING
REZONING OF 90 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO II
PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE 10 INDUSTRIAL LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE. ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD.
RYAN CONSTRUCTION. 1
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Kent Carlson Ryan Construction
Brook Lillestol 8460 Bittern Court
Rick Allerdings 8461 Cittern Court
Jeff & Ann Kullberg 8480 Bittern Court
Mike & JoAnna Adler 8470 Bittern Court
11
-1 / - 7
i CITY OF ./7
CHANHASSEN
' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ��
DATE: August 28, 1991
SUBJ: Bluff Ordinance
' The Planning Commission reviewed the Bluff Protection Ordinance on
August 21, 1991 (Attachment #2) . The Planning Commission
recommended tabling action on the ordinance until additional
corrections could be made. The additions to the ordinance include
' comments from the Soil and Water Conservation District and the
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The comments
focused on protection of vegetative cover and maintaining soil
' stability. More guidance was given to removal of vegetation for
visibility. Specific regulations on the amount or area of
vegetative removal were not provided since it will almost have to
be enforced on a case by case basis. The City Attorney added
' Section 20-1407 on reconstruction of lawful nonconforming
structures. The Planning Commission also wanted to visit one site
that was discussed during the meeting where the Bluff Protection
' Ordinance would limit where the property owner could locate a home.
On August 27, 1991, the Planning Commission, staff and the property
' owner met at a site located in the Hesse Farm subdivision to see
how the Bluff Protection Ordinance would affect the lot. It
appears that the requirements of the ordinance would result in the
property owner having to receive a variance to the regulations to
' locate the home where he wishes.
RECOMMENDATION
iStaff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Bluff
Protection Ordinance.
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Bluff Protection Ordinance.
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 21, 1991.
i
�4u PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1
DATE: August 13, 1991
SUBJ: Bluff Protection Ordinance 1
On June 19, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 1
the Bluff Protection Ordinance (Attachment #2) . Residents affected
by the ordinance attended the meeting. The main concern of the
residents was what exactly did the ordinance say, how would it
affect their existing homes and could vacant bluff lots be
developed and/or subdivided. After hearing• comments from the
public, the Planning Commission made some minor changes to the
ordinance and recommended tabling action until the affected
property owners were sent a letter explaining the ordinance and a
copy of the ordinance.
On July 17, 1991, a letter and a copy of the ordinance was sent to
affected property owners (Attachment #3) . Staff has received very
few calls in response to the letter. Again, the main concern was
how the ordinance would affect undeveloped property. In one case,
the ordinance could prohibit the owner from building his home where
he wants it to be located. I have asked the owner to attend the
August 12, 1991, meeting to express his concerns. Almost all of
the calls were in support of the ordinance.
Staff has been working with the Watershed District, Board of Water 1
and Soil Resources (BWSR) , Soil Conservation Service (SCS) , and the
Metropolitan Council on ways to resolve existing erosion problems
on the bluff line. Staff has sent these groups a copy of the
ordinance for their comments. The ordinance has also been sent
Orlin Schafer, Carver County Assesor, for his comments. Staff
hopes to have comments back in time for the Planning Commission
meeting.
1
.s 1
It. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I Planning Commission
August 13, 1991
Page 2
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
' motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to
' the City Code' concerning bluff protection as shown on Attachment
#1. "
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Bluff Protection Ordinance.
2. Planning Commission minutes dated June 19, 1991.
' 3 . Letter to affected property owners.
4 . Planning report dated June 11, 1991.
1
I
1
i
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: I
Section 1. Section 20-1, Definitions is hereby amended by
adding the following:
Bluff. Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill,
cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics: '
(1) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the
bluff; and '
(2) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a
point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff slope
averages 30% or greater.
(3) An area with an average slope of less than 18% over a
distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part
of the bluff. -
Bluff Impact Zone. Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land
located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.
Intensive Vegetation Clearing. Intensive vegetation clearing
means the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous
patch, strip, row or block.
Toe of the bluff. Toe of the bluff means the point on a bluff
where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable
break in the slope, from gentler to steeper slope above. If
no break in the slope is apparent, the toe of the bluff shall
be determined to be the lower end of a 50 foot segment,
measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18%.
Top of the bluff. Top of the bluff means the point on a bluff '
where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable
break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If
no break in the slope is apparent, the top of the bluff shall
be determined to be the upper end of a 50 foot segment,
measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18%.
Section 2 . Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended ,
by adding Article XXVIII to read as follows:
i
i`
ARTICLE XXVIII.
BLUFF PROTECTION
Section 20-1400. Statement of Intent.
' Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities
within the bluff impact zone may result in increased dangers of
' erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby
endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the
health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City. To
preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the City,
' alteration to the bluff impact zone will not be permitted except as
regulated by this Article and by the regulations of the underlying
zoning district where the property is located.
' Section 20-1401. Structure Setbacks.
(1) Structures, including but not limited to decks and
accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are
prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top
of the bluff and toe of the bluff at least thirty (30)
' feet.
(2) On parcels of land on which a building has already been
constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of
the bluff is five (5) feet.
Section 20-1402. Stairways, Lifts and Landings.
Stairways and lifts shall be used for access up and down
bluffs. Major topographic alterations are prohibited. Stairways
and lifts must meet the following design requirements:
(1) Stairways and lifts may not exceed four (4) feet in width
' on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for
commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
' (2) Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots may
not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Landings
larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for
' commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
(3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or
landings.
(4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed
' above the ground on posts or placed into the ground,
provided they are designed and built in a manner that
ensures control of soil erosion.
1 2
i
1
(5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most
visually inconspicuous portions of lots.
(6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for
physically handicapped persons are also allowed, provided
that the dimensional and performance standards of sub-
items (1) to (5) are complied with. I
Section 20-1403. Removal or Alteration of Vegetation.
Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed within a bluff ,
impact zone subjcct to the following standards is prohibited except
for the following:
(1) Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning
and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view from
the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the
placement of stairways and landings and access paths.
Section 20-1404. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling.
Topographic alterations/grading and filling within the bluff
impact zone shall not be permitted to increase the rate of
drainage. The drainage from property within the bluff impact zone I
may not be redirected without a permit from the City. The permit
shall be granted if the proposed alteration does not adversely
affect the bluff impact zone or other property. An earth work 11 permit will be required for the movement of more than ten (10)
cubic yards of material within bluff impact zones. Fill or
excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones.
Section 20-1405. Roads, Driveways and Parking Areas.
Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure
setbacks and must not be placed within bluff impact zones when
other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no
alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must
be designed to minimize adverse impacts.
Section 12-1406. Official Map.
This Article shall apply only to the bluff impact zones
located on the official bluff impact zone map dated June 1, 1991,
which is incorporated herein by reference and which is on file with
the City Clerk. The official map may be administratively changed
by the Planning Director based upon the submittal of topographic
survey data prepared by a registered engineer or surveyor.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
its passage and publication.
3
1
II
I
IPASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1991.
II ATTEST:
II
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
I (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1991. )
II
II
1
II
II
II
II
II
I
11
4
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 17
Emmings : To table . I
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to table the Rezoning #91-9 for property
zoned A-2 to RR for staff to review any additional subdivisions and to
remove Great Plains Golf Estates_ All voted in favor except Emmings who
opposed and the motion carried 6 to 1 .
Conrad: So it 's going to be tabled everybody that 's here . Be brought backll
for one other subdivision and I guess the message is , you 'll get a message
about it but to track , to watch for it in the City paper so you know when
it goes to the City Council . I
PUBLIC HEARING: II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SECTION TO
THE CITY CODE .
Public Present: I
Name Address
Nancy Lee/Pat Blood 10500 Great Plains Blvd .
Jim Sulerud 730 Vogelsberg Trail
Ari Fuad 6645 Cherokee Trail ,. Eden Prairie
Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane ! --
Jane A . Poulos Lot #12 , Deerbrook
David M . Halla 10095 Great Plains Blvd .
Bjorg & Jerry Hendrickson 900 Homestead Lane
Don E . Halle 10 ,000 Great Plains Blvd .
Mark Halla 770 Creekwood
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Ari Fuad: My name is Ari Fuad . I own a lot in Hesse Farm Addition . The I
west side . I think it 's the last lot on the bluff in that subdivision . All
the rest have houses on them already so I 'm the only one who 's really
affected by this . I think one reason , I bought the lot a year ago and one II
reason it hasn 't been developed yet is because the obvious site by the road
is , though it 's on the bluff it doesn 't have any view of the valley because
of trees immediately between that site and the bluff and I don 't know what II
limited clearing means but there 's some substantial trees there . Unless
you can cut down a lot of big oak trees which I wouldn 't want to do anyway ,
you couldn 't appreciate or you don 't get any benefit from that site . This II
property is 11 acres and it runs down the whole length of the bluff . All
the way down to a railroad bed which has just been taken out and
perpendicular or running the length of the lot is a ridge . When I bought
the property a year ago I walked down there . This is actually an existing
road that maybe Hesse may have put in sometime or somebody put in many
years ago that runs down this ridge . The attraction of the lot to me was
another potential site and Jo Ann went and looked at it and said what this II
ordinance is trying to do was prevent development of such sites within the
bluff . The site may not actually be buildable if it 's indeed a sandy soil
there though I believe , from the evidence , walking down this roadbed where ,
I
II Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 Page 18
ithere 's very little erosion on either side , that I think this site is
buildable . I haven 't done any soil testing yet . I didn 't buy the lot so I
I could build right between two neighbors . Maybe 50 from each side of the
house . I wanted to build on this other site down the bluff . I feel that
this ordinance is discriminatory to me uniquely . There may be others in my
circumstance just because there aren 't any other lots in this subdivision .
II Maybe in some of the other subdivisions that haven 't already been
developed . I pay a lot of money for this lot . Probably more than I should
have but I really love the bluff . The basic intent of this ordinance I 'm
II in agreement . I wouldn 't want to see damage done to the bluff . At the
same time , this is an 11 acre site and I feel that within limits I have to
be able to put a house on a buildable site on this lot and a house •doesn 't
I take up that much space . It takes up maybe a quarter acre or half an acre .
That 's the area that 's impacted . The rest would be left natural . Now I
think as an alternative , and I 'll keep this same , I like the lot size . To
be 10 acres or greater but I think this is penalizing those people who
haven 't rushed out there or haven 't built in a hurry and I think the intent
could possibly be achieved for such sites through more normal permitting
process . I 'm not familiar with how permits are achieved or gotten in
I Chanhassen but I know if you ask for a required comprehensive soil test
near the bluff . I think you could probably find some sites where you could
put a house closer than 30 feet . For example your house , he said his house
II was within 5 feet and he has no problem . I think also with regards to
erosion you could also have strict requirements to put in erosion control
devices and stuff that would limit the damage to the surrounding bluff . I
have built a house before and I , know how much ripping and roaring
1 construction activity does to a lot . But if there is a site that 's
buildable , I 'd rather see the restrictions be placed just because , not
because of adjacency to a bluff or because of a certain soil conditions
1 that would make it likely that a house there would fall off the bluff for
example . I guess that 's all I have to say . I 'd like you to take my
opinions into consideration when you consider this ordinance . Thank you .
I/ Conrad: Just a quick question while you 're up there . In your mind why is
that 30 feet setback so detrimental? That 's the size of this space right
here . What does that do?
IIAri Fuad: In my particular circumstance , I went out there with a tape
measurer and because of this road going down one side of the bluff , I mean
Ithis existing road is in the bluff itself and it is cut into part of this
ridge . So do I measure from the edge of the road or do I go_ down to the
other side of the road which is some maybe 15 feet below either place . But
I I went out and measured the width that I 'd have to build on and I didn 't
have a surveyor go out and say this is your lot line on this side but my
estimate is I might have 100 feet with a loose restriction of the
ordinance . With a really tight restriction I might only have 70 feet of
II relatively flat area on top of the ridge . Now I should mention that one
side of the ridge slopes off much more gently and that 's the side which my
property line runs down . So I don 't know what the setback , is it 10 feet
IIor 15 feet from the property line in Chanhassen?
Emmings : If it 's a side lot , it 's 10 .
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 21 , 1991 Page 19
Ari Fuad: 10 feet so if I have 70 feet , if I have to be 10 feet from
there , then that leaves me 60 feet which then gives me , if I go 30 back
feet , I only have 30 feet in which to put a house which is pretty narrow . II
That 's using the narrow interpretation . If I consider the whole , go down
to the edge of the road bed maybe 100 feet , then I 'm dealing with 60 feet
which is possibly workable . But when I bought the lot I actually walked it
with an engineer and we talked about how we could excavate this area down II
to this roadbed . Have it more flatted the top and I could see where you
wouldn 't want me to just dump all the dirt off the edge of the bluff and I
would certainly think it reasonable to haul a lot of that fill away . Then II
you 'd have a building site that could be approaching 100 feet in width .
Then you take 30 feet off and you 've still got 60 feet , 60-70 feet which is
plenty of room to put a house on . But if I have to take .
Emmings : Let me interrupt because I know it 's clear in your mind these
distances and everything but at least for me I 'm real lost for these . But
if his lot , let 's say his lot , the ordinance was in place and we went out II
there and everybody determines that there 's no place on this lot that he
can build a house .
Ari Fuad: There is a place though . I
Emmings : Okay , so you say there is a place . _
Ellson: There 's a place that would meet it but 'it 's not .
Ari Fuad : It 's not the place I want it . It 's a place that makes it a very ,
ordinary lot .
Emmings: But if there were no place to build , then he could apply for a
variance could he not?
Ari Fuad: But there is a place .
Emmings: But there is a place , it 's just not desireable .
Olsen: Right . 1
Emmings : I understand .
Ari Fuad: And I think the value of the lot is greatly diminished . In fact
I would argue that it might be half what I paid for it if you had to put a
house on that one site .
Conrad: Does everybody understand what the situation is?
Emmings: In general terms . When he starts talking about 60 or 75 feet , I II
don 't have any idea what he 's talking about . But I think what he 's saying
is there 's a place he can put , the important part is there 's a place he can
put his house . It isn 't the best place on the lot or where he wants to put "
his house and this ordinance will prevent him from putting his house where
he wants .
i
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 20
IIAri Fuad: And it might reduce the value of the property to both myself and
any other purchaser who would be constrained to follow this ordinance and
Ithat 's not a small lot . It 's 11 acres .
Farmakes : Can I ask a question? _
II Ari Fuad: Sure .
Farmakes : You said you didn 't do any soil testing . Are you sure that that
IIpart of the lot is buildable?
Ari Fuad: No I 'm not but this ordinance might even preclude me from doing
I the soil testing because in order to do the soil testing I 've got to put a
cat down there to clear out an area for the truck to get down there to do
the soil testing . And I 've a whole big question of how do I even go about
applying for a variance to put a house there? Because I do the soil
IItesting and then do I have to spend $3 ,000 .00 or $4 ,000 .00 to get a
building plan for the site the way I 'd want it and then apply for a
variance and then have it turned down where I 'd lose my investment and then
II have to come up with a new plan for the other site if I decided to build
there?
IEllson: No , you 're talking at the right time . The right time to come forth
with it .
Ari Fuad : And also , I like the intent of the ordinance . I like the bluff
I but as one of the last lots in this particular subdivision , and I can 't
speak to any of the other ones that 's on the bluff , I 'm really the only one
being impacted . I don 't think there 's anyone else from Hesse Farm there
II because the rest of the lots that haven 't developed there aren 't on the
bluff . They 're up on the flat area and you can put a house anywhere on
those lots .
IEmmings : Okay . Thank you . Anybody else?
David Halla : I agree with the gentleman talking about the impact in
I decreasing his value on not allowing him to put his home where it affords
him the most view of the bluff . That 's what he bought it for . I think you
people have to look at some of these things in a little broader perspective
I instead of taking the narrow view and categorically saying this rules
applies for everybody . Now when I built my house , going back to that
again , I had a D6 Cat in there and it took them 3 days to dig the basement .
Why? Because that was virgin ground . Never been touched . He couldn 't
I even push that dirt . It just kind of rolled up in front of the cutting
edge because it was that hard . We knew that we weren 't going to have a
problem with erosion but to prevent that we seeded crown vetch on top of
II the grass cover that was on the bank and that has literally taken over and
just covered that whole bank . There 's no way that can erode. Even when
you 're talking about the water runoff , sheets of water running off a roof .
I Well , I 've got a deck on the back but water runs on my deck and is
dispersed even before it hits the ground . So I think you have to use a
little common sense on some of these things and can 't say categorically
we 're accepting one rule that applies for each and every lot because it
IIdoesn 't . Now I 've got two other lots there , or at least one other that
II
Planning Commission Meeting '
August 21 , 1991 - Page 21
looks over the bluff . I would assume that in the future , if whomever buys I
that wants to subdivide it and let someone build a lot there , they should
be allowed at least to remove some of the big trees that are right on the
edge so it affords them a view . In the beginning on this ordinance when it
first came out and I got this letter it said they were restricting the
clearing of the trees there so they can 't have a good view . Well , if you
do that , that 's again decreasing the value of the lot because why did they
buy it in the first place? They bought it to have the view . Now when you
say that it 's got to be back 30 feet , that doesn 't apply . They could amend
this and say hey , if you want to put it less than 30 feet , you have to meet '
certain requirements of soil tests . You can 't put it on obviously sandy
soil because that 's not going to support it . However , they can do that too
if they wanted it hard enough or bad enough , you could pilings down there I
and support that house on pilings . There 's another way of doing that too .
So I don 't think you can come in here in a broad sense and say hey , it 's
got to be 30 feet . That 's it . We 're drawing the line in the sand . Anybody '
that walks over it , we 're going to blow them out of the water . This
gentleman has a very good argument . You know he bought his lot for the
view . If he 's not allowed to take advantage of that view , it decreases the
value of his lot and he spent good money on it . The same way with the lot I
that I 've got in the future there . Somebody 's going to want to take
advantage of that view of the bluff . If they say it 's got to be back 30
feet , it decreases the value of the lot . Now if it doesn 't meet the
requirements because the soil is sandy or it 's not buildable , then the
person should come back in and prove that they can put a house closer than
30 feet without impacting the environment and there are a number of ways of '
doing it . I 've got a house in Florida that 's built on the intercoastal
waterway . It has 58 pilings under it . No problem . If somebody wants to
put a house closer than that , they 've got bad soil , if they want that view
bad enough , they can make it work but to come in and say hey , it 's 30 feet . '
That 's it . That 's wrong . I think each instance , each lot has to be looked
at individually and you have to make allowances for people to take
advantage of the view that they paid good money for . By coming across and
saying hey , it 's 30 feet . That 's it . Then you 're decreasing the value of
the lot and that 's wrong . That 's my opinion. Thank you .
Emmings : Alright . Thank you . Yes sir . '
Don Halla : I really just have a question that I 'd like answered and that
is , how much problem have you had with this difficulty? How much erosion 1
problems have you had on lots? Has it been a severe problem?
Krauss: It 's been a very severe problem . We have some major erosion
sites . In fact we just had a bus tour where we took members of the
Minnesota PCA , the DNR , the Metropolitan Council , both Watershed Districts
that are in there , Soil Conservation Service . In fact all these agencies
we gave copies of this bluff line ordinance and most of them that have
responded are encouraging us to be more restrictive then we 've proposed to
be . I point out too that in Bloomington , the Watershed District just got
through with I think it was a $6 million dollar project to repair erosion II
to a creek bluff system along Nine Mile Creek that was basically caused by
development and lack of foresight . What we 've learned is that once these
problems start , there 's really hell to pay because they 're very difficult
to stop . A couple of the sites that are highly visible and I 'd be glad to
I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 22
Itake any of you out there . There 's the Dypwick property and Bartal
property . There 's even been one that involves the City with the road to
I the golf course . That one probably is coming the closest to be resolved at
this point . But Dypwick is on the verge of losing some buildings and
Bartal is concerned that if the erosion continues he 'll lose his swimming
I pool . When we took the Bluff Creek tour , the hiking tour that we had
earlier this spring , I think walking around the bottom you saw , those of us
who were there , saw very visibly where these problems were starting to
occur and you don 't see them from the top . I know one site we looked at
I
with a little bit of care was the new house that 's being built by the
Redmond 's and it 's perched out over the bluff . Once these problems start .
Hopefully they won 't start . Clearly the desire is to prevent these things
I from happening in the first place because once they start , they 're
extremely difficult to arrest .
I Emmings: And other information we had is that the bluff areas in some
places are just very fragile and that even the change you get from building
a house and just changing , getting runoff even from the roof in some of
these fragile areas can cause erosion to begin to occur because you 're just
I getting it more directed . I guess we saw some of those places . We went for
a hiking tour along Bluff Creek last spring and we saw some examples of it
but the people that were along from I think the Soil and Water Conservation
II District? They were aware of many other examples where there 's similar
land in other cities where they are having proLlems . That 's one of the
reasons we felt we had to get on top of this . The other thing is , you 're
I looking at it from one end only and I think to some extent I 'm thinking
about it in terms of looking at it from the other end . Do we want
buildings hanging out over all over the bluff? It 's one thing to say
setback 5 feet . It 's another thing when you talk about being out in some
I of those natural areas and seeing homes hanging out over the bluff and is
that something we want . I don 't know but that 's another issue .
I Don Halla : Okay . I 'm familiar with two of the properties that you 're
referring to . One is the one that the City filled against without our
permission on our property and running off of our property . Never asked
permission and hauled in several thousand yards of soil . Thinking it was
I
somebody else 's property and never checking it . They didn 't properly put
in the drains . They didn 't properly put in culverts . They didn 't connect
them properly . They didn 't extend drainfields properly . They didn 't put
I vegetation back on it properly . They did everything wrong that they now
through their ordinance of anybody filling or anything , they 're extremely
critical of those people of doing it right and yet during all of this
I period of time the City has not come in and corrected the problem that they
created . What they did wrong even though now they 're very restrictive on
others . Dypwick 's property that you 're talking about , whether he was
allowed to or whatever , he filled that area and built on fill . I mean the
I guy was crazy to do it in my estimation . It had been there and hadn 't been
eroding for years because of the fact that it was a sheer drop off . He
wanted an extra 10-20 feet of property so he filled it with garbage
Iliterally . Demolition of buildings . Barrels . Everything that he could
get hauled in . Not clay fill . If he had put clay fill in there , he
wouldn 't have had a problem . It was dumb on his part in my estimation .
I He 's got his problems caused by it . Maybe he has to spend like , if you 'd
like to take a look at a couple of the walls in Edina where people have
Planning Commission Meeting '
August 21 , 1991 - Page 23
spent a fortune to make buildable lots . I live one block from one that I
think the lot 's still unbuildable but there 's a $2 million dollar house on
top of it , that they 've put in 75 foot of retaining wall . They have no
erosion problems . It 's pure sand . It was done and engineered properly .
They have a driveway that goes up at almost a 40 degree angle to do it and
they have to have heating coils and everything else but in fact they I
corrected the problem . What I 'm really just pointing these things out is
there 's probably other remedies and necessarily building restrictions that
if somebody gets themselves into these problems , they can work themselves
back out . Now certainly in the nursery business we deal with them every I
day . There 's many different products that can be put on slopes . Anything
from retaining walls to vegetation that will hold almost any slope there
is . Crown vetch that David mentioned is what they use on the coalfields
out east . That 's where it was originally developed because it 's such a
sturdy plant and takes over and it has a deep root system so it does
prevent erosion on crackly ground that has no food value in it whatsoever .
How you write the ordinance and what you do with it I guess is purely up toll
you but what I 'm trying to say is that there may be other remedies to some
of these things and I don 't think people should be allowed to put in 15-20
foot of loose fill and then build buildings on them and then come back and I
complain about them later . I don 't think that 's right either and yet I
think that the City should be an example . If they go ahead and do these
things , they should remedy the problems that they create in their own
making . We have a problem that we have been trying to prevent being a more '
major problem . That is we have soil erosion control structure . This is
going to come up again so I will bring it up tonight and it will be
affected by this ordinance . That is we 're back 15 years probably at this
point through the Soil Conservation to prevent runoff on the nursery and toll
keep the valleys from eroding further up . We put in a dam and the dam was
engineered and so forth by the Soil Conservation Division . In that 10 inch '
rain it was weakened substantially . We have water running out of it and
then one of these days it 's going to go . With the new ordinance on grading
and so forth we can 't even really correct it . Certainly we were given a
choice of putting in , we put in about 600 yards last year behind it .
Frankly the red tape I had to go through , I was going to do it again but
put up a $10 ,000 .00 bond in order to correct a problem which could be a
major problem for the people down in the valley later and to fill a valley I
that 's been eroding for a million years and try to prevent the problem , it
. wasn 't worth it to me to go through the fight to correct a problem that I
know someday is going to harm somebody else because it 's eroding out .
We 've got somebody right now that says hey , we 'll give you 30 ,000 to 50 ,0001
yards of soil to fill this behind this dam to prevent it . He wants to move
it off the road out here this coming week . He can 't do it because it will
take 60 days in the process to be able to do it . And yet it 's something
that would prevent the type of problems that you 're talking about right now
because if the dam structure goes , it would be a major problem . Where do
all these things work? How does an ordinance handle situations like
that? That 's why I asked about how much of a problem it is because I think "
there 's a lot of different ways of controlling erosion besides just having
an ordinance which would prevent people from using the property and the
view that they bought the property for . That 's all I have to say .
Emmings : Thank you .
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 24
IIDavid Halle : I have one more comment . I 've been sitting here listening to
this and I think there 's a rather easy solution to this situation . You
I people require a building permit . Okay? In that building permit it could
curtail someone going out there and I think it 's already being done ,
physically inspecting the site and making a determination whether it looks
feasible . At that point they can say , okay . If they want to put this
1 house within 10 feet of the bluff or make the variance over the 30 feet ,
they have to do soil borings to substantiate that the ground is solid
enough and it 's not going to erode . You can also make it a requirement
I that they provide proper vegetation on the slope if the slope is disturbed
by the excavating so that you put it back in as good a condition or better
than what you found it . I think most homeowners would be more than willing
to spend the extra dollar to preserve their own property . Okay? So that 's
I an easy way to do it . Instead of coming along and arbitrarily saying hey ,
it 's going to be 30 feet . That 's written in blood . That 's it . No
deviations . If you want a variance you know , we may or may not go about it
I and people coming along from the Water and Conservation or Soil
Conservation saying hey , it should be 50 feet back you know . I think each
site has to be looked at individually . You can do that in your building
I permit section when someone says hey . I want to take advantage of my lot .
I want to put my house closer to the bluff so I can appreciate the view and
get the value of my property from doing that . Now my brother 's talking
about this dam and he was telling me all the hoops and everything that they
I wanted him to jump through . I built that dam .- The Soil Conservation
people came out and designed it and then they didn 't want to cost share
with it because they felt it wasn 't enough watershed to protect . Well , the
I thing , the erosion was going back up in the field for about a city block
and it was my determination at that time that we wanted to preserve that
property and not continue to have it erode back farther up in the field and
I by putting this darn in , we did that . Okay? Now over the years , I told my
brother that he had to keep maintaining that thing you know and he got a
little bit lax in it and he did have some erosion from the big rains and so
forth and when he wanted to go back there and repair it , the Planning
I Commission here literally made him jump through hoops . Wanted him to put
in all kinds of bonds and guarantees and stuff like that and I in plain
langauge , that 's asinine . Here again you 've got bureaucracy getting in the
I way of common sense . A situation like that where the people took it upon
themselves , at their expense to prevent the erosion of soil . Protect the
environment . Anybody walked out there and looks down in that canyon and
can see how what we did prevents the further erosion of that canyon down
I
there . Hey , it 's a good deal . But now to come in and say you can 't keep
that maintained . You 've got to have a permit to come in there and put soil
on it , I think that 's stupid . Now Dypwick on the other hand , that was an
I under the table deal that the city concocted and allowed this Ingram to
haul in his demolition materials and I saw those trucks go by and I called
up here and complained about it . I said hey , you can 't be dumping
Idemolition in there and building on top of that so that 's why Dypwick did .
He created his own problem and the city then should , if you want to do
something like this , put some teeth into it and say hey . If people screw
up and do stuff like this , they 've got to be responsible . It 's the same
I way with the Pollution Control has on underground storage tanks . If they
leak , you pay for it . Okay? If these people do stuff like that , they can
come in and be held responsible for it and you know , if you make a person.
Iresponsible for building closer to a bluff when they have an erosion
II
Planning Commission Meeting '
August 21 , 1991 - Page 25
control problem and they take care of it on their own , they 're going to do I
it right because they don 't want to spend that money to clean up if they
screw up and do it wrong . But people like Dypwick that did that where the I
City allowed them to haul in that debris for years and years and years and
never scrutinized it and as far as I know , they are still hauling that
stuff in there . It 's a good cheap way for Ingram to haul in his demolition
material and his stumps and stuff like that and that 's not good fill but It "
was allowed to go on . You know that stuff is wrong but you could
write this ordinance in a way that you make people that build closer to the
30 foot that you 're talking about be responsible for the erosion and be
I
financially responsible for the clean up if something happens .
Emmings : Okay . Anybody else that wants to be heard on this?
I
Mark Halla: I just wanted to add a little bit on the dam that we have and
that we built since I 've been working on it myself mainly trying to get
City approval as recently as 10 or 20 phone calls today to the City I
Manager . We have had this dam for years . I believe it was built in 1972 .
It 's maintaining a rough estimate of 300 ,000 to 400,000 gallons of water .
It drains approximately 35 acres . The torrence from the rains that we had
just this spring moved boulders that probably weighed 400-500 pounds each .
Moved them into the middle of the pound so there 's quite a bit of drainage
coming into this area . What I don 't understand is if you 're going to adopt
a bluff preservation item like this to protect_ it , then why is not the City '
helping protect it on it 's own . It has an area that is right across the
road from my site where I built my home that they filled without
permission . Dumped lousy fill in there . Chunks of concrete . Chunks of I
tree stumps . All sorts of things . They did it exactly dead wrong yet now
we mention that to them and said you didn 't even have permission . Can you
at least push the piles down so I don 't sit here and look at these piles I
from my new house . So they did that but ever since then now we have a
problem in reverse on trying to maintain our own dam . If the City really
wants to adopt an ordinance and help the bluff , then they really should
really feel that way rather than allowing something . If our dam goes to
pot and that water runs through , I personally have seen it 3 to 4 feet deep
and like I said , it 's rushing so quickly that all the rip rap we put in ,
probably 40-50 tons of it , washes into the pond and we need to dredge that ,
out with a backhoe . When you have that much water running , maybe you want
to sometimes help the citizens that are trying to work on I guess
preserving that bluff . As far as I 'm concerned , if we don 't get help , I
maybe we 're best off to let it go to pot and we maybe will lose some field
but I can afford to lose that if in the return the City realizes that it
was a big mistake not to allow us to fill and maintain it . It can be quite
costly if you have that many acres of ground letting the water through . ,
The big damage was done in that 10 inch rain . We got it maintained last
year by putting in some fill and restored it a bit but even this spring we
didn 't have a problem with the washout simply because we restored it . We II
probably would have but like I said , if we 're moving boulders that big , it
seems to me we should consider allowing people that are trying to repair
things to keep the bluff looking good , we should consider allowing them to ii
do so and not restricting them . Less they get the attitude of really not
giving a damn about the bluff and letting it erode simply because they were •
not allowed to maintain it themselves . So I would hope in your planning
IIthat you would consider trying to work with the concerned citizens as well
II
IPlanning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 26
IIand not simply adopting something that does shut out those people that are
trying to do good by the bluff . Thank you .
IIJim Sulerud: My name is Jim Sulerud . I live within the area .
IIEmmings : What is your address? .
Jim Sulerud: 730 Vogelsberg Trail . I think one thing that would be
helpful and probably worthwhile because the area has a diversity of
problems , every parcel of lot is not experiencing the same problem .
Something that might be helpful is to develop a specific plan like you do
similar to a land use plan in minature but as to what specific actions
I you 're looking for on each parcel of land because I think you 've got some
situations where you truly want to maintain the status quo . That is leave
trees . Leave the current bluff line . Maintain the slope at what it is and
other situations you have erosion that has occurred that you want to
Iactually bring about some repairs . Maybe some filling is appropriate .
Other places there may be situations where you 've had fill that is
inappropriate that ought to be removed or may take some special action to
II repair . So I think you have a variety of circumstances existing that
you 're trying to solve with a non-specific ordinance . I would think that
it would be very helpful . The area is not that extensive and I know
I there 's miles and miles of line that you 've identified but I think it 's
well worth your while looking at all the headaches over the years , to go
through each parcel and identify which of the areas that you intend to
maintain the specific bluff line . That would help this gentleman . It
I would help the Halla 's . Are you trying to restore? Is filling appropriate
in that ravine by the Halla 's or is it not? Certainly there 's a natural
erosion that occurs , has occurred over hundreds , thousands of years that
I has created what you 're calling the bluff line right now . It wasn 't the
bluff lino S00 years ago . So you 're picking a point in time and saying
well this is what 's appropriate . Maybe in my neighborhood I 've looked for
I the City to develop a fill plan to just keep TH 101 from falling in and we
haven 't reached accommodation there . It doesn 't either add or detract from
my property . It 's just something that ought to be done because the erosion
has occurred over recent history but I think that would be a way of
I addressing each of the people on each of their sites in a way that 's very
helpful to them and to the future owners to let them know what your
intentions are . What that may mean is you have to define a more specific
I purpose for the ordinance in the first place . That is what is it you 're
trying to do . Are you trying to maintain the status quo? Are you trying
to get to a position of holding a certain bluff line or I don 't think
that 's real clear . I think in general people appreciate what you 're trying
I
to do hut the questions that are raised seem to indicate that there are
problems with that . I know there 's some very obvious problems that you 're
addressing . In the business fringe area a pole barn was erected . A metal
II shed that has tremendous erosion behind it . Through the bluff creek area
there 's various sites of some places where there 's extensive erosion . Other
places where there 's garbage filling and all of this would address all of
I that . I think one big problem that the Planning Commission faces all the
time and is again raised here tonight is the question of variances . ' I
don 't know if you can get at it . Probably not through this ordinance but
if there 's always an avenue for someone to come to you to say well my
Isituation is a little bit different . It. 's really the out that hopefully
1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 27
wouldn 't support the ordinance but if for instance the example that this
gentleman has . He would like to have a certain view . Well what is the
intent of the ordinance in that regard? I don 't think it 's been very clear "
to give him guidance or to Mr . Halla 's other lots . Are those 2 trees or 3
trees critical to the ordinance? I don 't think you 've said whether that 's
critical or not to maintain those trees or is that a violation of their own "
rights of property owners to prevent them from cutting down those trees . I
think you need that guidance . However , when someone asks to build within
the 30 foot line and have a variance , what guides you on that? Just if
it 's buildable? Mr . Halla again pointed out and I think you 've seen in the I
past a good engineer can build on any site and can project over the bluff
or whatever . They can put a swimming pool anywhere . They can float themin
the air . You can do anything so I think to raise the question is something
buildable is not helpful to use . Not helpful to the City . I think the
City has to develop some firm guideline as to what the outcomes they want
are on the different properties . Because someone can always come in with a
buildable plan and if that 's all that 's necessary then you for all
practical purposes have no ordinance . I 'd like to see that approach with
regard to properties throughout the city because I think the city is on
loose footing when people come to the Planning Commission to appeal because
they say they can accommodate , can prevent erosion . In this particular
case and I think they can make a plan for that but in the long run it may
not be in the best interest . Because I live within the buildable area or
in the defined area and I 'd like to maybe go from a 1 car garage to a 2 car
garage someday , I 'd like to see something specific on saying that homes
within that area could maybe have a 25% or 50% square footage footprint
added on . Something specific so that we know what we have to deal with .
I think the perspective that you have to take in this particular case ,
because these bluff lines are established over thousands of years , is a I
long term perspective . As a Planning Commission hopefully you take that ,
all the time and all your deliberations . Although you 're the Planning
Commission for 1991 , I think that the decisions you make certainly put
houses in place . Put roads in place that last for 100 years or hopefully
300 years to at least establish those patterns that people see in the east
coast and while I probably don 't intend to be offensive , I think the
Halla 's are here for a few years and they ' ll be here for a few years more
but it 's offensive to me that their approach where they intend to or give
the flavor of them being here before the city and will be here after the
city . I think you have to hear words of encouragement to stand up and
make decisions that are here for the long haul . And the Halla 's are acting '
in their self interest as probably I 'm appearing here in my self interest .
I think you and the rest of the city would be well to think of the , you
know they weren 't here 200 years ago . They won 't be here 200 years from
now but your decisions will be . Thank you .
Nancy Lee: My name is Nancy Lee . I own the property at 10500 Great
Plains . Most everything I wanted to say tonight has already been said by II
all the other concerned people . I agree that rather than being totally
restrictived , we should probably look at each site individually and I think
through the building process the City already has the control that they
need and that that building will come through with all of your permits ,
building permits , plans that the City has the power to make sure that you
have proper engineering plans . That you have proper plans that are not
going to be destructive to the bluff . I guess I see that if they continue II
IPlanning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 28
IIusing those proper measures , we shouldn 't have a problem rather than being
totally restrictive . Then I have another question as far as how many times
II can this bluff setback affect a property? I guess I 'm thinking in my case ,
possibly they 're going to consider that it 's the entire property or close
to it . What do I do in a case like that?
1 Emmings : I don 't understand your question .
II Nancy Lee: I guess as far as the setbacks and everything according to the
degrees and everything that was laid down , say my property happens to go
like that so that I have multiple bluffs on my property instead of just one
bluff .
IEmmings: Is that in fact what happens? I don 't want to , if we get into
hypotheticals here , we could be here all night . Is that what actually
Ihappens on your property?
Nancy Lee : I haven 't sat and looked at the degrees and things like that .
I 'm on the parcel on 212 that goes straight down . Is the railroad tracks
I
that have just been pulled , is that considered the start of a bluff?
That 's another one of my concerns . That happens to be a business fringe
district and I guess already we 've gone through some very restrictive
Imotions on it to the point that I 'm trying to sell it because the City
won 't allow me to build my business there or anything of the likes so my
step is to sell it and if I continue to get more restrictions on it , I
I can 't sell it and it does me no good to sit there . I guess one other thing
I just wanted to say , it has nothing to do with that last comment is this
gentleman made a comment that he "loves the bluff" . I think most the
people that buy property on the bluff and plan on building on the bluff it
I is because they love the bluff and they 're not about to do something that 's
going to ruin the bluff . I guess that 's all I had to say .
IEmmings: Than; you .
Verne Severson: I 'm Verne Severson at 675 Lakota Lane . We live on the
I bluff . We have a beautiful piece of property and I guess what I have to
say is pretty much the same as what everybody else has been saying but I
want to reinforce a few points . That is that we like the intent of the
ordinance . We want to be good stewards of the land . As property owners
I we 're not going to do anything that 's going to damage our property and when
we got this ordinance it looked more like , it looked like it was something
confrontational . It didn 't look like it was something there to help us .
IIt 's some kind of an ordinance that 's being put out by an emergency State
committee or something . We feel that the people of the City work for us .
We 're the taxpayers so we would welcome any kind of guidance that would
help us protect our property and as has been mentioned before using
II
building permits I think could be a good method . You do it with buildings
now . You do it with installing sewer systems and I look at that as a way
of the City 's helping me to protect my land and to protect the investment
II put into it . I think that something like that would be more appropriate
in this situation and again as somebody else mentioned, each piece of
property is different . Each piece of property has it 's own problems and I
11 think they each have to be looked at individually . I guess what it boils
down to is that as a property owner I resent having the City tell me
II
Planning Commission Meeting I
August 21 , 1991 - Page 29
exactly how I can use my property . I would welcome the City telling me how II
I can improve on it or protect it from being damaged . Thank you .
Emmings: Anybody else? If not , is there a motion to close the public II
hearing?
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
II
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: In response , I guess just as a general response to some of the
comments or a lot of the comments that have been made here . I think that all
lot of people that spoke are looking at this a lot differently than I am .
I think that I 'm sure each individual property is very unique but to even '
suggest that we could develop some kind of ordinance that would be a
separate plan for each individual piece of property is just , it 's
unthinkable . We can 't operate that way . I think what we 're trying to do
hers is establish some kind of minimal standards so that we don 't wind up I
with problems with the bluff . Looking at the bluff as a very valuable
natural feature of our community . A really unique feature of our community
and make sure that there 's some minimum standards in place that everybody
will have to observe . I don 't think we want to see engineering solutions
to building over the edge . I think that 's exactly what we don 't want to
see . Are there such things? Sure . I 'm sure there are . You know II.California , they build on the sides of hills all -the time and then they
continually have natural disasters that put these houses down at the bottom
of the hill . But we don 't even want to see them hanging over the hill . I
think what we 're saying is , sure the bluff 's been eroding for , you know
II
since I don 't know how long but since the glaciers went through and cut
those valleys or the water coming from the glaciers cut those valleys or
whatever and they 've been eroding ever since . And we 're not trying to stop
that . That 's not , I guess that 's not our concern . I guess the concern
here is for the impact that development brings . The increase in erosion-.
All of the impacts associated with development on the bluff . Looking at
the bluff as a unique natural resource . We don 't want to see engineering
solutions . We want to just kind of try and preserve them as they are . You
say that property owners won 't do anything to hurt their properties and
then you talk about Jeff Dypwick . You can 't say both those things at the II
same time . Some people even when they 're well intentioned hurt themselves
and hurt their property and the problem is , again as we 've been told is
that these areas are so fragile that once a bad erosion problem develops ,
it 's very difficult to do anything about it . At least in places .
Depending probably on what the soils . . .and that 's why having financial
guarantees to have those people be financially responsible won 't even solve
the problem . Anyway , with those comments we 'll start down here . 1
Ahrens : I agree with everything Steve has said . I happen to think that
this is a very well written ordinance . I also didn 't get a chance to go 11 through all the comments on the Soil and Water Conservation District and
Watershed District but I can see that there are some things in here that I
think should be included in our ordinance and I think we should table this I
until we can incorporate some of those changes .
Farmakes : I would also agree with most of the things that you said . I
think there is a difference between self interest and community interest . I
II
•
IPlanning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 30
III believe that there 's a difference also between definition of development
and preservation . What I see here is , and I respect your individual right
II to look at this from your personal piece of property but the community also
has an interest in preservation of natural resources in this area . I think
that this is good legislation to do that . It 's easy for me to sit here
II because I don 't own property on the bluff and I 'm sure that 's what you 're
thinking but the intent of this is to preserve some of that and obviously
in any type of zoned community or any type of preservation situation ,
you 're going to have to give up some right to do that . There 's a give and
I a take there . If you 're going to preserve , you 're going to have to curtail
some development and that 's a given . Getting back to the actual
legislation itself , the comments that were made by the Soil and Water
I District and from the Attorney here , I think that those are valid comments
made and I think that also we should table this until those are
incorporated in there .
II Batzli : Nicely put Jeff . I 'm not going to repeat what 's been said but I
would like a chance at some point to talk about some of these changes and
whether they 're actually improvements or not : I think it would be helpful
Ito move the intent section to the start of the ordinance .
Emmings: I think it 's at the start .
IIBatzli : Okay , these other things go in the deTimltion?
Emmings: Yeah .
IBatzli : Okay , good . And I think the intent is in the ordinance and I
agree . If we don 't preserve the bluff and we allow other people , no matter
I how wEll meaning they may be , we 're not all going to justice to the bluff .
There 's going to be erosion . There 's going to be things hanging over it
and I 'd like to see the bluff preserved so as not to ruin it because I
don 't want to wait around for the next Ice Age to get it back .
IEmmings: It 's coming .
1 Batzli : It 's getting warmer I thought .
Emmings: Oh yeah . Annette .
IEllson: I think we still have variance procedures there but I don 't think
the building permit area would be a very good location to try to handle
each individual situation . I can just see everyone saying well you let
Ithis guy do this and he had what have you . It doesn 't work in the building
permit so I think that 's why we have setbacks for everybody and things like
that . I have trouble believing that you lose so much of your view at 30
II feet . I don 't know how many people on the bluff right now that meet this .
Actually there 's probably quite a few . I don 't like the idea of the
natural bluff having houses sticking out on it just like you said in
II California or right now that a property owner can go and clear cut it if
they wanted to because literally they could and we 'd like to hope that they
had intentions not to do that but I 'm not going to be able to stop that
right now and I don 't like the look of a house sticking out . I don 't think
II30 feet is that big a deal . I 'm a little confused about , is it Ari? His
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 21 , 1991 - Page 31
situation . That you 're not positive that your preferential building place
is a buildable lot even without it so you went ahead and purchased it
hoping you could get that second . That wasn 't confirmed even when you
bought it initially .
Ari Fuad: No it 's buildable without this ordinance because . '
Elison : You hadn 't done the soil information stuff though .
Ari Fuad: I didn 't feel I needed it because the road went through there . . . II
and it was actually not even on the bluff . . .
Elison: I think everybody would like this ordinance to be next door to
them so right around them it would all be protected . They don 't want it on ,
their property . I think all the people that have it right now that don 't
meet it are certainly grandfathered in except if they want to keep adding
additions to it . Then right now they have more rights than somebody coming
in but that 's where it stops . They can 't tomorrow have additional ones
when they want to build and the property next to them wants to build . I
think that 's fair . I don 't think it 's fair to say by the way , you 're III grandfathered in and you 're grandfathered in to anything that you add also
because where they stand right now . I 'm for it and I think that there is
possibly a special circumstance . Maybe for this gentleman and maybe that
would be the variance . If he bought it with that in mind and was given
assurances that that 's buildable for him and we take that away , that seems
to be the only situation that 's in the middle . You said you had quite a
few phone calls and he was one of them I 'm sure but all the rest were
trying to support it so I think there 's a lot of people out there that are
saying this sounds, great that aren 't here today so that 's it .
Errmi n•g; Okay , Ladd . ,
Conrad: What 's the process that somebody has to go through if they 're
building on a bluff? I saw some words , the permit shall not be granted . Is "
there a bluff permit that goes along?
Olsen: Yeah , we 're going to like add that in with a grading permit . That
if they 're within that bluff zone and if they are to be extensive grading
over the 50 cubic yards I think . 10? 10 . That that pulls you to a permit
process . Then also if you 're going to be doing any stairways or the lifts II
within the bluff but the setbacks .
Conrad: So the building inspector would trigger that?
Olsen: The building inspector?
Conrad: What would trigger that for a homeowner? Pulling a building
permit?
Olsen: They would have to get a building permit for that .
Conrad : And that would trigger looking at this zone?
I
. 1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 32
IIOlsen: Yeah . Then once this zone is on the map , then when those building
permits come through , trigger that that 's in the bluff zone .
IConrad: We wouldn 't automatically ask for a permit . What would we?
I Olsen : Well if they 're just building the home and that 's the 30 feet back .
If they meet that setback . Then they don 't require any other additional
permits . It 's once they get into that impact zone that there 's going to be
alteration within that .
IIEmmings: Or wouldn 't it be true too that if we 're looking at a new
subdivision , that would be for an existing subdivision . But on a new
I subdivision we 'd have to look at that and be able to set those just like we
set the buffer zone along the lake up in the new Lundgren Bros . thing .
You 'd wind up setting those in a subdivision I suppose .
IOlsen : Right . And it 's going to be treated kind of like a wetland .
Conrad : So they are going to . . .this hypothetical property 's going to build
Iin that impact zone so they have to fill out a permit?
Olsen: The grading permit , if it 's part of the building permit then we can
Icatch some of it .
Conrad: SO it 's a grading permit?
IIOlsen : Yeah , there 's two different ones . If it 's just going to be the
grading within and like the stairway and removing the alteration and
vegetation , that 's what we 're talking about kicking those in with like the
I grading permit or grading out a site within that bluff impact zone . That 's
the �=radiny . That 's when we 're going to try to put that underneath the
grading permit . Then you also have a building permit just for the building
' of the structure ,
Conrad: Okay . This alteration of vegetation is probably where I 'm going
Iand it says it 's not permitted within that impact zone but limited clear
cutting . Limited clearing . Not clear cutting . How is that determined?
Somebody who goes out , the building inspector? It 's pretty loose .
IOlsen: I think one of the things that we 're going to add is that if
somebody calls and we daily get calls about people who want to clear some
of their vegetation . What we usually do is we 'll go out to the site and
that 's what we were going to put . I think I 've got it in here where we
would go out to the site . . .
Conrad : And what 's the guideline?
IOlsen : There really isn 't .
II Conrad: So it 's staff saying that this is probably appropriate? You know -
what I find interesting on this ordinance and I think all the comments I
heard tonight were really good comments . And some of the requests say take
11 a look at tha site individually . I think philosophically I agree with that
in a lot of cases . This government can do that . It 's a case where we look
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 33
at wetlands individually and we could look at bluffs individually
Y 11y and
determine if we had the resources what 's right but as Steve said ,
practically speaking we just really don 't . This is an example , at least
the way I read it of a simple ordinance . We 're dealing with just a couple
numbers and a couple pieces of philosophy . Sometimes those simple things
are I guess I 'd rather have something simple than a complex , the complex
things in government don 't work too well . They get too ensnarled . We have
an ordinance on two pages and after hearing the comments and I keep
challenging the simplicity versus something that technically has merit .
Taking the soil . We could develop an ordinance that really has technical
foundation in it so we literally go out to every site and we literally , we
say okay . What are we trying to protect? We 're trying to protect the
view . We 're trying to protect erosion . We could set up standards and
111
I guess the question is , that we and the City Council has to answer is ,
this is a real simple way that might accomplish a lot of that . Could
penalize a person here or there . It might have a bad deal out of it but it I
might be a simple approach because it reflects back to what we 've done with
trying to adding in our landscaping ordinance . You can have some real
technical things or you could just simple require 3 trees for a lot and
that 's a simple approach to making , to getting to an end . Rather than a
lot of complex mumbo jumbo that everybody gets confused with in our
ordinances . So anyway I 'm struggling with some of the comments that I
heard saying do we need a more sophisticated ordinance or does this
accomplish it in concept? The other things , a;nd I 'm just going to give you
opinion . We have a wetland alteration permit process . Do we need a
variance process here? Yeah , bluff alteration . Do we need that? Again ,
that 's mumbo jumbo . That 's more stuff to do . I 've never been , I think it
puts us , it allows flexibility . Puts the City on the defensive . Hard to
prove . Hard to substantiate . Hard to analyze all that stuff that comes ins
here . We don 't have the resources as maybe an individual who can hire a
consultant can and we just don 't have the energy to review it as well as
other people . The last thing is penalty . Are there any penalties for
alteration? ,
Olsen: Well the whole City Code always has the penalty section and if
there 's a violation of the Code you can go the 70 days .
Emmings: Misdemeanor .
Olsen: Misdemeanor . So that applies to anything in the Code so . '
Conrad: They 're pretty small right? Basically .
Olsen: Yes . I
Conrad: They 're really not penalties of significance .
Emmings : $700 .00 and 90 days .
Erhart : Force them to face the Planning Commission . '
Conrad: That would be threatening all by itself .
Emmings: But it isn 't enforced that way typically . Or maybe never . 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 34
Olsen: But the permit , the reason I kind of hush on the permits is that we
' still haven 't gotten all the , where we do allow removal of vegetation or
the topographic alteration . We haven 't really fine lined exactly what
permit that 's going to be and what 's required in that . We 're talking the
I grading permit now but that will allow you to kind of look at it site by
site . I don 't know that it helps Ari 's position but that 's where the
variance application , he can go through that .
I Conrad: He could but there 's no , right now there 's no standards for a
variance .
IOlsen: It would be a Board of Adjustments .
Conrad: But there aren 't any standards . There aren 't any guidelines for a
II variance . Didn 't somebody say that if we were ever going to allow a
variance , you should have something to tell you when you would grant a
variance?
I Krauss: There are standard conditions that apply to all variances . It 's
the hardship criteria or we 've added a neighborhood standard whenever it
deviates . From what Jo Ann is telling me I 'm not certain whether or not
' this would meet the hardship criteria . On the face of it , if there 's a
legitimate building pad that doesn 't have a problem but the one you prefer
does , the answer is build where there 's no problem .
IIConrad: Right .
Olsen: But the neighborhood standards might help .
IIEmmings : No because , well .
' Ellson: The other houses in the same neighborhood .
Ari Fuad: There are houses that are down the bluff . . . .possibility of
doing it site specific . I know I 'm the last lot in Hesse Farm that there 's
I a question on and there 's a question on my lot because it isn 't a sheer
bluff all the way down . It 's just a ridge that runs up . I think I 'm more
the exception than the rule and I think in this , I don 't know the other
I neighborhoods but you buy a 10 acre subdivision sized say in new areas and
have a rule that says cut out the ambiguity about was it a sheer dropoff or
was there some kind ambiguity . . .
Emmings: How about if we put a comma after the ordinance and say , except
for Ari? That 's a real problem . We get in a lot of trouble zoning one
site . If we do something it 's got to be across the board .
IIAri Fuad: But could it say existing lots have some grandfathering?
Emmings : We 've done that . We 're doing that for existing dwellings but not
existing .
II Ari Fuad: Well this is an existing lot in an existing subdivision . The
lot 's been there 10 years and I can see in other subdivisions . . .would know
what the restrictions are . I bought the lot a year ago with full intent to
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 35
build on the site . The way it sounds there is process for a variance
there 's an existing pad which there unquestionably is . It 's just a very
inferior pad . But I don 't have a choice . I have to build . . . If this
ordinance had existed at the time I wouldn 't have bought the lot because ,
like I say . . . I
Emmings: Right , we understand . Okay . Ladd , are you through yet?
Conrad: Oh boy . So we 're still pretty loose on that permit process in
111
terms of our standards . Going back to vegetation alteration . Tell me the
guidelines again . How do you say you can cut that tree down? You can 't .
We 're trying to visually keep the bluff looking the way we want it yet on
the other hand people buy that lot so they can build on it . So how are you
guided Jo Ann?
Olsen: A . lot of times there 's a lot of underbrush there that if you clear I
that , that gives you a pretty good view . There 's also trees that have been
you know diseased or dying and those are the ones that you go for first .
So those are things you look at . There 's usually some large ones like maybe 1
in clumps like one here and one there but there 's usually some spacing
between where you can clear it so , you go out to the site and it is kind of
easy to determine . 1
Conrad: So you feel pretty confident that you 're going to be able to give
a homeowner a view?
Olsen: Yeah . In the cases that we 've worked with like in Deerbrook and
stuff , yes we 've been able to and a lot of times we will bring the Soil and
Water Conservation District people out because the bluff exists and we do
look at what the undergrowth is . And if you need other vegetation there so
if we do let them take the underbrush out , then they have to do like a low
growing grass or something to replace that . So that 's one of the things
you look at . We don 't have specific standards , although in the landscaping I
ordinance I don 't know if that would apply .
Krauss: I think from an administrative standpoint though it would help for I
us to be able to clarify exactly what we 're working with the homeowner to
achieve . Is some sort of a view corridor is to be created . I don 't know
if we define that by the size of the thing or the maximum number of trees
we would allow to be cut but we need to clarify that here 's the goal and
here are some guidelines on how to establish it so it 's not coming down to
us going out there and if we 're having a bad day saying no , you can 't do
that .
Conrad: It wouldn 't hurt to do that . I think that would be a helpful
guideline . At least the homeowners , the residents know what we 're shooting "
for rather than just willy nilly as sort of a gut feel . You know the
bottom line for me is , on this ordinance is , I do like it because it
doesn 't have a lot of stipulations . It seems pretty simple . And I guess I
you know I 'm coming down on the simplicity and sometimes I could be wrong .
But I do like it from , it seems like one number and some intents here
accomplish quite a bit . And that 's my comments .
Batzli : Could you summarize?
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 36
Conrad: I don 't think I could .
Erhart : I think the comments made by ASCS . Who was that who made the
comments?
' Olsen: Paul Newman . Not the blue eyes .
Erhart : Actually clarified that , I think the reading quite a bit and
somehow I think we ought to get most of that in there . I wouldn 't change
the setback though to 50 feet which leads us then to the theme of the
discussion tonight of whether this affects your lot there . Is someone on
the staff familiar with this . . .
IIOlsen: Which part?
IErhart: I forget what your name was .
Olsen: Ari . I visited it with one of the engineers .
IIErhart : Okay . Does the area that he wants to build , does that apply to
it?
I Olsen: It 's within the bluff impact zone . He- does have a level area above
the bluff and then there is , he calls it a road but it 's more like kind of
a gravel or just kind of a path that 's been used .
IIErhart : Why can 't you build on a flat spot in the impact zone?
I Olsen: What his is , it 's not really a real flat spot but there 's not much
flat there but it 's the setbacks and all of that would prohibit him from
using the house there .
IIErhart : If he had a big enough spot , flat on the bluff , does this
ordinance allow you to build?
I Olsen: The definition allows you , if you have a distance of 50 feet or
more , with slope less than 18% , that 's not part of the bluff . I don 't
think his applies . It 's not 50 feet .
IErhart : Do you agree with that?
Ari Fuad: I guess I didn 't understand .
IOlsen : The definition of bluff , if you have less than 18% slope for 50
foot distance , that 's technology not within the bluff .
IAri Fuad : Yeah , I think I 've got that . Oh , it 's 50 feet under 18%?
There 's a crown .
IIOlsen : That 's something we can look at .
Ari Fuad: It 's a crown . It 's not a ridge , it 's a crown .
I
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 ,. 1991 - Page 37 I
Erhart : Yeah , I mean that 's the thing with the bluff is it 's not like they "
draw in the picture but there is a lot of flat spots and in fact there 's
little mounds that come back up . I 'm assuming that there 's a lot of spots
on the bluff even with this ordinance that you could build on .
Olsen: Oh sure but it 's the setbacks .
Ari Fuad: This ridge or whatever which is actually a crown is maybe 100
feet across . Maybe more . It 's just if you think of bluff all the way
around it . . .you 're turning a 100 foot circle into a 40 foot circle . It 's
the setbacks .
Erhart : 100 feet 's not very much area to build on .
Ari Fuad: To build a house , lot widths are 80 feet wide . Then they have I
10 foot setbacks which give you 60 feet which is plenty of room for a
house . Houses are only 40 feet deep so a house fits on a pad roughly 60 x
40 . That 's a fairly large house . That 's 2 ,400 square feet . '
Erhart : Are you going to have any kind of a yard or driveway?
Ari Fuad: You 've got 100 feet square . 1
Erhart : Are there other houses that are there existing that are similiar?
Olsen: I think there 's one that kind of goes down a couple feet to the
west . I haven 't really looked but there 's also septic sites on each lot .
These are unsewered so there 's a lot of impact so the setbacks is what 's
hurting him .
Ari Fuad: See this ridge is 500 feet long and so it 's not , there 's lots of
room laterally to put in septic systems and wells and yard . It 's just the
30 foot setback makes , it could potentially make the site too narrow to put III
the appropriate sized house on it .
Erhart: This house , does it sit out in the view of the other people that
live out there?
Ari Fuad: There 's one house . 1
Erhart : I wonder what the other two houses do?
Olsen: There 's a row of homes . I couldn 't tell you .
Erhart : No but I mean you 're talking about having the homes up and then
having one down and out further or he had one or two or three out and down .
Olsen : Out and down further? He 'd be the furthest down . I don 't know if
we can show you .
Erhart: That 's okay , Do you think if the house was there , is that
objectionable? You 're one of the existing homeowners . I
Olsen: If the house were to be located there?
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 38
II
Ari Fuad: It would be substantially below them so it wouldn 't really block
II their view and their trees , there 'd actually be trees between , that would
grow up actually on my property that would basically block .
il Erhart : Why wouldn 't you just start building the house right now? Before
the ordinance .
Emmings: Because he 's got to get a building permit .
IIAri Fuad : That 's a good point .
I Verne Severson: We 're talking about individual rights tonight . I want to
build a workshop on my property but with this ordinance I can 't do that .
I should have brought a map .
IEmmings: I 'm going to cut out the talking here'. If you want to ask
somebody a specific question go ahead but we can 't have . It 's getting too
loose . We 're going to be here until midnight .
IIErhart : Have you talked about performance standards as opposed to a
general ordinance?
IIKrauss: We really haven 't and I think it 's been for a number of reasons .
There 's no good model for us to work off of that 's based on performance .
Solely performance approach . We 're not dealing with commercial/industrial
I developers here who can bring in consultants at $120 .00 an hour to give us
what we need to react to to effectively deal with specific standards . You
also become fairly erratic and inconsistent which is kind of a basic thing
Ito avoid in enforcing ordinances .
Erhart : What 's in here to prevent somebody from going in and doing a lot
IIof bulldozing and stuff over the edge of the bluff?
Olsen : They 'd have to have a permit .
1 Krauss : They 're be in violation of the ordinance .
Erhart : If you look at that site and you basically lay out where they can
Imove dirt . Pretty much people do follow that .
Olsen : The grading permit?
IIErhart : Yeah . I guess what I was trying to get to there was , you know we
picked some numbers and things . I 'm not sure , I know. where we got the
numbers . We got the numbers from the State program that 's putting this out
II but where I was going was I thought maybe this would be an example to kind
of test our numbers . I guess if I had the opportunity to go out and look
at that lot I think would be real useful . On the other hand I really think
I it 's a needed , I think we definitely need protection and if you can 't get
it through performance standards , then this is our only choice . Again
I would have liked to have seen that lot . I don 't know if it 's worth
waiting . I don 't know if that 's the only reason why you 'd want to table
IIit . I think we can get the wording in without tabling it .
II
•
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 39 1
Emmings: Okay . Is that it? I 've got a couple of specific things .
I think Ladd 's comments about this being a simple ordinance . I think those ll
are good comments and I think that 's a good way to approach this situation .
I think it does a good job of protecting the people who are already there
with homes . How it affects him I don 't know but I think if we wind up
tabling it , we might use his property as a test case to see how it affects II
and maybe we can get the City Engineer between now and then to go out and
look at it . Or if he already has .
Olsen: He has .
Emmings: Alright . Or maybe you could tell us how we get there to look at 1
it or something so we could see . But on the other hand , I don 't think how
it affects one person out of everybody on the bluff makes a difference to
the ordinance but still I think it 's a useful test case . The comments that 'll
people buy these lots for the specific purpose of having the view . You
know there 's restrictions on every kind of lot that you buy . That 's not a
reason to have restrictions on the lot . I live on Lake Minnewashta .
Bought an empty lot and had all kinds of restrictions . I couldn 't build
within 75 feet of the lake . Maybe I could have said, gee if I 'm going to
live on the lake I want a house right down there so I can step off my deck in
right into my boat and go but I can 't do that . So again that argument
doesn 't persuade me very much . But on the other hand , I think we 've got to
have , if the view is the major thing that people are interested in , we 've •
got to have a way to accommodate that . It 's only fair and I think we do
that through the further removal or alteration of vegetation . And in most II
cases that ought to be good enough I think . In some cases it might not be .
In some specific cases it might not be . And that 's where you get down to
the desire of these people I think to have a site specific plan because
you 've got the general regulation but you can get the staff to go out and
look at your individual piece and develop a plan along with the city to
accommodate the desire to have a good view . I think maybe that 's the best II
of all possible worlds . In the statement of intent section , in the third
line from the bottom . It says alteration . The sentence starts out , to
preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the City , alteration "
to the bluff impact zone and I wonder if it should say , rather than
alteration to the zone . It should say alteration to the land or vegetation
within the bluff impact zone . That was one thought I had . On structure
setbacks number 2 . It talks about the setback from the top of the bluff is "
5 feet on parcels on which a building has already been constructed . I
don 't know why it 's 5 feet .
Olsen: That 's what we were trying to accommodate homes that are already
within the 30 foot setback , that they wanted to make an addition .
Emmings: Why would we let them build closer than they are if they 're less II
than 30?
Krauss: Because we already let them build their home within that area .
They may have not added a deck . They may have planned their house for it
or planned their house for an addition and we believe that we , the die is
cast . The home is already where it should be . They 've already got some
vested rights .
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 40
II
Emmings: To me I would say there should be 5 feet or the existing setback ,
I which is more . That would be my approach to that situation . I think it 's
fine that we approve all of the houses that exist . I don 't think there 's
any reason to allow them to build closer just because they 're already
there . The other thing , somehow in there we ought to make it clear that
II that 's for the existing building and not any new buildings . So that 's
something that should be added in about that I think . Then the only other
thing , under the official map section , 1406 it says , the Arcticle applies
I only to the bluff impact zone located on the official bluff impact zone map
dated June 1 , 1991 . I just think after that it should say , as amended from
time to time . It does say in the next sentence that it can be amended but
it still says that it only applies to what 's on the map so that could be a
I
problem . And I guess I agree with the people who 've talked about tabling
this one so we can have another look at all of these . The comments that
have been made by these other bodies and also maybe get a chance to look at
Ithis property if he ' ll let us go out and walk around .
Ari Fuad: I 'd be glad to meet you out there .
IIBatzli : Some of the comments made by these people I don 't think make sense
either . I don 't want us to just add the comments because some of them
aren 't right .
II Y
Erhart : Yeah right .
IIOlsen: You 've got to pick out which ones you think are right .
Batzli : Like for example when the comment , one or more of the following
characteristics is incorrect given how we 're defining what the bluff is .
That shouldn 't be added . Things that don 't make sense and I don 't know if
we want to go through them now or if we just want to let Jo Ann go through
them and take a look at them .
IIEmmings: I would suggest we take another run at this thing .
I Erhart : I would like to see us set up a time . I 'd like to get the tour .
Go out and look at that .
Olsen : Okay . Some afternoon? Morning? Night?
IEmmings: If it 's a weekend it could be an afternoon .
IErhart : Or 6 :00 in the evening .
Olsen: Okay .
1 Emming: Yeah , something like that . Is there a motion to do something here
like table it .
IIOlsen : Maybe we can try to get Orlin Schafer here . The other one was
tabled also right?
IIEmmings: Yeah .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1991 - Page 41 1
Olsen : So we ' ll try to get Orlin here for both of them .
Emmings: Is there a tax question on this one?
Olsen: That 's right . Nobody brought it up . Never mind . There were a lot
of people who called .
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission table this matter in order to I
allow staff time to review the amendments proposed by the various other
entities and so that we can go out and take a peak at some of these sites .
Emmings: I ' ll second it . Is there any discussion? '
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
create a bluff line preservation section to the City Code for further
review. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: People who made comments tonight should know that your comments II
get typed up and will be part of the packet we have when we review this
next time . Not to discourage you from coming again but we will be looking
at them again .
( Joan Ahrens left the meeting at this point and was not present in the
votes on any further items . )
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. I
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Don E . Halla 10 ,000 Great Plains Blvd .
Mark Halla 770 Creekwood '
Kathy Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. -All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: First page , page 2 . I would very much like to see the City
Attorney , someone work on limiting the power companies ability to clear cut
and spray . What 's the next step on that? I
Aanenson: You would like him to direct him to come back with something
that would prohibit that?
Erhart : Yeah , that 's what I 'd like .
Emmings : And then we ' ll send it to all the power companies that have
transmission lines in this city . Put them on notice so they 've got no
excuse .
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
{ K
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
July 17, 1991
Dear Property Owner:
' The City is considering adopting a bluff preservation ordinance.
A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 19,
1991. After receiving comments from the public., action was tabled
' until some of the concerns could be addressed and until a letter
could be sent to affected property owners explaining the bluff
preservation ordinance.
The City has been experiencing destruction of bluff areas as a
result of clearcutting, erosion and construction within the bluff.
The intent of the bluff preservation ordinance is to protect
' Chanhassen's sensitive and valuable bluff area, specifically along
Bluff Creek, north of Hwy. 212 and along the Minnesota River Valley
and its tributaries. The bluff preservation ordinance prevents
clearcutting within the bluff, creates a structure setback and
maintains existing drainage patterns. An official map will
designate areas protected by the ordinance. A draft map is
available for review at City Hall.
At the June 19 meeting, the first concern with the bluff
preservation ordinance was what it would do to existing structures.
' The ordinance accommodates existing structures and existing lots of
record. All structures which are within the bluff setback zone are
grandfathered in as conforming structures and are also provided
' with a decreased bluff setback for future additions.
A second concern was the impact of the ordinance on potential
subdivisions of existing large parcels. The bluff protection area
' is contained within the A2 and BF Districts. The A2 District,
which is where the existing homes are located, regulates the
subdivision of property and limits new subdivisions to 1 unit per
' 10 acre density with a minimum of 1 acre of buildable area with a
slope of 25% or less. Therefore, the existing ordinance requires
that you must have at least 20 acres and acreage outside of the
bluff before you can subdivide. The bluff preservation ordinance
' should not further restrict the creation of new lots.
I
1
r
July 17, 1991 r
Page 2
Attached is a copy of the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission
will again be reviewing the ordinance on Wednesday, August 21,
1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner I
1
1
1
1
I
II ALVIN LEBENS LEON C MESENBRINK
TERRENCE BEAUCHANE
460 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE 250 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE PO BOX 23
IICHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
•
' BRUCE & T PAUL GARY & D ANDERSON JAMES & J SABINSKE •
10240 MANAN CIRCLE 725 CREEKWOOD 774 4TH STREET
CHASKA MN 55318 ' CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
II
ISUPERAMERICA GROUP INC WM & R BROWN GUY R & M MUNDALE
PO BOX 14000 10220 MANDAN CIRCLE 460 MANDAN CIRCLE
LEXINGTON KY 40512 CHASKA MN 55318• CHASKA MN 55318
I
JAS & R PEDERSON RICHARD T HALVER RICHARD SCHUELKE
I10300 MANDAN CIRCLE 10271 GREAT PLAINS BLVD GINNY LIND
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 10251 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHASKA MN 55318
IIHARRY NIEMELA JAMES & J DINGEL JAMES & C SULERUD
2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD DEPT 34 730 VOGELSBERG TR
I EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PO BOX 9300 CHASKA MN 55318
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440
IROBERT FINLEY STEINER & KOPPELMANN NORMAN & K MONROE
DEBRA WENDORF-FINLEY JOHN & J PHILLIPS ET AL 565 LAKOTA LANE
740 VOGELSBERG TR 110952 VON HERTZEN CT PO BOX 115
IICHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
IIDEVAL & DATTA MEDH _ LAVERNE & E WHEELER TIMOTHY WISE
535 LAKOTA LANE 445 LAKOTA LANE ' 425 LAKOTA LANE
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
I
- - - -ROBERT & P BURESH GEORGE NELSON & ASSOC KEVIN BUESGENS
I5817 HANSEN ROAD SUITE 428 PO BOX 910
EDINA MN 55436 1660 SO HWY 100 CHASKA MN 55318
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416
I -
- - -
PAUL TAUNTON GERALD & S BERTSCH RICHARD MALONEY
I #310 8556 IRWIN ROAD 1315 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE
10125 CROSSTOWN CIR BLOOMINGTON MN p5437 CHASKA MN 55318
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
ILEONARD & C TAKKUNEN MARY WARITZ DENNIS & L SMITH
1291 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE 1271 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE 1251 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE
IICHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
II
II
DAVID HALLA PAUL & D GRAFFUNDER JEFFREY & K DYPWICK
10095 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 10001 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 10300 GREAT PLAINS BLV
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
DAVID TEICH RODNEY & D BEUCH DAVID & C JOHNSON II
10151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 1180 PIONEER TRAIL 821 CREEKWOOD
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
II
MICHAEL LYNCH ET AL BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOC TEUNIS & J DEJOODE I
LAVERNE LYNCH 1905 CONCORDIA ST 810 PIONEER TRAIL
925 CREEKWOOD WAYZATA MN 55391 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
' CHASKA MN 55318 1
PAUL & A SYMANITZ JOHN SKRABA JR CHARLES & P WEBBER
1505 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE 1530 BLUFF CREEK - 17240 VALLEY ROAD
II
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347
II
DONALD HALLA CHANHASSEN SPRINGS CO JAMES & S PEDERSEN
10000 GREAT PLAINS BLVD C/O ELLIOT FEINBERG 10300 MANDAN CIRCLE I
CHASKA MN 55318 4725 EXCELSIOR BLVD CHASKA MN 55318
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416
HAROLD HESSE DIANE GILBERTSON MAJORIE NELSON BUSH II
1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE 1190 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE ANNE KARELS
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 1161 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE "
CHASKA MN 55318
HELEN SADEN ET AL CHESTER & B TEICH JOSEPH NOTERMANN I
C/O ALFRED HESSE 825 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE 1205 WEST 6TH AVE
5100 CREEKWOOD ROAD CHASKA MN 55318 SHAKOPEE MN 55379
CHASKA MN 55318 I
JOHN MALZAHN WALTER & J GRIEPENTROG THOMAS & B ZWIERS II 10551 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 100 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE 11111 DEUCE ROAD
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 ELKO MN 55020
II
PATRICK BLOOD MAYNARD & M HAPPE VERNE & S SEVERSON
NANCY LESS 495 LAKOTA LANE 675 LAKOTA LANE
I
718 3RD AVE W CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
II
RUSSELL & Y BARTO BERT' & B NOTERMANN DAN & V TESTER
400 LAKOTA LANE 812 E CO RD 78 230 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
CHASKA MN 55318 SHAKOPEE MN 55379 CHASKA MN 55318
II
ilDUANE BICEK EILEEN N CARLSON TRUSTEE ROBERT & J STEFFES
1231 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE APT 115 1350 HESSEN FARM
II CHASKA MN 55318 11160 ANDERSON LK PKWY CHASKA MN 55318
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
IIEUGENE & M JUNKER ROGER & V BROUN BRUCE B RECH
1250 HESSE FARM ROAD 1200 HESSE FARM RD 1180 HESSE FARM RD
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
II
IHOWARD NOZISKA FRAYNE & D JOHNSEN JAY PROVO
1120 HESSE FARM RD 1100 HESSE FARM ROAD #206
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 4006 EMERALD STREET
IITORRANCE CA 90503
DANIEL & K SMITH CHARLES MOONEY PAUL & S HARMEL
11 1020 HESSE FARM RD JENNIFER KIRKHAM 1075 HESSE FARM ROAD
CHASKA MN 55318 1025 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA MN 55318
CHASKA MN 55318
II PAUL & M MOLINARI ROBERT & S PERRY
L RICHARD & K DEE
1101 HESSE FARM ROAD 1181 HESSE FARM ROAD 1201 HESSE FARM CIR
" CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
IJAMES & S HOUGH EDWARD MUELLER DAVID & L GRANT
1225 HESSE FARM CIR 1251 HESSE FARM CIR 1679 CHATHAM AVE
' CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 ARDEN HILLS MN 55318
II GARY WEHRWEIN NICHOLAS & F EVANOFF HESSE FARM HOMEOWNERS
3262 LAKE SHORE CIR 1401 HESSE FARM ROAD ASSOCIATION
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE
IICHASKA MN 55318
WILLIAM & J MEYER JERRY & M CRONABLE F PATRICK & M
IAPT 73 10320 HEIDI LANE PRENDERGAST
3660 INDEPENDENCE AVE S CHASKA MN 55318 10360 HEIDI LANE
ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426 CHASKA MN 55318
1
MICHAEL & L REMOND MARK J BRIOL & RICHARD & M BUE
I10380 HEIDI LANE VIRGINIA DAVID-BRIOL 10361 HEIDI LANE
CHASKA MN 55318 10377 HEIDI LANE CHASKA MN 55318
CHASKA MN 55318
" ROMAN & P ROOS RICHARD & J NIEMI CURTIS & C BARDAL
10341 HEIDI LANE 10460 BLUFF CIRCLE 10301 HEIDI LANE
" CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
II
SAMUEL BOUTIN & KIRK MACKENZIE
ARI & S FUAD
SUSAN SHANNON-BOUTIN 10420 BLUFF CRICLE 6645 CHEROKEE TRAIL W
11407 CREEKRIDGE DR CHASKA MN 55318 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 II
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
DONALD & K SCHLOSSER LEE & E ANDERSON JOSEPH & M ELMGREN 1
ROUTE 1 BOX 126A 10441 BLUFF CIRCLE 1221 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE
PEQUOT LAKES MN 56472 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
•
JOSEPH & G KANDIKO JAMES & C STRUBLE HESSE FARM II HO ASSOC 1
10421 BLUFF CIRCLE 12420 29TH AVE N C/O GEORGIA KANDIKO
CHASKA MN 55318 PLYMOUTH MN 55441 10421 BLUFF CIRCLE
CHASKA MN 55318
NICHOLAS & M WARITZ HESSE FARM II HO ASSOC PAUL & S ALLEN
1271 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE C/O PEGGY ROOS 1002 HESSE FARM ROAD II
CHASKA MN 55318 10341 HEIDI LANE CHASKA MN 55318
CHASKA MN 55318
ROGER & B OSHAUGHNESSY JOHN & B FORCE J MICHAEL SORENSON
1000 HESSE FARM ROAD 1001 HESSE FARM ROAD 7606 ERIE AVE
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 II
ANNE & CLARA VOGEL DALE & P GUNDERSON
815 CREEKWOOD 845 CREEKWOOD
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 37
1
PUBLIC HEARING;
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A BLUFF PROTECTION ORDINANCE SECTION
TO THE CITY CODE .
Public Present=
1 Name Address
I Al & Gerty Lebens 460 Flying Cloud Drive
Dick & Jane Niemi 10460 Bluff Circle
Maynard Happe 495 Lakota Lane
II Roman Roos 1450 Park Court
Mike Sorensen 7600 Erie Avenue
Lee F . Anderson 10441 Bluff Circle
' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
' Lee Anderson: My name is Lee Anderson . I live on 10441 Bluff Circle .
I didn 't see and I just got this copy and I didn 't see the part that it
allowed additions to the house .
1 Olsen : Well it 's on page 2 of the ordinance . It says .
1 Emmings: 1401( 2 )?
Olsen : Right . Number 2 under there on page 2 . On parcels of land on
I which a building has already been constructed on June 1 , 1991 , the setback
from the top of the bluff is 5 feet .
Lee Anderson: I didn 't see the word additions in there .
1 Olsen: Well if your house is say 15 feet away , you can still , that says
that your setback isn 't 30 feet but it 's 4 feet .
1 Lee Anderson: What if it 's currently 5 feet now but you wanted to put an
addition onto the house was my question?
IIOlsen: We 're not permitting that .
Lee Anderson : That 's my question .
1 Olsen: The 5 feet is as much as we 're giving for that .
' Lee Anderson: I guess I have a concern about that . I have a 2 bedroom
home there . There 's a lot of land and where it is , I can 't tell you where
it 's set back . It was built about 5 years ago but I think that 's really
basically taking something away but I 'm not sure .
II , Olsen : We do still have the variance procedure which is what you 'd have to
go through that to get an exception to the rules . It kicks you into having
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 38
to prove hardship . We did want to accommodate it but still not allow right _
up to the edge . I
Lee Anderson: I guess I feel that 's really confiscating some right that
I have and I 'm not convinced that that 's totally right for this thing . The ll
other question I had was the ability to subdivide . I don 't quite know how
I 'm addressing that one but I don 't see anything on this right now . -
Olsen: It doesn 't really , you know if your lot is say 5 acres . 1
Lee Anderson: 6 .3 .
Olsen: 6 .3 and say 6 of the acres is within that bluff impact zone .
Lee Anderson: About 5 would be .
Olsen: Well that would be .
Lee Anderson: So you 're basically saying that , I 'm not against the II philosophy but you 're also saying , hey you . We just cut you out because .
Olsen: Well , we also have in another section of the ordinance and you 're II
in the area that doesn 't have the sewer and water .
Lee Anderson: Right , Hesse Farm .
Olsen: And under the existing regulations , you have to have I believe it 's
1 acre . I ' ll have to check but you already are controlled that you have to
have at least a certain amount of buildable area that 's below the slope
that would be in the bluff area . So already you 'd be restricted on how you
subdivide and whether or not you could .
•
Lee Anderson: It all has to be the 1 acre totally has to be buildable . 1
Olsen: Maybe I can check on that .
Lee Anderson: I don 't want to get into my problems specifically but the
other comment I have is that I 'm not sure that all the people that got that
card , and I respect the need to get this out . I 'm not sure more people
considering the property that 's covered here , shouldn 't get a copy of this II
document so they really know what 's going on . I applaud your intent but
I 'm still not sure that part of this isn't basically confiscating in some
way. Some land that people may want to develop under an appropriate manner
and so I think it needs more study really than an approval or disproval
tonight . Thank you .
Emmings: Thank you . Yes sir . -
Roman Roos : I 'm Roman Roos . I 'm at 10431 Heidi Lane which would be just II
down the road from Lee . I guess my concerns addressed to the Planning
Commission are very much the same . I also have about a 6 acre parcel . I
don 't see it in the foreseeable future that I 'd be subdividing or trying to
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' June 19 , 1991 - Page 39
do this but in paying the kind of money and paying the kind of taxes we pay _
I for that area for "the view" , if the City 's going to try to constrain or
refrain or stop even an addition to an existing dwelling , for example maybe
a gazebo or something of this nature , that 's really destroying some rights
that I bought and paid for and are paying for every year with very high
taxes . It has no bearing on it being not sewered . I too believe there 's
got to be a lot more study and it 's not just the Hesse Farm area alone . All
the houses on the bluff . Those lots are all sold and all developed but if
you move to the other side of the bluff going along towards the Hesse Farm
East and then move across south to the Bluff Creek Course . That area .
They have the same problems . ' Now their bluff area is a little more steep
than what the Hesse Farm area is with the exception on the east side . I
just think that the philosophy , the intent is beautiful . I think it 's
perfect but I think we have to really do some studying with the individuals
that are in existence there for what they have , what they 've paid for and
I
what they 're going to continue to pay for . One other question I have also
has to do with the land in the business fringe area and of course the
residential land that we 're talking about on Hesse Farm East and West and
I that land that would be to the right . I guess it would be to the east of
the business fringe area . How far does the business fringe area run up TH
169 Jo Ann?
IEmmings: You 're talking about the area now where TH 101 comes down to 212 .
Roman Roos : Right . From the motel there if you will , moving up TH 169
IIwith the junkyard on one side .
Krauss : Jeff , if you could possibly slide over .
IBatzli : 4 ,000 feet .
Roman Roos: That 's very good . I guess , that 's fine Jeff . I guess my
' concern would be that again one of the areas of study that I think has to
be looked at very , very clearly is the business fringe area . I was on the
Planning Commission when that was put in existence back in the late 70 's .
IIEmmings: So you 're the guy.
Roman Roos: I 'm innocent , believe me .
Emmings: You shouldn 't have admitted that .
IRoman Roos: At the time gentlemen and ladies , it seemed like a very good
idea and I believe it still is a good idea . It has to be controlled .
There 's no question about it . I think what I 'm trying to say is the study
I that has to be , I think has to be accomplished yet is if you 're going to
create a zoning change . If I understand it , you 're going to try to change
the zoning of that business fringe?
IKrauss : I think we have to separate out issues . This is a bluff line
protection ordinance . It has nothing to do with the BF district except
that part of the BF district backs up to the bluff line . The BF district
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 40
discussion is something that started a year ago with the comprehensive
plan . It 's something that has to be picked up again . We need to notify II everybody down there and work with that . . You know , I think there 's a lot
of valid concerns being raised in terms of study of the bluff line itself
but I think it 's only fair to say that we have studied it quite a bit . We
have hiked it . We 've seen instances where construction even 50 and 60 feet
away have changed the drainage going over this thing where the first heavy
rain we get , this stuff collapses . What we have is an- extremely sensitive
bluff line that 's covered by a few inches of clay and the rest of it is II sugar sand . We frankly have some horrendous examples of where people have
messed with it and they 're on the verge of losing some buildings as a
result of it and I don 't know that there 's a good answer once that thing
starts . So we 're trying to balance the rights of the individual . We 're
trying to recognize the rights of people who are already there and treating
them somewhat differently because we don 't want to come in after the fact
with an onerous ordinance . But 5 feet from a bluff that is that unstable , '
or could be that unstable , is pretty close . It 's frankly closer than I
would prefer to be but if that 's where some of the homes are , we 're saying
we ' ll live with that . But closer than 5 feet , I can 't , I probably be hard
pressed to find an engineer I think who would tell you that it 's safe to
build that close to the bluff line .
Roman Roos: I guess I have to somewhat differ with you . I came from 1
California and believe me . Believe me , the engineering they can do
marvelous things on the bluff . I mean your paying tremendous dollars for
the view just as you 're buyingRlakeshore for example . I guess what I 'm
trying to say , I think we need more study on this . There 's a lot of issues
that are dovetailed together Paul . Like I say the business fringe is not
part of this issue but it is married to it because you 're talking about
visibility . Views . Okay? I don 't have the clean answers . I 'm just
saying that I don 't know if we 're ready , at least the average citizen who 's
going to be affected by this . I don 't think he has enough knowledge to
really make some valid comments tonight and to give guidance to the
Planning Commission that they may make a recommendation to the Council at
this point . Thank you .
Emmings: Thank you Roman . Yes sir .
Maynard Happe: I 'm Maynard Happe . I live on Lakota Lane . I already have
a piece of property there that the road will make your setback so far . If
you have 30 feet , I couldn 't have a building on the lot and .it 's already
been approved as such . What would you do?
Olsen: Again , that 's one of those cases where you 'd go through the
ordinance but since this is an existing lot of record , essentially what
we 're saying is that is most likely a buildable site and that 's where you II
would be able to prove a hardship for a setback . A variance to that
setback .
Maynard Happe: Anything that had been approved wouldn 't be affected by it? "
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 41
II
Olsen: Well you 'd have to go through a process to have approval to locate
I a home on that site but that 's where the City would have a difficult
position saying that there isn 't a hardship when you can 't even use it for
anything . If we deny that variance to that 30 foot setback or from the
setback from the street perhaps , then we would be denying you a home on
IIthat lot and your use of it .
Maynard Happe: All of the homes that are there are close to .
IOlsen : Right and we use that . We look at that too in the variance .
I Maynard Happe: They 're all within , well I don 't know , 30 feet but there 's
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , there 's 7 homes along there .
Olsen: And that goes into considerati,on too with that. I don 't see that
Iremoving your right to develop that lot .
Emmings: Thank you . Does anybody else want to be heard on this? And it 's
I my understanding that notice of this public hearing went to every lot owner
of record that 's affected by this proposal . Is that right?
•
II Olsen: Yeah . I went through all of it . I can 't guarantee that we didn 't
miss one but we went through the whole list and it was a substantial list .
Emmings : Is there any other comments? Alright . Is there a motion to
IIclose the public hearing?
Ellson moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
IIfavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ellson: I sound like a broken record but I 've liked everything we 've had
today so .
IIEmmings: You 're just afraid to .
I Ellson : To stir things up and drag it out any longer , right . No , I think
that we 're on the leading edge of a city doing something like this . I
think it 's really important and I commend the people who brought it to our
I attention . Who knows how much more would have happened if we hadn't so I
appreciate the citizens who brought it to our attention and it really
wasn 't something that was on the priority until we did take a look at it
and realized that it is in accordance with our city goals of maintaining
II natural greenway and open spaces and the preservation of the natural
environment . I like it and I believe we have done the research that 's
necessary too . I can see forwarding it to the City Council without further
Iresearch .
•
Emmings: Okay . Brian?
IIBatzli : Jo Ann? In Section 1 , number 2 under Bluff . We keep on having
. this toe of the slope . I 've always been confused as to what the toe of the
slope is because that 's the one thing that isn 't defined .
II
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 42
•
Olsen : Right . That was supposed to be changed to toe of the bluff .
Sorry . I
-
Batzli : Yeah , I asked you last time and I guess since you didn 't change it
I thought they really meant toe of the slope .
Olsen: It 's supposed to be toe of the bluff . Sorry , we forgot to have
that changed . It started from the bottom up so it 's supposed to be bluff . I
Toe of bluff .
• Batzli : Okay . In Section 20-1403 , Removal or Alteration of Vegetation . I
would really prefer that we talk about the removal or alteration is I
prohibited except subject to the following limited . I didn't really even
write this out so much as I kind of wanted to bounce it off the fellow
commissioners here . It looks like we 're permitting it except and I think
the intent was originally to prohibit it except . I don 't know how we 'd
word it . I haven 't really looked at it that carefully . And then in
Section 12-1406 in the official map section . Do we really mean that we 're
talking about bluff impact zones located on and/or within the official
bluff impact zone map?
Olsen: I think what we 're saying is yeah . It has to be on the map but it II
also has to meet the definition of bluff so if something is shown on the
map that actually isn 't a bluff , then they can get out of it that way but
at the same time it had to be officially mapped .
Batzli : I was just curious about whether we have this line and the
question is whether it means you 're on the line or you 're anywhere within
that zone bounded by the line . '
Krauss : Well , you have a line . For the sake of drafting purposes , we
worked off the 200 scale aerials which show the property lines . We had
engineering staff figure out where that bluff began given the criteria that '
the ordinance establishes . There 's an elevation that follows through there
and we picked it up and it might be the 942 elevation in one spot and the II
in another . What we 'll do on the official city maps is then you have
an area below that and above the toe and it will be shaded in . We couldn 't
do that on this map just for the sake 'of drafting but we want to make it
clear too that we realize that while our information is the best we have , I
we didn 't go out with a survey crew and run the whole 6 miles of bluff
line . If somebody comes in with better information than we have off our
official maps , we want to correct our official maps . We 'll accept the
better information .
Batzli : So if somebody came in and said I 'm covered by the ordinance . I 'm
on your official map but I don 't think I should be , what would be . 1
satisfactory information?
Ellson : Based on the definitions . ,
Krauss: Based upon a survey , a registered survey that shows more accurate
information . In fact , if I might suggest , there 's language that I can lift '
il
Planning Commission Meeting
II June 19 , 1991 - Page 43
from another ordinance that I can 't recall exactly right now but it
I outlines an administrative procedure . I 've done this in wetland ordinances
whereby if you get more accurate information by registered survey or the
City Engineer can just change the map . We don 't even have to ask the City
Council to do that .
Batzli : How big of a hurry are we in to do this? Are we in any kind of
hurry? Other than we want to protect the bluff as soon as possible .
IIKrauss: I don 't think there 's imminent danger that something 's going to
happen . There 's some ongoing situations there . We 've been talking about
I this over a series of probably 4 meetings over a period of 3 or 4 months .
We wanted to get it on the table . We wanted to notify all the residents .
We wanted to get their feedback . If there are other directions to go in ,
I we 'd he happy to do that . If the homeowners would like some opportunity to
meet with us so they can figure out where the bluff is as we think it is
relative to their specific property , we 'd be happy to do that too .
I Batzli : I was just kind of following up on Roman 's comment that he thought
there should be some kind of cooling off period to the residents . Now that
they have their hands on a copy of the ordinance , they can figure out what
I it really does to them and what it means before we pass it on to City
Council .
I Krauss: That would be reasonable . We had intended to send copies of the
ordinance out with the notice but we didn 't have them in time to do that .
This is not something where there 's something horrendous going to happen
tomorrow if we don 't pass this today .
IBatzli : I think if I was a homeowner I would like the opportunity to take
a look at this and meet with staff now that I 've got a copy of it in front
I of me and I 've got a chance to look at my own property . They may have
better comments or their concerns may be satisfied if we allow them a
little bit more time .
II Krauss: I might add too that we 'd like to prepare a video . We intended to
do that for tonight but we wanted to bring in some graphic evidence of why
we think that this is a concern . We have at least 4 sites we 'd like to
Ishow you .
Batzli : I 'm all for this and I 'm a huge proponent . I think Jo Ann has
I done a good job . I love the concept but I 'm just thinking as a homeowner I
think Roman has a good idea to kind of .
Jane Niemi : Can I? You 're being kind of loose and I know I 'm out of turn
IIbut seeing as you 've etablished looseness here in not following rules .
Emmings : We can clamp down .
IIJane Niemi : We got a notification that says we 're amending something . We
had no idea what you were amending from the notice so we didn 't know what
II the original statement said and what you 're changing it to . I think that
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 44
these bluff lot people should have a copy of the original and what you 're
proposing . I
Dick Niemi : I don 't think they understood the ramifications .
Jane Niemi : It says something 's going to be amended . Well what is going II
to be amended? That 's what we 're here to find out , what are you amending
and what is this amendment going to be so I think that the original needs 11
to be sent out , brought forth to the people that this is effective along
with your proposed change .
Batzli : So I guess what I 'd propose is that we table this once we talk
about it here and we instruct staff to send out a copy to the affected
people .
Krauss: If I could add one thing . That 's fine with us . We 'd be happy to I
do it but the thing that we 're amending is the zoning ordinance . It 's this
black binder here and everything that 's in it but there is no specific
bluff protection regulation at all right now .
Ellson: it 's like bringing something out that was never there .
Dick Niemi : . . .this is a drastic change .
Krauss: Well no . It 's the same terminology . We 're amending the zoning
ordinance by adding Section .
Dick Niemi : If you live there on that bluff line , you think of it as a
drastic change . I don 't think anyone here or on the City Council lives on
the bluff line .
Emmings: No , and we pass things about various things . I don 't own any
commercial property and we pass things on commercial property all the time .
You know , I guess this is a real small turnout which bothers me . It either
means that people aren 't interested , which I can 't believe , or that they
really were not informed and that scares me .
Jane Niemi : It was a very cryptic letter . It said hey , this is what . . .
It really said nothing . '
Emmings: So it may be but on the other side of this I guess is the
property , the existing property 's are exempted so I didn 't think people
would be too excited about that because we 're not even making them non-
conforming uses . We 're totally exempting them so that's going a long way .
Dick Niemi : But we 've got 10 1/2 acres which . . .subdivided . . .
Emmings : Right , and you just don 't know °..;w . It creates an element of
doubt and that 's always horrible but I guess that the , I have a hard time II
thinking that your planning to build over the edge of the slope . And as
long as we allow you to go up -to 5 feet from it with your existing dwelling
or within 30 with anything new , those don 't seem like real onerous
I
IIPlanning g Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 45
II
provisions to me but maybe they are . So maybe Brian 's suggestion is a good
Ione . Co ahead .
Maynard Happe : The notice that I got was very vague . I had been to a
meeting about the sand pit and everything going on there . I thought it was
I some more to do with along there but I decided I best come and see just
what or who was affected and who they were talking about . I didn 't have
any idea what was going on .
IOlsen: We wanted to send out the ordinance and Paul was going to do that
but by the time we had it in 'final form , it wouldn 't have gotten out in
I time . Before this meeting anyway so it was kind of like we 're just going
to have to go with it . When we sent out the notice , it was one of those
where we weren 't sure exactly what we could say in there more than we 're
doing a bluff protection ordinance and call .
IEmmings: I guess it 's small enough so I guess . . .but we can fix that by
just continuing the hearing and getting more input . And you know , talk to
I your neighbors . We 'll table it . Maybe if everybody agrees with that .
Talk to your neighbors and read it and let us know what your concerns are .
Do it in writing or come in when we look at it again . It sounds like
I that 's the way it 's going to go . I thought everyone who was here , when I
walked in the room and saw a lot of people , I thought everybody was here on
the bluff protection ordinance because I thought that was going to be a big
draw and I was real surprised when I saw . Jeff , we skipped over you and
II I don 't want anybody accusing me of running a loose meeting so we 're going
to go over here right now .
IFarmakeE I wouldn 't he against tabling this for a period of time . I think
this is an important thing . I realize that it may interfere with property
rights . Some of the owners in this area but that happens in many cases in
the zoning ordinance . For instance on a lakeshore lot . In an effort to
I preserve the lakeshore , I am not allowed to build within a certain distance
of the lakeshore that I want to the lake . The effort there is an attempt
to keep the entire lake looking like a developed lot . It 's an effort to
I offer the community something and to preserve the lakeshore . The basic
philosophy of this protection on the bluff area is an attempt to preserve
the natural area itself because it is subject to deterioration . It 's a
I sensitive area . I 'm sure since you live there you probably , in heavy rains
and so on , seen what can happen in that area . The intent is not to destroy
your property investment or to limit your rights for development . I know
I would be sympathetic to grandfathering or issue the people who want to
I amend their homes or so on . The intent here is to make a community effort
to protect this area and things are going to change here . With these
highways and this development and so on , 10 years from now this is not
I going to be the Chanhassen that it is now . You yourselves are talking
about subdividing and so on and the issue here is an attempt to try and
preserve some sensitive areas of Chanhassen . .I realize that with that
attempt there will probably be some infringement on your property rights .
It 's something I think that hopefully we can work out in the issues of
grandfathering . But I am not against spending more time notifying property
owners . If you 'll let .me finish . I 'm not against notifying further the
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 46
1
property owners and having further discussion with this . I fully encourage
any and every property owner to come in here and discuss this at length .
I 'd like .certainly any property owner to be part of this process and
hopefully together we can attempt to protect some of the areas of
Chanhassen that are worth protecting . You 're fortunate enough to talk
about the view th,t you want to look at . We need to change some of the
ways that we develop these areas or we 're going to wind up with an inner
city look in this community that I don 't think a lot of people want here .
Hopefully if it 's just a matter of 10 feet away from a bluff line or 5 feet
or 30 feet , many of these things , if these developments are taken or
slightly altered , create a lot of giving the overall effect of more open
space and protecting certain sensitive areas . So hopefully we can do that . "
The other issue , when we were talking about California . There are several
homes here that have washed into the bluff area in the rain and I was
fortunate enough to be out in California in the last earthquake . Several
of these expensive homes were severely damaged , at least from what I can
see . Even ones where a great deal of protection went into trying to keep
these homes up . There 's no question in my mind that there are some places
where development is forced simply because of the property values . It II requires it . The terrain and so on . I would not think it would be a good
idea for us sitting here on this side , not owning property there , not to
say that there are some areas there just as a matter of public concern that '
that area , besides the aesthetic differences , physically should not be
built on . That 's of course always up for discussion but that 's what we 're
here for . Anyway to sum it up , I would like to see perhaps more effort in
notifyin.z, people for continuing this public hearing and I would not be
remiss to vote to table this for the time being .
Emmings : You 're burning to say something .
Jane Niemi : I guess the whole presentation of this is telling us as
homeowners , we 're all saying yeah . Let 's protect it but this is coming on
as a negative rather than a positive . Why not say if you 're going to own
it , if your obligation to maintain , to keep from erosion . To keep from and
do it from a positive level than say what you cannot do with what you own
and what we are paying dearly for . . . .tax situation is not here but we 've II
just been socked with a lovely increase so I think we 're all a little on
the edge and we 're kind of don 't want something jammed down our throats .
We just have . . .presented in a positive that since you own this , it 's your
obligation to keep erosion from happening then I think it might go a little
bit better . This is a negative presentation.
Mike Sorenson: Can I say something? ,
Emmings: Yeah . You haven 't told us who you are though.
Mike Sorenson : I 'm Mike Sorenson . ,
Emmings : I don 't know if she did either . Why don 't you tell us who you
are for the record .
Jane Niemi : Jane Niemi . I live in Hesse Farm .
I
1
Mi
II s�
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 47
Mike Sorenson: I know you 've already gone through the public discussion
IIbut I am one of the land owners in the business fringe area . I 'm the
Saddam Hussein of Chanhassen . It says it right here . I was just wondering
how this new bluff protection ordinance . First of all when they were
building this highway out here .
II Emmings : Which one?
II Mike Sorenson: Highway 5 . Cutting trees down . Taking up you know and in
these types of areas , this is what has to be done . If you have to build
• buildings , you have to remove trees . You have to remove vegetation . You
I have to remove things . I 'm not opposed to not doing it and I 'm not opposed
but I did buy some land and Pat Blood here , he 's my neighbor down there . He
bought some land based on a zoning that the City of Chanhassen put in
effect . We didn 't buy it to look at . We bought it to develop and to build
I buildings and things like this you know . And I was just wondering how , I 'm
asking here . I 'm not getting up and I 'm not ranting and raving or nothing
like that . I was just curious to see what the city of Chanhassen has in
Imind for the fringe area .
Emmings : .That 's going to be a separate discussion . We don 't know .
.
II Mike Sorenson: I got the letters . _
Emmings: That 's because your property is affected because you 're at the
I bottom of the slope but we wind up doing with , the business fringe area is
something we 've talked about many times . We 've rezoned it .
IIMike Sorenson : I seen this article in the paper , you know that front page
article in the paper saying how , you know the one I 'm referring to?
Emmings : I don 't know . What paper?
IKrauss: That was about a year ago . At least a year .
I Mike Sorenson : Well it was a big full page article . I have it at home .
Maybe 6 months , a year or so ago .
Krauss: I think it was the last time we discussed it .
II
Emmings: Whatever . We 've looked at it a number of times . We 've rezoned
it several times . We 've fooled around with it and we 've just never found a
II satisfactory answer . There 's a number of people on the Planning Commission
who think there shouldn 't be any commercial development on that property at
all . There 's a number here that think yeah , maybe there are some low
I intensity commercial uses that would be appropriate there so we 're having
those kinds of discussions and you 'll be notified when there 's more . . .
Mike Sorenson : Okay . Like I say , our concern is people that own the
II
property in there is like Pat . He 's trying to sell his and me , I 'd like to
finish developing mine . I 'm kind of in an area where I don 't know where .
1 -
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 48 I
•
Emmings : Have you got the storage?
Mike Sorenson: Yes . I have the storage . And we just don 't know where we
can go . I carne in with a plan and it didn 't fly at all .
Emmings: I remember . I
Mike Sorenson: But anyway .
I
Emmings: The thing is , this is a real dynamic situation . Especially down
• where you are . But it 's dynamic throughout Chanhassen and the reason for
that is , we 're going from what was once kind of a rural community to what 's '
becoming very much an urban community . It 's just a very dynamic situation
and you may own a piece of property right here and yesterday it wasn 't
within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area but today it is . Yesterday you
couldn 't build . You had to have 1 house in 10 acres and now you can have
15 ,000 square foot lots but the point is , whenever you decide you 're going
to develop , you 've got to come in and find out what the rules are in effect
at that time because those are the ones that govern what you do . And
II
there 's that keeps those rules static . The fact that you bought a piece of
property under one set of rules , doesn 't mean you get to develop under the
rules then in effect . You get to develop under the rules in effect at the II
time you ask to develop and it 's a risk you take as a landowner . We all do
it . It 's hard down in that area and it 's hard in Chanhassen today but it 's
just the way it is . I can 't offer you any comfort because things are
really changing fast . We change ordinances just about every time we sit
II
down and it 's not because we think it 's fun or we 're preverse . It 's just
necessary . Well , to get back to the subject at hand . I think a. bluff
protection ordinance is very important . I think that Brian 's comment on
that one section , that section on removal or alteration of vegetation to me
said nothing . I could literally go out and do anything on my property that
I wanted to do and fit it within the language that 's on that page and that I
really bothered me because I really wonder if we 're doing anything at all
here as far as vegetation is concerned . But it helps a little bit if you
do what Brian said but I still think it needs some work . Plus number 2 ,
clearing has become cleaning and we don 't really care if they go out and
clean their vegetation . We don't want them to clear it . And I think there
should be specific language in 1404 that says that there will be no
increase of drainage toward the bluff . That no development activity will I
create any increase drainage . If there 's some drainage there now or
there 's some drainage before you develop , fine . That 's what 's there but .
you can 't do anything to increase the drainage towards the bluff . See
we 've had some people come in and talk to us and I don 't know if it 's right "
or wrong but the information that 's in front of us is that bluff 's are
incredibly sensitive pieces of land . They 're very fragile . That even
putting up a building and having the roof collect water and direct .it or
channel it or make it heavier toward the bluff can erode the bluff away andll
they 've had. examples of this apparently in Eden Prairie . And we 're not
only interested in preventing those situations to protect the bluff ,
which I 'm sure essentially everybody here would be in favor of , but we alsoll
want the bluff to be an amenity as you look towards it . You know not just
looking out from it but looking towards it as well so when , we think of 169 '
II
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 49
II
or 212 going . The old 212 . That that area will be left very much with
essentially n- development . There will be development on the bluffs but
II
below that and out into the area that the U .S . has there in the river
valley , it 's going to be kind of left looking the way it does now or better
if possible . And part of that is making sure we don 't have development
I right up to the bluff . Or like some people like to do and build out over
the edge of the bluff . You do read about California . You do read about
mud slides and houses sliding down hills and I just don 't think it 's going
II to happen here but we want make , we don 't even want the bluffs to be
eroding away . So we think that this is important stuff . Something 's going
to be passed . I think enough concern 's been raised here so that we should
table this for tonight and put it on our next , can we put it on our next
II meeting? .
Olsen : Sure .
IEmmings : And get copies of this ordinance out to everybody but make sure
when you talk to your neighbors that you tell them , that you don 't just say
II we pay a lot of money in taxes . I pay a lot of money in taxes so don 't
talk to me about that . That doesn 't help with me and I can 't build within
75 feet of the lake that I live on . That was a good point . I can 't my
house within 5 feet of the lake or stick it over it .
IDick Niemi : What if you had 300 feet and someone said you can 't sell 100
of it? That 's the analogy . . .5 foot setback .
IIEllson: I think this would give people a chance to take a look at their
individual parcels and see if it would really be affecting them .
II Farmakes : he analogy that I actually made was , if you misunderstood it ,
was that the effort of doing that is I am giving up some of my landowner
rights in an effort for the community good . I mean that 's what 's being
1 asked of me and the question is , that 's the only way we 're going to
preserve some of this stuff . I mean that 's it . That 's the only way you
can preserve .
IDick Niemi : My question was the feasibility or lack of feasibility of
subdividing it if necessary down the road and that 's why using the analogy
of if you have 300 feet of shoreline and you want to sell 100 , you 've got
Isome regulation that prohibits you from selling that .
Farmakes: It 's how it 's developed .
IEmmings: And the other point is , when I hear you say to me I 've got land I
want to develop on the bluff , all the more important that I want
I regulations on how that 's done . I don 't want it to just happen any way .
You may have the best intentions of protecting the bluff in the world you
know and I concede that to you but you 're not everybody and I don 't know
everybody is going to do it and I think the bluff is a real unique physical
II feature that we have in this city and it 's got to be protected somehow .
Maybe we haven 't done it exactly right here . Maybe you 'll come up with
II
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 50
some ideas where we can make this better . We 're going to give you the
chance to do that by tabling it . 1
Roman Roos: Just a couple of quick comments . Number one . . .I think Jeff 's
right on target . . .analogy of the shoreline . . .bought land and developed on.. II
We 've been real lucky . If you look at the development we 've got along the
bluffs so far , most of it has really turned out quite well . We 're really
fortunate . Absolutely fortunate but I think every property in designing
his home on how that sat on that bluff was considering . . .bluff because
that 's part of what he bought .
Ellson: But if we make that assumption ongoing . I
Roman Roos: I understand but we need some control now , and Jeff I agree
100% but what I 'm thinking right now , a typical scenario . You buy a lot .
As a contractor , the guy hires me and wants me to place that house on that
bluff for the view okay . So what I do is I go in there and I 'll take a
look at the contours and I 'll try to cut that house into the bluff and into
the hillside to somehow make it fit in . To tuck it in the land so they get "
the view . Give it some isolation . What you try to do is plant that house
on that land . We haven 't addressed that issue . In other words , I 'd come
back to the City and say here 's my site plan . Here 's the grading permit
Paul . This is what I 'd like to do . Now I 'm going to change the toe or I 'm
going. to change the top of that roof a little bit to accomplish this
okay? So when you talk about the top of the roof , what Paul 's driving at
but what if we modify the top of the roof because the land will permit it
to be done okay without taking a lot of trees out . There 's just some
variables we haven 't addressed yet guys that we have to address and that is
in the building process , the grading process , how you tuck a house in
there . To categorically say a 30 foot limit or a 5 foot limit , I don 't
think we can say that .
Emmings: Do you think a 30 foot setback is a lot? I
Roman Roos : By golly I think Steve that sometimes you might have to have a
60 foot .
Emmings: No , do you think that 30 is too big a number?
Roman Roos: No , not necessarily but again the bluff is so unique and the I
trees , the foliage is so unique , I don't know how you can just
categorically say a number okay .
Emmings: Well it 's a minimum .
Roman Roos: Yeah . There 's got to be some control . There's no question
about it but I don 't think we 've address= that issue because there 's so
many variables that just a 3 page ordina= _ : I don 't think can address it .
Emmings: Paul , do you want to address of the things he 's raised? 1
1
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 51
II
Krauss : Well , you know there is the potential you could go for a site plan
I review for an individual house . We 've always tried to stay away from that .
I mean you want to give the latitude to the homeowner to do what they 'd
like to do . We know that this is a sensitive bluff . We know where it 's
been tinkered with all hell breaks loose . We know that there's properties
II that are being threatened . Yes there 's probably some sites where you could
sculpt something out in there , although I 've got to say that I think you
would be very risky to do it . We know that the tree line comes back a
II short distance and in some places a long distance but the tree line is
usually the bluff itself in many areas and as soon as we start tinkering
with that , as soon as we start excavating it . If you plant a house there ,
you 're certainly going to change the drainage going over the top . But
IIevery time we 've seen that happen , there 's been extreme amounts of damage
occurring . Either it occurs to that property or it occurs to the trees
down below . They get wiped out as the erosion occurs or it occurs in the
IIcreeks and the rivers that accept all the sediment and now we 're being
asked to clean that up . We can 't get away with Chanhassen washing over
the hill anymore . The Federal EPA is suing the Metropolitan Waste Control
IICommission to reduce the sediment load , the waste load in Minnesota River
by 40% by the year 1996 . The MWCC is in turn threatening us to sue , and
they 're doing this to every community in the river valley . We can 't get
away with that kind of stuff anymore , even if we wanted to .
IIRoman Roos : I would encourage , I would really encourage the Planning '
Commission , members of the Planning Commission to take a drive down the
Iroad . I know what Paul is saying . There are some isolating cases that are
going to cause problems . It is not the majority of cases . I can look at
every home that 's been built on the Hesse Farm , east and west and on the
I far side of TH 101 and . . .you will not see that condition that Paul 's
talking about on almost 95% of the homes that have been built onto the
hilltop . I think we have to have some controls but I don 't know the answer .
I don 't know the . . .I don 't know how you control a contractor going in and
IIcutting and putting a house . I 'm just saying there are some remote
situations that we 've got a problem with . Paul , I agree 100% . We 've been
very fortunate .
IEmmings: You don 't want to take , our attempt to control or protect , really
to protect the bluff isn 't in any way a criticism of any people here or
II development that 's taken place to date except for a few maybe , but
generally speaking the 95% we agree with you . It isn 't a problem but those
properties probably wouldn 't be affected by our ordinance anyway . Maybe
they would have fit in the ordinance anyway . Well , and they 're going to be
IIexempted so I don 't know if it 's a problem .
Roman Roos: I 'm just saying there 's got to be more study .
IIEmmings: I don 't agree with that I guess . The only other thing that
I want . I don 't want more study . The input from people who live there .
If you have specific things you want to say about the ordinance to us , I
II think we 've got to listen to that before we pass this onto the City Council
but other than that , there 's not going to be further study in terms of
I
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19 , 1991 - Page 52 1
consulting people or looking at property. But we do want to hear from
landowners . I think we 've exhausted this .
II
Batzli : But I think I would be interested if people came in with real life
examples as to what we 're doing how , whatever I 'm trying to say . In
essence , how is it going to impact their lots? What is this going to do?
Ellson : A before and after analysis or something . -
Emmings: Would it have made a difference in the way they developed it?
Batzli : But they may have an undevelopable piece, of property and they may -'
say .
Emmings: Yeah , that 'd be useful . I
Krauss: We 're going to have some , well there 's some vacations in the
department coming up and we want to give people enough time to come in and
sit down with us and we- can go specifically over their property . The
gentleman who has 11 acres . He may or may not have an issue . He may not
have any right to develop that property because of other ordinances right
now but we 'd like to be able to sit down and explain that to him . What
II
we 'd like to do is if you hold this over , if you could hold it over to the
first meeting in August and then that will give everybody enough time .
Emmings: Okay . And in the meantime you 'll send a copy of the ordinance to I
all the owners of property on the bluff . And ask them in a letter to tell
us how it affects their property , particularly undeveloped property .
Because it 's not really going to affect developed property that much except
to the extent that you have plans to subdivide . Now we 'll need a motion to
table this .
Batzli : I move that we table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create a II
bluff line protection ordinance .
Ellson: And I 'll second that motion . I
Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance amendment to
I
create a bluff line protection ordinance. All voted in favor and the
motion carried . The item was tabled until the first meeting in August .
Jane Niemi : August when? I
Emmings: I don 't know .
Ellson: You 'll get a notice . I
Emmings: The first Wednesday .
Roman Roos: . . .miles of bluff line . I mean that 's a lot of people . Other "
than the golf course .
I
. I
6)//- /
1 .
CITYOF
__7(7,/,_
e:_._,--,
1
e k cHANHAssEN
I
c 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
` (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I �%
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
1 FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
IDATE: June 11, 1991
SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Create a Bluff Line
Protection Ordinance
1 BACKGROUND
1 The City has been observing alterations to our bluff areas in the
form of tree removal, indiscriminate filling/grading and damage
from erosion. These alterations impact scenic vistas, water
I quality and loss of property through erosion. Staff has been
trying, with limited success, to eliminate these problems through
our grading and tree removal regulations. After continuing to see
more destruction of the bluff area, the city and staff felt we
Ishould look at the bluff area as a whole system rather than in a
piece meal fashion. An ordinance creating a bluff district which
would be protected by specific regulations was drafted. The
1 purpose of the ordinance is to define and map our significant bluff
areas and prevent its destruction from clearcutting, filling,
grading and erosion. The ordinance will preserve a valuable
Iresource of the residents along the bluff, the city and region.
On April 3, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal by
staff to create a bluff protection district ordinance. The general
1 standards submitted by staff were from the new DNR shoreland
regulations. The Planning Commission, for the most part, was in
favor of such an ordinance. Commissioner Erhart felt that the
1 ordinance may be too extreme in protecting areas within the city
that should be permitted to be developed. The Planning Commission
directed staff to further work on the proposed ordinance.
IAfter the Planning Commission meeting, staff met with Commissioner
Erhart and Rick Sathre of Sathre Bergquist to review just how
extensive the DNR regulations are and if there are areas within the
I city that would be impacted that should not be regulated. It was
determined that the proposed regulations did in fact go beyond what
the intent of the city may be and it was then decided that a bluff
II
1
Bluff Line Preservation District
May 10, 1991
Page 2
protection ordinance should be designed specifically for the 1
Minnesota River Valley and Bluff Creek area in the city.
Staff has had the Engineering Department denote the bluff areas on
aerial maps. It is staff's intention to formally adopt a bluff
line map and that those areas designated on the map will be
protected by the new bluff protection ordinance. The ordinance
will regulate only those areas designated on the map. Staff has
• • notified the property owners affected by the ordinance and has
invited them to the public hearing on June 19, 1991. '
The draft ordinance has been changed to include exemptions for
existing structures, create an official map, setbacks from the toe
of the bluff, requirement for an earth work permit and protection
of existing drainage patterns. The DNR has submitted a revised
definition of top and toe of the bluff. This revision addresses
the concern that the first definition resulted in more than a 30
foot setback from the actual top of the bluff. Staff has added the
revised definitions to the ordinance.
Staff feels that the bluff protection ordinance will be very !i
beneficial to the city to prevent past problems from occurring.
The bluff protection ordinance will help prevent the destruction of
the bluff line such that has occurred on the Mike Sorenson property
located on Hwy. 212 (clearing and grading) and on the Halla Nursery
site (indiscriminate filling of a bluff valley) .
RECOMMENDATION '
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of a zoning ordinance
amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the Zoning
Ordinance, concerning protection of bluffs as shown on Attachment
#1."
ATTACHMENTS I
1. Proposed amendment.
2. DNR definitions dated May 15, 1991.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated April 3, 1991.
1
I
i
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Section 20-1, Definitions is hereby amended by
adding the following:
Bluff. Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill,
' cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics:
(1) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the
' bluff; and
(2) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a
point 25 feet or more above the toe of the slope averages
' 30% or greater.
(3) An area with an average slope of less than 18% over a
distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part
of the bluff.
Bluff Impact Zone. Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land
' located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.
Intensive Vegetation Clearing. Intensive vegetation clearing
' means the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous
patch, strip, row or block.
' Toe of the bluff. Toe of the bluff means the point on a bluff
where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable
break in the slope, from gentler to steeper slope above. If
no break in the slope is apparent, the toe of the bluff shall
' be determined to be the lower end of a 50 foot segment,
measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18%.
' Top of the bluff. Top of the bluff means the point on a bluff
where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable
break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If
no break in the slope is apparent, the top of the bluff shall
be determined to be the upper end of a 50 foot segment,
measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18%.
' Section 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended
by adding Article XXVIII to read as follows:
1
1
ARTICLE XXVIII.
BLUFF PROTECTION
Section 20-1400. Statement of Intent. '
Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities
within the bluff impact zone may result in increased dangers of
erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby
endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the
health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City. To
preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the City,
alteration to the bluff impact zone will not be permitted except as
regulated by this Article and by the regulations of the underlying
zoning district where the property is located. '
Section 20-1401. Structure Setbacks.
(1) Structures, including but not limited to decks and
accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are
prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top
of the bluff and toe of the bluff at least thirty (30)
feet.
(2) On parcels of land on which a building has already been
constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of
the bluff is five (5) feet.
Section 20-1402. Stairways, Lifts and Landings. 1
Stairways and lifts shall be used for access up and down
bluffs. Major topographic alterations are prohibited. Stairways
and lifts must meet the following design requirements:
(1) Stairways and lifts may not exceed four (4) feet in width
on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for
commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
(2) Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots may
not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Landings
larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for
commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
(3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or
landings.
(4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed
above the ground on posts or placed into the ground,
provided they are designed and built in a manner that
ensures control of soil erosion.
2
(5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most
visually inconspicuous portions of lots.
11 (6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for
physically handicapped persons are also allowed, provided
that the dimensional and performance standards of sub-
items (1) to (5) are complied with.
Section 20-1403. Removal or Alteration of Vegetation.
tRemoval or alteration of vegetation is allowed within a bluff
impact zone subject to the following standards:
I (1) Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning
and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view from
the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the
placement of stairways and landings and access paths.
(2) Intensive vegetation cleaning is prohibited.
Section 20-1404. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling.
The drainage from property within the bluff impact zone may
' not be redirected without a permit from the City. The permit shall
be granted if the proposed alteration does not adversely affect the
bluff impact zone or other property. An earth work permit will be
required for the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of
material within bluff impact zones. Fill or excavated material
shall not be placed in bluff impact zones.
Section 20-1405. Roads, Driveways and Parking Areas.
Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure
setbacks and must not be placed within bluff impact zones when
other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no
alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must
' be designed to minimize adverse impacts.
Section 12-1406. Official Map.
' This Article shall apply only to the bluff impact zones
located on the official bluff impact zone map dated June 1, 1991,
which is incorporated herein by reference and which is on file with
the City Clerk.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
' its passage and publication.
3
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this I
day of , 1991.
ATTEST: I
s I
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1991. ) I
I
I
I
_I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
I
I
"Top of Bluff" and "Toe of Bluff"
DEFINITIONS
May 15, 1991
The Land Use Committee in its May 15, 1991, meeting discussed and agreed on the
following definitions drafted by the shoreland management staff:
1. Top of the Bluff. "Top of the bluff" means the point on a bluff where
there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope,
from steeper to gentler slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent,
the top of bluff shall be determined to be the upper end of a 50-foot
segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18
percent.
2. Toe of the Bluff. "Toe of the bluff" means the point on a bluff where
there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope,
from gentler to steeper slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent,
' the toe of bluff shall be determined to be the lower end of a 50-foot
segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18
percent.
1 •
1
s
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 3 , 1291 - Page 48
II
•
BLUFFLINE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
IIEmmings-: Paul had some specific questions on the summary on page 6 of his
report here . Or Jo Ann . I 'm sorry .
Krauss: Do you want to start this now given the time? 1
Emmin .: : I have a feeling this one won 't take that long . Yeah , I think we.
ought to do it . I
Erhart : Yeah . I 've got some issues on it .
Emmings: The only one I 've got , since I 've got the floor , was when you
II
talk about the bluff impact zone within 20 feet of the top of the bluff . I
just wonder why it isn 't a bigger number . The bluff impact zone talks
about , page 2 is , I don 't know why it 's not 100 feet?
I
Erhart : What line are you on?
Emmings : Page 2 . Bluff Impact Zone . I
EllE;on: Second major paragraph.
Erhart : Under item 1? I
Emmings: No above there where it 's defined . I
Olsen : Actually they 're finding the opposite . That the definition of
bluff is where it has to be 30% for a certain amount and then if it levels I
out , then the steep slope or it 's not a bluff so actually , the way bluffs
usually are , is that there will be a steep slope and then you 'll have it
leveling out but that still , the top of this is still , or the top of the
bluff so you actually already have a pretty decent amount of area leveling I
out from the bluff before you do take that 20 feet .
Batzli : I thought the bluff , the only part of the bluff was the part that I
was over 30% . That 's where I was confused .
Olsen: But the top of the bluff is a higher point . . . .segment with 18% . il
So you 've got 30% and then you could have anything with 18% . That 's still
considered part of the bluff .
Erhart : 50 foot? I
Olsen: In fact , I don 't know that you need more is what I 'm getting at .
The DNR finds that the 20% might even be . . .
I
Emmings: Let me tell you , well okay. But you 've got restrictions on the
bluff impact zone but a building only needs to be set back 30 feet . A
Istructure only , what?
Erhart : You 're getting into the broader question but I want to comment , to
bring up here and that is . My impression of this , I guess I 've been I
1
IPlanning Commission Meeting
April 3 , 1991 - Page 49
pushing to try to preserve this bluff and everything like
Y g that from
commercial development . On the other hand , I guess I 'm a little awestruck
I by this whole thing is that one of the- things I 'm trying to preserve is so
people can build houses on top of the bluff and overlook it and I guess my
reaction is , I 'm concerned we 're being too restrictive in terms of the guy
I who wants to build his house and have a deck that is up essentially to what
you call the top of the bluff and have it essentially overlook the valley
and stuff . A lot of which those existing houses are there . You 're
II applying standards which really are , there 's all kinds of houses there now
which would not meet this standard and I really question why we 're trying
to do that when I thought what we were trying to do was protect the bluff
from development right essentially down in the valley and that area there .
I. My concern is now , that 's one concern . It kind of goes against what .
you 're .
IEmmings: Yeah , because I 'm including the top of the bluff .
Erhart : Yeah , I just don 't understand it . To me that 's part of the big
value of the bluff is that someone can build on it and take advantage- of
II it .
Emmings : I don 't mind them building houses on top of it but I think they
Iought to be set back a ways .
Erhart : Second concern of the whole thing is the way this reads it will
II not only just apply to bluffs but I 'll tell you . There 's a lot of hills in
the city of Chanhassen that this thing will make practically unbuildable .
Batzli : We can limit it to the BF Districts .
IIErhart : Because I 'll tell you , and the reason I ask . You 're taking this
out cf the DNR shoreland ordinance and you talk about 25 feet above the
I ordinary high water and then you 're just taking that number and applying it
to number one . And you 're saying that a slope rising at least 25 feet
above the toe of the slope , not the high water mark and I think that
Inumber 's too small . I like the overall thing . I really like it but
I think where it 's getting too broad and we 're going to be applying this
thing to hills . As a result , you 're going to have a major impact on how
things will get done and I don 't think that was our intent . I have a lot
Iof hills on my property that are over 25 feet tall .
Emmings: With slopes like these?
IErhart : Oh yeah . .
'
Emmings: But you don 't want to build at the top of a steep slope like that
Ido you?
Erhart : I think that 's what 's valuable about the land.
IEmmings : Right up to the edge of it though?
IIErhart : Well the deck .
I
• t
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 2 , 1991 - Page 50
Emmings: And you don 't worry about having a deal like in California here
where cu g.) sliding away down the hill . ,
Ahrens : Oh in Eden Prairie .
Ellson: Or Eden prairie just during that 100 year storm there were some of"
Erhart : In the first place you 've got 50 feet of an 18 foot slope and then'
you 've got another 30 feet of the setback . You 're talking about
restricting a lot of land from use by lot 'owners .
Emmings : That 's what I thought this was all about . I
Ellson: It was for impact wasn 't it? It wasn 't to save a bunch of decks
on top of the bluff . You 're preserving how nice it looks . '
Ahrens : I thought this will all about protecting bluffs , not protecting
them for the developmenJof houses on the top of them .
Erhart : I understand that but there has to be a point where you draw a
line . I mean if people want to build houses , why don 't we just say you
can 't build houses on lakes because I don 't want to drive by in my boat and
see a houF.e and you wouldn 't have a house . So there 's a practical limit
and I think we 've gone , what scares me is apparently some of these numbers
are already incorporated into the DNR ordinance . '
Olsen: We 're going to be having to adopt these with our Shoreland
Ordinance .
Erhart : 25 feet is , that 's nothing . That 's a hill here in Chanhassen .
There 's a lot of places that are hills that have nothing to do with what
we 're talking about bluffs that will fall into this regulation.
Emmings : They did say , somewhere in here they told us what you thought
would actually be protected here . I don 't know . I can 't get too excited II
about a hill . I don 't know exactly what a hill is I guess .
Olsen: It 's steep slopes was what maybe you 're picturing and you do allow
development df that .
Erhart : That 's what I 'm saying but I think with this ordinance we 're not
going to anymore . ,
Olsen: Yeah.
Emmings: Remember Tim when we talked about the land that went by the golf II
course and somebody wanted to build a house that was kind of going to hang
out over the bluff almost and I think we were all real opposed to that . I
Both because it imposed on the creek there , the valley that was there and
it didn 't , well I don 't know . I remember thinking it didn't sound safe to
me in addition .
Planning Commission ssion Meeting
April 3 , 1991 - Page 51
I
Erhart : But Steve , there 's a difference between 80 foot setback . You have
' 18% slope .
Emmings: Why are you saying 80?
Erhart : Because you have 50 feet of 18% .
Emmings: You 've got 50 feet going what direction?
' Erhart : Back from essentially where the 30% slope is . Then you have 50 •
feet of 18% slope and then you 've got another 30 feet of setback . That 's
80 feet .
Emmings: From what?
IErhart : From what I would consider really where the bluff starts .
Emmings: I don 't agree with that . Look at this diagram . Look at this one
' Tim .
Erhart : The top of the bluff means .
'
•
Ellson: There 's a picture of it . It 's described here .
Emmings: A picture 's worth a thousand words .
Erhart : I 've got it . Let me read it for you . The top of the bluff means
the higher point of a 50 foot setgment with an average slope exceeding 18% .
' Conrad: Okay , and that 's this part .
Erhart : No , that 's the 30% . I 'm reading the ordinance to you .
Olsen: The top of the bluff is where it levels out . . .
' Emmings: Put this one up .
Erhart : I know but that doesn 't agree with what it says here .
I Emmings: I think you 're reading steep slopes. Isn 't that the steep
slopes?
I Olsen: The steep slope is kind of between these areas and that 's where
Ceil was saying that either 20 feet . . .and then in the area of 18% , then you
have . This would be the top and then you 'd have 20 feet setback from here .
IIEmmings: I like that better .
I Erhart: It 's where your 30% is . Then you have another 50 feet where it
drops down to 18% . I 'm just saying , so then you finally get to the top and
then you 've got another 30 feet so your house is 80 feet back from where .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 3 , 1991 - Page 52
Emmings: In that peculiar case yeah but what about here where you 've got
no 18 at all? It goes up 30 and then it starts to level off . I
Erhart : If you go walk those Minnesota River bluffs , it 's far more common ,
in fact you have variations all the way up like this . It doesn 't go up and,
just stop like that picture . That 's not the way that Minnesota Valley
looks . In fact I 'm not even sure , well . I quite frankly think it 's going
to get a hard time . It 's going to get so restrictive because the fact that
it dips back down . It 's pretty idealistic . '
Emmings: Maybe we ought to step back because I thought what we were trying
to do here was keep development off the top . The edge of the slope . We ,
don 't want to see development on the slope itself and basically from the
river to the top of the slope a little ways back we didn 't want to see any
development . That 's where I thought we were coming from .
Ellson : So nature wise it just looked like 100 years . . .
Emmings: Well you 're the one who proposed this so what did you have in
mind?
Erhart : I never had in mind that . I was trying to get rid of the
development actually down by the highway . This is all kind of shocking to
me . I 'm not opposed to me because I think it will work but I 'm just saying ,
there 's got to be really , we really need to define what our goals are here .
I guess I don 't have any problem with the houses way up there that have 1'
decks that come right to the edge because they like to look over the
valley . I really have no problem with that . It 's no different than other
houses around . Housing on lakes . It 's an amenity that those people want
and it 's really not that intrusive .
Emmings: And residential development like that at the top of the bluff
doesn 't bother you but you wouldn 't want to see any other kind? ,
Erhart: I don 't want to see commercial/industrial development in the
valley or situations . We don 't want houses on 30% slope . I absolutely
agree with that because of the erosion problem. And the thing is , that
sounds good here but there 's a lot of places in the world where houses are
built on 30% slope as a -rule . I
•
Emmings: And they wash out into the lake .
Conrad: They shouldn 't be there .
Erhart: Well you wouldn't build a house in Puerto Rico. Nobody would live
there in Puerto Rico if you couldn 't build a house on a 30% slope . _
Conrad: Let me follow up . The reason for the setbacks Jo Ann would be for
erosion? When we had that 20?
Olsen: The DNR 's big thing is more visual . They want to keep things .
Again , this ordinance is for the shoreland ordinance so it 's bluffs along
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 3 , 1991 - Page 53
the lakes so they don 't want it cleared completely right up so you can see
Ithe home . The setback is for visual but also for erosion .
Conrad: I just kept thinking that Tim , if you put a house right on the
edge of the bluff , you 've got a lot of water coming off your roof and it
just seemed , you Know for a rain storm , it just seems like you 're
accentuating the erosion . That 's how I interpretted the ordinance . If you
keep your house back a little bit , you 're reducing the erosion . Maybe
that 's not a big deal but that was my interpretation of the reason . Mine
wasn 't visual .
I Elison: Plus not all the decks are good looking and things like that .
Ahrens: It 's too windy to have a deck up there anyway .
I Erhart : This can be applied , unless I 'm reading it wrong , to a lot of
hills in the City that have nothing to do with bluffs . 25% rise .
If Krauss : That 's a question we have when we looked at starting to put
together a r~- a of where these things occur . It 's not only the Minnesota
River bluff lines . It 's around Lotus Lake . It 's in some different areas
and there are more than I think we would have thought . You 're raising a
I valid point . On the other hand , I think there 's a problem with allowing
people to clear cut 30 foot openings in tree cover because they want to
look at the Minnesota River .
IErhart : I have no problem with that .
I Krauss : We 've been talking to a couple of guys who are amateur naturalist
who grew up in this area and have been walking Bluff Creek for 20 years and
would like the City to be more active in preserving the natural areas of
Bluff Creek around the golf course . And they 've offered , I think we 're
I going to probably try to schedule this for May sometime . They 're going to
conduct a tour , a walking tour of the area down there and I was going to
invite you and the Park Board and whoever wanted to go on the City Council .
I But they pointed out , there 's a new home being built and it 's by one of the
Redmond son-in-law 's on an 80 acre tract of ground past the golf course on
Bluff Creek Drive . You can go to see it . Where they met our setback
requirement from Bluff Creek. The creek itself but they chopped , I mean
I it 's a very steep bluff where they built and they chopped , clear cut the
trees so that their home could be hung very dramatically . It 's a
spectacular home . Hung dramatically out over this pristine valley. And
I these guys said they were horrified. They were walking through there and
here 's this area that no intrusion has ever been in and now you walk up
there and you see this thing over hanging the valley. Now they may own it .
I They do own part of it but should they have been allowed to intrude in that
way? I haven 't seen that aspect of it but the spector of it I find
troubling .
I Erhart : I agree and maybe what we have to do is find out what areas we
want to protect in this manner . Where you don 't want to see anything and
protect those areas . On the other hand you 've got a guy who owns a lot on
Lotus Lake and you 've got 1 ,000 houses that are parked right up to the edge
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 3 , 1991 - Page 54
of the cliff , and now this u just because he hasn 't built on for Y it J it or 30
years , now wants to build houses , his house has got to be 80 feet back
further than all the existing houses? 1
Emmings: No he doesn 't because isn 't there a regulation that says if
you 're coming into an established neighborhood ,you can vary , or you build ,
so you 're building up at the level of where the existing homes are?
Olsen: That 's in the Shoreland Ordinance itself but that 's something that ;
we can apply to this ordinance .
Krauss: Also , it should not apply . I mean if you 've got rolling terrain ,
we 're in marin country here . The glacier stopped here and dumped out piles'
of rocks all over the place and now some of them have trees on it or
they 're steep . Those kinds of things are sort of abberations on the
landscape and just because they 're steep , you 're right . They shouldn 't
automatically trip this regulation necessarily .
Emmings: I don 't think that 's our intent .
Conrad: What you just said about building on a lake and steep slope .
There 's just no way it should be done . Just absolutely no way so I don 't
care what the previous residents did . There should be no building on a
steep slope going to the lake . There 's no way they can prevent erosion
going in there . There 's absolutely no way .
Erhart : Are you talking about steep slopes? 30% or 18%? ,
Conrad : Well 30% .
Erhart : I 'm not disagreeing with that Ladd . But what we 've got here .
Conrad: But Steve was making a point and I was making a counter point . I II
don 't believe that that should be done .
Erhart : Again , my concern is that you 've got 80 feet of 18% that we 're
also restricting and again while it may be appropriate for the , you know
the Bluff Creek thing by the golf course is the classic case . It 's level
and man it drops but most other areas don 't quite fit the classic case . I
think we 'v got to put some more thought into this . 1
Emmings: I don 't think anybody sitting up here had hills in mind when we
started all this . 1
Ellson: No . In fact I 'm only looking at one place in all of Chanhassen .
Emmings: I was thinking Minnesota River Valley.
Krauss: You know but it 's across Lake Minnewashta from you . It 's off that
Tanadoona where those homes are perched up on that bank . '
Emmings: Well there 's two places by the lake . There 's Minnewashta .
There 's around in that little bay where there 's some houses high on the
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 3 , 1991 - Page 55
hill and then there 's that old Governor 's mansion that probably would fit
in this . There 's a real steep hill there , which I think is the one you 're
mentioning . It 's right on the Tanadoona property . Or Tuna Noodle as we
call it . That 's right on that property .
Conrad: But if we 're looking at bluffs , I guess we 've got to be looking at
bluffs regardless .
Emmings: We don 't have to .
Conrad: Don 't we?
• Emmings: We don 't have to do anything .
' Erhart : We don 't have to . Define our goals of what .
Conrad: So the goal is to preserve the bluffs .
Erhart : Well initially the goal was to preserve the Minnesota River Valley
I and I think we should include Bluff Creek and some of those other ravines
that feed into the Minnesota River . I think we 've got to decide whether
we 're trying to preserve bluffs on Lotus Lake and Minnewashta .
' Conrad: Well if it applies , I think we should .
Erhart : Maybe rewrite it so it doesn 't apply .
' Emmings : See on Minnewashta and Lotus I would expect that the
Shoreland Ordinance will apply and take care of that . I don 't think we 've
' got to worry about that . We 've already got something that covers that . To
me this was , and I agree with Tim . The idea was the Minnesota River
Valley . The creek beds that come down to it and I don 't know , maybe we can
specify where it applies .
' Krauss: Well you could . You could do this as an overlay district . If we
can agree on where those things should be found or are found , we can
' designate that .
Olsen: It 's going to be tough. We know certain bluff areas like you 're
' saying where you want to protect them but there might be a bluff area that
meets the 30% slope that we don't know about but should still be protected .
It 'd be hard to determine , how do you know what 's a bluff and what 's not a
bluff .
' Emmings: Aren 't there topographic maps that you can look at?
' Olsen: I started to have one of our engineering technicians try to .
Emmings: I suppose you go crazy looking at them.
II Olsen: He goes crazy because like you say , it 's bluffs but the same , until
that development comes in , then they would be required to show us what 's
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
April 3 , 1991 - Page 56 .
bluff and what 's steep slope when they come in with their plan . Then we II
would know .
Krauss.: I guess I don 't think , yeah I agree with Jo Ann . We can 't in all II
probability exactly delineate where this happens but what we can do is sort
of box in areas where this ordinance applies .
Erhart : Is that what Eden Prairie does? II
Krauss: I don 't think they do . I think they just have a standing I
ordinance that applies wherever it occurs . In fact it 's called the steep
slope ordinance . It 's not the bluffline . ' .
Batzli : I agree with Tim . I think the original intent .of this was to
II
protect something that , I mean we have a major thoroughfare through the
city and we were trying to avoid having it all commercialized and ruin the
bluff in the meantime but I guess I 'm not adverse to where it 's going a
II
little bit . I don 't know that somebody , I guess I would rather see
somebody have to have a setback off the top of the bluff . I think that 's a
reasonable requirement 1. guess . I like the direction of it and I guess I II
don 't mind applying it to other places in the city .
Conrad: So far I agree with that until I can get a better feeling of what
we 're talking about and how it would restrict development or hurt people . I'
like the general direction . I don 't think were talking hills . As much as
I 'd like to preserve hills , I don 't want to bulldoze them but I don 't know
that this , that that 's the point of this ordinance . I
Olsen: I think . . .definition of bluff . It might be steep slope but again,
that allows alteration with certain conditions which would be nice to have II
too .
Erhart : Maybe what I can do is show you some areas of where I would
consider were the areas of concern . Maybe I misunderstand . I
Krauss: Let 's go out someday and see if it applies .
Olsen: Or come in and look at the topos and figure out where it is . I
Farmakes: Would the area inbetween Lake Ann Park and Greenwood Shores II Park , there 's a steep slope area there off of the Eckankar property . It
overlooks Lake Ann .
Krauss: There 's actually a little bit of a bluff there. 1
Farmakes: Would that be considered a bluff? It seems to make this grade .
Olsen: It might not have enough distance though to meet this definition. I
We 'd have to look at the topo .
Krauss: Why don 't we come back to you with some more information. We 'll II
follow up on some of these things .
II
II
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 191 - Page 57
Emmings : Well the definition of bluff includes a hill so you 're going to
have t so yoou 're going to have to .
' Ellson: Call it a steep slope ordinance . Now you know why they went with
that .
Emmings: You can call it a bluff but maybe you don 't want it a hill .
Olsen: It gives you the specifics that it has to be . . . Maybe that could
be a steep hill .
Erhart: I think the number that really hit me was the . . .in Chanhassen is
just nothing . If we had picked enough . It could be just a hill and where
you have development , you may have one street on the top of the hill and
houses up there and then another level of the street . That 's real common
' throughout our city . The number I would have picked for that was 50 . I
think would have then defined it more as a really big change in elevation .
25 feet in Chanhassen is nothing . This room is 10 feet high . The
difference between different neighborhoods is 25 feet . You 're chewing up
'. SO feet potentially of making land unuseable . That 's where I was going . I
thought the number ought to be 50 . What 's concerning me is that apparently
they 've already adopting 25 in the shoreland ordinance . However , it only
applies to shoreland areas so if we want to pick that number , •I 'm just
trying to point out that it 's going to be applied to a lot of places that
we hadn 't considered .
Emmings: Alright . Paul 's got I think the next thing we ought to do is
Paul 's got some news about various things . Oh , I have to go back to the
landscape ordinance for one minute . Here 's a folder I 'm going to give to
' Paul . It 's from the Minnesota Native Plants Society . It 's about native
plant enthusiasm and it 's called Ethics and Consideration . I know we 've
got an ordinance that says you can 't let areas grow wild and have weeds and
all that and I also know that there 's , it 's getting to be more and more
common and it 's promoted by this Minnesota Native Plant Society and other
private concerns to landscape using natural prairie grasses and other
things that are not mowed . I even saw a booklet out at the Arboretum
' when I was out there one day that had a proposed ordinance in it which I
meant to copy and forgot about but I 'll get a copy and get that in . But I
think we ought to , basically this thing said if people want to try and
' convince the City and their neighbors that what they 're doing isn 't just
letting their yard go , they 've got to do things like keep track of the
expenditure and the effort that went into landscaping with natural plants .
' Make sure they 're keeping just common weeds out of it and making an effort
to maintain it , even though that doesn 't include mowing . I don 't know . I
like that idea . I think it 's appropriate . I thought about doing it in my
own yard . Letting some areas go natural .
IIErhart: Do we have a mowing ordinance here that if you don 't mow the City
comes out?
' Emmings: Yeah , you can be tagged .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 3 , 1991 - Page 58
Krauss : We have a noxious weed ordinance . But the weeds have to meet the
narro definition of being noxious and there 's a defined list . So you may
be able to cet away with doing this right now . You may get complaints
but I 'm not sure the City could do anything about it assuming that you 're II
actually achieving that type of a yard.
Emmings : Okay . Well I would just hate to see that kind of landscaping ,
foreclosed because I think it 's kind of interesting . If you don 't think
our ordinance does that , then I 'm not going to worry about it . Otherwise
I 'll bring in that ordinance that I saw . I
• Krauss : I 'd he interested ih taking a look at it .
Emmings: Okay , I 'll do that . '
Ahrens : It 's landscaped around the University of Minnesota with prairie
grasses .
Emmings: Where?
Ahrens: Around , it 's been so many years I can 't remember the name of the I
buildings .
Emmings: Which campus? Which State? 1
Ahrens : Yeah . It 's around Northrup Auditorium and around the , they 've
landscaped these beautiful areas and they have planters with natural
grasses around the architecture building . Around all the older buildings
in there and it 's just beautiful . But you know those are hard to find . The
seeds and stuff are .
Emmings: There 's a private , Prairie Restoration is a private company that
deals in these kinds of seeds .
Erhart : It sounds like you 're trying to screen the Electrical Engineering
Building . I can understand that .
Batzli : Well they built a new one you know .
Emmings: It 's 10:20 and it 's time for Paul 's News .
Krauss: Now for something really different . We have a new Metro Council
representative . Bonnie Featherstone who resides in Burnsville. I can tell
you that that raised a few eyebrows amongst a number of people that , Dakota f
County has three representatives because of a quirk of how the districts
lay out . And there was concern that if somebody isn't truly from the
western suburban area , is he or she going to be representative . I .don 't II know how that 's going to turn out but I got in contact with her yesterday ,
or today . I can 't recall , and we had a 45 minute conversation and I found
her to be very receptive to having an open mind and she 's going to come out "
here and meet with us . The Mayor and the City Manager will take her to
lunch and show her the community and fill her in on the Comprehensive Plan .
She says that she 's not territorial . She doesn 't have a political agenda .
v A
Planning Commission Meeting
April ' , 19^1 - Page 59
That she 's receptive to making the Metro Council more responsive to local
government and that 's one of her issues which is great . So we 're trying to
open up the lines of communication with a new person and we 're very hopeful
that that will be successful and I 'll keep you posted as to how that 's
going . The other thing with the Metro Council is they have had our plan
since February 28th or whenever it was , and they have set up a meeting that
I have to go to tomorrow morning where they 're going to have about 6 of
their staff people who reviewed our plan and who have questions about
various aspects of it . What I 'm hearing is that nobody 's coming up with
' any big bombshells at this point . That basically they 're looking for
refinements and some additional information . I understand that Michael
Monson agrees that his population projections were wrong . I guess it 's big
of him to finally agree to that but he still won't agree to what 's right .
He apparently feels that we should wait a year until he gets around to
redoing his numbers which is a position I find ludicrous . But I believe
that the rest of the Metro Council staff is going to find a way around it .
' Now this has been one of the key issues since the get go on this . I don 't
know what else we could have done . I mean Mike 's numbers are so far out of
whack that I don 't understand why he has any credibility left at all , but
' he apparently does . I will also keep you posted on that . I 'm taking
Mark Koealer down there . We also retained the firm of Bonestroo , Anderlik
and Rosene to assist us in representing some comprehensive plans , sanitary
' sewer issues before the Metro Council . The reason for that is we don 't
have a City Engineer and the fellow that we 're using at Bonestroo , Bob
Schunicht was the project engineer , consulting project engineer for the
Metro Waste on the Lake Ann Interceptor so he 's very familiar with this
area . But again , I 'll keep you posted . Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study . The City basically adopted this because we stuck it
in the Comprehensive Plan which was approved and I think you 're somewhat
' familiar with it . We 've never had a chance to get a specific discussion on
what 's in it and what are the implications and what else needs to be done .
There was a meeting held in late December , early January in Carver County
that we couldn 't go to because we had a City Council meeting that night but
what we had decided to do was the same thing that Chaska did which was to
have Roger Gustafson , the County Engineer and Larry Dallam, who is the
consultant project manager , give us a talk about it and respond to
questions . And through scheduling conflicts of one sort of another , we
haven 't been able to arrange it until recently . We 're going to be holding
that discussion at the City Council meeting on Monday . We 'll be giving you
and the HRA agendas . If you could make it , that would be great . We don 't
have a real big Council agenda so I don't think it 's the- kind of thing that
anybody 's going to have to sit around until midnight to hear this . But
I 'll get you the agendas out and it should be an informative discussion I
II think . Medical Arts Building or Ridgeview Medical Arts Building I guess is
the current name . I met with them after the Planning Commission meeting
and basically , you outlined some parameters for an alternative plan that
would achieve some additional tenant signage . Basically leaving that
monument sign out front the way it was approved and tinkering with the sign
bands as a part of an overall sign package . Well , they 've submitted
II something that we think is consistent with what you wanted to see . Now
there may be some detailed questions but basically you can see what it does
is it wipes out that middle sign band that was the temporary sign . It says
Dental Office and instead replaces it with larger , 4 foot wide instead of 2
I
• Y
4
Plannin? Commission Meeting
II
April 3 , 1991 - Page 60
foot wide sign band . And in that sign band would allow multi-colored signs
with logos . All the other signage on the building is supposed to be the
white- letters that are up there now . The Goldstar Mortgage , there 's a
pro'. islen in the sign covenants that when that tenant changes , they 'll have!
to bring their sign into compliance . As I said , the monument sign out
front is back to what it 's supposed to be . I guess 10 square feet or 10
feet wide or whatever it was .
II
Emmings : What does it say? •
Krauss: It just says the building name . II
Emmings: Okay .
II
Conrad: Made out of what? Did they do an Y . is it a simple?
Krauss : I think it 's an internally lit , it 's a ground mounted sign with
II
plastic cut out . . . Lexan cut out type of thing .
Olsen: There 's additional wall signs if you want to point that out . I
Krauss : Yeah , there 's basically two new tenant signs .
Olsen : So they added the . . . I
Emmings: All in the middle? Yeah .
Bctzli : Is this on both sides of the building or just the one side? II
Krauss : No . The back stays the same as it was .
II
Farmakes : So there 's one additional sign on top of the two? The one was
the dentist sign? Is that correct?
Krauss : Yeah . What they did is , I don 't think they showed that .
Farmakes: I see three in the middle there .
Krauss: This one now says Chan Dentist .
Farmakes: And what 's the one on your left? I
Krauss: It says . . .
Farmakes: So there is an additional sign then? II
Krauss: Right . There 's a total of two more tenant signs with this .
They 've given us a set of comprehensive covenants which I think are okay as"
long as they 're relying to this kind of package . There are some additional
provisions on what I 've written in there like this building should not be I
allowed to have any portable trailer mounted signs out front or banners .
It 's still an office building . It shouldn 't have any paper signs in the
windows or anything else . This should be a sign package .
II
1
T h
IPlanninD Commission Meeting
Apr i 1
19c:1 - Page 61
Em ing'E : WF21 , hut when we say this is what you get , do we also• have to
say , don 't get anything else?
Krauss : I third. you do .
Olsen : You already said that .
Krauss: Well , we now have it in a covenant package that we file with the
property . Now what we 've done thus far is we 've written it up to the City
Council and said that the Planning Commission denied their application but
that you seem to indicate that this was along the lines of what you wanted
to see . We told the City Council that you have two options . You can
' either interpret what the Planning Commission said and approve this or you
can approve it in concept and send it back to the Planning Commission for
detailed review and approval . I guess I 'd like your feedback on what you 'd
prefer . Getting it back here for your final review . Is this really
consistent with what you were thinking?
Conrad : Did you say that was a 4 foot strip in the middle versus a 2?
Krauss : Right .
Emmii nags : It looks smaller , not bigger on this drawing .
Ahrens : That 's done on purpose .
Krauss : Well no , I think what they 're showing is you 're going with your
ccrporote logos and they tend to be a little more compact and dense and
built around that . They 've got the width so they don 't need the length for
that long stream of letters .
Batzli : All I can say is when we get the stuff , make sure there 's one set
of plans with one date and all the dimensions on the plans are the same
scale as what they say . You know this is just incredible .
Conrad : Do we like the two different size of bands? I guess I 'm having a
little bit of a problem . I didn 't think it was going to come back that way
and I know some of us said we liked taller .
Ahrens: I didn 't think it was going to come back multi-colored. I
guess I 'm a little confused Paul when you said the next tenant who replaces
the Goldstar Mortgage sign is going to have to bring the sign into
compliance because it 's not in compliance now because it 's not white
II lettering but we 're going to allow colored signs in the middle. That
doesn 't make any sense to me .
I Krauss: That 's where it gets , that 's where it becomes subjective and a
little different . I wasn 't sure whether that met the criteria that you
were talking about or not . But what they 're talking about is the white
I lettering on the outside wings and on the portico 's . The only other
variance to that would be the colored signs with logos in the middle .
Farmakes: These are backlit after hours right? After business hours?
I
r , '
Planning Commission Meeting I
April 2 , 12;'1 - Page 62
c,r, I don 't like that .•
Cc i ,.. : • I d,'n 't l i k e it . I
Ahrens : I think it should all look the same . I mean I hate conformity
most the time but I think on this building it needs it . It 's not that
attractive E. building . I
Conrad: Yeah .
Krauss: Well , I can convey those comments to the City Council . But in II
principle , is this concept , whether or not you agree with the actual
.sigr,a,_^,e. , is the concept particular with the sign bands?
Emmings : Oh yeah . That 's fine .
1
Conrad: I think them having that middle sign band. They can put three
II
names out there . I just don 't feel , from what I see , that it 's
aesthctically what I thought we were trying to encourage .
Krauss : Why don 't I try to encourage the City Council to accept the 1
concept and we ' ll bring it back to you for final action . That way you can
mak- the final decision on that .
Emmings : We don 't make final decisions .
Krauss : You would if the Council allows you to . I
Emmin.:17 : Oh really? That 's real power man .
Conrad: Just so you 're communicating at least what I thought we were goings
to do is give them a 2 foot band just like the rest and it was going to
look very similar to the balance . I really didn 't care if they had 3 names
in there or 2 , I just was going to give them a band in the middle . I
Emming-: : And you were pro color .
Conrad: I made that speech but I don 't know that I made it . I
Batzli : You 're renigging now .
I
Conrad: I don 't know that I made it for that building . I like it on other
developments . I think Tim made the speech for color and logo . He liked
the logo stuff . I
Erhart : I do but that 's , I mean you 've got some of it color and then some
of it white . It doesn 't make any sense at all .
I
Conrad: I guess' against the wood exterior , I just don 't think that this is
an effective design . I like the practicality . What we 're doing is letter 1
peoplc know that they 're there . It 's a quasi advertising deal but it 's
more of a , in my mind it 's more of just saying , hey they 're here and
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 3 , 1991 - Page 63
helping citizens find where they 're located more than a glaring advertising
sign .
Batzli : So if they made all three of them the same as the outbound ones,
is that going to be okay?
Conrad: Then I 'm comfortable with that .
Emmings: And the 2 foot band . We don 't have to go to 4 feet .
I Krauss: I 'll convey that . Interestingly enough I was stuck in a traffic
jam in Phoenix last week and I looked up and I saw the American Family sign
' on a single story office service building and the sign , the logo looked
exactly like that but it was white .
Emmings: Okay . Did you take a picture of that?
' Krauss : No .
Batzli : But , would you allow white with the logo if it was the same color
as the other signs? Would you let them put their logo up there?
Krauss : I will try to convey your comments to the City Council .
Erhart : I still think they should take the signs off the porticos .
' Conrad : Off of where?
Erhart : Off the porticos . To me that 's what kills the building . Those
porticos should have remained undecorated and the signs could be in the
background . See to me that 's the whole pountinance of this .
Krauss : I ' ll try to convey the sentiment I think I hear to the Council but
you may want to contact them individually . Theoretically they could just
approve it this way and that 's the end of it . So all I can do at this
point is convey . . .thoughts and I 'd be happy to do that . Last couple
' things . Briefly . The surface water utility district . We 've sent out
requests for qualifications on about 17 firms.
Emmings: You also sent out bills and I got one .
Krauss: We 've gone through a whole billing cycle . We 've had some
complaints . We 've had some questions and some were valid and we 've made
Isome adjustments in the billing .
Emmings: I didn 't mean what I said .
Krauss: Oh , we didn 't adjust yours . But by and large the concern that , we
sent out 5 ,000 bills and we maybe had 20 people call up about it so it
wasn 't a great number and I think we 've been able to resolve any issues
associated with that . Anyway , by Friday afternoon we will have gotten back
initial proposals from consultant teams on doing the three phased study for
us , the wetlands , the storm water and water quality . What we are proposing
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
April 3 , 1991 - Page 64
•
to do at that point is , I 've talked to the Mayor about this , is with an in- II
house committee is review those things , those 17 or however many we get ,
and come up with a short list of maybe 5 . Then ask those 5 firms to
prepare detailed responses . Now I 've asked the Mayor to set up a task
force , or to set up people to sit with us and interview the 5 because we
don 't want to make that decision . This is a long term relationship . We
think it warrants having some Council representation and some Planning
Commission representation on that review committee . I 'd also like this
committee to work on setting up a task force to work with whoever we pick
over the next probably , it 's about a 2 year program to develop this stuff II
because it means some changed ordinances . It affects properties. There 's a
• lot of policy things . I honestly don 't specifically see it as a sole
Planning Commission responsibility . I like the idea of having some Council
representation . Some Planning Commission representation and some Lake
Associations . Some interested individuals working together on this so we
get more of a cross section of people . Possibly a developer if that's
appropriate . But we 'll keep you tracking on this and I 'll let you know
when this is coming up . I 'm asking the Council to think about this on
Monday so they can give us some names to work with. The last thing we have
is we have another request for proposals out on doing a comprehensive sewer
and water plan in the new MUSA area . We 've had some significant interest
raised on different properties in the new MUSA area and the first question
is always , where do you want us to hook up to water and sewer? Where
should the City trunk lines be and the answer is . we don 't know . We've
only got vague ideas but never laid them out so we took some initiative and
we put out proposals to get some folks to work with us and work up that
plan . I 'll be taking that to the City Council in a couple weeks. Hopefully 1
we can get somebody on board and get that study out by early summer so
people have better information to work with . But there is a lot of
interest out there . I think that does it for me .
Emmings: Okay . Does anybody got anything else?
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
I
1