07-7-93 Agenda and Packet AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIOP
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1993, 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER D
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. John Przymus for an Interim Use Permit for expansion of the Golf Driving Range Maxi-
Mini Putt complex to include expansion of the building and a batting cage located on
property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located at the northwest corner of Hwy. 5 and
Galpin Boulevard, Swings Golf.
* ITEM RESCHEDULED FOR JULY 21, 1993 MEETING *
*2. Don Halla for a revised preliminary plat to plat 36 rural single family lots on a 46.5 acre
site. Lots will be located outside the MUSA line and utilize on-site services. The
property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located south of Co. Rd. 14 and east of
Hwy. 101, Don Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates.
* ITEM PULLED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE *
_ *3. Heritage Development to subdivide 37 acres of property into 57 single family lots located
on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and
west of Minnewashta Parkway.
* ITEM RESCHEDULED FOR JULY 21, 1993 MEETING *
*4. JMS Development for a preliminary plat to subdivide 6.1 acres into 12 single family lots
on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located south of Pleasant View
Road, west of Troendle Circle, east of Peaceful Lane and north of Lake Lucy Road,
Tower Heights.
5. Non-conforming use permit for Boyers Sterling Estates Homeowners Association
Recreational Beachlot. The permit shall describe the nature and extent of the use
allowed.
* ITEM RESCHEDULED FOR JULY 21, 1993 MEETING *
*6. Non-conforming use permit for Colonial Grove Homeowners Association Recreational
Beachlot. The permit shall describe the nature and extent of the use allowed.
7. Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding the landscaping regulations for site plan reviews.
* ITEM RESCHEDULED FOR JULY 21, 1993 MEETING *
*8. Zoning Ordinance amendment clarifying wetland ordinance regulations.
9. Subdivision Ordinance amendment increasing the number of trees required per residential
lot from 1 to 2 overstory trees.
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
10. Discussion of T. H. 101 Realignment Alternatives.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1•
.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
OPEN DISCUSSION _
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in
official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the
agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those
present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first
on the agenda at the next Commission meeiting. _
•
CITY OF
044 CIIANIIASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
DATE: June 25, 1993
SUBJ: Swings Interim Use Permit
The report submitted to the Planning Commission for the June 16, 1993 meeting, recommended
that the Planning Commission deny the proposed expansion of the facility. One of the difficult
issues with this proposal is that we would prefer that the facility be an interim use permit rather
than a conditional use permit, but we do not necessarily want to allow expansion to a site which
has had so many illegal alterations. An interim use permit allows the lifetime of the use to be
tied to a date, change in zoning, etc. Since this site is in a location were the surrounding uses,
street alignment, sewer and water, etc. will be greatly changing in the future (due to the Hwy.
5 corridor planning process), an interim use permit may be more appropriate than maintaining
the existing conditional use permit. If the city should choose to permit the expansion and have
the use become an interim use permit, the approval for the expansion must be for all expansion
_ that is being proposed by the applicant with this application. The interim use permit does not
give you the ability to choose only certain proposed expansions to the site. Thus, in excahnge
for being able to establish a termination date, you lose the ability to restrict the intensity of use
below what is currently in existence.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt one of the following
recommendations:
1. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the interim use permit request for any
other improvements to the site for the following reasons:
a. The existing site is serviced by holding tanks and any further expansion of the site
should be properly serviced by a septic system site.
b. The applicant has expanded the site without prior approval of the city.
c. The site is not in compliance with approved city permits.
tot; PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
June 25, 1993
Page 2
2. Approval of an Interim Use permit for the expansion of the site allowing the sign, video
games (not to exceed 10 games), the two additional buildings, additional parking and
batting cages. The IUP is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all requirements of the
Planning, Engineering, Public Safety Departments of the city and any conditions of the
DNR, MNDOT, etc. The IUP allowing the use of the site as a miniature golf course,
driving range and accessory uses will be valid until the property is brought into the
MUSA line and when the northern Hwy. 5 access boulevard is constructed, at which time
the IUP becomes void and the use is no longer permitted.
C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 6/16/93
\,\1
Y
CHAHAS !
Z N
CC
CASE DATE#: 91: -1 7/12/93IUP
By: Olsen:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit for Expansion to Swings Golf Site Driving
Range and Miniature Golf Course
—
Z LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard
— V 7750 Galpin Boulevard
- El. APPLICANT: John Pryzmus
0. 642 Santa Vera Drive
— Q Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONLNG: A2, Agricultural Estates
Aaiun by City AdministrYter
ACREAGE: 18.1 acresandor.,��
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING pat $4,;,-..tte: tC Cc:rn.ssion
AND LAND USE: N - A2; contractors yard
S - A2; single family residence D
Sutte� to cou�cd
E - A2; single family residence
�.. W - A2; vacant
a
— (, WATER AND SEWER: There are no municipal services available to the site
W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a Class A wetland in the northwest corner
and has been improved to contain a miniature golf course
and driving range.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: 1995 Study Area
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant, John Pryzmus, is requesting permission to expand the Swings Driving Range and
Mini-golf facility which was approved as a conditional use permit in 1987. The expansion to
the site will be processed as an interim use permit in the A2, Agricultural District due to
ordinances that have been changed since the original approval. The applicant is requesting an
interim use permit to permit expansion to the site in the form of an accessory building,expansion
to an existing building, batting cages, parking area, and berming and landscaping. Much of the
expansion requested for approval has already taken place illegally (expansion to existing building,
slab for new building, parking area and berming).
The city has a long history with this site. Some of the past experiences include revocation of
the conditional use permit (1987), denial to reinstate the conditional use permit (1987), approval
of a new conditional use permit (1987), and review of conditions of the conditional use permit —
showing conditions not being met and illegal expansion of the site (1988). In the fall of 1990,
the applicant started new activities on his site. Staff placed a stop work order and processed a
grading permit. As part of the grading permit, the applicant was required to receive amendments
to conditions of approval and permission to expand. After several contacts by staff and the
initiation of legal action, the applicant submitted an application for amending the existing
conditions and for expansion of the site in 1991. The application was tabled by the Planning —
Commission because there were so many original conditions of approval that had not been met
and/or had been violated. Mr. Przymus was directed to meet all original conditions of approval
prior to continuing with the process. Mr. Przymus did meet the three outstanding conditions (as —
follows) but did not pursue continuing the application.
1. Receive a certificate of occupancy for the existing building. —
2. Provide a pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the holding tank.
3. Apply for a fence permit.
In 1992, staff contacted Mr. Przymus, stating that he must complete the application process since
he had expanded the site illegally. Mr. Przymus wanted to wait to see the outcome of the Hwy.
5 Task Force since his site is in the Hwy. 5 Study Area. While "waiting" for the outcome of the
task force, Mr. Przymus again made illegal improvements to the site (storage and building slab).
The city cited Mr. Przymus for building without a permit and he has now submitted another _
revised site plan with the proposed improvements.
The site is now designated as 1995 Study Area by the Comprehensive Plan. The Hwy. 5 Task —
Force is reviewing suitable uses from the subject site and a frontage road will be impacting the
site. At this time, the Hwy. 5 Plan has yet to be completed and there are several viable routings
for the access boulevard that are currently being evaluated. Underlying the proposed expansion
are two facts. First, everything has been illegally performed prior to receiving approval from the
city, and secondly, the site is using a holding tank. Holding tanks are to be used only as an
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 3
alternative system. Mr. Przymus had two areas for septic sites which are the required systems
but with alteration of the site, the area for the two septic sites has been disturbed. The following
report goes into detail with each subject.
Staff is recommending denial of any expansion to the site. The applicant has continued to
illegally expand the site, so that approvals are after the fact and the site improvements are not
always up to city standards (holding tanks vs. septic, etc.). In the event that the PCA determines
that approval is warranted, staff is establishing conditions we believe should be considered.
BACKGROUND
On November 16. 1987, the City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf
driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses as a conditional use in the A2, Agricultural
Estate District. The Council also adopted standards to evaluate conditional use applications.
They are as follows:
a. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212, an
access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212.
b. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
c. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping plan in conformance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
d. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family residence.
e. Buildings on the site may not exceed 800 square feet and shall be painted in earth tones.
On November 16, 1987, the City Council also approved the conditional use permit for John
Pryzmus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987, showing the proposed limits
of grading, methods of erosion control where necessary indicating the size and revised
location of the parking lot and club house 150 feet from the centerline of Co. Rd. 117,
and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature golf course area. The
parking area shall be paved. City staff shall review and approve said plan prior to
activity occurring on the site.
2. Submission of a revised landscaping plan by December 1, 1987, to add a 2 foot evergreen
hedge and 6 foot trees in front of the proposed parking area. City staff shall review and
approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site.
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 4
3. Fencing on the property shall not exceed 6 feet 6 inches in height unless authorized by
a conditional use permit. —
4. The two septic system sites along Co. Rd. 117 shall be protected from grading activities
and shall be staked and protected in the field. —
5. The applicant shall install a holding tank and shall comply with all the requirements of
Ordinance No. 10-B. A copy of a contract with a licensed pumper shall be provided prior
to issuance of the septic permit.
6. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and —
Wildlife Service. DNR and any other legal jurisdiction as it relates to utilization of the
site.
7. There shall be no alteration to the wetland area except for the planting of grass seed and
periodic disking of the site. There shall be no filling, grading or other alteration unless
approved by the City Council through the wetland alteration permit process.
8. The applicant shall provide proper financial security in the amount of 110c7c of the cost
of the improvements to the site prior to December 1, 987.
9. There shall be no light standards on the premises. Hours of operation shall be from
sunrise to sunset.
10. The applicant shall pay all fees incurred by Resource Engineering by December 1, 1987,
and shall be responsible for future fees if services by Resource Engineering are
determined to be necessary.
On August 22, 1988, as part of the conditional use permit, an annual review of the conditions
was performed by staff. Several conditions of approval had not been met. The applicant
requested Council approval of the changes he had made to this site. The City Council tabled
review of the Pryzmus conditional use permit until the Planning Commission could review an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and the conditional use permit to permit the items that the
applicant requested.
On September 21, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment
request to standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses and an
amendment to the conditional use permit for the Swings Golf Driving Range and Miniature Golf.
The applicant was requesting approval for installation of light standards, installation of a sign,
installation of video games and extension of hours of operation. Most of these improvements
were already installed by the applicant. The proposed improvements required amendments to the
approved conditional use permit and amendments to the zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning
Swings IUP
— June 16, 1993
Page 5
— ordinance amendments were to the standards for conditional use for golf driving ranges with or
without miniature golf courses to permit:
-- 1. Installation of a sign advertising the facility is permitted, however, in no case shall the
sign exceed 32 square feet.
2. No more than 10 video games, including pinball machines or other mechanical, electrical
or electronic machine be installed. This does not include vending machines for food or
soft drinks.
The Planning Commission was then asked to review amending the conditional use permit to
allow the following changes to the original conditional use permit:
1. Light standards on the property shall be limited to 75 watt lights not to exceed 3 feet in
height to be located in the miniature golf course area. Lighting may be located on the
building for security and to illuminate the driving range tees to the west. In no case shall
any lights be directed on adjacent properties or glare onto abutting road right-of-ways.
2. No more than 10 video games, including pinball machines or other mechanical, electrical
or electronic machine be installed. Vending machines dispensing food and soft drinks
—
may be installed.
3. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
4. Installation of 22 six foot evergreen trees along TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard.
— After discussion of the item, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended tabling action
on the zoning ordinance amendment and the conditional use permit amendment until staff came
back with more information. The Planning Commission had the following comments:
1. The Planning Commission was fairly unanimous in requiring the applicant maintain the
originally approved hours of sunrise to sunset.
2. The Planning Commission agreed that the applicant should be permitted some form of
signage but the sign should not be illuminated. The Planning Commission also directed
—
staff to come back with a proposal for an acceptable sign within the agricultural district.
_ 3. The Planning Commission agreed that ten should be the limit of number of video games
allowed. The Planning Commission also discussed whether or not video games should
be licensed by the city. The Planning Commission directed staff to come back with
information on whether or not licensing should be required.
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 6
4. The final item of discussion was the lighting. The Planning Commission felt that the
applicant should only be permitted lighting for security purposes. —
With the turnover in Planning Staff, this item was not further pursued. Since this case was last
reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, the ordinance has been amended to —
allow golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses as an interim use permit in the
A2 District instead of a conditional use permit. The reason for this was that golf driving ranges
with or without miniature golf courses were considered more of a temporary use which should
have a set termination date. Therefore, any expansion to the site must now be considered as an
interim use permit and will have a termination date established as part of the permit.
In October, 1990, staff noticed grading activity taking place at the Swings Golf site on the
northwest corner of Galpin Boulevard and Hwy. 5. The applicant, John Pryzmus, was creating
a berm along Galpin Boulevard, clearing out an area for potential future parking/drainage area
and providing a second area of driving tees for the driving range. The City required the applicant
to stop work on the site and to apply for a grading permit. After working with the applicant, a
grading permit was issued with the following conditions:
1. The earth berm along Galpin Boulevard (Co. Rd. 117) shall be continuous two-tier, two _
foot high rock retaining walls, not to exceed an accumulative height of four feet in lieu
of the three foot high earth berm previously required.
2. Provide the city with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow
in the amount of $1,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration.
3. All disturbed areas shall be seeded and disc mulched or sodded prior to November 15,
1990.
4. The grading permit fee shall be calculated according to the 1988 Uniform Building Code
Table No. 70-B for grading 400 cubic yards of material.
5. Erosion control measures (hay bales) shall be maintained throughout until vegetation
cover has been fully reestablished and removal is authorized by the City Engineer.
6. Any future expansion or grading activities will require another permit application and will
also require an approved site and/or grading plan by the Planning Commission and City
Council prior to commencement.
7. The grading activity that has occurred adjacent to the creek located on the northerly —
portion of the property shall be removed back to a point to be determined in the field by
city staff.
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 7
8. As agreed, the expansion to the parking lot and driving range is not permitted without
receiving an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing
facility. This expansion is not included in the administrative grading permit. Therefore,
the driving tee and parking lot must be removed or transformed into berming purposes.
9. A building permit is required for the installation of the fence proposed around the site.
The activity occurring at the site was an expansion of the conditional use permit for the golf
driving range and miniature golf course. As part of the grading permit approval, the applicant
was required to submit an application for an amendment to the conditions of the conditional use
permit and for expansion of the site.
On November 28, 1990, staff sent John Pryzmus a letter stating that the grading completed on
the site was acceptable if approved as part of the amendment. A condition of the grading permit
was that an application for an amendment to the conditional use permit must be submitted and
approved by the city. Staff requested the applicant to submit a complete application by January
7, 1991. Attached to the letter, staff also enclosed an application form and a list of the required
information for a complete application. Staff did not receive the required application by the
January 7, 1991, deadline. On January 11, 1991, staff submitted another certified letter to Mr.
Pryzmus again reminding him of the condition of approval of the grading permit and that the
deadline of January 7th had not been met. Staff provided the applicant with a second opportunity
to make an application by Tuesday. January 22, 1991. The letter further stated that if a complete
application was not received by January 22nd, the city would place the conditional use permit
on a future City Council agenda for consideration of revocation. As of March 20, 1991, an
application had not been submitted by the applicant nor had the applicant made any effort to
contact staff.
Staff then scheduled this item on a City Council agenda as consideration of revocation of the
conditional use permit. The problem with revoking a conditional use permit is that any of the
conditions regulating the use of the site are then void and the activity then becomes a
non-conforming use. The city must then either pursue discontinuing the use on the site or have
the applicant go through the conditional use permit process again with new conditions to bring
the site into compliance. The preferred option is for the city to initiate enforcement action
against the applicant. The applicant will be criminally cited and, if found guilty, will be required
to bring the site into compliance. Initiating the enforcement action will start the process
immediately instead of being postponed until revocation of the conditional use permit has been
processed. Therefore, staff has initiated the enforcement action through the City Attorney's
Office instead of pursuing revocation of the conditional use permit.
In March, 1991, the applicant submitted an application. The enforcement action is still in place
should we need to use it if the applicant does not complete the application process and meet any
conditions.
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 8
PROPOSAL —
The applicant is requesting an interim use permit for expansion to the Swings Golf Driving
Range and Miniature Golf Course. Golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses
used to be a conditional use permit in the A2 District and are now an interim use permit.
Interim use permits allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained, _
or while the permanent location is under construction, and allows a use that is presently
acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. An interim
use permit is permitted if the following is found: —
1. Meets the standards of the conditional use permit set forth in Section 20-232 of the City
Code. —
2. Conforms to the zoning regulations.
3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district.
4. The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. —
5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to
take the property in the future.
6. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission
of use.
The items for consideration as an interim use permit is the expansion to the driving range
(expanded illegally), a proposed building (not yet constructed, but the building slab has been
illegally installed), parking lot expansion (expanded illegally), batting cages (proposed), the sign
(installed illegally) and video games (installed illegally).
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF THE SITE _
The main issue with any type of expansion on the site is with the provision of bathroom
facilities. The site is located outside the MUSA line and service connaot be provided at this
time. Currently, the site only has a holding tank. Two septic sites were shown and approved
with the conditional use permit. The applicant constructed the existing clubhouse prior to
receiving City Council approval for the conditional use permit and the building was constructed —
without a building permit and without required bathroom facilities. The city permitted the
installation of a holding tank instead of requiring hook up to a septic system. It is unclear why
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 9
exactly this was permitted. The City Code requires buildings to provide bathroom facilities and
outside of the MUSA line they must be hooked up to a septic system. The existing holding tank
and separate bathroom was allowed only as an alternate system. A condition of the holding tank
was for the applicant to get a pumping contract and to submit pumping receipts to the city. The
city has received the pumping contract but is no longer receiving pumping receipts. Further
accentuating this problem is the applicant has graded and destroyed the approved septic sites.
- Since a majority of the site has been altered, it may be difficult to locate two new acceptable
septic sites.
The applicant has a history of making improvements to the site without first receiving the
required approval and then after the fact, requesting approval. This puts staff, the Planning
Commission and the City Council in a difficult position. If the applicant had first come in for
approval for the expansion, there may not have been any objection to what was being proposed
and conditions making the expansion acceptable could have been enforced. Instead it is difficult
to recommend approval when, once again, the applicant understood the process, ignored it and
expects approval after the fact. Putting past history aside, the following is a detailed review of
the interim use permit issues.
Expansion to the Driving Range and Berming
The applicant expanded the driving range with tees and sandtrap at the northeasterly corner of
the site, adjacent to Galpin Boulevard and Bluff Creek. The applicant also provided a berm
along Galpin Boulevard and adjacent to Galpin Boulevard in the northeast corner of the site. The
activity was illegal in the terms of expanding beyond what was approved with the original
conditional use permit and grading without a grading permit. The applicant did receive a grading
permit, after the fact, for the berm along Galpin Boulevard. All of the other grading activity,
including the berm and tee areas adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, were not part of the grading
permit and have not received city approval. These activities were tied to receiving city approval
with application for expansion of the site.
The original conditional use permit had 94 parking spaces. Currently, there are approximately
82 parking spaces. The 94 parking spaces were shown on the original plan to accommodate a
large batting cage/indoor activity building. This building was not permitted so the reduced
number of parking spaces were permitted. The expansion of the driving range will not require
additional parking and can be accommodated with the existing parking.
The berm areas are serving to enclose the proposed parking expansion, building and batting
cages. The berms will not intensify the use of the site and if properly stabilized would be
acceptable to staff. A detailed grading and drainage plan is required for these alterations to be
approved.
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 10
Proposed Building
The plans submitted by the applicant show a proposed building located in the northeast corner
of the site at the corner of the two proposed berm areas. The proposed building is 1092 square
feet in size which exceeds the maximum square footage of a building permitted by 292 square —
feet. The standards for driving ranges and miniature golf limit the size of a building on site to
800 square feet and of earth tone color. Staff therefore cannot permit the proposed building to
be installed since the area exceeds what is permitted as part of a driving range and miniature golf
course and would serve to intensify use of the site. A new building would have to meet building
code and provide bathroom facilities hooked up to a septic system.
Further expansion to the site should not be permitted until the existing property is brought up to
code and that a proper septic system is installed with the addition of proper bathroom facilities
and/or until the property is brought within the MUSA line and can be serviced by city sewer and
water. The proposed building exceeds the permitted size of 800 square feet. Therefore, staff
cannot recommend approval of the proposed building.
Batting Cages
On the plans submitted by the applicant, there is an area shown for batting cages. It is unclear
whether a building would be provided for the batting cages of if the batting cages would just be
located outdoors. Once again, the inclusion of batting cages will increase the use of the site
which is not being serviced properly with bathroom facilities. Therefore, staff would have to
recommend against the addition of the batting cages.
Parking Area
The applicant is currently creating an additional parking area. The site has been graded and is
being surfaced with a gravel. Staff visited the site on May 8, 1991, and placed a stop work order
to prevent the applicant from continuing work on the parking lot area. The existing parking lot
area adequately serves the existing use. If the addition of the batting cages, building, additional
tee area and sandtrap are not approved, then the need for additional parking area is not required.
Should the expansion of the site be approved, staff would recommend that the parking area be
paved with bituminous surface and curb and gutter and that detailed grading and drainage plans
be provided.
Video Games
The applicant is requesting permission to maintain the video games located in the existing
building on the site. Currently, there are 7 video games located within the building. When the
Planning Commission last reviewed this item, it was discussed that up to 10 video games could
be permitted within the building. This was not addressed as part of the original conditional use
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 11
permit. Therefore, if the Planning Commission and City Council agree that video games could
be permitted on the site, the condition allowing the video games would have to be part of the
new interim use permit.
Sign
The last time that the Planning Commission reviewed this issue, there was discussion on whether
or not the applicant should be permitted a sign at the site. It was felt that the applicant should
be allowed a sign to advertise his business but that the zoning ordinance should be amended to
allow signage in the Agricultural District. Since this area is in such a transitional area with the
Comprehensive Plan showing it as the 1995 Study Area, staff would prefer not to amend the
zoning ordinance to allow signage in the Agricultural District but instead is recommending that
the sign be permitted as an amendment to the original conditional use permit. The existing sign
is a 3 sided sign with each sign face 3' x 6' for a sign face total of 18 square feet. During the
previous discussion, a sign of 32 square feet was going to be the maximum size of signs
permitted. Since the sign would be approved specifically for this site and is accessory to the use,
staff is recommending that the existing sign be permitted as part of the original conditional use
permit and that the size of each sign face shall not exceed 18 square feet. The applicant will still
be able to maintain the 3 sides to the sign.
Miscellaneous
The applicant is installing a chain link fence throughout the site. The fence requires a building
permit. The applicant should be required to receive the permit for the fence.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission and City Council have the following options to consider:
1. Recommend denial of the interim use permit and proposed existing expansion of the site
and pursue, through legal action, having the site being brought back into compliance with
the original conditional use permit..
2. Recommend denial of any expansion of the site until the site is brought up to code, i.e.
hook up to septic system site, meet any existing and new conditions of approval, then
expansion of some sort could be considered.
3. Recommend approval of the proposed expansion, all or part, and approve the proposed
changes as an interim use permit with a date established for removing the business once
the MU SA line is expanded to include the site.
Swings IUP
June 16, 1993
Page 12 —
Should the Planning Commission and City Council recommend approval of any expansion of the
site, it should be made with the condition that the whole facility must be approved as an interim _
use permit and that the applicant agree to the City revoking the existing conditional use permit.
This combines the facility under one permit and allows the city to set a date when the use must
be terminated. This would be advantageous by consolidating a confusing issue. Also, the site _
is located in the proposed 1995 Study Area. The result of the study area could greatly affect
what uses would be compatible at this site. A termination date could be when the property is
within the MUSA line and/or when the 1995 Study Area is completed. If expansion is approved, _
staff would recommend the following conditions:
1. The existing conditional use permit shall be revoked by the City Council and the existing —
and new facility will become an interim use permit.
2. The site will be brought into compliance with City Code and conditions of approval. This —
includes hooking up to an approved septic site.
3. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by staff —
prior to any more alterations are made to the site.
4. Any parking areas shall be paved with bituminous surface. Curb and gutter may be —
required by the City Engineering Department after review of the grading and drainage
plans. _
5. The building cannot exceed 800 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: _
1) "The Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit to permit
a 3 sided, 18 square foot sign to advertise the Swings facility. _
2) The Planning Commission recommends denial of the interim use permit request for any
other improvements to the site for the following reasons:
a. The existing site is serviced by holding tanks and any further expansion of the site
should be properly serviced by a septic system site.
b. The applicant has expanded the site without prior approval of the city.
c. The site is not in compliance with approved city permits." —
Note: If the application is denied, staff will continue to work with the applicant to bring the site —
into compliance.
Swings IUP
_
June 16, 1993
Page 13
ATTACHMENTS
_ 1. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated April 8, 1993.
2. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated December 9, 1992.
3. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated May 20, 1991.
4. Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1991.
5. City Council minutes dated November 16, 1987.
6. Planning Commission dated April 22, 1987.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated September 21, 1988.
8. Conditional Use Permit dated November 16, 1987.
9. Letter from DNR dated June 7, 1993.
_ 10. Letter from Carver County Engineer dated June 9, 1993.
CITY QF
IIANIIASSEN
1111 :Allr
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
April 8, 1993 —
Mr. John Przymus
642 Santa Vera Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Illegal construction @ 7750 Arboretum Blvd.
Citation #054487 —
Dear Mr. Przymus:
Enclosed is a citation charging you with building without a
permit. An interim use permit and a building permit are
required for the addition to your building and the slab at
the north end of the property.
Contact Jo Ann Olsen from the Planning Department at 937-1900
to apply for the interim use permit. Upon approval of the —
interim use permit you may apply for a building permit in the
Public Safety Department.
Work on the addition may not continue, nor may the addition
be used for any purpose until proper permits have been issued
by the City. The same condition apply to the slab. Periodic
inspections will be made to insure compliance. The slab and —
addition may remain as is until permits have been issued or
until May 31, 1993 whichever comes first. Application for
the interim use permit must be made immediately to insure its —
being placed on the agenda in time for you to meet the May 31
deadline for removal.
Continuation of work on the addition and/or slab or use of
either will result in further legal action.
Sincerely, —
Steve A. Kirchman
Building Official
cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Building file - 7ii0 Arboretum
mt. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
oolage-
, •
\ CIIANI1ASSEN
• 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
December 9, 1992
Mr. John Przymus
7476 Saratoga Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear John:
— In the spring of 1991, the Planning Commission tabled action on your application for an interim
use permit for expansion to Swings until you accomplished the following:
1. Receive a certificate of occupancy for the existing building.
2. Provide a pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the holding tank.
3. Apply for a fence permit.
•
These three items have been completed. The city is requesting that you continue with the interim
use permit process so that a decision can be made on the expansion that occurred with the
Swings facility in 1991. As you recall, the expansion was an illegal expansion to a conditional
use permit in that you did not receive permission from the city to add to the business. The city
will be scheduling the interim use permit to again be reviewed by the Planning Commission on
January 20, 1993. Please contact me by January 4, 1993, so we can go over the report together.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 937-1900.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
Steve Kirchman, Building Official
Elliot Knetsch, City Attorney's Office
t«) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITYOF
16
mi
690 COUL1111011,
TER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
May 20, 1991
Mr. John Pryzmus
642 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear John:
The following is a list of items that need to be accomplished prior
to the Planning Commission reviewing your application:
1 . The existing building must receive a certificate of occupancy.
2 . A pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the
holding tank must be submitted.
3 . Apply for a fence permit. -
Staff needs detailed plans on the proposed parking lot, batting
cages , new building, grading and drainage prior to reviewing and
establishing conditions on the property expansion. I have attached
a list which shows what is required on a site plan. Please follow
this list for a complete application.
After speaking with Barb Dacy and Ron Julkowski, we found that the
holding tank was permitted after you had raised issues with the
cost of the septic site and the fact that the facility is a
seasonal use. It is unclear how the condition requiring
connections to a septic system of the Uniform Building Code was
avoided, but we have been told by Barb and Ron that the holding
tank was permitted with the following conditions:
1 . It was only for the existing use.
2 . A pumping contract and receipts were required.
3 . The two existing septic sites had to be preserved.
Mr. John Pryzmus
May 20, 1991
Page 2
Should you wish to continue with your current application and have
it reviewed by the City Council on June 10, 1991, please let me
know. Otherwise, we will bring it back before the Planning
Commission once the existing site is brought into compliance and a
complete application has been submitted.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me .
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
JO:v
pc: Steve Kirchman, Building Official
Elliot Knetsch, City Attorney
City Council
Planning Commission
CITY T
144 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official N .
DATE: 06/07/93 "`'"��� -
SUBJ: 91-1 IUP (Swings Golf)
The following are Inspections Division staff comments on the above -
referenced permit application.
1 . I could find no record of a building permit for the fence -
around the property. Permits are for fences are required by
City Code.The requirement to secure a fence permit was also a
condition of the grading permit (#4232) issued in October,
1990 .
2 . The applicant has already begun construction of the addition
to the existing office and poured the slab for the new -
building . A stop work order was issued on 04/07/93 .
3 . The applicant has not continued to provide septic pumping _
receipts . Required sanitation facilities on the property do
not meet current code, nor are the existing sanitation
facilities served by an onsite sewage treatment system.
Holding tanks were permitted because the originally designated
treatment sites were destroyed. Holding tanks are, in staff ' s
opinion, the least desirable alternate system permitted by
code. It is recommended that the site be inspected by the
Resource Engineering, The City ' s onsite sewage treatment
consultant, to determine if suitable treatment sites are
available. An approved onsite sewage treatment system should
be installed, if site (s) exist prior to approval of further
expansion.
to' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 9
Batzli : Well I think , not to put words in his mouth that that 's the walk
- in height and then you have a peak . Is it 7 feet at the highest? At the
peak?
Peter Moscatelli : Yeah . I can 't imagine , it certainly wouldn 't be more
than 7 1/2 or 8 feet . Very close to 7 feet . There 's a requirement on the
pitch which it has to . . . I would try pretty hard to keep it within .
Conrad : But it 's also dug into the hill .
Peter Moscatelli : Yeah . The hill would . . .probably at least that high .
Conrad: Visually I think it 's going to be . . .uncertain with some of our
standards and I 'm making a point .
Emmings : Okay . And for his benefit this will go to the City Council when?
June 10th?
- Olsen : June 10th .
_ PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE DRIVING RANGE AT SWINGS GOLF
RANGE ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2 AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HWY 5
AND GALPIN BOULEVARD , JOHN PRYZMUS .
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Emmings called the
Public He.G i ng to order .
E:--.'_ng= : John , do you want to address us on this at all?
John T- , Yeah .
Emming_ : If y:'u could come up here please .
- John Pryzm;.s: Just a couple things . The plan that I used when I did the
alterations was a plan that you have had . It was done by a landscape
architect in 1986 so that 's with the berming and what was proposed in 1986
is whet we had . And I just had never finished anything north of the
parking lot so up until this point , I did all the berming from the north of
the parking lot to the end and I did an additional berm to screen my
equipment because the equipment is then sitting in the parking lot . And so
the additional berm to the north . Now as far as the additional tee area ,
you know it 's not at this point , and never will be , it 's for the golf pro
and his student . I just wanted him to be away from the rest of the people
- and the club which is coming out so staff is protraying it as a big
expansion to my operation . It 's just one person teaching another person
how to gcif beck there . The batting cages would be all outdoors . There
- would be nets similar to . . . And the building there would be for the golf
pro for his office and you have TV 's in there to review your video of your
swing and that . Then I would have it for an additional storage for the
winter . My equipment is getting pretty beat up . I can 't keep anything
Planning Commission Meeting _.
May 15 , 1991 - Page 10
running when it has to sit out in the snow banks all winter so I would ,
that 's why I need , I was proposing to have another building like the one up
above although the berming that I 've done with the landscaping would pretty
much screen it . I don 't even know if you 'd be able to see it from the —
road . It 's set down in back of the berms so what I 've done so far to this
point is pretty much landscaping and the dirt I moved was for the
landscaping and now the site for the proposed batting cages would be , you —
wouldn 't have to do any more work to it so in effect while I was doing all
my landscaping , I was moving dirt from strategic areas . As far as sewer , I
had paid a sewer operation to come out and we had planned on having a
bermed septic system and somebody somewhere , it wasn 't me , decided I
couldn 't have that and they made me put in the tanks . I didn 't know
anything about the tanks . All of a sudden that 's what my option was . I
didn 't have any other option . So even though I had already paid for all of_
the technical work for the sewer , somewhere I suppose being that there will
be sewer and water out there , they didn 't want to have another septic
system put in there for something .
Erhart : Excuse me . Who 's they? Was it the City?
John P ryzmus : The staff . City staff , yeah . It wasn 't me . --
Erhart : Can you respond to that?
Olsen : It 's unclear exactly why the holding tanks were approved and I 'm
not sure , wes it Ma:hmeier and Anderson that you worked with on the
septics?
John Pryzmuz : I think they came out . They were recommended by the City to
come out and do the soil testing . Larry Vandeveire had set out , I hired
Larry Vandeveire to set out to do the septic system . But now as far as the—
tank itsclr , it gets pumped whenever it gets 3/4 full . Jeff Swedlund stops
by . He works closely with the people of Chanhassen so it said in the
report that they never get a report . He works with the City . I don 't know_
who he -er- crts to but he pumps it . He goes by every day so he checks it
and w_ '\,e never had . I mean if 3 more people used my tank it would cost me
more to pump it but it isn 't going to cause any effect on the environment
or anything else . The septic company just comes and pumps it and at this —
point I don 't know . When it gets 3/4 full and then he checks it and that 's
maybe once every 2 weeks , 3 weeks . So I would say with my total expansion
proposal , I 'm not going to have but 30-40-50 more people with the batting —
cage , maybe more than that in the real peak season right away in the spring
but if it fills up every week I 'll just have to pay to have it pumped every
week instead of every 3 weeks . So it 's not an environmental problem to
have a tank . I thought once the city staff made me do it , I thought it was
a great idea . You know as long as they 're going to put in , we 're going to
have the MUSA line out there someday anyway , then all we have to do is just
hook up to the MUSA line and I don 't have a big septic system to deal with . —
But like I say , I didn 't , that wasn 't something I just dreamt up .
Emmings : Just one question John . I 'm sure everybody up here would like to_
hear
o—
hear an explanation as to why we see a history like this . Why it appears
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 11
from what we have in front of us and from our prior experience with you and
with your facility , why we 've imposed conditions in the past that have not
been fulfilled on the one hand . On the other hand , you 've repeatedly
improved the site or made alterations to the site without getting prior
approval from the City and I 'd like to know why .
John Pryzmus : Well first of all , I didn 't write that story . If I 'd have
wrote the story it would have read a little different . I just explained to
you when I came up here that that plan was submitted in 1986 and it went
all through the process . I didn 't get it all done at the time because
financially I couldn 't . Once I didn 't get the building , I didn 't get all
the berming done and all the trees planted and I just worked at it when my
money became available to do the whole expansion . And all of the trees and
all the berming . I don 't know if you ever go by there but every year I 'm
doing more and more and it 's always to enhance the beauty of it . It 's
always landscaping . I haven 't built anything . I haven 't built one more
building . I haven 't built anything and I still haven 't .
�- Emmings: Are you putting up a fence?
John PryzrJs : That was part of the original approval . I was supposed to
have a force not over 6 feet high in the Minutes of a deal a long time ago
and I put the posts in 3 years ago but being that I have to go back and
forth ..ith dirt and trees and landscaping , I 've never put the fence up .
_ I 've ha : tie wire ever since and I just never put the fencing on but that
was a Fart of the original approval .
Emmin _ : Alright , thanks . Is there anybody else here from the public who
wants tc be heard on this application? Is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Ahrens : I think the site is a real good site for all the things that the
applicant is trying to do here . I think it looks to me like there wasn 't a
lot of capital to begin with to develop all the things he needed to develop
it from so he 's tried real hard it looks to me , even though there 's been a
lot of problems with the city and I 'm not sure who 's to blame for those
problems . But it seems to me he 's trying real hard to make it into a nice
place . Even though he 's got some problems with completing a lot of these
things he 's trying to do as far as landscaping goes . I have a problem with
the whole holding tank sewer issue and I don 't understand . If the City
approved holding tanks , why the City is now forcing him to install a septic
system .
Olsen: The only reason we could figure out why they would have approved
the `;: _din; tank is that the two approved septic sites had been altered .
There was a lot of grading taking place out on the site where the two sites
were s. ppcsed to be preserved and from what I can tell from the
correspondence that those sites were lost when the applicant was grading on
the site and his only alternative then was to not be permitted what he had
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 12
or to hock up to the holding tank . It 's not clear . It 's just all of a
sudden he was allowed to have the holding tanks .
Ahrens: But they were approved . And it doesn 't seem to be causing any —
large problem out there . It has been pumped .
Olsen : I don 't know . We don 't know how often he 's pumping . We 're not —
getting .
Ahrens: There 's no impact on the environment or anything like that?
Olsen : If it 's being done properly but we don 't have , one of the
conditions of the holding tank was that he do , he does have them pumped and
that he does provide us with those records and we haven 't received those . —
Ahrens : Is there any reason why he couldn 't continue using those besides ,
I mean .
Olsen : I 'm not sure what kind of capacity . . .
Kirchman : The capacity of the tank can be whatever the size of the tank —
is . So there wouldn 't be a problem with continued use .
Ahrens : There vculd or would not? —
Kirch, :a- : :t would not be a problem with continued use if there are no
cth : a : _ lable for septic . I guess our feeling is , the individual _
sew:. c7 ,YrE °.t-'en:t rules from the State of Minnesota prohibit holding tanks
if se-ti : sites are available . There were two sites available at one time
and th y we-e : pParently destroyed . If the use on the site doesn 't
irten_i' , hcl ing tanks were approved and I would suggest we let him
contirue using those as long as we 're provided with a pumping contract and
rec.or z cf pumping as originally agreed on . However , if the use is
intensified , then I would suggest that the applicant search the site to —
find i ` there are any acceptable sites for sewage treatment mounds and put
in treatment sites .
Ahrens : Are there any acceptable sites?
Kirchman: We don 't know . He 's got a lot of acreage out there . If it 's
all been disturbed then there would be no sites . It has to be on —
undisturbed soil and he would have to get someone out there to investigate
as he did before and rope the sites off and protect them from any
construction activity until the septic systems are put in.
John Pryzmus : I think at the time the only site that was available was the
site to the north of the parking lot . That 's where the two sites were .
There was going to be a hill and berm system . And at that time they were —
both approved and they were roped off . Then once they sit , and I don 't
know why the tank became an option but once it was , then that site was not
preserveci anymore . There weren 't any other sites because it was all —
altered .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 1S , 1 991 - Page 13
Ahrens : There are no other sites is what you 're saying?
- John Pryzmus : No . Everything had been scraped . . . You have to stay so far
from the creek and you have to . . .
_ Olsen: But those were two sites that were protected and that was very
clearly understood that they were supposed to be preserved so .
Kirchman: We don 't know when the sites were disturbed . If they were
disturbed after he put his holding tanks in or before . We 're assuming that
they were disturbed before because I can 't imagine why we would have forced
him to have holding tanks when he had two sites that were roped off and
protected . That 's the whole idea of it was to have sites available for
septic so our assumption is that they were disturbed before the holding
tare:: went in . The reason the holding tanks were allowed was because the
sites were disturbed and there were no available sites . But here again we
dor 't have any records to back that up .
A`-�rer: : tThat are the issues involved? I guess I really don 't understand
- still why the holding tanks aren 't satisfactory even if he expands the
site .
Kirchr r : Well , holding tanks traditionally have problems in that they
det.-a,- :---ate under ground and they get cracks and they leak . Pumping has
aiway tbeen a problem . Getting the pumping contracts . Getting them pumped
out and then properly disposing of the septage after they 're
pup?ec.' . Sc. that is why an individual or a septic site is the preferable
trt trotsewage as opposed to pumping .
E..:t if it 's maintained well and .
Kirchman : If it 's maintained well .
A,h € - _ : I mean septic systems can leak too right?
t:irch7.2n : Well , if they 're designed correctly they work .
Phrens : Right . But if the holding tanks are designed correctly and
they 're maintained they ' ll work too right?
Kirchman: That is correct . However , another point is that State Statute
says that if another site 's available , he can 't have holding tanks . So if
sites aren 't available and that 's no choice , then that would be his only
alternative .
Krauss : If I might add too , there 's a policy question involved here .
- We 'v just gone through a 2 year effort to get the MUSA line moved and I
thinall familiar with that . One of the concepts with the
MUSA line that the Metro Council feels strongly about , I think as a policy
question we should feel strongly about . Is that areas outside the MUSA
line should not be on the metro service system . That 's the whole point of
it . Holding tanks get around that . Basically we 're not having on site
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 14
disposal . All that stuff is trucked to where we do have a site and dumped —
into our system and it 's the City that 's paying for the treatment of this
stuff . I 'm sure there 's some kind of a drop charge . . .but it gets at , you
know there 's a related issue that , remember several years ago Mills Fleet —
Farm was talking to the Metro Council about some sort of special allowance
to allow them to have tankage for on site systems on the presumption that
they could be developed as a rural use . Well , I mean this is sort of an —
oddity and we 're willing to live with this oddity as a status quo . But
there 's some policy limitations if you 're allowed to expand based on the
use of the tank and it goes against the building code , it goes against
Metro Council policy and it goes against what I think is good rational -'
policy for us to adopt in the City as well .
Ahrer7 : I dDn 't argue with you on that Paul . It 's just that it was —
approved b, the city at some point and the approval may have been against
public Policy at that time but there was an approval for him to use that .
Olsen : But not necessarily for expansion .
Csh7 : but the expansion here involves some batting cages , a building
tha ' = c_ in? td contain , it 's not really going to increase the use by that —
much . Tc ; 're going to have a storage area for some equipment and what
you ' -' a video?
Johr. TV screen to show your , the pro uses a video camera when
he g if lesson . . . Right now he 's using his van . He has a
ger€ Etc._ his van until we get an acceptance .
A.-rCrs : It just doesn 't seem like the use is going to be that intensified .
I ne_ r it 's r.ct like the State Fair or something where you 're going to have
thousands and thousands of people going through every day . —
Krauss : we don 't have good numbers for this but I think it should be clear
too tat the applicant is desiring to have substantial increase in on site —
parkir,a .
Ahrens : Well that also may be a very optimistic move .
Krauss : They get pretty busy .
Ahrens : Yeah they do but most people go on the site for about an hour and —
then leave . Anyway , do you plan to have as many , I mean the area . . . is huge
for the batting cages .
John P•ryzmus: No , mine would be about half that . You would never have
more than , well the person that comes to hit will spend about a half an
hour h.ittinc softballs and so right now I don 't have any parking problems
at all . I 'm assuming that I could but with my berming and with my design —
end I - k Gave , when I was doing the landscaping , I already predesigned
to make sure the drainage goes into a holding area with rock and so it
seeps out into the grass . We won 't make any. additional runoff . . . You can
have . . .rnyt..e 10-15 more people there but we don 't get hardly any use of the
•
Planner , Ccmm_ssion Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 15
bathrc: . That 's why , and really I will have Jeff drop off the receipts
of his pumping . I thought he was doing that . I didn 't know there was even
a pr ;`_ lerr with the septic until a couple days ago . But there is very
little use of that facility at this point . People that hit golf balls come
there and they 're there for about half an hour .
Ahrens : Yeah , I can 't imagine .
John Pryzmus : They do use it periodically but it 's not something where you
have dinner and you sit there for an hour and a half or two and drink a lct
of liquids and then use the bathroom .
Ahrens : Nc , I agree with that . That 's reasonable and I 'm going to
recocrend approval of this despite the problems . However I would like to
t o' that on you coming into compliance in at least the landscaping
are art the berming . That was an issue? I don 't have a problem with the
bui '_dir _ . It 's going to be the same size as the existing building . It 's
rot a eery large building . I don 't see that the use of the bathroom
fa:i '_ it -_ is going to increase that much to require a septic system , to
== ir_ that the applicant have to comply with septic system requirements .
th: ,_ ;, a ' Jird tank , if the City wants to require conditions that he
sub-,it te re:eipts . Are there receipts of the pumping of the holding
tank: or = _-_thing or regulate the upkeep of the holding tanks , I 'd go
alone kith that L.Jt I think it 's sufficient for the use that 's there now
t7.t ..111 b = there when the expansion takes place .
Enr , -_ - Time out . Your recommendation is that we approve the sign and
the o=men and otherwise deny any improvements until everything
he 's tee ecuired to do in the past has been done , right?
E-- 1 - 77 : = n::' the alternative they 're asking for Joan is , if we 're going to.
_ .� �rsior , then they want us to table it so they can develop .
ccr _ t = . Are you saying something different than that?
Ahrens : Their recommendation is that we approve the sign and the video
games and that we deny the improvements to the site period .
Errs ings : O!..ay . Is that what you 're saying?
Olsen : F:lEht . On page 13 at the bottom we were saying that should you
recommend approval , that we would recommend tabling until we can .
Emmings : 1.2ait a minute . We have too many conversations going here .
Eat:11 : Take charge .
Emr: inc_ : I think if we followed your recommendation we 'd be denying the
ysr.._ior. . The other improvements that he wants . And I take it that we 'd
consid_- those again once he 's done , lived up to all the conditions that
have been imposed on him in the past that he has not yet?
Planning Commission Me...:ing
May 15 , 1991 - Page 16
Olsen: Right . That 's one of the options . That 's correct .
Emmings: Okay . But if there 's going to be approval , you want it tabled so —
you can develop conditions?
Olsen: Correct .
Emmings: Alright . And I want to know if when you said you 'd like to see
this approved , if you 're saying something different than one of those two
things? —
Ahrens: I 'm recommending that we approve the sign . The interim use permit
to permit the signage .
Emmings : Okay . And?
Ahrens : And the expansion of the site .
Emrnincs : With what conditions? That 's the problem I 'm having . We don 't
have conditions . We have a few here from the staff but the staff says they —
don 't feel they 've developed , adequately developed conditions for an
approval . Or are you just going to approve it the way he wants to do just
whatever he 's proposing? —
Ahrens : Well there are existing , I 'm a little confused about this . There
are existing conditions of approval as I understand it .
Olsen: Correct for what was approved .
Ahrens : . . .conditions . —
Olsen : Wt:-11 those were just some . Giving you a start on what we would be
requiring . Like grading and drainage plans . —
Ahrens: Those are just some . That 's not a complete list?
Olsen : No , it 's not a complete list because we need more , to really • —
recommend approval we need more complete plans . It 's still not real clear
the parking that he 's proposing .
Emmings: Well , we don 't know if he 's proposing batting cages inside or
outside . If it 's inside , what the building 's going to look like . If it 's
outside , is it going to be lighted .
Ahrens : I thought it was outside .
Olsen: We don 't know that . —
Emmings : Well it may be .
Ahrens : He said yes .
Emmings: But he hasn 't submitted a plan in enough detail for the staff to
even look at it Joan I think is the problem . —
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 17
- Ahrens: Maybe we 're looking at this prematurely then , the whole deal?
Olsen: For approval , yes .
Emmings: Okay . Why don 't you think about it .
Ahrens : I will Steve . How much time do I have?
Emmings: 4 minutes . I 'll be back .
- Batzli : By the time it gets back to her , she 'll have a lot more . . .
Farmakes: The plan that I 'm looking at right now says '86 . This plan
showing vegetation that 's planned or is it also showing existing
vegetation? There 's a notation on the north side that says existing
vegetation and it 's got a little arrow . Is that the only tree we 're
looking at that 's still standing or , I was out at the site today and there
- seems that there 's some vegetation that 's not on this plan . Do you intend
on altering the vegetation as it stands now or where the batting cage area
is or the parking area is by there?
John Pryzmus : No I basically , other than we 're doing a massive flower
planting . . .geraniums this past weekend and another 600 vinca vines and
_ we 'll be doing a couple thousand petunias but I will be adding shurbs and
trees periodically but I 'm about 95% done . I mean the berms with the
evergreens and the shurbs and the willows and a lot of the trees have
stayed there . I saved them all . They 're expensive so I tried to save as
many trees as I can . This spring now I planted 21 more Black Hills spruce
in case someday the willow trees , you know I have to take the willow tree
down or something . I 'm trying to replace . . .
Farma ' cs : Do you intend on cutting down many trees that are there now?
John Pryzmus : No , not at all .
Farmakes : So your intent then is to . . .this plan here eventually when you
have the funds to do it?
John Pryzmus : Yeah . This is , I 'm done . I mean I don 't have to move any ,
all the dirt I moved was for the berming purposes and the planting of the
trees and the flowers and making the flower beds . In other words we 're
just about done with making our planters and what have you . We 've got
about a . . .and flower planting is what we 're doing now .
Farmakes: In the plans that you submitted in 1986 , was there a batting
cage listed in there?
▪ John Pryzmus : No . On that particular plan , where the batting cage was
going to go , there was a proposal for an indoor golf and batting building .
Farmakes : What would be the maximum height of that cage? Is that a tent
structure with a . . .
John Pryzmus: Yeah . From the berm , maybe only 5 feet above the berm . It
�- would be , I designed it when I was building the berm pretty much contained
Planning Commission McL ._ing
May 15 , 1991 - Page 18
within my area . That 's the tree planting , what have you . I would hope
that you could . . .as far as seeing additional building going on now . . .what
I 'm proposing now . The new building I 'm proposing is set inbetween two --
berms and you won 't see it from the road . The batting cages will be ,
you 'll be standing where you won 't be able to be seen from the road . The
machine will be pitching up from down . You know the balls will run down . I
don 't know if you 've ever been to a batting cage .
Farmakes: Yes .
John Pryzmus : Some of them the ball comes rolling back down this way and
then it goes on an elevator . These would go down . You know I think they
made a note that there was some washing . Well my berms all the grass has —
started to come down . I 've sodded around into there . . .but I didn 't do
anything with that area that would be . . .I think I 'm going to put blacktop
and then carpet instead of like . . .has concrete .
Farmakes : Do you have any architectural things that you 've submitted? Does
the staff have anything as to the height of this cage or whether or not it
would be seen or would be screened? —
Olsen : we haven 't received anything .
Farmakes : So it wasn 't submitted in '86 and it 's not submitted now?
John Pryzrmus : I said what was submitted in '86 was what I 've done so far .
The bermin: and planting and that . On the plan in '86 there was an area —
right where I put one of the teaching holes .
Farmakes : So it wasn 't your intent to build these batting cages or —
whatever u-:til you submitted the proper?
John Pr; zn:;s : Right . Until I get the plans . What I 'm saying is , I didn 't
do anythin^ basically that was illegal like it makes it sound like I was
doing all kinds of things illegal . I was planning on coming and getting a
permit for the batting cages once I can financially do it . I won 't be able
to financially do it this year but I am getting , I 'm basically getting —
pressure from the city saying I 'm expanding without permission so now I 'm
going to get a permit hopefully and I 'll maybe for next year . . .
Farmakes : Well , I have some concerns . One is the maintenance on the
holding tank . The other one is I 'm a little , this is sort of the second
time around and there seems to be a bit of an attitude problem on some of
this stuff for development and it seems naive to me to think that if you 've —
got approval on plans in 1986 or 1987 that you believe that construction is
alright to begin in 1991 . Times change . Ordinances change and I don 't
think it enhances that attitude or a working relationship with the city to —
get into this sort of thing . I hope that 's changed or that that attitude
will change . I like the facility . I 've used it with my children and I
agree . It seems that the landscaping and so on , they 're making an effort
to improve it and make the place look nice and I hope that that continues .
And I hope that the relationship that you have with the City staff , maybe
it will improve . Maybe it 's a matter of circumstances . I hope that 's the
case . I guess I would approve this with conditions and I believe also that —
one of those conditions should be that we should hold that until he
Planning Commission Me.. _ing
'- May 15 , 1991 - Page 19
conforms to some of the points that city staff has listed on here . That 's
the extent of my comments .
Batzli : A year and a half ago I started out by saying I have a real tough
time being objective on this application . It seems like he does something
and then we find out and he says , oh by the way can I have that . That 's
kind of irritating . I 'm starting to sound like a broken record I guess but
I guess I 'd like to see follow through on both sides . If we have
conditions and if we have these things , you know both sides I think have to
show a little bit more commitment to following through on these things that
- we agree on and I 'm not convinced yet that if we come up with conditions
that we 're going to get anywhere with them . So I don 't know exactly what
kind of conditions we 're supposed to put in here . If that means he
complies with them 5 years down the road , does that mean he complies with
them right away? I like the facility . I 've used it . I think it 's
actually an asset but the cavalier attitude about doing things and then
coming in after the fact is irritating . I still try to look at this
- objectively but that 's tough to get over . That part of it . I think that
given the fact that we imposed the holding tank on him as a condition and
he 's made the investment in that , if in fact he can get the contract in
here ar-2 demonstrate that it 's pumped regularly and what have you , I don 't
see why we would make him go to a drainfield kind of thing . I 'd like to
see this tabled . I 'd like to see the staff work with him . See if we can
work with him and come up with something and a time table for doing these
things . If we 're just going to put conditions on here that says he 's going
to do something and not put a time table where if he doesn 't have it done ,
then what 's the point? That 's all I have .
I would recommend denial of the expansion until he brings it up . I
don 't know that I would be heavy duty on the septic system though if we 've
alread,- said it 's okay to have a holding tank . But I think that if some of
the other things haven 't already been met like he needs a certificate of
occupancy , let 's get it all cleaned up . Since the batting cage is probably
a next year apparatus and things later , I 'd rather not see myself approving
- all that until the rest is cleaned and totally agreed upon between the two
and thea mc)s_e forward with the next request .
Conrad: When the holding tank was put in , do we inspect that?
Steve Kirchman: We inspected the installation . The only inspection is ,
it 's a manufactured tank . We just take a look at the installation to make
sure that it was properly installed .
Conrad: So can you have different conditions of holding tanks? Can it be
- used or do they have to be new when they go in? What are the standards? I
don 't know what we 're talking about . Is this a metal? Is this synthetic?
What is the holding tank?
Steve Kirchman: It 's a concrete , basically a septic tank is what it is .
It 's concrete and it comes in different sizes . It 's got to be water tight .
It 's got to have a manhole cover and two clean outs on each end .
Conrad : And how do we know that it was when it went in?
- Steve Kirchman: It was inspected when it went in .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 20
Conrad: So we know that it was good . When it went in , it was a state of
the art holding tank?
Steve virchman: That 's correct .
Conrad: Okay . There are some things that I think just have to be brought —
up to standards before I even consider anything here . And John , I think we
like the facility out there . I think people are using it . I just really
want to see the few things . The things that have not been done . I don 't
want to consider anything , sign , video , anything until I can see what I
perceive to be some simple things just done . Some things that haven 't been
approved . The flood light issue is still there and my understanding is
they weren 't approved except for security and apparently maybe not on but —
they 're there and pointed in the wrong direction or something . I 'm not
sure abut the fence . The fence was not approved in the beginning?
Olsen : On the exterior , yes . There 's now fence on the interior and now
the ordinance requires you to get a permit for fencing .
Conrad : So it was , say it again Jo Ann? —
Olsen: There was fencing shown on the first approved plan along Galpin and
TH 5 . That 's where there 's posts and now there 's some internal fencing _
also . again , they just need to get the permit . It 's real simple . Make
sure height is the right height .
Conrad: You know , that seems like a simple thing to do . The permit for
the fence . I think the building has to receive the Certificate of
Occuparc-y . There 's just some simple things but until they 're done , I
reel ' , dc,� 't wart to see anything . I just want to get rid of this and it —
has tc be done right before we take a look at any sort of expansion . And I
think these are real simple things . They 're not difficult but I 'm not
budging cn that until they 're done .
Erhart : Let me try to get clear in my mind . What is the problem? What do
you t r.: nk they 've done? What do you think they haven 't done and what do
you thin'. they have done? What 's not conforming today in your mind Jo Ann?
Okay , I cot cne . You think there 's flood lights?
Olsen: Right . There are flood lights out there for lighting after hours . —
The hours were set at sunrise to sunset . So that 's one issue that we
haven 't .
Erhart : How many flood lights are out there?
Olsen : How many?
Erhart : Yeah .
Olsen: There are about , I noticed about 2 or 3 along TH 5 on the telephone __
poles cr whatever and they were on the building . Saw it on at least 2
sides . 3 sides? 2 sides?
Erhart : And who are you?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 21
- Steve Kirchman: Steve Kirchman . I 'm a building inspector .
Erhart : Alright . I don 't know , did you introduce yourself or did I miss
that?
Olsen: I kind of introduced him .
- Ellson: Jo Ann introduced him while you were sleeping .
Erhart : While I was sleeping? Okay . John , what are the flood lights
for? Are you using them? What are you using them for?
John Pryzmus: Yeah , we use them for up lighting on all the shurbs is what
the original approval was on it .
Erhart : To do what? Up lighting?
John Pryzmus : Yeah . You know they 're only like this high off the ground
and to shine on all the paths .
Erhart : For what? People to get around after dark?
John Pryzmus : Yeah .
Erhart : So you are , you 're using the facility as a business after dark?
John Pryzmus : The miniature golf has been open yes , after the sun went
- down .
Erhart : And that 's not permitted .
Olsen : Nct permitted .
Erhart : Okay , so in fact you are using it after dark and that wasn 't
permitted . Okay . What else? You 're saying you have some internal fences?'
Olsen: He ,j t needs a fence permit for that .
Erhart : If Bluff Creek Golf Course came in and wanted to put up a fence
between their club house and the first tee , would they just do it or would
they come in?
Ellson: If you wanted one you 'd have to come in .
- Olsen : I can 't tell you what they would do . They would be required to get
a permit .
- Erhart : Is there any limit to how short the fence can be? Let 's say they
wanted to put up cedar rails or something .
Olsen: It 's still a fence . You know we don 't have a limit on how low it
can go but how high it can go . The video games is another thing which .
Erhart : Hang on . Let me get this clear in my mind . So you think there 's
- some internal fencing going on not shown .
Planning Commission Me._,ing •
May 15 , 1991 - Page 22
Olsen: I know there is .
Erhart : On a golf course you can 't move fences without a different site -.
plan?
Olsen: Yeah , if it 's different from the site plan. The only fences are
agricultural .
Steve Kirchman: The only issue here is he has to come in and get the
permit . Nobody 's objecting to his fence but he does need a permit for his —
perimeter fence . He just has to come and get a permit .
Erhart : Okay . What else then? You said there 's some grading going on?
Emmings: He got a permit for that didn 't he?
Olsen : He got a grading permit for some of the grading . Correct Dave?
But sc:7e of it still was going to be part of this whole permit because it
included some of the tees . The parking lot . Grading for where the batting
cage is and the drainage . We don 't have any plans on that . We don 't have —
the detailed grading .
Erhart : How many cubic feet are being graded? _
Olsen : L-!e wouldn 't know . We need to know that .
Erhart : L:hat does the ordinance read?
Olsen : It 's 5O cubic yards .
Erhart : Is it more than that or less than that?
Hempel : Definitely more than that .
Emmin:7s : He needs a certificate of occupancy is another one Tim .
Erhart : Yeah , I 'm getting to that . Before we get to that one , any other —
ones?
Conrad: He needs to supply us with a schedule of the pumping of the septic
tank .
Erhart : I 'm waiting for that one for last .
Olsen: The video games . It 's the hours of operation .
Erhart : Yeah , I got that one . —
Olsen: He is currently putting in the parking lot . It looks that way .
Erhart : Was that on the '86 plan? There 's so much stuff here . Okay , let 's
go back to the septic system . If you look at the conditions on page 3
there . Condition 4 is that two septic sites be protected from grading . In
condition 5 it says the applicant shall install a holding tank . Why would
we have done that?
P'ianning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 23
- Olsen: Where are you?
Erhart : Your page 3 of the report . On the bottom there . 4 says two
septic s,s.tem sites shall be protected from grading activities . Then you
go on with item 5 , the applicant shall install a holding tank .
Olsen: Shall comply with ordinance 10B . That 's where it , I remember that
there was conversations between the applicant and I believe Don and Barb .
Do you remember?
John Pryzmus: I don 't remember why it was changed from septic .
Erhart : This was part of the conditional use . These were the conditions
to the conditional use permit right?
Olsen: I believe that it was one of the issues was cost of installing . My
recollection was that the applicant wanted the holding tank . I remember
- that there was a meeting in Don Ashworth 's office I believe with Barb .
Erhart : Before it went to Council . Alright , so let 's not try to do that .
Let 's ce., hack to Steve . Your letter then . Essentially is it clear to
everybody that we gave him , per your letter here , essentially approved a
holdin: tank?
Steve Yirchm.an: A permit was issued for the holding tank and the
installation was inspected and approved .
_. Erha-t : Cka> . Then you go on to say , I strongly urge that no further
deve '_--mmert be permitted on the property until existing violations are
reit=c' . Tis �:c :ld include installation of an approved septic system .
Does that contradict what?
Steve K rchrran: Well , State Code requires that if you 've got sites
available , that you have to have a septic system .
Erh -t I 4nderstand but .
Steve Kirchnan: If the possibility exists that there are no available
sites . So if there are no available sites , then he has to continue with
that holding tank .
Erhart : I understand but I guess what I 'm saying is , I think there 's a
tremendous insensitivity here . This memo drives a lot of what 's going on
here .
Steve Kirchman: I realize that .
Erhart : Okay . On the one hand it says that we 've told John and gave him a
permit to put in this holding tank and then a few inches down the paper
here you 're saying don 't do anything here until this comes into conformity
essentially .
Steve Virchman: As I said earlier , I 'm assuming the reason that we let him
put in a holding tank was that the original septic sites were disturbed .
- That 's just an assumption on my part . I don 't know why anyone would let
Planning Commission Mecing
May 15 , 1991 - Page 24
him put in holding tanks .
Erhart : I don 't think that 's the point . The point is if you 've given him
approval , then you 've given him approval . I don 't think we can go back
then and said gee whiz , you can 't do anything because .
Olsen: But that is , you know the whole driving force behind this report . —
That 's one of the reasons . It 's also that there 's additional .
Erhart : Well that seems to be the only major one of all these . I guess —
establishing whether they can continue using the , whether he can expand
usir1g the holding tank or not . I guess my recommendation I think is pretty
much along with everybody elses . I guess overall I think the facility is
fine and useful to people here and John has made his way of trying to make —
things work . On the other hand I think sometimes , I think we have to be a
little more sensitive to these styles of businesses . Not everybody is able
to put in a plan , able to work in a normal , timely fashion . And if we —
preclude that process , I think we preclude a lot of creativity . On the
other hand it appears to me like John seems to be alittle more organized
today then. I think when he started in 1986 and so I think we 're both
learning on how to get along a little bit better here . Both John and the —
city . The issue on the septic system , I realize that the Code says you
can 't , v€, 're not supposed to go in disturbed areas but that 's , practicality
is that you cen mak systems work in disturbed areas . —
Steve Kirchnar.: I disagree . If the area 's been disturbed , then it just
destroys the properties of the soils of accepting effluent . The effluent
may not ahov but it also won 't get treated .
EmminsCa7,. you do it in a mound?
Erha -t : E_ entially when you go and do a septic system you do disturb the
soil . Ar= certainly in a mound .
Steve rrc� 7an No , you don 't .
Erhart : You _.I=t lay it on top? —
Steve .'irchr: You lay it on top and you have to use track machinery and
you 're not allowed to drive a truck over the surface where the mound is to
go .
Erhart : Well anyway , I think obviously the tank is working and I don 't see
that this is , it appears that it can work . Steve , I think you 're saying
that it can work properly if properly maintained . On the other hand , I
would prefer to see a septic system . On the other hand , when do you expect
the sewer line to be put through here?
Krauss : Well we 're looking at serving the area behind , across the street
from this site hopefully next Friday . Theoretically , but this area is not
include: in the MUSA line expansion . This area is the study area so there —
would be no service to this property in the foreseeable future .
Erhart : So that 's what you , the other thing is I think it 'd be to their —
adva.ntaoe to get this as an interim use permit so I 'd agree with your
- Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 25
recommendation to try to , anyway try to get it to that so we can tie some
kind of date on this . So I guess I 'd go along with staff 's recommendation
in terms of approving with the video games and trying to get interim use
permit and try to come back with , table it and come back . I guess I 'd like
to see him clear up , maybe Steve or someone to try to clear up a uniform
recommendation on whether this holding site or septic system or something
- so it 's a little clearer at the next meeting . And then have conditions .
Olsen : Yeah , we ' ll confirm the capacity and things like that .
Erhart : That 's finally it .
Emmings: Okay . I 'm going to adopt Brian 's comments and Ladd 's comments
just to shorten things down . I 'm not going to , I don 't care too much about
the sign or video games . Whether we do something with that but he has to
do , in my mind , he has to do what he said he would do in the past or
- fulfill the conditions that were imposed on prior approvals before I 'm
willing to look at any expansion . And that 's primarily because although
I 'm sure that John has his own version of how things have evolved out
there , all I 've seen here over the years is John filling in the wetland .
Being told to stop . Coming in and asking for a permit . Being denied . And
now he 's doing something else and he 's being told to stop and he 's coming
in again for a permit after the fact . I think he 's had enough interaction
with the City to know that he should come here first and he hasn 't been
willing to do that so I 'm not willing to look at an expansion until he gets
everything UP to snuff . If it was one time I could understand it but it
- hasn 't been one time . This is at least the third time that I can recall
sitting here and looking at this and maybe it 's the fourth . So that 's
where I stand . Is there a motion?
Conrad : Yes . I move that we table action until the applicant brings the ,
satisfies the staff 's concerns about the previous conditional use permit .
Batzli : Second .
Emmirgs : Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to table the Interim Use Permit for Swings
Golf until the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are satisfied . All
voted in favor except Ahrens and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 5 to 2.
Emmings : Do you want to put the reasons on the record?
Ahrens : Well I 've been thinking about this and I can go along with the
staff recommendation on this for approval of the Interim Use Permit for
denial of expansion of the site .
Erhart : What was your second one?
Ahrens : Basically the staff 's recommendation . Denial of the expansion but
that the staff continue to work with them to bring the site into
compliance .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 15 , 1991 - Page 26
Erhart : Okay and I think that was what I was thinking . That 's what I was _
voting for denial . So if that 's what it is , that was mine .
Conrad: Now with my motion , I just want to make sure that the tank , the
holding tank . It is permitted so we 're not asking staff at this time to —
figure out how to do a drainfield . We 're not asking John to do that . We
are bringing it into conformance with the previous conditional use permit
and what the city has granted John to do . -
Emmings : And you 're not in any way discouraging them from continuing to
work together to bring it up to snuff and then look at a proposal when _
they 've got one .
Conrad: That 's all I want . I just don 't see there are a lot of things
that you have to do John . I just do want , I want to force you and the
staff doing things together the right way . We 're not trying to be the bad
guys . I want to do it the right way so we can review this without having
some history and some negatives out there . Then we can take a look at the —
real issues .
Emmings : Right . I think we ought to at this point take a quick break for a
North Stars update .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE
PRESERVATION SECTION .
Emmings : I understand that you 're recommending that we table this matter
so that we can notify affected property owners and then hold a public
hearing and complete the official map . What should we do on this tonight?
I think that 's obviously the thing to do .
Olsen: Look at the map .
Krauss : We 'd like you to look at the preliminary draft of the official map
we had . We 'd also like to discuss some standards with you that are in the
ordinance . In fact Jo Ann and I had a long conversation . After coming —
back from the bluff hike , Bluff Creek hike , my personal opinion is that
some of the standards that the DNR recommended aren 't adequate to protect
what we want to protect over there . One of the other things we wanted to
do , first of all what we 're proposing is an ordinance based on an official —
map rather than a we know it when we see it approach and so to designate
where this thing is . You should know though that when you see this map
you ' ll see it . It really does interfere indirect with a lot of properties —
up there and a lot of property owners may fell disinfranchised by it and I
think that the environmental benefits of this have to be so , in addition we
have to have some mechansim wherein existing situations are grandfathered .
Not made non-conforming but grandfathered so we accept the status quo .
Ellson : That couldn 't expand? Would that be grandfathered?
Krauss : Well no . I think we 'd like to work out some language where they
could if there wasn 't prejudice against them because they happened to build
earlier . The other thing that we 'd like to do too for the public is , Dave _
y y v
City Council Meet. , - November 16, 1987
be willing to support a situation in which he would grant the city an
easement. If the City wants to build a trail on both sides of CR 17, I think
we should be willing to pay for it but I'd like to have that option available
to us. I think that saves Mr. Patton's feeling that it's costing the
development money because you're simply giving us an easement and yet it
protects the ability of the City to come back and build a trail later.
Councilman Johnson: I thought that was what the Park and Rec was asking for
anyway.
Councilman Boyt: What we agreed to the other evening was that Mr. Patton would
build the trail on both sides of CR 17 and I think Park and Rec said that if
he chose not to build it, there would be a reduction in the trails fees. I
think since then we have increase the amount of trails we've asked Mr. Patton
to build in this development and quite possibly it's reasonable to ask for an
easement.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the applicant provide an
easement on one side of County Road 17 for the future development of a trail,
to be built by the City, if a trail on both sides of County Road 17 is deemed
necessary. All voted in favor and motion carried.
REVIEri SWINGS RECREATION PROJECT, JOHN PRYZMUS, APPLICANT:
— 4 A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GOLF DRIVING RANGES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AS AN ACCESSORY USE, 2ND
AND FINAL READING.
B. APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOCUMENT.
Barbara Dacy: I do need a clarification on one of the proposed conditions of
the conditional use permit but as to the zoning ordinance amendment, the
Council needs to act on the 2nd and final reading on the zoning ordinance
amendment to allow golf driving ranges as a conditional use with or without
miniature golf as an accessory use. The five conditions that the Council put
in their motion from May 4, 1987. The Council approved the conditional use
permit and also acted to deny the wetland alteration permit so the Council
needs to authorize execution of the conditional use permit which staff has
prepared in Attachment r2. If I could review briefly one of the conditions.
On the graphic here the big blob, if you will, is the wetland area in the
northwest corner of the site. The orange area is where the miniature golf
course is going to be located. The gray area is where the parking area is
proposed to be then there was a small clubhouse building located here. This
colored square is the proposed batting building at that time. The batting
building was not approved as part of the conditional use permit and this area
over here represents the septic system sites adjacent to Galpin Blvd.. This
site plan shown here was submitted in conjunction with the landscaping plan
and that landscaping plan is proposed to be the installation of a number of
deciduous trees and also proposed construction of berm areas which are
represented in green. The applicant also proposed fencing around the entire
perimeter of the site as well as a fence around the maxi-putt and mini-putt
19
'`rAU-A1'115-1 �a
9214.7
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
area. So the conditional use permit has been designed to follow up on the
elements that was represented by the applicant on his site plan and
landscaping plan. In number 1 the first permit requires submission of a
revised grading plan showing the limits of grading, methods of erosion control
and indicating the revised location of the parking lot and clubhouse. As you _
recall, the applicant had originally intended in altering the wetland area and
creating a pond back here and to lower the elevation of the hill over in this
area for the construction of a batting building. Since the wetland alteration
permit was denied and since the batting building was not included in the
approval, the applicant has changed his plans so that we would like to reduce
the size of the hill in this area and second of all, if you will recall,
Carver County had a condition that the setback area for the parking lot and
the clubhouse building be measured from 100 feet from the center line of
Galpin Blvd.. I apologize to the applicant also and to the Council, but the
way that first condition should read is with the 50 foot structure setback in
the A-2 district, the first condition should read, indicating the revised
location of the parking lot and clubhouse 150 feet from the center line of CR
117. That would take into accomodation the additional right-of-way needed for
CR 117 as well as the 50 foot setback. I think that was discussed all along. -
I made an error in the footage from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. The size
of the parking lot was primarily based on the use of the batting building.
Provided on the plan here is construction of 92 spaces. The batting building _
is not being included, there is no reason to have that size of a parking lot
so what the first condition is saying is that the plan should show the revised
location of the parking lot and I'd like to add the revised size and location
of the parking lot and clubhouse so that the applicant is proposing to reduce
this in size, that's fine. Finally, the plan indicated that the parking area
was to be bituminous and again I apologize, that should have been specified in
the first condition there. Also, the ordinance does require that all parking
areas should be lined by concrete curb also so the Council may want to discuss
that in more detail tonight but in order to match our ordinance, a sentence
should be added that the parking shall be paved and lined with concrete curb. _
The second condition was commented on the previous staff report back in May
that in order to be consistent with our landscaping ordinance, 6 foot
evergreens and 2 foot evergreens should be placed between the parking areas
and Galpin Blvd.. The proposed fencing of the site, the applicant indicated
to me that it would be approximately 5 feet and it should not exceed our 6
feet in conformance with our ordinance. Number 4 and 5 really go together.
As you recall, the bathrooms were to be located in the batting building area.
The applicant has found a better location for mound systems over in this area.
If the batting building is no longer there, the bathrooms are to be placed in
the clubhouse, the applicant's has a couple of options. He can either pump
the effluent to a septic system site to the north, install a holding tank or
install temporary Satellites on the property so what staff is recommending
that if the septic system sites are not to be used, then we recommend
installation of a holding tank rather than installation of Satellites. In any
case however, we want to insure that septic system sites are protected out in
the field and are not altered in case they are removed or needed by the
applicant. If the applicant is to install a holding tank, then the copy of
the contract with a licensed pumper should be provided. Six, the applicant
shall comply with all the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and
Wildlife and DNR.. Because the applicant will be submitting a revised grading E
20
247
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
plan, the Watershed District approval will be necessary in that case. The
applicant will have to receive their authorization. Now, as to the wetland
alteration permit, Council action again was to deny that on May 4, 1987. The
applicant is proposing to plant grass seed in this area on a regular basis in
order to pick up the balls from the tee area. Because this area has been
farmed in the past on a consistent basis, staff did not feel that planting
grass seed periodically would be adverse to the wetland areas. We prepared a
permit to allow seeding of the site. If that is not consistent with what the
Council feels was their action on May 4, 1987, then that needs to be
corrected. Number 8, to insure completion of the grading improvements and the
parking lot improvements and so on, we ask that the applicant submit a letter
of credit in the amount of 110%. The Council discussed at the last meeting
and made a condition the zoning ordinance amendment to include the use that
the hours of operation would be from sunrise to sunset and therefore there
would be no lighting unless that was a specific condition of approval.
Finally, there is an outstanding bill incurred by Mr. Machmeier and Mr.
Anderson. We're requiring that be paid and if an additional review would be
necessary for the mound septic system sites beyond our current staff, that
would be necessary that a condition that those fees would be paid by the
applicant also and that is consistent with all of our applicants for any of
our subdivision or any type of applicant in the rural area.
Mayor Hamilton: I can think of one question offhand. You said we wanted to
have curb in there. I guess I don't recall that in the rural area for any
type of a use like this and I guess the only one I can think of that would be
fairly similar would be the mini-storage area. I don't believe that we
_ - required curb and gutter in that area.
Barbara Dacy: For Mr. Brown's there was I believe the main access drives,.
ingress and egress points to the development.
Mayor Hamilton: Right but not the whole, what you would consider the parking
area.
Barbara Dacy: Right. Tonight I was indicating that the curbing and the
paving and the bituminous issue was not even discussed at the May 4th
meeting. I was merely pointing out that our ordinance requires it. That
paved be lined with concrete curb so you're consistent with the ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay and I was just questioning that wondering if that's
consistent with what we do in the rural area. If that's what our ordinance
says, I guess that surprises me.
Barbara Dacy: Staff has been consistent in recommending that that be
installed.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure you have but my question is still the same. Is it
the ordinance that it would be installed in the rural areas?
Barbara Dacy: Your question, have you approved it in the past?
21
n _
2
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 -
Mayor Hamilton: No, does it say that in the ordinance? That rural areas put
in parking for whatever use you're going to use, you have to have curb and
gutter.
Barbara Dacy: the ordinance does not specify if it's urban or rural. It says
if you have a parking area, it has to be paved and you have to have concrete
curb.
Mayor Hamilton: Alright, so that's something that the Council could decide
whether or not we want to have that right? Staff is recommending that the
applicant do put that in. I'm also curious about the wetland now. The
drawing that you were showing us there and the portion in green is supposedly
the wetland. Who's definition of the wetland is that?
Barbara Dacy: We asked the applicant at that time, what we use as the
definition of edge of the wetland is where the reed grass vegetation starts
and stops. That was one factor because the reed grass was predominant in this
area. The other reference that we used was the official Chanhassen wetlands _
map that was on file. This part of the area does reflect on the contour
that's located on the wetlands map.
Mayor Hamilton: What class wetland was that? —
Barbara Dacy: It was a Type II, Class B.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that the lowest grade you can get?
Barbara Dacy: There's Type I which is the lowest. _
Mayor Hamilton: So it's next to the lowest and that area had been farmed for
years if I remember correctly. I still, in being consistent with what I've
said in the past, I don't believe that's a wetland and I would like to see
some evidence if it is. I think the applicant ought to be allowed use in that
area. It may have been a wetland at one time and John filled it. Right or
wrong it's something that's been done. I think that he's said that at that
far north end of that there is a pond or he would construct a pond that could
be used as a wetland or as a retention area for runoff to go into the creek.
I wound prefer to see that done since he's filled the area already, allow him
to use it. I guess I have stated that previously and I still feel the same
way. I think anybody would have a hard time going out there and I don't care
if it's Mrs. Rockwell or our staff and proving that that is in fact a wetland.
I don't think there's any evidence out there. Co council members have any -
questions of the staff?
Councilman Horn: One of the things that we requested when we reviewed this
last time was to get a general policy on allowing this type of use from the
Planning Commission. I didn't see any record that they had given us a
guideline on this issue.
Barbara Dacy: As I interpretted the Minutes after reviewing them, that topic
was discussed but then I believe it was Councilman Geving saying you have to
decide on a particular issue at hand tonight and that two motions occurred.
22
249
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
So that item has not been brought back to the Planning Commission for review
given Council's action.
Councilman Horn: If you read further in the Minutes it said that, yes we had
to act on this issue this evening but part of our problem with acting that
evening was that we didn't have the guideline and what we said is, that we
should go back and get a guideline as to what type of uses we should allow and
where we should allow them and what kind of criteria we should put on those
kinds of uses. Specifically the issue of the batting area had come up and
that is not addressed anywhere. We also described the fact that if you read
our ordinance it doesn't allow a golf course anyplace in the City without a
conditional use permit. That was another one of the issues that we wanted to
address and brought back to us for us to act on. Now we come back to this
issue again and we don't have any further recommendations or any further
guidance on this thing and it seems like we've lost a lot of time where we
could have been making a policy on that so once again instead of proactive,
we're retroactive.
Barbara Dacy: I guess I disagree because the five conditions that the Council
eventually approved were the specific recommendations of the Planning
Commission and they made a specific statement saying that the batting building
of the commercial recreational uses was not appropriate in the rural area.
But they did distinguish between driving ranges and miniature golf courses.
They declined to act on the golf course issue because that was not brought up
to them at that point although I recall that the Planning Commission did say
that they would all agree that a golf course should be allowed in the rural
— area. Basically what the Council has approved was the Planning Commission
recommendation.
Councilman Horn: That's true but what we also asked for was that the issue of
golf courses in general be addressed in terms of our overall ordinance and I
don't believe it has.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, they have not addressed that but I guess I still don't
understand how that issue would relate to Mr. Pryzmus' application because I
don't think the driving range and miniature golf course is clearly a distinct
use than a golf course.
Councilman Horn: What you're telling us is that there is no anomaly to the
ordinance to date. That this is a very clear cut issue from our ordinance.
Barbara Dacy: The Council acted to approve the Planning Commission
recommendation for the golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses. They
did not address a golf course issue at all.
Councilman Horn: I understand that. Based on the current ordinance?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
•
Councilman Johnson: As I said in May, I think we should allow at least the
seeding in that area to make the area useful. I do not think we should make
major grading changes to that area. It still, with the proper seeding, will
23
2
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
function as a nutrient drain the wetland area. This is another example of how
the TH 5 corridor there needs to be looked at. We are in that process, I
guess looking at the entire downtown to TH 41 as part of our comprehensive
plan.
John Pryzmus: As far as if I can have it, whatever you decide as far as the
curbing we can go ahead and do that but what I worked with staff is after the
11 inches of rain, I went down there and mowed that area a week and a half
later and there wasn't even any water there so I'm not worried about filling
in the wet area at all. One thing that I would like to propose is the batting
cage or our proposal there was a batting building. It was consistent with my
financing and that project was.-to make it financially feasible. I needed
the batting cage or the indoor golf and batting. As far as the density of the
area coincides with miniature golf and driving range. Also, when people are
using that, they won't really go off the site so if I could reconsider to add
that building as a utility building, that would be the only thing. Other than
that, I won't be doing anything in the low land at all other than seeding it.
As far as the grading permit, that goes along with the miniature golf now and
we won't put any fill in the low area, we'll just knock down the one hill and
just push it to the back. There will be a very minimum amount of grading on
the site. So if you would reconsider allowing having a utility building to
make it financially feasible. ..
Mayor Hamilton: That's an entirely separate issue. I guess if you want that
to be reconsidered, you'll have to bring it back at another time. Do you have
any problems with the conditions 1 through 10 that were outlined by the
conditional use permit? Were those conditions acceptable to you?
John Pryzmus: The curbing and? —
Mayor Hamilton: There are 10 conditions. Have you had a chance to review
the„?
John Pryzmus: I didn't.
Councilman Boyt: Did you fill in the wetland? -
John Pryzmus: Yes, I filled in part of it.
Councilman Boyt: Did you have a permit to do that?
John Pryzmus: There isn't any wetland on the property. I have a letter from
the DNR stating that it's not a protected wetland.
Councilman Boyt: Well the City considers it a wetlands and you filled it in
without a permit, is that correct? I just want to get a clear status on how
we lost the wetland. My understanding is we lost the wetland because you
filled it in.
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct.
E
24
251
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
Councilman Boyt: What you're basically asking to do with the wetlands and
what the City proposes is a wetland, is to seed it, mow it, treat it like any
other piece of ground. I would like to ask the staff, is this going to impede
it's ability to do what it's doing now?
Barbara Dacy: When Dr. Rockwell visited the site last spring, she commented
that the area is really not acting as a good place for habitat which is one of
the criteria for a wetland. It's main function was serving as an area for
recharge and a storm water retention area before it gets to a creek along the
north side of the property. Staff felt that because there was going to be no
additional fill or alteration of the property, that it would continue to be
maintained the way it was in the last several years, that we felt that the
seeding would not affect that function at all.
Councilman Boyt: Now I heard something about an offer to build a pond on the
property as a holding pond. I think that's a reasonable offer and we should
take you up on that.
Barbara Dacy: That was part of the original wetland alteration permit request
that was denied by the Council so if you're proposing to do that, he would
have to reapply for that.
Councilman Boyt: How are you proposing and how would you like to alter that
wetland any differently than what you propose to do now?
John Pryzmus: You means as far as building a pond?
Councilman Boyt: No, as far as the particular wetland. Is that where you are
proposing to build your pond?
John Pryzmus: Yes it would be down at the end of the road area.
Councilman Boyt: Alright, so what other kinds of changes were you proposing
to make in the wetland?
John Pryzmus: All I want to do is just like I have there on the sewer.
Councilman Boyt: Do we have any difficulty with him improving the wetland?
We ocem to have set a precedent indicating agreement to do that before. Well
Jay, maybe when it gets to be your turn you can comment on that. Then the
other situation I have is on the parking lot. As I read the ordinance, it's a
little different than staff is interpretting it. It says on page 1247, in
multiple family, business, office and industrial districts. We're not in any
of those so it does state that a person needs to have some sort of dust free,
all weather surface and concrete curbing. It's real specific as to where in
the city we can require that. I believe this is an agricultural district?
Mayor Hamilton: It's A-2.
Councilman Boyt: I think given the surface area, it probaby makes sense to
put a concrete curb around this but I don't think the city ordinance requires
it. I think it's kind of commen sense if you're going to put a hard surface
25
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
on that much ground to have some means of controlling the runoff from that.
So to kind of summarize where I'm at right now, on the wetland, if you're
going to improve it, I can certainly be convinced that grading and seeding is
appropriate since it doesn't seem to interfere with what it's doing now. On
the curbing, I'm okay with going on the curbing whichever way you want because
our ordinance doesn't require it as I read it. However, I would certainly
look favorably upon putting concrete curbing around your parking area. My
biggest concern is that we're sitting in an agricultural area and we are
producing what I think is going to be a tremendous traffic generator. A
collector into this particular spot. Business Week in the last month had an
article that indicated that miniature golf courses are doing quite well. I
think we see an example of that on TH 7 and TH 101 and I think we should view
this as a permanent structure and not as a temporary structure until something
better comes along. I don't know that we've done a traffic study. Have we
done a traffic study?
Barbara Dacy: No we have not for this.
Councilman Boyt: I gather that we're saying we're preparing to approve
something that I think will generate a great deal of traffic. Is a county
study done?
Barbara Dacy: The County has reviewed the site plan. Their recommendation
was that the access be located 300 feet to the north of the intersection.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe people who are more familiar with that particular
intersection than I an can add to more that.
Barbara Dacy: We do have books upstairs from the Institute of Traffic
Engineers that estimate the amount of traffic to be generated from miniature
golf courses and retail uses and so on. I think when we went to through the
process last spring the major concern was the batting building because that
would generate more traffic on a consistent basis. The miniature golf course
traffic would be seasonal in nature. Peak periods would be on Saturday and
Sunday and evenings.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying when the traffic load would tend to be lighter
on TH 5, this. . .
Barbara Dacy: It's considerably less than a retail use or commercial
recreational use.
Councilman Boyt: You don't consider this to be comparable with a retail use?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess if we did a traffic study it would probably show us
what we already know and that's that TH 5 is overused and if we have another
use along the highway it's going to continue to overload it some more. I have
no other comments on the two proposed items before us.
Councilman Boyt: Then we're saying we make this amendment that anyone in the
agricultural area can come in and apply for a miniature golf course and a golf
driving range?
26
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: Right, as a conditional use.
Councilman Boyt: And basically we can only turn down a conditional use
request when there is some overriding concern. We can't do it because the
neighbors don't want it there?
Mayor Hamilton: Conditional use has always given us a great deal of latitude.
Roger Knutson: You have a good discretion on it. You can't turn it down
because the neighbors don't like it. They frown on that. You have to
exercise your own judgment.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true Bill. Unfortunately that's the case.
Councilman Horn: I believe that one of the requirements we put on here is
— that it be located adjacent to a major road with an off street access.
Councilman Johnson: From a collector or an arterial. Not just an off-street
— access.
Councilman Horn: Which will limit it to some degree.
— Councilman Johnson: There aren't that many sites who could develop this. We
specified TH 5 and Tri 212. We're not opening this up to the entire A-2
district.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request #82-4 to amend Article V, Section 3(4) to allow golf driving
— ranges with or without miniature gold courses as a conditional use in the A-2,
Agricultural Estate District and to amend Article V, Section 9(14) to allow
standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses: ,
— 1. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to
TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which
leads to TH 5 or TH 212.
2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of landscaping
plan in conformance with Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family
residence.
5. The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800
square feet and shall be painted in earth tones.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
-1 Mayor Hamilton: Item b is to approve the Conditional Use Permit document.
The applicant has said that he hasn't reviewed the 10 items. Is there a
motion to handle item 6(b)?
27
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
Councilman Johnson: Did the applicant get this?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so. You've been working with him rather -
closely, it's hard to believe he hasn't.
Barbara Dacy: I know the packet was sent out to you on Friday. You have not
received it?
John Pryzmus: I've been out working at the site so I haven't gotten my mail.
Barbara Dacy: It was sent to the Saratoga Drive address.
Councilman Johnson: While we have a slight break here, Bill was talking about
the wetlands down there. By improving the wetlands, I do have a slight
opinion on that. If we're not building the batting cage, which at this time
we aren't, our amount of impervious surface being added to the area are
minimal. The amount of increase runoff that would require an increased
holding pond should be minimal. If we can keep that area as an infiltration
area versus a holding pond area, I personally believe it would be best served
to keep it in the same use as what nature has it now. Not necessarily making -
a holding pond in a wetland is an improvement to the wetland in my opinion.
Certain wetlands have certain purposes. This wetland and the area adjacent to
it appears to be a infiltration area. Unfortunately there's about a foot of
dirt in many areas on top of what used to be the wetlands but I think if we
dug deep enough we would find the wetland that was there. At this time, if we
had approved the other building there, then I would be insisting upon a
holding pond to slow down the runoff going into the creek there but at this
time I don't think there's a great need to try to improve that wetland. When
you try to improve something, you sometimes may screw it up.
Councilman Horn: It's already broken.
Mayor Hamilton: But it's broken like Clark says. It could be improved I
would think dramatically because if you walk back there there's nothing there
and it could be improved to be something.
Councilman Johnson: Aesthetically yes but hydraulically I'm not sure if the -
improvement will be any different. I haven't seen any facts or figures to say
it. As an area of infiltration and recharge of ground water, it will continue
function as such. You put it in as a pond and we have a better mosquito -
breeding area.
Councilman Boyt: The holding pond isn't in the condition in the condition as
it stands. I would like to see it put in. I think it could help it improve .
Mr. Pryzmus ocems be willing to put it in. Is it acceptable to amend the
wetland alteration permit?
the
Councilman Johnson: We denied it.
Barbara Dacy: If you wanted to provide for a conditional use permit, you -
could include it in condition number 1 by saying, submission of a revised --
28
= City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
grading plan by December 1st indicating location of a holding pond.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was thinking of the same thing but I would like to
_ see John be encouraged to come back and request a wetland alteration permit
again showing what he's going to do with the pond. I guess I'd kind of like
to see because you at one time agreed that you would do that. Just improve
the pond in the north end. Then we would have some idea of what it's going to
look like and what he's going to do because I think you would still like to
have a permit.
John Pryzmus: I'm working with Bill Engelhardt right now and we're working on
the changeover from the filled in areas to put a pond in there and have him
and the DNR decide how big and whether they think it should be there.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and then that could be a part of your request for a
wetland alteration permit coming back to us at another time.
John Pryzmus: It would be nice to have that as a condition if you'd let me
have my batting building.
Mayor Hamilton: There's no reason, if you want you can ask for both of those
again. I can't tell you to or not to but if that's something you want to do,
that's something you have to decide if you want to come back and request one
or either or both, that's up to you to make that request.
--) Councilman Johnson: John, do you want this pond?
John Pryzmus: I think as far as from the area, the pond isn't going to hurt
me.
Councilman Johnson: What about the septic systems? You talked about the
conversion there to a holding tank versus a septic system.
Barbara Dacy: No, there's no change proposed with that. Conditions 4 and 5
remain the same.
Councilman Horn: We could include an asphalt curb.
Councilman Johnson: I prefer to get sheet flow off of the parking area.
Mayor Hamilton: I would too. I don't know that much about water runoff but
it would seem that if you have water running off, don't you decrease the
amount of velocity coming off of an area by doing that. That's what we're
always trying to do.
Barbara Dacy: That be addressed and reviewed by staff.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we always talk about decreasing the velocity
and that would seem like that might do that. Maybe it doesn't, I don't know.
Councilman Horn: Let's leave off everything with curbs.
29
City Council Meeting - Ldovember 16, 1987
Gary Warren: We'll look at that with the plans that came in.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd be curious to know if it does or doesn't.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Conditional Use
Permit Document as presented with the following amendment to the first
condition:
1. Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987 showing the
proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where -
necessary, indicating the revised size and location of the parking
lot and club house and 150 feet from the centerline of County Road
117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature
golf course area. The parking lot shall be paved. City Staff shall
review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDER=ATION OF ALLOW:NG HUNTING NORTH OF TH 5, DNR CONTROLLED GOOSE HUNT.
Mayor Hamilton: We've had an opportunity to see one of these previously and
Jim has made some recommendations to us. Reading through Jim's
recommendations saying the ultimate solution though may be the elimination of
hunting all together within the city limits of Chanhassen I couldn't agree
with less. I don't think that's the ultimate solution at all. There are
areas in the city where you can hunt especially around Rice Marsh Lake or
swamp or whatever you call it. There are a number of areas south of TH 5 that
are certainly acceptable for shotgun hunting of birds and fowl but perhaps not
any longer of deer. Although there is enough open space so I think slug
hunting is probably pretty safe also but to get to the real problem, these dog
gone geese. Personally I guess, unless everybody wants a report from Jim, I
would really like to see us just say no hunting north of TH 5 period. Whether
it's a special hunt or non-special hunt so you don't run into the same
problems we did last time. That was a mess.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we have a tremendous problem with the geese in
this city. As much as I like to oee them fly, I understand that a good many
people don't like to see them on their yard and what they leave behind. I
would think that it is a difficult issue where we allow people to hunt north
of TH 5. I agree with you by the way on hunting south of TH 5. I think that
there are still some areas where people should be able to hunt in Chanhassen
given the level of development as it is right now. I would like to see us
look at some sort of reasonable guideline that Mr. Chaffee could use in doing
a preliminary screen on a request. Whether it's north or south. I would
think something in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards from any home.
Mayor Hamilton: Feet or yards?
Councilman Boyt: No, yards. The reason I say yards is because that's L
basically the maximum carrying distance of a shotgun. It's not going to carry
there with any ability to do anything. Gentlemen, I can assure that if you
30
Planning Commission Me ing
April 22 , 1987 - Page 27
configuration of the roadways that that come before the Planning
Commission for review.
- All voted in favor and motion carried .
Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
- approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following
conditions :
1 . The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement
established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark .
2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding
areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the
areas .
- All voted in favor and motion carried .
Erhart : Can you explain what item number 2 in your recomnendation means .
Olsen : What they are providing , in what they call a storm water easement,
I'm just making sure that they definitely provide easements over that and
that those are protected areas so they won ' t be altered .
Erhart : Altered?
— Olsen : Such as mowing the lawn .
SWINGS RECREATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND CO. RD.
117 , JOHN PRYZMUS , APPLICANT :
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT TO ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES, MINIATURE GOLF
COURSES AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
B . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE
GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDING.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND.
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
request .
Conrad : Where else would a golf driving range be in the city?
Dacy: Currently a golf driving range is not listed in any other commercial
districts so basically a golf course or golf driving range is not a
permitted or conditional use within the City of Chanhassen .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 28
Conrad: Can you refresh my memory why that is? I'm looking at some notes
where we specifically said we did not want that in agricultural area and I -
have a hard time recalling that .
Dacy: What happened was, during the Zoning Ordinance review process we met _
several times in 1985 and 1986. The Bluff Creek golf course now is a non-
conforming use as a golf course but we do recall discussion that the
Commission did have problems with a golf driving range in the rural area.
You didn't think it was appropriate. It created some traffic along those -
roads so it wasn't approved as a part of the new Ordinance thus the
application .
Conrad : John , you are the applicant. Specifically John we're talking on
the zoning and before you tell us what your range and what your
configuration would look like. I don't know how I can limit you to just one_
subject. You are asking for a zoning change or you are asking to amend the
Ordinance based on a project that you've got. I don't want to review the
project yet. I really do want to review the concept. Of the three things
that you've asked for , in general in the City of Chanhassen. Can you keep -
us away from your project for a while? Do you have anything to tell us
about driving ranges in Chanhassen? Persuade us that we should have driving
ranges in Chanhassen is what my challenge to you would be . _
•
John Pryzmus : On page 8, basically my feelings in the Chaska Herald is an
ad I developed. I spent a lot of time with the people planning the driving
range out there now. I've been in front of the City Council about two -
months ago and at that time we didn' t have the total plans and the layout of
the new facility. It had been approved originally five years ago for a
driving range and I never did open it. I worked on it gradually over the -
last 5 years and being that the little one I had in town , there was no
development on it, I never had a reason to open the new one. I brought in
people from Chicago, John Jacobsford Golf and we went and looked at every
driving range in the Twin Cities area and there are a lot of driving ranges
that aren't kept up very well and a lot of them are just an intern use for e
piece of property until you put it into an industrial park or whatever. You
aren't going to buy an industrial park for driving ranges but you do buy a -
driving range for industrial parks. With this project, I'm not proposing it
to be used as an industrial park down the road. It's a half a million
dollar project that should enhance the recreational facilities for the
community. In all the response I've had, they are 100% for the project. I
feel by getting community support, I feel that I want to show the Council
and the Planning Commission that not only do I want to make a business
venture out there, I've already spent a lot of money buying the land. I
bought it on a contingency that I could have a driving range then that was
approved so I guess what I want to do now. I originally proposed a
miniature golf in my original proposal and that was turned down but what I -
want to do is make it financially feasible for me to do it as an investment
and also make it a good thing for the community. With the nature of TH 5
and there is not really a traffic problem. These numbers might not all be _
right but you have approximately 20,000 cars going by there a day so there
won't be a traffic impact. They would be coming off of TH 5 and going down
Planning Commission ME ing
April 22 , 1987 - Page 29
100 yards on a major collector road which is tar .
Conrad: John, I think you are getting into the specifics of the project and
I'm really trying to focus on the Ordinance itself right now. We have to
look at the Ordinance and say does it make sense to allow driving ranges?
Does it make sense to allow some buildings out there and you can come back
in a few seconds to talk on the specifics but anything else that you can
share with us in terms of, I know they are real closely tied together.
John Pryzmus : I guess maybe if I could just answer any questions you have
because if I start rambling on and on I might get back into that. If there
are some questions as far as if it will be compatible. My neighbors out
there , I have a group home to the west of me and contractor yards to the
north of me. Dale Green has a farm to the south of me. A guy named Larry
- Van DeVeire has the land to the east of me and I talked to him and he feels
it's commercial. One of the gentlemen here, John Hennessey, he has the land
to the northeast corner of me so basically what I 'm trying to do by getting
community support is not set a precedence in allowing any kind of commercial
project. Like Barb stated, a driving range needs a lot of land. It isn't
like putting a gas station out there. The miniature golf and the batting
cages, the three of them blend together to make it financially feasible
first of all but they also make it a nice project for the people in
Chanhassen. Like you just had on your map, each developer gives park space.
They put in baseball diamonds. The City is acquiring property to add three
- more diamonds just a mile to the east of this project . They are putting
lights on the park because there is such a demand for a recreational
facilities and as a private developer , there won't be any city money or
anything like that. This will be a private venture so I think it would just
be in asking too with what the City already is doing with their parks and
with their recreational facilities .
— Roger Schmidt : I live out in that area. I guess my thinking is that I
haven't seen a driving range yet in the metropolitan area that I think is a
definite asset as far as aesthetics go on the community. They are usually
located in more of a business area or with a golf course and even a golf
course is stuck back in a corner someplace where they aren't that visible.
Being a resident of that area, I'm somewhat concerned that we'll probably
end up with a very similar situation that you have with 90% of the other
driving ranges and I'm very much concerned from the standpoint that I don't
see the City doing much policing in the area of taking care of what's out
there right now. That's been, for several years, right now it's nothing but
a junk pile and we've had comments from people out-of-town and in town
asking us what's going on over there and it's kind of embarrassing for us to
have to admit that we're living in an area that looks like that. I think
that particular spot, as far as driving ranges within the City, I think
there probably are spots for them but that particular one , I would think you
look at it as your western gateway into town and I think you should look at
that as something that you don' t want to build up with things that probably
aren't going to be complimentary to the City. You have to decide whether
that is a complimentary activity or not and obviously the other thing that
I'm concerned about is the commercialization of the district. It's not
Planning Commission Me ing -
April 22 , 1987 - Page ,d
allowed as far as your zoning now and I think people kind of go by the
zoning issues when they decide to locate there and you don't arbitrarily
change them so I think you should give that serious consideration also .
Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing on the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment . All voted in favor and motion carried .
Headla : I don't understand why having a driving range, and the batting
thing and the miniature golf is different but I don't see why a driving
range would be of any benefit. I think there are several downside aspects
of it but I don't see any upside aspects except the person running the
range. I think the people surrounding that might suffer.
Conrad : You've got to consider them like a golf course. People use it. —
Driving ranges are used .
Headla : Then if I look at the location, then I wonder about Galpin Blvd..
I 'm on that road quite a bit. I ride a bike on that and right now , I don't
like the way the cars are on there. Do you have any idea how much traffic
comes and goes from one of those facilities?
Pryzmus : I'm sure there will be some major amount of traffic. I don't knov,
what you consider major but most of it will be coming off of TH 5 so they
would be coming off TH 5 down 100 yards and turning in there. The traffic -
study we do have a parking lot scheduled for 16 spaces. We overbuilt the
parking lot basically. I would say a full driving range wouldn't have more
than 3 or 4 cars at a time. That's comparing apples to oranges because that_
was a temporary thing and basically the people would want something to do
down on West 79th Street where this will be a business that will be
maintained .
Siegel : I can't recall discussing our reasons for excluding golf courses
from the A-2 district .
Dacy: I can't pinpoint the date. We did go back and look through the
files . It was a fairly short discussion.
Siegel : What was the justification or the reasoning behind us or staff
recommending the exclusion from the A-2?
Dacy: The way it was proposed , it was listed because it was consistent with
our prior Ordinance. However, it was the specific recommendation to have
golf courses and driving ranges removed .
Siegel : In essence what we're doing is removing any possibility of having a
golf course or driving range in the City of Chanhassen .
Dacy: That ' s correct . The Bluff Creek golf course is now non-conforming .
Siegel : Well , that doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't make sense.
If somebody came in with a plan for a beautiful golf course in the rolling
Planning Commission Meting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 31
hills of Chanhassen , I'm sure the City Council and the city Planning
Commission would jump at the chance to invite them in with open arms to
develop that as such. In lieu of that, I look at that piece of property and
I guess I'm new to the history of it and I guess the applicant has been
remiss in some respects in his follow through in what he has been planning
for that. In all due respects, I think we should approach this as a new
application for such use and look at it in that light. I think it will be
an improvement on that corner and to me the location is marketable as a
driving range and as a miniature golf course. I tend to favor that. Unless
there is more stronger objections to granting a conditional use permit in
the Zoning Ordinance , I would favor it .
Emmings : I agree with Bob 100% that I can't imagine why we wouldn't have
golf courses and driving ranges as a conditional use in the A-2 district. I
don't have any problem with that. I agree with the Staff that miniature
golf courses and indoor batting buildings such as this don't belong out
there and belong in a commercial district. Then having said that, I guess
- putting a miniature golf course with the rest of the things that are here ,
the driving range and whatever a maxi-putt and putting green business all
seems to be pretty cohesive and make sense in this particular project so I 'm
having some problems with this. I don't have any problem with the driving
range being a conditional use in the A-2. I don't think there ought to be,
in condition 1, I don't agree that they ought to be abutting collectors. I
think they should only be on arterials. On major streets, I think we want
to lean that way towards major roadways. I think the second condition is
very important that they only be operated from sunrise to sunset. I think
that's adequate in the summer time and I think the lights would be a real
- problem for anyone who lived around it. I guess that's all I got.
Erhart: I disagree regarding the issue of whether we should allow golf
courses and these things in the A-2 area. I agree with Bob. I think we
really overlooked something in golf courses and I don't know enough that we
can lump practice areas in that or not so I don't have a strong feeling
about that. I do have a strong feeling about buildings in the A-1 and A-2
- areas. These metal buildings and they tend to be the area that acts as a
transitional area from agricultural to the residental. In south Chanhassen
where people have built these metal buildings out in the country and I don't
know for what reason , where they have not been part of a farm homestead ,
they are really an eyesore. Even though some of them are well kept up, they
don't fit so with respect to that, I would real against, that batting
practice thing requires metal or any kind of a major industrial type, any
kind of a non-farm building or a non-house, I don't think it ought to be
part of the A-2 or A-1. I think it should not be part of the A-2 district.
I agree with Steve entirely as far as the driving range. I guess as long as
- it's on TH 5 with the correct word is major arterial , I guess it's okay.
Certainly the one the John ran just west of the City here, as long as there
wasn't any buildings and the grass was mowed, I didn't think it was an
eyesore at all. Regarding the building on the other hand, if we're going to
put a driving range in here , you probably nave to have some small building
to keep the tractor and stuff out of the rain so I guess I wouldn't mind a
small wooden garage or something just to maintain that kind of thing but
Planning Commission ME ing -
April 22 , 1987 - Page 32
certainly not a permanent industrial type building. I agree the hours ought
to be sunrise to sunset. The second concern, I think in the A-2 area is to
emphasize that we do not want retail business in the A-2 area. For example ,
I can't have a retail nursery on my nursery farm. I can have wholesale but
you can't have retail. 'Again, reflecting on that, we have to be real
careful if we' re going to use it at all , I think it should be on TH 5. That
is the only appropriate place to have this in the City. So the rest of the -
commission can think about that retail issue and we've got to be real
careful about that. We consistently said we do not want retail business
activities down there. I like 4 that certainly it should not be within 500 _
feet of a single family residence. Our wholesale nursery and contractor
yards basically have to fit with that rule.
Conrad : I have nothing more to add. I think golf courses and driving -
ranges are appropriate in Chanhassen. I don't think that buildings out in
that area , specifically indoor batting buildings, is what I want to see but
to use the land that way, I think is appropriate. I would vote for that
type of a use in a A-2 district. My only comments other than that are we
should have , if we make a motion in favor , somebody might want to work the
word golf course in. We don't need to and maybe a golf course is a whole
different set of circumstances. I don't know. The other part that I would
like to see is an intent statement in terms of why we're allowing this and I
guess one of the intents that I would see as a conditional use, is to
minimize impact on neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and lighting. I -
think we need some kind of intent statement along with this if we do choose
to allow this as a conditional use .
Emmings: I wouldn't like to see golf courses included tonight for two
reasons. First of all , it's not in front of us and that always makes me
uncomfortable but secondly, Staff has obviously thought through the kinds of
conditions we should impose on a driving range , if we' re going to allow that-
as a conditional use and I don't see that they have had the opportunity to
think through conditions for golf courses as a conditional use and maybe
that ought to come back as a separate item.
Conrad : That ' s a good point .
*At this this point a motion was made and the following discussed occurred .
Conrad: Steve, did you leave out miniature golf courses on purpose?
Emmings : Yes .
Siegel : Does the miniature golf course, in the eyes of us here, reflect as
a retail establishment? Would that be the objection to including that
miniature golf course as a conditional use? It borders in the area of
retail establishment and service recreational type business.
Emmings : The way I think about a miniature golf thing fits into a
commercial area. It's compact. You can't put a driving range in just a
city lot. You need some room. Miniature golf courses don't bother me in
Planning Commission ME ing
April 22 , 1987 - Page 33
the City, they bother me to think about them being out in the A-2. It just
doesn ' t seem to fit at all .
Siegel : I guess I tend to think of it as a similar type of use to a golf
driving range especially in conjunction with it. If we were to talk about
specifics, put a bunch of miniature golf courses 2 miles apart, maybe that
would be a little bit different but we're talking about is a proposed
complex here. Not one being here and one being 1 mile down the road and
another one a mile down the road all in the A-2 district so I think it's a
little bit different when you're looking at it as a package as just one
thing .
Emmings: Let me ask in that regard , let's say that we have passed this
Zoning Amendment to allow it as a conditional use, if we were somehow
persuaded that a miniature golf place fit in with this particular driving
range project , could we allow it?
Dacy: What I hear you saying is that you feel that the driving range and
the miniature golf course really should act together and not a stand alone
miniature golf situation so if you wanted to phrase your approval in the
framework that golf driving ranges subject to these conditions. Miniature
golf courses as an accessory use to the golf driving range, that would be an
option. You couldn't have a miniature golf course without a driving range
along with it. If that's what you're saying.
Siegel : I guess to me it makes sense. The whole idea of having a miniature
golf course, especially when you think about fathers and mothers going out
to a golf driving range and they've got a place for their kids to spend some
time. It's sort of a natural. I'm surprised there aren't more combinations
like that around .
Emmings : If we could , I guess what I would like to do since I made the
motion , is leave my motion out there the way it is and then maybe you can
make a second motion to talk about miniature golf as an accessory use to the
driving range. Would that be alright?
Dacy: Yes , and then you should look at what a miniature golf course is. It
does require more lights. You have the windmills and the people to hit the
ball through and so on so you have to consider those visual aspects also.
It is different than a driving range .
Erhart : I would like to see us go back and spend some more time on this one
and define it a little bit better. I'm really against putting anything in
the A-2 area that visually is not consistent with either residential or
agriculture and I think you can make a driving range consistent with
agricultural but I think we ought to define what the landscaping is going to
be. Buildings in some kind of terms. What buildings can be put on there?
I've seen driving ranges with 16 foot high fences and then in a couple years
they're falling down.
Emmings : Tim , don't we retain complete control over that when it's under
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 34
our conditional use? That to me is the whole reason that it should be in
there as a conditional use rather than a permitted use because we retain a
lot of control over the plan and the landscaping and what the buildings are —
going to be .
Headla : I doubt that you have that much control over a conditional use. It—
has to get pretty bad .
Emmings : No. When the plan comes in Dave , we look at it before anything
gets built and we say we only allow you to build it if you do the
landscaping this way. If you show us the plan for the building you're going
to build and we approve it .
Headla : I 'm referring to Tim' s comments .
Emmings: You're talking about maintaining it after it's built. That's
always a problem yes .
Headla : I think Tim made the comment very well in that a conditional use
permit is very hard to police at times. I think a good example of that is -
the horse riding farm. Once they were in there and there was a dust
problem, and I was involved with that to some extent, it's hard to say you
people created 80% of the dust. It's pretty hard to shut them• down because —
there is nothing to enforce that. Once they were in there, they were in
there .
Dacy: The advantage to the Zoning Ordinance now is that, that original
conditional use permit was approved several years ago and we do a lot more
restrictions in our current ordinance and that's the purpose of this
amendment process is to establish those type of conditions. If you wanted —
to add no metal buidlings on the golf driving ranges or a suggested
condition, just authorize a building to take tickets or whatever, can't
exceed 800 square feet. I don't know but you have that ability to establish_
conditions through this process .
Emmings: There are two other things. A conditional use permit can be
revoked if they don't live up to the conditions. Mr. Pryzmus has already
found that out on one occasion. That's worked here. To say that a golf
driving range or golf course doesn't fit in the A-2, means that we're
banning all driving ranges and that doesn't make sense to me. They are a —
conditional use , not as a permitted use just so anybody can put on anywhere
they want to , as a conditional use .
Conrad : Tim , you would like to see other conditions in that other than what
we ' ve got . Is that true?
Siegel : We're talking about the Zoning Ordinance amendment now, not the
conditional use permit right?
Dacy : Yes .
- Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 35
Erhart : We could put it in the Zoning Ordinance so we have driving ranges
are permitted as long as the club house is kept to a 35-40, we can put that
in there if we want and one storage shed. You could add those as part of
- the Zoning Ordinance. On the other hand, I guess if all we're allowing is
that the driving range it wouldn't make any economic sense to put much more
than that on it. Just a small garage and small clubhouse. Maybe it would
police itself. The other thing I would be more inclined to go along with is
if we actually restricted it to TH 5 or TH 212 but I will not vote for it if
this can be put on TH 101 or Lyman Blvd . . I just think that ' s dead wrong .
Headla : What are we really voting on now?
Conrad : We're voting on an Ordinance change and as Steve's motion said , he
is recommending that golf driving ranges be a conditional use in the A-2
district. We're not talking about John's proposal now. We're talking
simply about, is it appropriate to allow driving ranges in Chanhassen
because right now you can ' t have them.
Headla : So if we were to say no, we don't want any of this. We do what the
Ordinance says as is. That does not prohibit anyone from coming in and
getting a conditional use?
Conrad : They can't get a conditional use because it's prohibited right now.
- There is no way to apply for a driving range right now.
Headla : It is explicitedly prohibited?
Dacy: Yes . The use is not allowed in any district .
Conrad : But what we're saying in this request is , we will allow it as a
- conditional use but Dave, nobody can come into town right now and build one.
John wants to build one and he's got to have us effect the Zoning Ordinance
right now if he ' s to build anything .
Dacy: If I can make one more comment before you take action on that motion.
On the collector and arterial condition , it concerns me if you do limit it
to just two highways or to an arterial because to me that construes that you
can only get access from that arterial highway. We wouldn't want to create
a driveway situation off of TH 5 so the benefit of having a collector in
there, in this particular situation, is that you can have access of the
major street. All the streets in the rural area are collectors or arterials
anyway but I think we should preserve the arterial to keep that flow through
traffic and not allow addition interruption .
Erhart: What about stating within 700 feet of TH 5 or TH 212. Have access
from. . .
Dacy: You are saying more of a location?
Erhart: Yes exactly. What you're talking about is putting a retail
business out in the rural area and I think the only place you want to do
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 36
that is on TH 5 or TH 212 .
Dacy: Then in that case I guess- I would recommend that you look at amending
number 1 to location near an arterial street with access to a collector or
arterial . Again , it all depends on it ' s location .
Erhart: It could be a collector but as long as it was on TH 5 or TH 212.
The access points can be on the collector .
Dacy: It is subjective because where do you draw the lines? At 500, 1,000
or 1 , 500?
Emmings: What if we said location on an arterial with access to a collector
for ingress and egress?
Siegel : Wouldn't that be part of the conditional use instead of the Zoning
Ordinance?
Dacy: Yes , the benefit of the conditional use will allow you to look at the-
individual case .
Emmings : No . My motion is going to leave that in and I ' ll tell you why.
Conrad : Leave what in?
Emmings : It' s going to leave in a condition that will state that it will IDE--
located on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress anc
the reason is , if someone comes in and our ordinance already says they can
only look at places along arterials, we're going to have a lot less trouble -
with those people than if they come in and say, okay I want it over here anc
your Ordinance doesn ' t say I can ' t .
Erhart : But you've got Pioneer Trail and TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. are all
arterials .
Dacy: As the motion is on the floor now, item 1 is location on an arterial -
street as identified in Article VI , Section 25 .
Conrad : Steve , do you want to amend that? _
Emmings: Yes. Again, I think it should be located on an arterial street
with access to a collector for ingress and egress. I guess what we're
saying is we don't want them just anywhere in the agricultural district. WE
want them on major roadways but we don't want their driveway coming onto
that major roadway. We want them like here, on a corner where they've got
access to a collector so the turn can be made off of TH 5 onto Galpin and -
then get in and out on Galpin so they aren't actually turning off that
arterial. They don't have their driveway on the arterial but we want them
located on major roadways rather than just scattered anywhere.
Planning Commission Me _ing
April 22 , 1987 - Page 37
Siegel : Now where are we Mr. Chairman. We've had a motion and a second and
we ' re in discussion stage and he wants to make an amendment to his motion?
Conrad : That's correct so I withdraw my original second and second your
motion on your change Steve just to get this going. Is there anymore
discussion?
Erhart moved, Headla seconded to amend the motion to limit the golf driving
ranges must be adjacent to either TH 5 or TH 212 and access must be from a
collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. Erhart, Emmings and
Headla voted in favor and Siegel and Conrad opposed the amendment, and
motion carried .
Em mings moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow driving ranges in the A-2
district as a conditional use with the following conditions :
1 . The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and
access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5
or TH 212 .
2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset .
3 . Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping
plan in conformance with Article VIII .
4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family
residences .
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed .
Headla : The reason being that I think there are far too many negatives
situations that can happened as compared to the upside advantages. In
respect to both the adjacent landowners and the City.
Conrad : John we'll bring you back on board. We're going to open up the
public hearing for the second stage of this which is where you are asking
for a conditional use permit. You are asking for a golf driving range.
- Barbara, because we have turned down a miniature golf course and/or batting
building , should John continue to pursue and present his proposal in full?
Dacy: I think so.
Pryzmus : Basically, financially I can't even proceed , by taking out the
miniature golf and the indoor activities, financially for me, it makes it
- impossible. What you basically did was take away the foundation and the
walls and you're giving me the roof so I can't enter into a contractual
agreement with the City to spend $300,000.00 to basically make a beautiful
- driving range. I already have the driving' range sprinkler systems already
in. The tee area is already built. The greens are already done. The
sandtrap is there. The classified parking lot that we originally was agreed
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 38
upon five years ago is in and I need to do some minimal grading to open it
up. So when you mentioned that the miniature golf, this is a sports -
complex. Not just a temporary use driving range. The miniature golf as yoi
see on I-494 on the strip where it's all concrete and also in Excelsior
where they have all rock, now on my developmental plan we are using
approximately, I haven't walked and measured it all off, but for the battinc
cages and the miniature golf, we're using with parking somewhere around 6
acres. 5 to 6 acres in a commercially zoned area would make it financially
impossible, especially when you build a building that's going to conform
with all the buildings in the industrial park. But getting back to what is
going to be nice for the community, as Roger said , it is part of the gateway
from the west. With the landscape architecture plans that we have submitted_
and this will all be done through the City , we will be adding anywhere from
4 to 8 foot berms throughout the miniature golf. They will be maintained b}
a neighbor out there. I have a full time manager hired to run it. A full
time grounds keeper. He will be there 5 days a week , or 3 or whatever it —
takes . The trees , we will basically have up lighting on all the berms with
the shurbs. There are, even though it hasn't been maintained as an
arboretum right now, most all the trees are planted. There will be another -
additional 100 some trees planted. I appreciate your voting to allow
driving ranges but I don' t know what you want me to sign in a contractual
agreement to do what when I can't have basically two-thirds of what I'm
proposing. The building itself and where it's situated, this plan was drawr
up before we decided where the on-site septic system would go and with the
additional setbacks , the building can be set back 100 feet. With the bank
being taken down 10 feet and the berm coming up 4 feet so this building -
would absolutely, that's 14 feet in itself and the building is only 15 feet
high. No it goes from 14 feet to 15.8 basically with a flat roof. The
building would be all cedar on the outside. The roof is metal but when I _
insulate it, it would be like a compco roof. There is a neighbor that live$
south on TH 101 that is getting a price together for me now so the building
would not be a tin shed. In this area there is permitted use. In fact, I
have to get financing on the building so I would have to come to the City tc _
get a building permit to build a contractor's yard, a nursery, a hog farm ox
whatever. I'm going to have to do something with the property and the
building is already there so I do have to do something with it and I just —
felt that for the community and the neighbors , with all the landscaping. It
used to be a tree farm so there are already 300 some trees, I think the two ,
the miniature golf and the driving range are just a natural. People are
going to come out. If you have any children, how many people say, what can
we do mommy or what can we do? There's nothing to do in Chanhassen. That's.
the biggest thing ever since I've been here for 13 years, there's nothing to
do in this town. Here we have no booze. We have basically no noise. Golf -
balls don't make any noise. We have no dust problem. We really have no
problems other than something that should be nice for the community. The
cost of the building in the central business district, I just sold a piece
of land that this would basically be the only place in Chanhassen that it
could go right now and that land with the building that it would take, would
cost a couple million dollars. Financially you could never do that project
here so the citizens of Chanhassen won't have this project. The location
out there, being that it is on a major highway. It is not conducive to
- Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 39
estate homes. When you have 20,000 cars driving by every day, everyone
knows what the land, I paid $4, 000.00 per acre for 5 years ago when the land
was going for a lot more because people aren't buying it for farmland. I
did buy it on a contingency that I could have the driving range so by not
being able to show you what.—we're using pictures and dimensions from
courses in California and Florida and I want this to be the nicest and well
- thought out miniature golf course. If you've ever played mini-putt over in
Minnetonka, we measured that out and wanted to at least have the trees and
shurbs and greenery that they have. We aren't proposing any elephants or
- ducks or geese or anything that's going to look bad. I want it to be fun.
We're going to do a lot of underground things with PVC. Little kids like
when the ball disappears and then it comes up. The mini-putt, to get back
to what mini-putt and maxi-putt is, a mini-putt for kids anywhere from 4 or
5 years old up to 9 or 10. You take them to a real tought miniature golf
course and they get very discouraged. Everybody likes to do good so it
would be a real interesting little course but their ball always winds up in
- a good spot so they can score good but it won't be interesting enough for
your 11, 12, 13 and your adults so the maxi-putt would be that. I'm trying
to get something for the whole family. The batting cages, I don't know if
= any of you have ever had children in Little League but the worse thing that
can happen is when your little guy strikes out twice in a row and he comes
back crying. When I was in the Jaycees we bought one batting machine for
the CAA but there just isn't enough time for all the little kids to use that
- one batting machine. The building itself would be basically not seen from
the highway. Right now, in a farm zoned area, you can build basically
whatever you want for a hog farm , dairy farm , whatever. I want to have a
- lot nicer building than that. It's going to be totally screened but by
taking away, like I say, the foundation. I appreciate your motion to allow
the driving range.
Dacy: Given their action, the next item on the agenda is literally a
conditional use permit for a driving range. You have a couple of options.
You can withdraw that application right now so they would not carry out the
- review of the driving range and the matter would just go on to Council to
determine the Ordinance amendment but if they do allow the driving range and
everything else, it will have to come back and go through the plan review.
So , do you want them to carry out the review just for the driving range or
are you withdrawing your application at this point?
Pryzmus : I want the driving range but what I'm saying is I can't really
enter into any contracts if I only have the driving range. I appreciate
your motion for the driving range.
- Conrad : John, I think there was some sensitivity to the miniature golf
here. It wasn't voted that way but there was discussion. City Council may
entertain that thought. I don't know just because we voted one way. I
think they will be consistent in some of the things that we're saying. I
think some philosophical things will carry out based on what we're saying
but I'm sure that miniature golf is totally out but I don't know if you want
to carry it forth . It ' s really up to you .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 40
Pryzmus : I want to carry it forward.
Dacy: What we could do is, this is going to the Council on May 4th, you
.could come back to the Planning Commission on May 13th for permit review if
it ' s approved . I know you have some timing restrictions . _
Pryzmus: That is to enter into another agreement so they have the site plar
and other additional uses . Okay.
Dacy: I would have to come back and you probably wouldn't get approval
before June 1st. It would be more time if they don' t review it.
Pryzmus: But they can't review it if you are going to leave the motion
standing just for driving range. Let's just take the driving range and I'll
have to spend another month. I don't know what else to do because you've
made the motion and that's your feelings so I don' t have an option. —
Conrad : Well , you probably do. I guess Barb is just giving you some
advice. What did you two decide? —
Dacy: I think you are asking us to go ahead and review just the golf
driving range.
Siegel : You still want it to go before Council in total?
Pryzmus : I want it to go before Council in total because if I don ' t . . .
Dacy: Okay, then the Conditional Use Permit and the Wetland Alteration
Permit, they will make a motion to table that pending Council final action _
on the Ordinance amendment .
Pryzmus : Let's do the wetland. We can do the wetlands now because that's
part of the driving range. That has nothing to do with the miniature golf . —
Dacy: So you are saying to go ahead with the driving range?
Pryzmus : Yes .
Conrad : Okay, this is a public hearing . Any comments?
Siegel moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried .
Emmings: One thing that I notice that there is in the landscaping it says
existing ash , 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and points to that whole long
row of trees . When I drove by there tonight, I didn' t see any trees at all .—
Dacy: There are trees out there. There are a number of trees out there as
John has mentioned . They are small . _
Emmings : 2 1/2 inches in diameter?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 41
Dacy : Some are but not all .
Emmings : And does it go across the whole property the way it's portrayed on
this?
Dacy: It's along TH 5, yes . Some, I think may be dead. A lot of them
- didn ' t have leaves on them as of yesterday.
Emmings : Put in a condition that they have to be living trees?
Dacy: They are identifying existing conditions. The specific thing that
the Commission should address is the appropriateness of the lighting and the
fencing proposals. Those are some of the things that Staff kind of flagged
out. With just the driving range, there was a taller lighting standard in
the southwest corner. Your previous motion was for the operation of the
driving range from sunrise to sunset so in my mind that lighting scheme
- falls out and you need to address that one way or the other.
Headla : What does he need the lighting for? If you don't give him lights,
that kind of insures that it doesn ' t go past sunset .
Dacy: I realize that. I was just saying that I wanted to make sure that
the Commission was comfortable with that .
Emmings: Is there any reason they have the lights? That you would want the
lights?
Pryzmus: As you know, there is a group home west of me. I'm not saying
anything bad about group homes but the contractor's yard, the residents over
here , everyone in the farm community has security lights and a person could
get in and raise all kinds of heck with the putting green or whatever and I
feel that I need some security maintenance out there. With the putting
green beinc in the southwest corner, that will give me the security down
- there. I also had security on the front of the indoor activity building but
I wouldn ' t propose any more lighting than the average farm has .
- Emmings: How tall is that light? How high above the ground is that light
itself?
Pryzmus : I don ' t know what NSP puts in .
Emmings : It ' s just one of those standard lights?
Pryzmus : It's a standard light that would be on a farm. The other thing , I
guess I cut it short when the public hearing was closed but as far as the
fencing , there will be the fencing around the perimeter of it will be the
same as Prince's fencing down the street. It will be the black fencing and
the fencing on the west and across the north border will be the fencing
that's out there. It is a silver fence but it will all be 6 feet high.
There won't be any need to protect any roads or anything. The driving will
- be hitting to the north .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 42
Emmings : Barbara , I see one light . Are there more?
Dacy: Yes, the light in the southwest corner is the only one that you had
shown on the plan outside of the putting area. The miniature golf course
lights but if the miniature golf course is not there, then those lights fall
out . Other than those, that was the only light , correct?
Pryzmus : We have lighting on the path underneath the trees.
Dacy: For the tee area .
Pryzmus : This is a path in back of the tee area .
Dacy: You' re saying these are 10 feet in height?
Pryzmus: Yes, those are 10 feet in height. They would be a down light. It—
was to light the path but if we' re not going to be open . . .
Dacy: Along the tee area they are proposing a series of 10 foot lights —
there.
Pryzmus: In back of the tee area there is a path. I put trees every 30 _
feet and then they are diagonally across from one another and the lights
would be in the tree area .
Dacy: But again, if they condition from sunrise to sunset and they are not —
there for security reasons .
Headla : Where would that 6 foot fence be? _
Pryzmus : A 6 foot fence would surround the whole property.
Headla : Everytime you drive by TH 5 you see a big black fence. —
Pryzmus : Yes , it would be about the same as the arboretum fence only it
would be black. It would be the same as Prince ' s fence down half a mile. —
Headla: Have you people seen that fence? Go take a look at it.
Pryzmus: If you don't like black fence, I don't have to put it. I thought
maybe you would like it because it was the same as Prince' s.
Conrad : In trying to understand Staff's analysis of the wetland. In Gary's--
report, are those conditions bundled in to the Staff recommendations?
Dacy: Yes . —
Conrad: And Gary, basically you have a lot of concerns with the area from a
wetlands standpoint and some other things. Were your conditions as stated,
were they worded so that if we decided to allow filling in the wetlands,
these things have to be done? I didn't see a statement that said that. I
- Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 43
saw Rockwell 's comments saying that the wetlands shouldn't be filled in.
That there are some senstive areas and whatever. How do I interpret your
comments at the end on the attachment?
Warren: I admit it got a little confusing as we got into it. In trying to
interpret our Wetlands Ordinance, that was part of the thrust that I was
responding to some of the deficiencies that the submittal has in relation to
the Wetlands Ordinance. I guess the final bottom line of my comments would
be that if you go ahead that the recommendations that I have shown should be
enforced as far as sedimentation basin and then some of these things. I
guess in general that ' s where I was coming from.
Conrad: In brief, I'm not sure that I've seen a hardship or a real reason
- to allow the filling in of the wetlands. I would have a tough time going
along with. I don't think the measures pointed out are necessary. I prefer
to keep the wetlands operating. It appears from Rockwell's comments , I
wasn't sure about the trade-offs that she was mentioning. I was having a
tough time interpretting that .
Dacy: When we went out to inspect the site , as you know , the area has been
cultivated. What she came back and said was that it's not good for habitat
purposes. However , it is performing some type of function for storm water
run-off to Bluff Creek. All that's out there now are the regrasses and so
- on. It is not protected by the DNR because of their particular restrictions
on vegetation and so on. What she said was that they have looked at the
situation where , as in the Centex case, if you alter one part of the
wetland, if you improve another part of it, they will accept that. In this
case, the applicant has no access to other property. He doesn't own any
other property that contains additional wetlands area. He would have to
gain that easement right over to do that. If you deny the wetlands
alteration permit , you would in effect deny use of the property as a driving
range .
Conrad : There are two issues here. As a conditional use permit for the
golf driving range. There is also a wetlands alteration permit that we have
to respond to also. As I said, based on the Ordinance for the wetlands
alteration permit, we haven't solved the problem. There hasn't been a
- trade. It's almost impossible to solve the problem with the wetland and
therefore, I guess I would have a tough time. I don't see how he can
maintain the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance with the current
- proposal . Is there a motion?
Siegel : Barbara , don't your recommendations make the wetlands permit
applicable to the wetland ordinance?
Dacy: Yes. That's true. However , because we are unsure about what would
happen to the ordinance amendment in the first case, we really didn't
- specify a motion as we do in other cases but Gary correct me , your •
conditions are directed toward gaining additional information and
recommending a permit sedimentation basin there if alteration was allowed .
Planning Commission Me..cing
April 22 , 1987 - Page 44
Warren: Right .
Siegel : And some of Gary's recommendations were contingent on the total
project. Not just the .golf driving range right?
Warren : My recommendations are based on the total project .
Siegel : You had something about run-off from the building.
Warren : That ' s correct .
Siegel: In lieu of that, does that make any change in your recommendations
set by Staff?
Dacy: As far as the drainage issue, it eliminates additional hard roof
area, that calculation from the drainage but I think the overall drainage —
plan and so on still remains intact. All of these conditions could be
applied for a recommendation of approval except for number 1. If you have
some type of preference for the lighting scheme and you should probably —
identify the hours of operation if you are going to recommend approval .
Siegel : I thought we already did that with the previous motion?
Dacy: Yes, you did but I guess I would prefer that you clarify it in this
application .
Emmings: If someone were to vote to deny the wetland alteration permit
would it make the conditional use permit moot?
Dacy: Yes .
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of the application for the Wetland Alteration Permit. All voted in favor
except Siegel and motion carried .
Siegel : I thought I was assured that Staff would ensure with their —
recommendations to satisfy the alteration permit.
Conrad : You can minimize the impact on the wetland but the Ordinance says . —
Siegel : In essence, we are denying the property owner any use of his land.
Conrad: No. For a golf driving range because he apparently needs more —
property.
Siegel : I fail to see the effect of a golf driving range on a piece of bare-
land to me is less impact on it than any other type of use.
Emmings : He has to fill in the wetlands to use it as a golf driving range.
- Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 45
Siegel : I still disagree. I think Staff came up with recommendations that
the applicant could adhere to and meet the use of the land for his purpose .
Pryzmus : That piece of land has been farmed for 100 years. It was
homesteaded and last year with the wettest year we ever had, it was down
twice in the spring and in the fall. There has never been any water
- standing there and so, when you reach your Ordinance about what is a Class A
wetland or what is a protected wetland , it's anything that is going to have
any water if there is a 100 year rain. Basically, most of your communities
are built to Class A wetlands according to that Ordinance so I don't want
you to get real carried away with thinking that I'm filling in a lake. It's
a piece of farmland. It's low and it's advantageous to me to put in a
couple feet of fill so my ballpicker, when it's raining, won't squeeze the
- balls into the ground. There isn't going to be any change. There isn't
going to be any buildings close to the creek. The water will still flow
very smoothly. It's going to be nothing but mowed grass and so I think
- sometimes you're getting a little carried away with what I'm doing in there.
The wetlands seems to throw the trigger so address that. It is a farm. It
always has been a farm. There are no cattails. There has never been
standing water there ever . I drove through there the other day with my
pick-up. Now, it's been a dry spring. Last spring it was the wettest
spring we've had for years so it's not wetlands so I want people to realize
that .
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND LAKE
VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN IN AND NEAR CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLANDS ALONG THE
ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 41 TO TH 5, THROUGH CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN WASTE
CONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT.
Public Present :
- Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd .
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item .
Leander Kerber : I have concern with it because it's going to go right
across the south end of my property on TH 5. I have the property between
the City park and the nursery. My question is, as long as it's zig-zagging
around, why don't they cross the highway down the road 500 feet to 1,000
feet and stay off of my property. Another question is, am I going to be
assessed for that now or when am I supposed to pay for it or am I going to
have to pay? If so , why?
Dacy: The interceptor at this time is not proposed to be assessed during
this year and in 1987. The Metropolitan Council will not allow us or allow
property owners in that owner to hook up into that interceptor until after
the year 2000 so there are no assessments at this time.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21 , 1988 - Page 30
Batzli : I know we did . —
Emmings : The City Council didn' t but we did .
Batzli : I know but there was no residence at all . We never discussed
turning it down because the residences wasn' t located there.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GOLF DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE OPERATION, PROPERTY ZONED
A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT COUNTY ROAD 117 AND HWY. 5, JOHN --
PRYZMUS.
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 3, —
REGARDING STANDARDS FOR GOLF DRIVING RANGES WITH OR WITHOUT MINIATURE
GOLF COURSES TO PROVIDE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE, TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS
AS TO LIGHT STANDARDS AND TO ESTABLISH HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND
SUNSET. —
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INSTALL LIGHT STANDARDS , EXTEND
HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND SUNSET AND PERMITTING THE INSTALLATION OF A —
SIGN .
( Public Present : —
h.
Name Address
John Pryzmus Applicant
Mike Klingelhutz
John Hennessy
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . —
John Pryzmus : The hours of operation obviously will be determined as the
season goes . Right now I close at 8 : 00 at night. The season will be —
ending here in another month so we' re closed for 6 months approximately. . .
The sign that I put up was the same sign that was approved. A 12 x 8
plywood sign . . . The video games , the City Council I guess we were trying
to accomodate children so. . . Other than that, I didn' t think originally
the Council had . . .on trees and berming . Now, I think we' ve added 16
more. . .on the site right now. Light standards, basically there isn' t
anything that the Council said . . .light standards of a baseball field or —
something like that . . . It does help. I 've kept the lighting at a minimum
so I can extend my hours . When it starts getting dark and people can' t. . .
two closest competitors of mine are 7 Hi and Excelsior . Excelsior . . .days _
and weekends . The guy at 7 Hi . . .
`.
John Hennessy : I live across the street from this thing . So far he has
run a pretty good operation. . . .the basic guidelines of the basic. . . I —
W-1.1Miql
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 31
was not in favor of this at all at the beginning . . . I was vehemently
opposed to it . . .
•
Mike Klingelhutz : I was planning on. . . it ' s kind of pretty.
Batzli moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Emmings: I just want to ask a few clarifying things here. When he got
his conditional use permit from the City Council , did it in fact prohibit
from having lighting?
Olsen : Condition number 9 of the conditional use permit , there shall be
no light standards on the light premises. Hours of operation shall be
sunrise to sunset .
Emmings : It says no light standards. Do we have a problem with the
language there? Was the intention that he should not have lighting?
Olsen : That hours should be from sunrise to sunset .
Emmings : And I understand he went ahead and put up lights out there?
Olsen : Yes .
L
Emmings : As far as the hours of operation are concerned , I understand
you ' ve been given sunrise to sunset , is that correct?
Olsen : Yes .
Emmings : And has he abided by that?
Olsen: No .
Emmings : He ' s been using his lights to stay open later . He just said
something that sounded like, regarding the sign that sounds like it
conflicted with what we have here . He said he was allowed a sign. Was he
allowed to have a sign?
Olsen : No . . .
Emmings : I have trouble looking at this , just like concerns of fairness ,
making me want to help somebody like Stockdale who comes along . I have
trouble looking at this objectively because everytime Mr. Pryzmus comes in
here, he' s already done what he's asking us to do. As I recall , he asked
us for a wetland alteration permit after he'd been told by the City to
stop filling in the wetland. We wound up denying that. I 'm not sure I
can be real objective about looking at this proposal . Just off the top,
trying to be as objective as I can, I don' t see any reason to change it
from sunrise to sunset . He ' s talking about his competitors at the 7-Ai
and Excelsior but neither of those places are located in the A-2 district
and I don ' t think we can lose sight of the fact that this is going on in
.1 - • - - ...M
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21 , 1988 - Page 32
4
the A-2 district . 7-Hi is on a commercial corner and Excelsior is next to_
a McDonalds and next to a car wash. That' s not really analogous. But
again , trying to be a 'little objective about that when we have neighbors
out here, a couple of them, who said it' s not really offensive. We got a
letter from Art Partridge that doesn' t agree with that but that may be a —
personal point of view. I don' t see any reason to change the hours .
Sunrise to sunset seems to be good enough and that may eliminate his need
for lighting . As far as the sign goes, if he's going to have his business—
out there , it seems to me and I wish Tim were here to comment on this , but
I wouldn' t have any problem with him having a sign except again, we' re in
the A-2 and I don ' t know if we want to start putting up signs out there .
The sign ordinance again is one of those ordinances that is meant to be
restrictive and it ' s not permitted in the A-2. As far as the video games
go, that seems to me to be a reasonable accessory use to a minature golf .
I don ' t have any real problem with the limitations that they've proposed —
here.
Ellson : Already saying that it has been approved , starting from there , —
I know that there was an awful lot of hub bub in the past about even
allowing . . .but I think miniature golf is a good addition from the
standpoint , we voted down a community center. There really isn' t a lot of
places for younger people to go. They' re not old enough to drink. They —
can ' t go to certain places. They end up hanging around by the McDonalds
or they' re accused of rather , you see these kids hanging around different
( places and I think when I was this age, I played the miniature golf all —
the time. Until 11 : 00 during high school and what have you. It ' s anice
safe place to be. . . to places they could be. I think once you say you' re a
miniature golf course , it almost comes to reason that miniature golf
course stays open late and has those younger kids at it and you offer them
video games and those are your major customers . The fact that we already
said you can have miniature golf here I think is an indication to do all
of that so I would agree that those hours are good . I would like to see —
those good outlets for younger people to have an extra night. I can see
the video games and the like as well .
Batzli : I 'm going to play devil ' s advocate. I think that that would have
been swell had we not said that they' ve got to be right next to TH 212 or
TH 5 and I don ' t know as though I want my kid hanging out by the highway
at 11: 00 at night. I think the video games do attract them to that. I
think that ' s exactly right but I think we created you've got to be in a
traffic corridor to have one of these things and now we' re going to try
and encourage younger kids to go. I didn't know that that was the initial —
intent so much as it was going to be something where the little kids go
play miniature golf while dad takes his swings. Not to be sexist but I
thought that was the original intent rather than we' re going to create a —
haven for kids late at night so I have a hard time with that. I know what
you ' re trying to say and I would agree eXcept for that I don' t think
that 's what we were initially trying to create with this type of a
situation . I think they do need a sign of some kind . I again have a real
tough time with this being objective because I kind of echo the sentiments
of Steve. it does seem like what happens is that he does it and then he
comes in when we find out that he does it and says , oh , by the way, can I —
have that? That ' s kind of irritating . I would basically, other than
' - - - .. ..- ._ ..�.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21 , 1988 - Page 33
allowing the small sign , not want to change anything .
Wildermuth : Jo Ann , there isn ' t any signing allowed in the A-2 district
now? No signage?
Olsen : Not for the advertising of a business .
Wildermuth : I wonder if the City Council was thinking when they approved
this permit and there was no provision for a sign. I do think that the
ordinance needs some modification for some kind of a sign. If we ' re going
to allow commercial businesses in A-2 districts , there ' s got to be some
kind of provision for a sign. I don ' t think operating late into the night
is appropriate . We ' ve either got to look at rezoning or restrict the late
hours of operation of the business . As far as video games are concerned ,
I guess if I had an objection there , if the Carver County police blotter
shows some sort of problem, I guess I don ' t have a feeling one way or the
other .
Headla : John , do you have a well out there?
John Pryzmus : Yes , I do .
Headla : And a septic tank , sewer system?
John Pryzmus : Yes .
_L
Headla : What do you size that for? 2 people or 20 people?
John Pryzmus : What the City Council has done at this point was include a
holding tank and we have a contract to have it pumped . So we have a men
and women ' s bathroom and then there ' s a gauge on it and they pump it . The
well is just like a 4 inch well . Just to comment on the thing about
danger , we are putting a fence up so there will be a 6 foot and 4 foot
fence . Kids won ' t be able to get onto the highway. They will have to go
through the building to get anywhere in this development and back out
through this building to get out of there .
Headla : We almost religiously watch businesses on TH 5 and no retailing
and even though a well and septic system, I think we ' re in like a real
- gray area . I don ' t think we should have even allowed that . I don' t think
you want , we ought to have lights . I don ' t think it ' s appropriate for
that area . I think it should be sunrise to sunset . The video games , you
know John , you and I talked about it when you were here before and the
intent was to provide, I don ' t want to say minimal but only an adequate
number to , if a kid came over with his dad , he ' d play video games while
his dad swung but that ' s all . It wasn ' t to attract anybody in to play
video games . I ' d like to see us stay at that . Put on a limit to the
number of games . I 'm certainly not the one to determine that limit . Maybe
John has got some good input on the variety but I think we ought to stress
that there should be a parameter that it ' s only for to accomodate the
customer ' s children while they' re there at the golf . I do like the
pondscaping . It is very good . That ' s all I have.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 34
John Pryzmus : If you want me to comment on the video games . That
building is just a little over 800 square feet so you get a pop machine
and the candy machines and change machines , you can ' t get over 8 or 9
machines in the place so it never could become an arcade. A video arcade
type of place . . .which means there are some top video games but . . .40 or 50 —
kids coming out to hang out, we just couldn' t accomodate them. We
wouldn ' t. I have a manager and basically gearing it towards the
professional , serious golfer. The miniature golf course were designed and—
built tough . . . .one small course for little kids. I think we' re trying
to accomodate the whole family. It 's not that big a building so an arcade
part of it won ' t fit.
Conrad : My brief comments are very in sync with what I 've heard . Based
on the intent of the agricultural area and what we' re trying to do in the
A-2 district , I think some things are not in sync with what is here and I —
think lighting standards and late night operation are simply not in sync
with what we ' re trying to do in the A-2 area . I think sign installation
is important but I think what I 'd like to do there is talk about passive —
signage ratner than active signage. Again , if we' re in daylight hours , if
we' re operating in the daytime, I think we can have signage that is not
neon signage, that may fit in character with the area . I think if we
allow the business to be there, I think it ' s appropriate to let them —
advertise that they' re there . There ' s no reason we should prohibit that
but I also think because of the agricultural area , the sign has to be
consistent with that area itself which means we restrict neon and —
aggressive flashing , we always restrict flashing but we may want to
dictate a few more restrictions in terms of signage. However , I do
believe it ' s appropriate for a business that we' ve allowed to go in . _
Never been an advocate of video games out there so I have a tough time
recommending a number on that. I think the purpose on that and the reasor
that we felt that it could possibly go out there was simply using the land
as it was and keeping some of the character of the land at the same time . —
I 'm not sure video games is in sync with my understanding of that . I
think Jo Ann, what you presented us tonight is a zoning ordinance
amendment but basically as I read that , it ' s an updated zoning ordinance
for the conditional use. You 've basically worked in the current
conditions with the recommended conditions , or Barbara has . I 'm not sure
adminstratively how to handle this. I think we have to go through one
item at a time and decide whether we feel it should be incorporated into —
the amendment and more than likely I don' t see, if anybody agrees with me,
our signage comments , I don' t see us approving this tonight . I see staff
coming back with a recommendation if we believe signage, or anything . If —
we want lighting I think there has to be standards for lighting .
Wildermuth : There should be a lighting standard and I think we ought to _
address this issue that . . . it ' s an accessory business function.
Batzli : I think in essence it changes depending upon whether you allow
lighting . Because if you allow light , let ' s say you allow the driving —
range can only be operated from sunrise to sunset but you allow the
miniature golf to be lit , then I think we do get a kids hang-out more.
Although it was an accessory use during the day, perhaps it becomes the —
dominant use at night . I think that' s an issue that has to be addressed
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21 , 1988 - Page 35
C
before we tap all the other ones . Whether we' re trying to promote that .
Conrad: Promote what?
Batzli : Nighttime use .
Conrad : By agreeing with allowing nighttime lighting , you ' re going to
tell us right?
Batzli : Well , yes and no. Are we allowing nighttime lighting for the
driving range or for the miniature golf course?
Conrad : We don' t know.
Emmings : To take what Brian is saying one step further , he split them in
half . Are we talking about lighting for a driving range and are we
talking about lighting for the miniature golf. The miniature golf ,
originally we only approved that as an accessory use to the driving range
which was supposed to be the primary use .
Batzli : There ' s a lot to talk about here.
Conrad : Let ' s talk about it . Do we want to be as routine as going
through these and give direction to staff on the various issues? Which
—r ones to pursue . I think that ' s what we have to do .
Emmings : Are you talking about tabling this?
Conrad : I think we have to table it because it ' s certainly not in the
form that I feel comfortable with if we were to send anything along unless
we reject it all . But I think there ' s some valid things that we should
look at. In terms of lighting, we' ll go through the three items that
we ' re talking about , in terms of lighting , what do we want to do in terms
of lighting? In the agricultural area for this type of a use, are we
comfortable with the daytime hours or do we feel that we should allow, and
what ' s permitted based on the conditional use permit is the driving range
and the miniature golf. Do we want it to occur at night , and I 'm not
against what Annette says , having recreational opportunities here because
I think we then to zone those things out of town and I 'm not against that .
Yet on the other hand, looking at the ordinance, and looking at the
purpose of the A-2 district , what do you think? I ' ll just go around .
Emmings: Sunrise to sunset .
Ellson : 11 : 00.
Batzli : I could a little bit after sunset but not to 11: 00. You can fish
a half hour after sunset.
Conrad : But do you want lighting standards so you can operate the
operation in the dark for miniature golf and the driving range?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21 , 1988 - Page 36
47
Batzli : I 'm torn because I have gone to driving ranges at night and I ' ve —
enjoyed it immensely but from a planning perspective in the A-2 district
along a highway, I don' t know if I want it at night .
Emmings : You have to declare yourself. One declarative sentence.
Batzli : Sunrise to sunset .
Wildermuth : Sunrise to sunset .
Headla: Sunrise to sunset . —
Conrad : I 'm comfortable with that too. So what we' re saying is no
nighttime use. —
Olsen : What we have, we have the proposed amendments to the zoning
ordinance on page 4 , (b) would remain as it is originally. The hours of
operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. Do you want to just go through--
these? Would that be easier to go through each one of these?
Emmings : (a) already exists right? —
Olsen: Right .
Emmings : We ' re not talking about changing (a) . —
Olsen: And (c) is the same . (d) would be the same . (e) , (f) and (g) are
the ones that you would need some discussion on.
Conrad: Sc now we ' re getting to request number 2. Installation of the
sign. Steve , do you agree with signage in this area? —
Emmings : I like very much what you said about not illuminated signs .
Some sign that would be visible in the daytime and would be not visible at
night . —
Conrad : Annette , you can ' t agree with Steve. You can' t because you want
to operate at night so you would have to lean. . .
Ellson : You took away my night so. . .
Conrad: You' ve got to be consistent here. —
Ellson : Yes , I 'd like to see a sign. . .
Conrad: So some kind of sign.
Batzli : Small sign. —
Wildermuth: I 'd like a small sign.
Headla : . . .we' ve got to do signage. —
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21 , 1988 - Page 37
Conrad : I guess on that one, Jo Ann I thinkou should bringback to us a
recommendation on what kind of- signage would be appropriate out there.
We' re not trying to hide, it was approved to go in and it is a big area
but we don 't want it illuminated. We' re not trying to scare the neighbors
but we have to inform people that it' s there. Video games , installation
of video games . Dave, we' re going to start at your end. Do you think
they should be allowed and if so, I think based on City Council ' s
directive and Jo Ann, does City Council like the video games?
Olsen : I think they liked them.
Conrad : So based on what they feel , we' re being real arbitrary here. I
don ' t know if 2 or 5 or 8, I don' t have a clue what the right number is
and I hate to get into games when you start dictating some of that stuff.
Is there a number that you want to hange your hat on and say this
definitely is a secondary use to the primary purpose of the site? Is
there something that you feel good about?
Headla : No, I 'm not that familiar with video games to hang a number on .
. . . 100 video games but if you ' ve just got a coin machine, yes that ' s
different . I think we should send a signal we' ve got to limit the number
and let that number be negotiated between the staff and John . But with
the clear intent , it ' s a passive situation for people to entertain while
some of those other things . . . Pretty soon we' ve got another 1, 100 square
Cfoot building with more video games in it .
Conrad : Do you think the building , like John said, the building is going
to dictate what he can put in it . Is that a better way of doing it? The
City Council allowed an 800 foot building .
Wildermuth : The City Council could allow a 5,000 square foot building .
Headla : Yes , I 'd like to see the number of games set because I don ' t
know, the next thing may have another building .
Wildermuth : I think we ought to have an ordinance requiring licensing of
video games and that ordinance should be a parameter or index of the
number of video games per square foot . . .
Conrad : What do you think Brian?
Batzli : I think 10 is a great number . Seriously, I never considered that
prior to 10 seconds ago. I think that 's probably a pretty good idea . In
the meantime, I think in this instance , I think 10 is a fairly good
number. Actually, it might depend more so on the number of spots you have
for people using the driving range than square footage of the building .
It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to link it to that . 10
might be a good number .
Headla : How about linking it to parking spots?
f
Batzli : Perhaps parking spots . I think it should be an accessory use.
— 5
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 38 —
Wildermuth : It should definitely be low because you ' re outside the MUSA —
line.
Batzli : I think it should be clear that it' s installed as an accessory —
use too.
Ellson : What number did they decide on , 10? 10 or under sounds fine to
me. According to this , it says one time the City defined an amusement
arcade as having more than 5. It sounds like it ' s an arcade if you have
6. If you don' t want it be an arcade, than it gets back to 5. I don' t
mind it being there . The number doesn' t really make a big deal to me. . . —
Emmings: The number obviously is arbitrary and if 10 makes people happy,
it would make me happy too. I think one way to be sure that this stays an_
accessoryuse is the hours that the building can be open would be the same
as the driving range . You can ' t have that building open and the driving
range not open.
Headla : That ' s a good point .
Conrad : You want to come up with an ordinance to license and what ' s the —
purpose of doing that? What does that do for us?
Wildermuth : It . . .concentration so thereby you control . . . —
Conrad : Is that common to do? Are you making this up?
Wildermutn : I know of other cities that have licensing requirements for —
doing that .
Conrad : What do we do in Chanhassen? —
Olsen: I don' t think we have a license for games. I could check with
Public Safety, I know we just passed a solicitor ' s ordinance .
Emmings: Did you say what you thought about video games?
Conrad : The first time through I sure did . I don' t like them but —
specifically in terms of numbers, I don' t care. It' s arbitrary. I don' t
like arbitrary numbers . It ' s almost like the 1 mile radius for a
contractor ' s yard . —
Emmings : We do it all the time.
Conrad : I think tying it to hours of operation is real valid but I think —
we definitely want to make it a secondary use to the site which is real
important . I guess Jo Ann what I 'd like .us to do is have you come back
and talk about the benefits of licensing . If we need that and maybe —
somehow give us a way to say, a way to say 10 is a number or 100 is a
number but for us to pick out something. I 'm comfortable with the
building size, to tell you truth , limits it but I don' t think everybody
else here is so we need some planning input to tell us how to do it.
Based on square footage. Based on parking stalls but very definitely
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21 , 1988 - Page 39
based on a secondarysupportive use pp ve to the prime use. Okay, we ' ve talked
about those three. That means that we should table this item.
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table both
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 3 and
the Conditional Use Permit Amendment until staff can come back with more
information. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Olsen : Did you want to , just for my benefit , the conditional use permit ,
we do have specific conditions for those light standards that are on
there. I was wondering what I do with the conditional use on that part .
Wildermuth: Just take the lights right out .
Conrad : The lights are gone.
Olsen : You don ' t want lights? Then number 3 would be whatever we come up
with and 4 would change to sunrise/sunset.
Emmings : Wait a minute .
Conrad : I think your wait a minute is probably valid .
( Wildermuth : This ordinance is for this particular driving range and
miniature golf course , right?
Emmings : No . Anyone that would come up. They' re dependent to TH 5 and
TH 212 and it would affect anyone that would come in under , so it' s
general too .
Conrad : It ' s being done in response to what he ' s already done and we ' re
approaching it from a forget about him for the time being. Should we take
a look at . . .
Wildermuth : There should probably be some room in there somewhere that
would allow a nighttime operation so we probably ought to leave the lights
in.
Batzli : The next issue is , what if we' re allowing a golf course with a
driving range and they want to put up some lights? If it ' s a private
course?
Emmings : That ' s different use .
Batzli : It ' s in A-2. You could put it in the A-2. This would cover it .
Emmings : Here you have the driving range as a primary use. There you've
got a golf course as an accessory use that ' s a driving range and I think
we can probably. . . Here , Jo Ann, in her conditional use permit discussion
on number 2 , she says he can light for security. It should be allowed for
that so we ' re going to have to look at that.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 40
Wildermuth : But in an A-2 area , probably the security lighting allowance —
would be the same as any farm.
Batzli : Why were the tees to the left going to be illuminated? —
Emmings : So you could use them.
Olsen : We' ll come back with the amendment and at that time you can adjust—
for the specific conditions of the conditional use.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
STATION LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH 101, AMOCO.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Jim Filippi : My name is Jim Filippi and I 'm with North Star Engineering —
Consultants and I prepared the plans here. I represent Amoco Oil Company
who is , by the way, the property owner of record on this . The only
property owner of record and I think there' s been some confusion over the
years as to where that ownership lies but in fact Amoco Oil Company is the
owner of record . What I 'd like to do is just pass around an artist ' s
rendering of what it is we ' re proposing to build . Then what I will do , if
I may, because of the lateness of the hours , is I will address very —
quickly some of the peripheral site issues because I think what we' re
talking about , as you can boil the entire issues on this site right down
to this one curb cut right here and whether it ' s a single driveway or two
driveways with the curb cut and that's the only issue that really stands
up when everything is said and done. We' ve gone through the staff report .
The parking is one issue identified as needing 5 spaces instead of 4 which
we have proposed . We were reading the ordinance as basing it on 1 per 200
square feet of retail store area which in this case is 724 and that
includes the coolers , actually 528 . The entire building is 1, 030 and that
includes storerooms and the restrooms and the corridor areas and is not in—
fact retail space . In addition , the service station characteristic of
this , which is what it is, an automobile service station, calls for 4
parking spaces and 2 for service bays which we do not have any service —
bays so therefore we feel our parking requirements would be 4. Handicap
spaces are provided at the rear adjacent to the 2 handicap ramps along the
sidewalks adjacent to the building . We have an issue that staff has
indicated that , I think that is discussed in vehicular service area or the—
driveways should be pulled back 25 feet. We feel that applies to the
parking and parking areas and in fact Section 20-1191 from the regulations
requires only a 10 foot strip of land between the abutting right-of-way —
and the vehicular use areas which includes driveways under your definition
required and along TH 5 we do meet that 10 foot requirement. So we don' t
feel that we do have a variance or any other necessity to move the
proposed driveway access areas along TH 5.
Conrad : Jo Ann , what ' s your response?
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1 . Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set
forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional
use permit for : A golf driving range with a miniature golf
course.
2 . Property. The permit is for the following described
property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota:
See Exhibit A.
3 . Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the
following conditions:
1 . Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987,
showing the proposed limits of grading, methods of erpsion
—
control where necessary indicating the size and revised loca-
tion of the parking lot and club house 100 feet from the cen-
terline of County Road 117, and proposed berm areas around
the putting green and miniature golf course area. The
parking area shall be paved. City staff shall review and
approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site.
2 . Submission of a revised landscaping plan by December 1 , 1987 ,
to add a 2 foot evergreen hedge and 6 ' trees in front of the
proposed parking area. City staff shall review and approve
said plan prior to activity occurring on the site.
3 . Fencing on the property shall not exceed 6 feet 6 inches in
height unless authorized by conditional use permit.
4 . The two septic system sites along County Road 117 shall be
protected from grading activities and shall be staked and
protected in the field.
5 . The applicant shall install a holding tank and shall comply
with all the requirements of Ordinance No. 10-B. A copy of a
contract with a licensed pumper shall be provided prior to
issuance of the septic permit.
6 . The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the
Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife Service, DNR and any
other legal jurisdiction as it relates to utilization of the
site.
4 .'
7 . There shall be no alteration to the wetland area except for
the planting of grass seed and periodic disking of the site. -
There shall be no filling, grading or other alteration unless
approved by the City Council through the wetland alteration
permit process . _
8 . The applicant shall provide proper financial security in the
amount of 110% of the cost of the improvements to the site
prior to December 1 , 1987.
9 . There shall be no light standards on the premises. Hours of
operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. —
10. The applicant shall pay all fees incurred by Resource
• Engineering by December 1 , 1987, and shall be responsible for _
future fees if services by Resource Engineering are deter-
mined to be necessary.
4 . Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the —
permit following a public hearing under any of the following
circumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood
where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit.
5 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this
conditional use per it is a criminal misdemeanor.
r / 7
Dated: /` ( � !�� 7
_
,
CITY OF HANHASSEN
///
—
s .
By: //;/;1;7,,,,;-_ , ZCi i�:. /
Its Ma or
By: J (:),LSXq3 —
Its Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss —
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _
a,2eJt-day of , l9S'7 , by Thomas L. Hamilton, .
Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
C:d) gith e,1244/ 31-Q°---
� 1
Z' K"c,N J. E"GEL"t'�T Notary 'ub is —
'-a NO;'SY PJ:UC - t :OTA
My co—1 ss. n. e.. -es 1.-16-91
i - l
City Council Meeting ast 22, 1988
Councilman Johnson: By our next Council meeting?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure. September 12th.
Councilman Johnson: Would you like to add that to the motion Bill? To bring us
a schedule by September 12th?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Assumption
Seminary timetable for securing the buildings on the property as proposed and to
direct staff to bring an updated .schedule back by September 12, 1988. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW PRYZMUS DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE.
•
Barbara Dacy: The applicant is here tonight also and we've reviewed the
Conditional Use Permit and what exists out on the property today. The summary
on page 4 identifies 3 items which I believe we resolved and then possibly a
fourth one would be also removal of the building parts that are located between
the parking area and the street. Two items were not discussed during the most
recent application process in 1987 and 1988. Those two issues were installation
of video games and vending machines and the installation of a sign. As to the
sign, that is a typical accessory feature to an operation such as this but video
games were not discussed at all.
Mayor Hamilton: John, do you have anything you want to present?
John Pryzmus: I guess I really don't. I opened up on the 5th of July and it's
been a long hot summer... The progress so far has been a little slow... Some
of our plants and trees will be later on in the fall. As far as the steel
building, I'm working right now on selling it. I don't know, I'd prefer to get
it sold rather than try to find someplace to store it. If it's a sight problem
and I don't get it sold by next month, what I possibly could do...so it wouldn't
be visible. Like I say, it's been slow but everything is coming together.
Mayor Hamilton: You're willing to put the culvert in and the driveway? That
apparently wasn't done. You've got to put a culvert in there. The evergreens
you're going to do. Have you gotten permission from MnDot to put them in the
right-of-way?
John Pryamus: The culverts are all in.
Mayor Hamilton: No, I mean the trees.
Barbara Dacy: There are no trees in the right-of-way.
Mayor Hamilton: The berm was supposed to be located right?
Barbara Dacy: If he wanted to install the berms that he had originally
indicate.:, they would have to.
60 A- `--rte f
City Council Meetic,y - August 22, 1988 '-
John Pryzmus: The berms are there. As far as the trees, I won't be able to
plant, only 2 feet out of the right-of-way so I will be working with the
Arboretum. Right now they have some different planting shurbs that I'd like to
plant all along the site... I'll put the evergreens inside of the fence. "'
Mayor Hamilton: And you're going to take the lights down that you've got in
there as recommended by staff? The lights that you had put out there, you're —
going to remove those?
John Pryzmus: At this point, all my competition has lights. I wouldn't
financially be able to compete with than so at this point, I guess I won't.
Mayor Hamilton: So you want us to shut you down then? You're not in
conformance with your conditional use. It was from sunrise to sundown. —
John Pryzmus: That was back when we had the sunrise and sunset. In the
original, when just the driving range was approved and I guess we didn't go over
it all...
Mayor Hamilton: Any questions? Jay, anything?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I want to know how the kids are enjoying the cigarette
machine. You say your vending machines were for the children. I don't see, I'm
an anti-smoking advocate to a point, I don't see encouraging. I believe smokers —
need their own little room they go off into and fill each other's lungs but I
don't see at a family recreational facility that we should be selling
cigarettes. I'd like to see, if we're going to consider it, I don't have any
problems with one or two video machines as long as we don't become a video
arcade where the primary purpose is to play video games. As a slight accessory
to putt-putt, on a hot summer day come in and cool off for a while and play a
couple games of Donkey Kong or whatever, no big deal to me but if you start —
getting 10 or 15 video games in there and the place turns into a teenage video
hang-out, that's going to be a problem. Cigarette machine is definitely a
problem with me.
John Pryzmus: I have no problem. I don't spoke and I don't have any problem
with taking that out. They put them in there. I didn't ask for it. It was —
part of what came with the machines.
Councilman Johnson: You can blame us.
John Pryzmus: Well, it don't matter...
Councilman Johnson: Does that sign need a sign permit or anything Barb?
Normally you can get such and such a sign if you have a business right?
Barbara Dacy: Right. A permit would be required except we amended the
ordinance to allow a driving range and miniature golf course. Unfortunately we
didn't address in detail of how big the sign should be.
Councilman Geving: I think John you made a lot of progress out there. I'm —
pleased to see it's coming along. The few things that we've got remaining here
are pretty minor. You apparently are working towards getting those trees in
this fall and you indicated there were berms there, I don't remember seeing any —
61
-City Council Meeting - t 22, 1988
berms but if that's in the conditional use permit, we ought to look at that.
There sears to be a difference of opinion between yourself and the staff on
where the berms are or where they should be. How many video games are there out1
there?
John Pryzmus: There's foogball and hockey.
Mayor Hamilton: There must be 4 or 5 I suppose.
Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess when we discussed this way back when we were
talking about the difference between a business having 1 or 2 machines versus an
arcade and I think we came up with, is 6 the magic number? Do you recall that 6
is an arcade?
Barbara Dacy: There are no definitions.
Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess maybe we were thinking of that at one time. I
don't see any big problem with the few items that we've got here. The only one
that we did have a lot of discussion over John was the light standards. That
there wasn't to be any lighting on the facility. I don't have a real hard
feeling about that but I think if we're going to go that route, we're going to
have to cone back and talk about it again because I can see where that wIpuld
extend your business day. Does it give you another half hour or something?
John Pryzmus: What it does is, in the evening as the sun goes down, before it
▪ gets too dark, I would assume that, I've talked with all the neighbors and it
will keep it open on a nice evening for another half hour-45 minutes rather than
sunset. Basically I've kept my standards. Floods up on the out lights and keep
than shining down. I'm not putting them in a high place like a ballpark or
anything like that. I wasn't...
Councilman Geving: I think our discussion when we talked about lights were
▪ something far different than what you've got out there. I think we were
thinking that we wouldn't let John have these big light poles and lots of
problems with any neighbors that might object to that but I see no objection to
what's out there now. I don't have any problem with that John except that it's
not on your conditional use permit. That's all I have.
Councilman Horn: I guess I don't have any problem with the sign. To me it
looks like a reasonable sign for that kind of a business but again, I supposed
we should discuss that.. .
▪ Mayor Hamilton: That can be discussed through the ordinance process.
Councilman Horn: I also agree about the lights. I don't see anything. The
lights are mainly in the mini-putt area aren't they? The lights are mainly in
the mini-putt area?
John Pryzmus: Yes, they follow the path. There are two rows of trees that
• follow the path and they shine towards the mini-putt area...
Councilman Horn: I realize we didn't allow those but again, Dale said we had
▪ envisioned something totally different. I also agree that there should be
vending machines out there. People should have access to pop. You don't have
62
City Council Meetirn lgust 22, 1988
any water on the site do you? Like a water fountain so this is really the only
Ir- thing. ..
John Pryzmus: Yes, I haven't had it hooked up yet. I do have a... Right now I _
have the Pepsi-Cola Canpany with automatic cooler. Like I say, the cigarette
machine wasn't one of the machines that I had brought it. The vending. company
brought it in. I didn't order it and I can have them take it out of there. ..
As you get the grass to start growing out there and eventually... As you cane
in there's one berm that's maybe 7 feet high in front of the building, but sane
of that might even... but I will be working on it right on through the fall to
hopefully. ..
Councilman Horn: I don't have any problem with anything I see out there. My
only recommendation would be that I think it would be better, and you may
disagree with this, to cane to us with what you've done and we would agree with
it. Whereas to go ahead and do it before we get a permit to do it can sometimes
cause yourself more grief.
John Pryzmus: There are sane things that I changed...
Councilman Boyt: I see where staff recommends 8 foot evergreens instead of 6
foot.
Barbara Dacy: Yes but since the berms are 6 feet, there's a disagreement so.. .
Councilman Boyt: I didn't hear it as a point of disagreement along the highway.
John Pryzmus: I don't think that would be done. .. Not all of them, everyone is
put on the road. The shorter ones will be put inside.
Councilman Boyt: I hope you're successful with this. I've got to tell you that
it bothers me when anyone intentionally violates the standards the City has set
for their development. You won't convince me John that when you put those light
standards in you thought the City gave you approval to do that. What that means
is, you decided that you're going to do that business the way you need to do --
that business and then you'll cane back to the City and get approval. I don't
think that's a smart business approach. I think that we should definitely look
at the sign to be sure that it fits within the standard size for signs. I
suspect it does. The light standards, we need to have those inspected by staff
to be sure that they're directed so they don't shine on the highway at all and
good luck. I hope to get out there and use it sometime.
Barbara Dacy: Given the Council's discussion, I guess what I would suggest is
that the applicant apply to amend his permit regarding the light standards and
the sign issue or the Council look at a ordinance amendment. —
Councilman Boyt: I think we should consider hours of operation too.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think John should cane back, hours of operation, light
standards and the trees.
John Pryzmus: I'll bring that up to staff this week. —
63
Lity Louncii meeting t 22, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: So we need to table this until, oh and the sign also should be
a part of that.
Bernie: I have not been following this but I am wondering why the restriction
is placed on a businessman to have restricted hours when the competition
certainly dictates that putt-putt courses, their best hours are from 8:00 to
▪ 10:00 at night. I'm wondering why his position is so unique that we should have
to restrict him from sunrise to sunset?
Mayor Hamilton: When we first looked at this Bernie, John had a hand drawn plan
that he brought in here and the neighbors objected to it. We tried to work with
John all the way through this process and it's been kind of one frustration
after another and just as it occurs now he's got lights out there that were not
approved and he goes ahead and puts them up there without getting permission
from the City. If he wants to have lights out there, he should came in here
with a plan like anybody else that's going to try to do something. To just go
▪ ahead and do it, like Bill says, that's not the right way to do it. This was
several years ago when the first plan came along and we said we weren't going to
allow him to have the high pole standards and at that time was when we said
sunrise to sunset would be his operation. So I think since that time John has
talked with the neighbors and they have seen that it's not going to be the
nuisance that they thought it was going to be but he's got to come back to us
with an amended plan to try and change it.
John Pryzmus: .. .I have worked with the neighbors...
▪ Councilman Johnson: When you started talking about your water system, I hope
you realize that when you start serving that water to people, either in that
machine or in that water fountain, you have created a public water supply by
_ State Law and you have to do certain water quality tests on that on a routine
basis. You'll need to coordinate that with the County Health Department. You'll
need to do that and file your reports of this. At one of my rural plants I work
with, they have one coffee machine that is hooked up to water, otherwise they
• have bottled water everyplace. We got stuck because you have more than 25
employees there, as a public water supply system. So you're in the same boat
there so wat:h out for that one.
Mayor Hamilton: He hasn't hooked it up yet.
Councilman Johnson: It's a fairly simple test and I think they're probably
going to be annual tests, I'm not sure. Our test requires to be once a year
testing for bacteria and that kind of stuff.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table review of the Pyramus
Driving Range and Miniature Golf Course until a plan is brought back with
additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR KENNEL PERMIT, 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PHIL MATHIOWETZ.
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mathiowetz is here who is the applicant for the kennel permit.
He is here because we've had complaints from a neighbor, Mr. Krueger, which I'm
▪ sure Council is well aware of since he was sending all the information on the
64
....___.
r:f
CITY OF
t.
:.,...,._ .1 : ,
. ..:,
, • . .,...
,k,„
cHANNAssEN
. .-,;i. : 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -
f (612) 937.1900 • FAX (612) 937.5739
October 25 , 1990
Mr . John B . Pryzmus
J . P . Links , Inc.
7750 Galpin Boulevard •
Chanhassen , MN 55317
Re: Grading Permit Application for Swings Golf Range - Amended
Conditions of Approval
Grading Permit File No. 90-] 2
Dear Mr. Pryzm.Is : -
This letter is a followup to our meeting on Tuesday, October 23 ,
1990 with Planning Director , Paul Krauss , regarding the con-
ditions of approval for your grading permit. As agreed, a permit
will be issued contingent upon the following conditions:
1 . The earth berm along Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117 ) shall
be continuous two-tier, two foot high rock retaining walls ,
not to exceed an accumulative height of four feet in lieu of
the three foot high earth berm previously required.
2 . Provide the City with a financial security in the form of a
_ letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1 , 000 to
guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration.
3 . All disturbed areas shall be seeded and disc mulched or
sodded prior to November 15 , 1990.
4 . The grading permit fee shall be calculated according to the •
1988 Uniform Building Code Table NO. 70-B for grading 400
cubic yards of material .
5 . Erosion control measures (hay bales) shall be maintained
throughout until vegetative cover has been fully re-
- established and removal is authorized by the city engineer.
6 . Any future expansion or grading activities will require
another permit application and will also require an approved
site and/or grading plan by the Planning Commission and City
Council prior to commencement.
John B. Pryzi,._s •
October 25 , 1990
Page 2
7 . The grading activity that has occured adjacent to the creek
located on the northerly portion of the property shall be
removed back to a point to be determined in the field .by City
staff .
8 . As agreed, the expansion to the parking lot and driving range
is not permitted without receiving an amendment to the Con-
ditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the existing faci-
lity. This expansion is not included in the administrative
grading permit . Therefore, the driving tee and parking lot
must be removed or transformed into berming purposes.
9 . A building permit is required for the installation of the
fence proposed around the site.
If you are in agreement with the aforementioned conditions of
approval , the City is prepared to issue and grant you a grading
permit for berming purposes , including site restoration. Upon
receipt of a check for $64 and security in the form of a letter
of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1 , 000, I will process
your application and issue you a grading permit.
If a grading permit is not obtained and complied with, the site
- must be restored to original grade and condition as soon as
possible and no later than November 15, 1990. Failure to comply
with either scenario may result in further action by the City.
If you have any questions , feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
/fl.1;*-"4c;11‘4-1' .
David C. Hempel
Sr. Engineering Technician
DCH: jms
c: Gary Warren , City Engineer
Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer
Paul Krauss , Planning Director
Steve Kirchman, Building Official
Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer
Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
L 'C 4 \ f
��- -
CITY OF ✓,f�� ��
10111. 7 - CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
January 11, 1991 CERTIFIED _
Mr. John Pryzmus
J. P. Links, Inc.
7750 Galpin Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317 -
Dear Mr. Pryzmus:
On November 28 , 1990, the City sent you a letter in regards to your
grading permit #90-12 . The letter stated that a condition of the
grading pernit was for you to submit a conditional use permit and_
site plan review application for expansion of the Swings Golf site. -
The City established a deadline of January 7 , 1991 , for receipt of
the application. As of January 11, 1991, the City has not received
the application, nor has any contact been made by you to the City.
The City will grant one last extension until Tuesday, January 22 ,
1991 , for the application to be submitted. If the complete
application is not received by January 22nd, the City will place
your conditional use permit on a future City Council agenda for
consideration of revocation.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,Cs 04",-7-,1 -' --)
Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
JO:v
CITY OF
- 4041. CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen , Senior Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4 ,'
DATE: May 8 . 1991
SUBJ : Planning Case IUP 91 -1 ( Swings Miniature Golf)
It is not clear from the building file why a holding tank was
originally permitted on this property. Minnesota Rules chapter
7080 " Individual Sewage Treatment Standards" was in effect at the
_ time of building permit issuance , and septic sites had been
designated on the approved site plan. The holding tank is a
prohibited installation . A permit , however , was issued requiring
a pumping contract with receipts being sent to the City. These
conditions have never been met .
The approved building plans require sanitation facilities and
ventilation, conforming to UBC 705 . These requirements were never
met .
The only inspection requested by the contractor was the final .
despite required inspections being noted on the approved plan .
The final inspection did not pass , and no Certificate of Occu-
pancy has every been issued.
I strongly urge that no further development be permitted on the
property until existing violations are corrected. This would
include :
1 . Installation of an approved septic system with an
alternate site protected.
2 . Existing building must be brought up to code and a Cer-
tificate of Occupancy issued.
3 . Application for fence permit must be made and approved
or fence removed.
w 0 w
^ ate 7 ft
�� 'g, g•-eg0 -�0 0 � w a
5. It 111
UJiUi 0 T
n 9 a G .^. n role N =x a g'� � � 7 g eA q 3
c on gS9g. A pm Xz ro -E...–o � r�e _ a v
g.
ra � u Tri A95' � • m oo (0 . R ^ SC,c1.6 ,<0 L°Cp 11+5- 51:62
5 t < � O7 $.55 " 0. 442EA � � w5 01
n n A e' ie 7-g 9 y 7 0. a a 2 'l7 "`R `p f :' O ,° X A
5 4 0 o E7� 2' � v d m o o ,°a ? � = mo�°'o c y c cr
P-
.0. e ° O �`IA f ° ^070 '" R• < - o $ 0 < e.c ¢ c, Sw .–
V „ d r�
v, w r = n w .-�2 w R' 7 A a 0'. n -q. <. 7' 7 ,^p 'OF oT $°a ^' O N
3 2. 5, �� ry C_ n CU w o 5 d • F. . G. y ae E. r"y 7 —
,� 7' O 7 < O 'o' 7.N n ^ to n !Q C S re r., S VC n A
=U n ryary °� v7 o cm-- -icy 5j �n Lt o E. •-' E. ° ° o ' 9 et 5 a
w ? y x rt a no 7 0. G ? 7 K g E w o a.A 0 9 C O p O S
v c b 3 a v m o a $ .a 7 w °_ _
b v c N 7' E.
c e w -' n a C w 0 T n 7 y 0.w n
Ct. Q �' C u v 7 L a = So' w n 2. a �+ f� T S
< 3. C = 7 S ij C O O ,]' wits £ w F 7' n .. 7 Ow0 '� - 7
2 7 �p 7 M -i _
-0 a v. 0 E''. - a 5 0 'v S 7 7 6 S -Ai S $ �' c A v A a
-- r, 7 "5 Cin w 7 r A w vv tp w �0a – SO. F. II' 'O
A 5 < ,< n 7•v n 'O 7 O j-no r.
�nj a �'Fj' n y 9' < - S
L ? c 1 - v7 w L <n. n 0o ^n r 5 u. w a�7 FL.,' w c <
F.
9_ C ”. ,'t. C v. O S v. CJ r� a -O O v <00. N Ca. r QO
y 5 c � v E o T A.GC f c 3 n o a w —
Y • a 'Q C O u -, A 6 �i- w < w W S O F E v K
< -4
�' G ^ L 7 o g a a H O
r �. C- n 0. 4 n O C �Oo
$ A
- ? 5 - F G r, sr ;c m 7 7 R O = = N S Q S
7 r r n C. r, a2 c c
7 _ i� ? n S p nj a w CJ' w nre
n _ :X E w a g w c S a c .Q o S
3 - - E. 7 w �, U, v a 7▪' • n —
T� T - a f > > S - f 7 � - c n'D > 5" > H 7°v T g s� a'
c A C a u. w r O 0. w .r.. ? L < n w n N < n •7S O 5`<N < Jn c' oo '- 7.
= — 7 ev C < a 0. g : n . 57 v 97,g y v nt
v ;F.,••••; w v G''`^_' .r.'� Q 7c' x ^ 7 G.O 7 d 0 N 00 a.<
v. _ 4 = : A :„...•
w o c V. = `< �. 5. 1C. S c .oc m o G g o o n 0 v' _
" 77. = 77 ^ n 7 K- f - F n , n ..Q 'n' u C c 7 3 F
T7 c w 4, .� a te 1Na " C T w o 7' °' C g 7 N y nr..7
n a. <. ° C a 5.. H „ 2 < n ? ? A o , ^ m o n o- Ary 7 X. Obi Y R O ? 0' 0
^ ^ 7 -, n e� 7, -? n w O Or eto C w 7 r� o 'p w —
L 7 .3 �`'' p. r. 7' nn ^^1.V, 7 o fD S•-'00 O °J
n n 7 7 A G S X �y C -� n �. d g.
v 9 c'< a . R f = w ccmN = N yen oo 0 5
< y.°w oo a = f = = 7 H w w o
oni vce - M. S H �, C F
F.': o a O n o =D = w°c C-OOC 5_ w ca.2. �_ 2 a �° 7 a v_ o —
T V •7 ^_ -`i !� w n 0c ° O a. x 7 L1' _ "" V• wi = ii v' a
3 7 S ^ x n v u = 0n =1:1 0.w y So.m A — 7 =
w {q 00 3 5 A A o y q y n 7 7 rd' ' fD ' Li ^ Gi oo B n n —
R0/07 - ° R 7 Q °:N =- a � co c 7 m y_ a3 E. m o
c n v'o n e A 3 o
<. ° rT n f �w', a'p7p' y S tpS X " O.'o, 7 7 ,cr.
A Q 7 a n•'1S r < n ^ 7' 7 A X f0 Li' a 7 -. in -Ai �i
tp
n rn, S" O' f7 D• O `-C S 8 A 7 m A A O d —
ft
1.
r ° 7' v V s A n 7 0 a �+' v w 7' to
` = g S ^ c a `2g w
070 cr G. F – 0 S 7= u1 " S ^ w < ry `< '700 w 'Q N
< n 2- vT A g 5= n —
s y
w 7 ^ O C a e; A n S�e_5. 5 0 A w 7 7 G
E.n
n m w 7 0 ° v `0 9 0 t� � E ' S N a —
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991 X 1 ..
_
Councilman Wing: On that subject? I wanted to comment Don that on this
approval of agenda, that was a new term to me and I wasn't quick enough. I was
waiting for approval of the agenda and then I realized I was supposed to speak.
I would just request , if I'm not out of order, a quick comment under item 7.
Council Presentations. On the next Council agenda I'd just like to have the
issue of the, I'd like to hear the 'report from the University of Minnesota Goose
Removal program and how it affects the City and the possibility of continuation
for 1991 and subsequent' years. I would just like to, for your sake Mr. Mayor,
just put on the record these pictures of my dock. July, 1990 after the goose
removal last year .
Councilwoman Dimler: Ah, that 's phospherous loading for sure.
Councilman Wing: My request is that it simply be placed on the agenda next
meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words, where Bambi goes nothing grows. Okay, we'll move
on to our administrative presentation.
UPDATE ON SWINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SENIOR PLANNER.
Jo Ann Olsen: Last fall the owner of Swings started to do some grading on his
site without a permit . We went out to put a stop work order on the site and he
_ did pursue with a grading permit but what he was doing actually ended up being
an expansion of the conditional use permit above what was approved. So as part
of that grading permit he had to make an application to come in for an. amended
conditional use permit so that he could bring his site into compliance. He has
not done this after contacts by staff. So originally we were going to bring it
on the agenda for consider of revocation of the CUP or the conditional use
permit . Instead what we're going to do is just have the attorney's office
pursue John with a letter stating that he is in violation of the conditional use
permit and pursue it that way and hopefully get him to make an application. If
not , we will go after him against the violation of the conditional use permit .
We felt this was a better way. If we revoke the permit , then actually those
conditions are no longer there for us to enforce and we might as well get to the
legal process now. I know that John was in today and was aware of this and said
he was going to be here but I don't see him. Just wanted to make you aware that
we're doing this internally and that 's it . We'll let you know what happens.
Mayor Chmiel : Is there anyone else that would like to address the issue?
Don Ashworth: If I may. I did see John in this afternoon. He did seem happy
. . .so I'm assuming that he read the report and he's accepting that .
Mayor Chmiel : There's only one thing on item number 3 that I looked at. It
says prior to November 15, 1990 or should that be 1991?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. That was part of the original grading permit so that was
1990 that he had to do that .
_ Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? John, would you like to come up? Just state
your name and address please?
21
1
City Council Meeting - M; -h 25, 1991 _
John Hennessy: John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Blvd. . Mr. Pryzmus is doing I'd say
a respectable job out there as far as appearance of the project and everything.
The only thing that concerns me is something a little more generic. It 's the
precedence that the City is setting. There's no bite to the ordinance. I mean
he was out there for a month and a half without a permit . I mean how does this —
go on that long? I see the City cars going up and down Galpin Blvd. so I know
they're doing inspections out there in Pheasant Hills and other places along our
road. So why do things just keep going on and on without any enforcement? And
this isn't the first time. John's been battling with the City for as long as
we've lived there, 8-9 years. It 's well meaning and everything.
Mayor Chmiel : Maybe somebody would like to address that specific question.
Jo Ann Olsen: As soon as we were alerted to that he was grading illegally out
there we did put a stop order immediately. That doesn't necessarily stop him.
So what we did try to do is try to work with him to get the site, because when
we were made aware that it was already, there were piles of dirt . There were
piles of dirt up against the creek also so what we tried to do is to get the
site restored as best possible. That 's where we went through the grading permit
with him to hopefully get him to comply with that and he did pull the dirt back.
But I kno.. that it looks like we're not doing anything but actually we are
working on it . —
John Hennessy: Well I know it 's not like you have nothing to do up here.
Jo Ann Olsen: But it takes a while you know as far as going through that
grading permit and then also to get him to comply.
John Hennessy: Has the area to the creek been restored as far as drainage?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. They pulled the dirt back from the creek. From the edge of
the creek. He didn't really get into the creek to impact it . Yes, we pulled
the dirt back and got that out of there. That was our main concern.
John Hennessy: Okay. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: If I could partially respond as well. And again, I haven't
talked to Joh recently on this item but we had come to agreement with him as to
things that he was to do out at that site. Then he ran into some difficult
financial times and literally it was not until the City had actually consummated
the acquisition of the property downtown that a number of financial conditions
that were following John around were actually cleared up. I know during those
negotiations he had continued to state to me, Don I'd like to get this thing
wrapped up and get some money available because I really want to take and clean
up the golf course project but I just haven't been able to do a thing out there
because of some of these other problems. He should have gotten a hold of us and
verified what he was doing but I guess that 's just not John.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Emmings.
Steve Emmings: Mr. Pryzmus has been in front of the Planning Commission several
times and I know this is one of those cases where the City keeps bending over
backwards and is not met halfway and I know there are some new Council members
22
City Council Meeting arch 25, 1991
who may not be aware of the whole history but I know we've chased him out of the
wetland in the past and told him he can't fill in there. He filled in there
once before without permission and we chased him out of there and now it sounds
like he's working down by the creek. There's no question in my mind he knows
full well that he's doing things that the City would not permit and he seems to
just do what he wants to. I think it 's important to put that into perspective
with it .
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Steve. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I
will make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m..
Subritted by Don Ashworth
City manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
•
—1 23
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 —
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
APPLICANT: .k 4\ .*) OWNER: -J Y\•,\ r y„ ,/" __s
ADDRESS: "j•-) S C . C .4.._(/, „ , 4 ADDRESS: 6.,(4
TELEPHONE (Day time) 9 5c/ — TELEPHONE: /2 7 —/,-;)‘-e;
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision L
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements L
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance
L
4.*
Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit
5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal
6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment L
7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost
8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees
9. Sign Plan Review
10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. —
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Ori
PROJECT NAME ,; SCL i I-L- S
LOCATION ''2 50 Gfrt. p►t,t eIL' 0
— LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
— This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
— ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
_ I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
•ffice and the ori.'._I document returned to City Hall Records.
_Lei_ g f=" 40. --""
0 1,--/41 — 1/
*nature of Applican Date
t ,
,_ Ora
ature of Fee Owne Date
A. .lication Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on .
Ft/'` y —
t , ,
STATE OF
iiiH
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ETRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE No. 772-7910 P._;= N:
June 7 , 1993
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: MAXI-MINI PUTT, INTERIM USE PERMIT, BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY
Dear Ms. Olsen:
We have reviewed the site plans (received May 20 , 1993) for the
above-referenced project (Section 10, T. 116N. , R. 23W. ) and have the
following comments.
1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water is on the proposed site. Any
activity, such as placing a stormwater outfall, below the top
of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek which alters its
course, current or cross-section, is under the jurisdiction of
the DNR and may require a DNR permit.
2 . The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be
managed . You are advised that the DNR would object to having
stormwater routed directly to Bluff Creek. Stormwater
sedimentation/treatment basins, or other appropriate
stormwater treatment features, should be included in the
stormwater management plan. If stormwater is routed directly
to Bluff Creek, it can cause sedimentation and water level
bounces that are detrimental to wildlife values and water
quality.
3 . A portion of the property occurs in the 100-year floodplain.
All the work that is done for this project must comply with
applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District.
4 . Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary.
The shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of
the bank, or the width of the floodplain, which ever is
greater. The development must be consistent with the
city shoreland management regulations. In particular you
should note:
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Ms . Jo Ann Olsen
City of Chanhassen
June 7 , 1993
Page (2)
a. The vegetation and topography should be retained
in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The
minimum shore impact zone is a 25 ' strip along both
sides of the creek.
b. The structures in the development should be screened from
view from Bluff Creek using topography, existing
vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city.
5 . Bluff Creek should be labelled as a Public Water such in
future plans.
6 . Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during
the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water
& Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and
Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent,
should be followed.
7 . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor
will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are
advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to
process the permit application.
8 . Construction activities which disturb more than five acres of
land are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-
_ 7203) .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
cc: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD
USCOE
Chanhassen Shoreland File
Chanhassen Floodplain File
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 —
(612)448.1213 tom/Niv 4n0
COUNTY of CAQVEQ -
June 9, 1993 —
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner —
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Interim Use Permit
Swings Golf —
Following are comments regarding the Interim Use Permit request for the Swings Golf proposal
transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated May 19, 1993.
1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are:
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended —
80' 100' 110' 120'
Urban Undivided Rural Divided
4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 190' 200' —
County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway
in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 33 foot from centerline corridor —
shown would not provide for a potential minimum 80 foot corridor. This corridor would
not meet the needs for an urban roadway.
Allowance for future roadway needs should be considered in the expansion plans.
2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. —
3. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR
117 is subject to review and approval of the County Highway department.
4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-
of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition"
than what existed prior to construction. —
Affiimatirt Action/Equal Opp'littnit) Empkiw
Amid on Rentlyd Palm
5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the
County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining
an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs
overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead
utility consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
CITY OF
690 COUL4 N
TER DRIVE • P.Q. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
9FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: June 30, 1992
SUBJ: Boyer Sterling Estates Iron-Conforming Recreational Beachlot
B ACKGROCD
The Boyer's Sterling Estates Subdivision was platted in 1966. There are 16 lots in the
subdivision. In 1966, the beachlot was 9,000 square feet in area with 60 feet of lake frontage.
A 1986 survey shows the beachlot at 7,000 square feet in area with 40 feet of lake frontage. The
beachlot does not meet the minimum requirements of 200 feet of lake frontage and the 30,000
square feet of area.
In conjunction with filing the plat, restrictions on use of Outlot 1 were also filed. There was a
complaint against the beachlot made in 1986. A history of the beachlot was outlined by City
Planner. Barb Dacy. An incorporated or established homeowner's association for Sterling Estates
was not or has not been organized with official filing of by-laws or regulations. Based on the
evidence provided at the time of the complaint in 1986, City Attorney, Roger Knutson
determined that the level of use should be one dock with no more than two boats at the dock.
Part of the complaint is the extension of the dock into the dock setback zone. The city has
recently passed an ordinance requiring that all docks meet the dock setback zone, which is ten
feet.
An inspection of this beachlot was performed by the city in 1981. At that time, it was observed
that there was one dock, no boats were noted at the dock, moored or on land. There was a
swimming beach. There is a motor vehicle access to the site, the 1981 inventory noted no boat
launch, although the association is requesting one.
is
.«, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Boyer's Sterling Estates —
June 30, 1993
Page 2
SUMMARY
The association is requesting the approval of one dock with up to 4 boats docked overnight,
motor vehicle access and the boat launch.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Beachlot Application
2. Summary of Beachlot Inventory
3. 1986 Recreational Beachlot Complaint
4. Public hearing notice
NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT
Boyer Sterling Estates
Planning City
Association Request Commission Council
Recommendation Action
Association Boyer Sterling Estates
Lake Minnewashta
Number of Homes 16
Size, square feet 9,000 - 1966
7,000 - 1986
Shoreline 60' - 1966
40' - 1986
Motor Vehicle Access yes
Off-Street Parking none
Boat Launch yes
Buildings none •
Seasonal Dock 1
50' with 10' extension
Canoe Racks none
Boats on Land 0
Boats at Dock four (4)
Boats Moored none
Swimming Beach yes
Swimming Raft no
Miscellaneous
1
+/ l JL U TH \ c ry i. ;, o •
—
•
•
i'"...Pr:1\:.. .
" \ 0 \ ' . / 7.- ..
.- . \ ...,. ..6) ..k
` 7� 0 / -- - \ �-
oP
• . ,
. .,
. ..1 ig)
111 ,, ` .
i �a X'
,, \ O� 8 313810 a,
\ , ,
'` �1 Q.
„A • OJT' i _ <
w 0
• �� i �
Hf
w41 ��. I
' +
ANE —
,., A:RBOR
0 c.s.
Oil" o
Zr' —
mj 90
nd - _
f lPalpJ�^ 3 - s.T- _7s__ 75 _ -
r Air t R: r ,i.•� �
D / O f 'I ,� — -:--;-. -#',.-1 fe:
M
m MINNcwA CAK RS . ,-r----- -..v.49,
li "= CO A KED:;
'so ! 2m Cp S!, 1
o oQ
O1 •
s I
sr., -D _ .I _.� . _
----.-_ -- n • :; ;
y;lLL1AM SHARPE
ci F NO. 4726 U IV I
CT = r _.
MI
T
SURVEY FOR: WI . RRDRLP 164452-001 947.35
ifl' ,f � Prepared By:
0� SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
R1 • Surveyors. Planners • Solis Testing
0 Engineers
OP curb 10660 Wayzata Boulevard
0941V
2�2�, i+ Cu Minnetonka. Mn. 66949
Ls ,�1 i Tel. 546-7601
•/ DESCRIPTION:
1 '
Outlot 1, BOYER'S STERLING ESTATES.
//' �\
S. GENERAL NOTES:
1 �O- t')I :.c.-C-\ ..t\ $ 1) o - Denotes iron monument set.
1 o �). = 2) • - Denotes iron monument found.
- \ _...\ e
3) 0 - Denotes wood stake.
1 ,
0
��
co \ .
1
f -1._
\ 0 "c5
1 ,t.
. 4
e 15
co •
.
T
T
Is —
1 • 1
6 etvk* C1
I �`�a \IA
I 1,16
I hereby certify that this survey
was prepared under my supervision
and that I am a Licensed Land
1 Surveyor under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
4,"17. 6.2t Sr ka,,,,,,,_
Ti : 40 1eodore D. Kemna
Date: 23 July 1986 Lic.No. 17006
1
.
n
o
RECD
CITY OF CHANHASSEN _
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ti -
NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL(`V/ BEACHLOTcAPPLICATION
U
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: `-—1, -- ES Z j -
CONTACT PERSON: ) I /)l `11.S
-� A'C'C S �� �L
ADDRESS: J L � I �L``1 <d 11h
s_
S3j /
L17�1_13 '7 QZ� -2 � ��
TELEPHONE (ane) TELEPHONE ):
Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. —
1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association 13
2. Length of shoreland (feet) S —
3. Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) C1170 Csai
4. Number of docks
6. Length of dock(s)
•
7. Number of boats docked F6CVZ.
8. Number of canoe racks
9. Number of boats stored on canoe racks A-C% —
10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. A1'U k-
11. Number of boats on land L6A'
12. Swimming beach Yes No Buoys Yes No
13. Swimming Raft Yes No
14. Boat Launch Yes No
15. Motor vehicle access Yes No
Number of parking spaces �h
16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets:
i 'n'i:
Crv * F
itlf • RE., , EAs
\4j4 :
•EJ •
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 13 , 1986
•
Mr. Roger Knutson
Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson —
P.O. Box 57 .
St. Paul, MN 55075
Re: Recreational Beachlot Complaint
Dear Roger:
This is to request your opinion regarding whether or not a viola-
tion to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance exists at the Boyer ' s
Sterling Estates Beachlot on Lake Minnewashta . —
A complaint has been filed by abutting owners of the beachlot,
Mary J. Moore (west) and Raymond Roettger (east) . Please see _
letters dated August 4 , 1586 and Septemoer 25 , 1986 . They con-
tend that the doc:c and boats are illegal and must be removed.
Please review the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance as to existing
nen-conforming decks and beschlots as it applies to this r —
complaint .
It appears from the information submitted that the chronology of
events is as follows :
1 . Boyer ' s Sterling Estates was platted in 1966 .
2 . In conjunction with filing the plat, restrictions on use of
Outlot 1 was also filed.
3 . An incorporated or established homeowner' s association for
Sterling Estates was not or has not been organized with offi-
cial filing of by-laws or regulations .
4 . The subdividers of the property, the Boyer' s , apparently
installed a 3 x 60 foot dock and stored three boats at it for
approximately 8 years . Another lot owner in the subdivision ,
Schur, lived at 6220 Barberry Circle ( Lot 2 , Block 3 ) and
installed a similar dock next to the Boyer' s and moored two
boats for approximately the same time period. Boyer sub-
sequently removed his dock permanently after 1973 .
Mr. Roger Knutson
•
r i October 13 , 1986
Page 2 --
•
5 . Peter and Judy Walman bought the Schur residence at 6220
Barberry Circle in 1974 . Their letter of September 3 , 1986
states at that time one dock with one boat was in place
at the outlot belonging to the Schur' s . Walman' s bought the
boat and installed a new dock in 1977 or 1978 .
6 . In 1977, a person by the name of Mike Holloway, purchased Joe
• Boyer' s home and in the 1977-1978 time frame, installed a
boat at the dock on the outlot.
-7 . The August 4, 1986 letter from Moore/Roettger alleges that
. such installation of the dock was done in 1979 and was done
without the knowledge or approval of other homeowners.
8 . U" to this point in time, there appears to have been two
boats moored at the dock from at least 1979 to 1981.
9 . In the Walman letter of September 3 , 1986, it is alleged that
in 1980 .or. 1981 the Emmett' s , who reside at 6210 Barberry
Circle, stored their boat at the dock off of the outlot.
This item is contested by the Moore letter of September 23rd
stating that the Emmett' s did not move into the area until
August 17 , 1982 , according to the contract for deed evi-
dencing the sale of the residence which was recorded at the
county on September 7 , 1982 , Document No. 56232 .
10 . The :•:core/Roettger complaint states that they feel that there
were only two boats moored at the dock before the f- ve-e
date of the Beachlat o effective
. Ordinance of March 17, 1982 . The
remaining homeowners in the area maintain that there was at
_least one dock and three boats moored at that dock.
11 . Each party has submitted pictures .
12 . It is also asserted by Moore/Roettger that the dock is
_installed so that it encroaches on the dock setback zone of
their properties .
13 . The city conducted a recreational beachlot survey depicting
. existing conditions of all beachlots as of June 4 , 1981 in
-preparation of the original beachlot ordinance. That survey
recorded the existence of a seasonal dock of 50 feet with a
ten foot perpendicular extension . At that particular time,
there was no boats moored at the dock , on the land or at
buoys .
. Mr. Roger Knutson
October 13 , 1986
Page 3
Your interpretation is desired on the following issues :
1. Whether or not having an established homeowners association —
continually maintaining a dock constitutes a "lawfully"
existing dock according to the ordinance.
2 . . Given the conflicting evidence as to the number of boats
moored at the dock, is it the correct interpretation to state
that if "x" number of • boats existed prior to the effective
• date of the ordinance of March 17, 1982, the number of boats —
should not increase as the ordinance deems a recreational
beachlot as a non-conforming use not to be enlarged.
Secondly, what is your interpretation of the number of boats —
existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance?
3 . In reviewing City files , it was the intent of the city survey
to record what was occurring at existing beachlots . A dock —
did exist according to the survey; however, boats were not in
place at that time. Either they were not installed or were
in use. Would the survey act as a legal basis to verify the —
existence of the dock/boats?
4 . Is it correct that non-conforming or conforming docks should _
be installed so that it should not prohibit access to adja-
cent properties or encroach upon "dock setback zones" of
adjacent properties?
V,Ery trey yours ,
Barbara Dacy •
City Planner
BD:v
- _
x ` CIT't
OF
`r
l' CHANHASSEN
\ .
\ I / ..... . -
„,,,,
- --4-• • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
November 10, 1986
Mr. Robert Roy
3110 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
— Dear Mr. Roy:
Attached please find the response from our City Attorney' s office
—
regarding the complaint at the Boyer' s Estate Recreational
Beachlot. Also attached is my letter to him requesting his
interpretation of the items that were submitted to my attention.
Based on the Attorney' s response, the following shall dictate the
use of the beachlot in the future:
— 1 . Installation of one docx.
2 . No more than two boats shall be moored at the dock.
3 . Although legally not required to observe dock setback
zones , the dock shall be placed so as to not interfere
with adjacent property owners boat traffic.
Affected property owners are encouraged to work together to
comply with the above position. Should you have further
questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please feel free
—
to contact me.
Sincer y,
—
Barbara Dacy
City Planner
—
BD:k
..
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L.GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER
DAVID L. GRANNIS.JR - 1910-1980 PAST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
DAVID L HA/MEYER —
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORcvFST BANK BUILDING M. CECILLA RAY
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELL]OTT B. KNETSCH
PATRICK A.FARRELL
DAVID L. GRANNIS.III SOUTH ST. PAUL,MINNESOTA 55075 _
ROGER N. KNLRSON TELEPHONE. (612)455-1661
October 31 , 1986 —
Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen -"
P.O. Box 147 , 690 Coulter Drive •
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE : Recreational Beachlot Complaint
Dear Barb:
Your letter of October 13th asked a series of questions
concerning whether or not the Boyer 's are violating the Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance. —
1 . If the dock is designated on the June 1981 map referred
to in Section 6 of Ordinance 47AB, the dock is a legal non-conforming _
dock and can continue to exist as provided in Section 7 of Ordinance
47AB .
2. Since the dock is non-conforming the number of boats —
cannot exceed the number moored at the dock on the effective
date of the ordinance . A landowner does not have the right to
intensify a non-conforming use. Prior Lake Aggregators Inc . v.
City of Savace , 349 N.W. 2d 575 (Minn. App. 1984 ) .
3 . It is difficult to sort out how many boats were moored _
at the dock on the effective date of the ordinance in 1982. If
the only basis for the present owner' s claim that three boats
were moored is the Emmett 's purchase of the home and adding the
third boat, then the present owner is mistaken. The Emmett ' s —
deed establishes that they did not move in until September 7,
1982. We could prosecute based upon the information we have if
more than two boats are moored at the dock. The prosecution would _
not be easy, however, because the City would have to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that only two boats were moored at the dock
in 1982.
4. The City ' s survey is evidence of the existence of the
dock. It doesn 't have much, if any, significance on the number
of boats using the dock. They could have been out on the water. —
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
t O V 0 e %986
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. -
Ms . Barbara Dacy - Recreational Beachlot Complaint
October 31 , 1986
Page Two
5 . Legal non-conforming docks do not have to observe the
dock setback zone. The zoning ordinance provides they can continue
at the same location.
If you have any additional questions or would like us to
take action, please let me know.
Ver truly yours,
GR NIS , ANNIS, ELL .
K ON, P.A.
BY
RNK : srn
Enclosures
EASTLUND, SOLSTAD & HUTCH INSON , LTD. -
LAW OFFICES
WARREN E EASTLUND CAMBRIDGE OFFICE
MARK T SOLSTAD 1702 MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING
THOMAS F. HUTCHINSON 222 SOUTH ASHLAND —
HANS F 21MMERMANN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 CAMBRIDGE,MINNESOTA 55008
DALE a MOE
wILUAM S. SEELE7 612•339-8931 612•689-5734
MARY NORTON-,ARSON
SHARON N. HER-AND
REID R LINDOU.ST
August 28, 1987
Ms . Barbara Dacy
City Planner —
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147 , 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 --
Re: James Hofer/Recreational Beach Lot
Dear Ms . Dacy:
Enclosed please find three letters which my client has
obtained regarding the prior use of the recreational out lot for —
boat dockage purposes . While at least two of the letters are
specific about the number of boats docked at the access point, it
does not appear that they are being as specific as you probably —
would require regarding the number of boats docked during the
year of the enactment of the ordinance . However, in reviewing
the previous correspondence which Mr. Hofer has supplied me with, —
I am concerned about the interpretation of the ordinance by Roger
Knutson in his letter to you of October 31 , 1986 . If, in fact,
the effective date of the ordinance was March 17 , 1982 , I
question whether any boats were docked on the beach lot at that --
exact date. In my opinion, the number of boats which should be
allowed to remain on the property would be the same number that
had previously been moored at the dock on a regular basis in the —
preceding years, not simply the number moored at the dock on the
date of your survey or any other individual date . Both the
letters of Janie Jasin and Joe Boyer indicate that there were at
least four boats at that dock in prior years .
It seems to me that what will have to be done will be for
someone to run down the tract index at the County Recorder' s —
office and find out who exactly were the owners of all of the
lots in the summer of 1981 and before, and write a letter to each
one of them, asking them how many boats they regularly kept there —
themselves, or how many they know for sure were regularly docked
at that outlot. I will contact Mr. Hofer and suggest to him that
either he have me do that or have someone else complete that
project so that we may report back to the City with what we have —
found. As your letter of June 16 indicates that considerable
time was spent by yourself and the City Attorney on this issue, I
wonder if a list was ever compiled by the City Attorney' s offftEc`;';z —
AUG 311987
CITY OF CHANHASSE
Ms . Barbara Dacy
August 28 , 1987
Page 2
of all of those property owners at that time? If so, perhaps you
could forward a copy of that list to me , and we could save some
time in getting this matter resolved.
I appreciate your patience and the patience of the City
Council in dealing with this matter; however, I am sure you can
appreciate that this is an issue which Mr. Hofer and his
neighbors are very concerned about. I think that their feelings
in this matter are perhaps best summarized by the opinion
expressed by Joe Boyer in his letter.
Very truly yours ,
EASTLUND , SOLSTAD & HUTCHINSON, LTD.
Dale J. Moe
DJM/kra
cc : James Hofer
70#,/..":7701-772 't�
BOYE4'S STERLING ESTATES
i
Out Lot La. 1 7-77
Eaaonont Use, Condition. Stipulation, and ttostriotion
ALL 1 :J BY TifESE PRESENTS,
That Joseph N. Boyer and Eileen F. Bay Or,
husband and rdfo, horoinaftor referred
to as "owners," resident of Ho
1lnnosots, being the owners of all nnePln County,the lots in Bayer's Sterling Palates• a oubdivinion
of land in Ca:ver Count -..---�—. -
Y, !�innesota, according to the
rotor° in tho office of the � plat thereof on file and Of
gister of roods in and for said Carver County, and
coalrin;; to oatablish stipulations, conditions, and restrictions to the use and
onjoynent of accesj and doc'c casement over, across
.;lneyti , and upon, Out Lot 1 in said
plat, do horoby declare the do
_3roelo subject to the following expreso
covonanta, stipulations and rostriotions to the use and o on'
rotontion of oasoaent thereon, J 9fiant thereof, and the
all of which are to be construed as restrictive
covonanLa running with the tltlo to
said easement, which covenant shall run
Juno 1, 1590, at which time such covenants shalluntil
be automatically extended for an
additional pe;-;o3 of ton
Yoars, and successively thereafter for additional periods _
of ton yoara, u,-L1oa3, within one month of the beginning of such period of torr years,
t"' act of too ownors of Out Lot 1, duly cortlfiod, and recorded, it iu agreed to
rad'Ico the burasn of tho said covenants stipulations, —
P tions, and rostriotions and Conditions
in vholo, or in part:
1. Between the first day of October and the last day of December in each
and ovo:y yoar, the then owner of the underlying fee of said Out Lot 1
snail Fonder to tho owners of the dominant tenement° and account for
the oxpenaes of maintenance of Out Lot 1 for the previous year together
with a billing to each owner of such dominant tenement for his fraotional
charo thoroof. Tho fractional share of each owner of a dominant tonoment
i
ohall have as its nuaorator the total number of lots in said Ilat owised
byt-�;o;: �c_�:s:r.t o::.o,-, and to -. _
which lots tho easement is appurtenant,
and as its dorcminator, tho total number of lots in said plat to whic.l
the oaa-:oat io appurtenant plus one for the lot ownership to which tho
undorlyinz foe in Out Lo: 1 is attached.
((r,i-a fmCS°T -
.. • L. J
E ch dominant ownor shall thereupon pay his fractional sharo to the
ownor of the undorlying foe in Out Lot 1 not later than Fobruary 28
following the billing.
3. In tho ovont tho dominant owner does not so pay his fractional sharo,
euoh dominant easement shall be forfoitod provided the ownor of the
undorlying foe shall coiaenco action for the declaration of such for-
foituro, and filo Its Pondens therewith, not lator than June 1st
following the dofault claimed. The owner of the underlying foe of
Out Lot 1 ray opt at any timo to sue for and rocovor for the arrearage(s)
_ of said fractional share togother with costs of suit, interest thoreon,
and roasonablo attorneys fees therefor.
4. The dominant owners shall have the right to compel the owner of the
undorlying fee, by suit at equity, to perform proper maintenance of
said Out Lot 1 subject to tho duty upon such dominant owners to promptly
and faithfully contribute their fractional share of the cost of maintenance
os provided herein. La tho ovent of such suit, the Court may award
roasonable attorney's foes against the owner of the underlying fee if
the Court finds substantial failure to properly rat ta+n; enA award
nc,air..st the F-artioa' plaintiff the underlying foe ownor'o reasonable
attorney's foes should the Court find that tho owner of the underlying
foo h.:3 ^ubstantially properly maintained said Out Lot.
G /966
:n to Presence of:
77- .7; figarf ."1-0/
.2—
o2 (0
3231 Dartmouth Drive —
Excelsior, MN 55331
September 23 , 1986
City of Chanhassen t-:<<,.
690 Coulter Drive —
Chanhassen, MN 55317 SEP •
- . '°3h
Attention: Ms . Barbara Dacy
Subject : Beach Lot Ordinance No. 47 -
Boyer' s Sterling Estates Violation
Dear Ms . Dacy:
This letter is written as follow-up to Mr. Roettger' s and my letter —
dated August 6 , 1986 , and our subsequent telephone conversations .
You have requested proof of what was in existence at Boyer ' s Outlot 1
prior to March 17 , 1982 , the effective date of the City ' s Recrea-
tional Beachlot Ordinance . The information contained in and
enclosed with this letter should prove beyond a doubt that only
two boats were moored at the dock prior to this date .
However , first I must reiterate Mr. Roettger' s and my position that
the dock and boats be removed entirely. This position is based on
the following: —
1 . Section 7 of Ordinance 47 states :
"Docks or building lawfully existing on any recreational
beach lot . . . uses . " (emphasis added)
The dock on Outlot 1 was not and is not now "lawfully"
existing. There has been no approval or vote by the
residents of Sterling Estates nor any documents filed
with the City establishing Outlot 1 as a marina for a —
select few residents .
2 . None of the dock users nor Mr. Boyer (the "dominant owner") —
have maintained the dock or the outlot . Mr. Roettger is
the only resident of Sterling Estates who has "Mowed the grass .
3 . Sterling Estates residents must organize and agree to the
appropriate use of Outlot 1 for all residents . One or two
residents cannot determine this useage for themselves .
4. Attachment 1 to this letter contains pictures taken this
summer. We have organized these pictures to take you step
by step through the many reasons why this Outlot 1 situation —
has prompted our actions . It is obvious that this Outlot
conflicts with normal property rights of the adjacent owners .
City of Chanhas
September 23 , 19bb
Page Two
Based on the above , the following information is irrelevant except
to prove the status of the outlot prior to the Ordinance :
'- 1 . Attachment 2 , Boyer ' s Sterling Estates Out Lot No. 1 , Easement ,
Use , Condition, Stipulation and Restriction: This document ,
signed by Mr. and Mrs . Boyer on January 26 , 1966 , does not ,
in spite of its title , provide development or use restrictions
other than to establish an easement for all homeowners of
Sterling Estates . This fact was substantiated during the
survey conducted by the City June 4, 1981 .
The width of the lot at the shoreline (approximately 30 feet)
along with the paved road from Dartmouth to the lake would
indicate the proposed use of the site was for watercraft
access only.
2 . Contrary to Mr. Walman' s statement pertaining to the third
boat , Chuck and Dee Emmit moved to 6210 Barbarry Circle on
August 17 , 1982 , making it impossible for the Emmit ' s boat
to be moored at the dock in 1981 . The Contract for Deed
evidencing the sale of the Barbarry residence was recorded
on the Abstract by Carver County on September 7 , 1982 .
(Document 56232)
3 . Mr . Roettger purchased the lot adjoining Lot 1 in 1976 and
began building in 1976 . There was no dock installed until
1979 when Mr. Holloway , without the knowledge or permission
of the other residents of Sterling Estates , installed the
gmeA
current dock. The installation of the dock has rendered
the access useless for other residents including Mr. Roettger.
4. Attachment 3 : These three pictures show the status of the
lot in the years 1980, 1981 and 1983 . Each of these pictures
is taken from Mr. Roettger' s sundeck toward Outlot 1 .
I would appreciate your keeping me advised on the status of our
complaint .
Sincerely,
111.
Mary I oore
Enclosures
. -
- •
•
/292-ez/cel.-Gyz-- 4 ---44-e--2 a/2e.ce.../
,,,6at.7
de2e-
•
•
_ .
I ,
,� ./P8O . • . .
. . (�
' oo1P.E 44i .oc.3 ( E}TC
_: . , _ �.�- e•. • S TIME otoiJE
_ _
_.,,....--is...J..—.----__ . , cc ts 5 e I n)
rI
— • . y , te
•
: ; ..."-'- RO E.TT E. K Lo-i"
r
p •
su_vr\ ry, Le...._ fq ,-1 0/
_ ; _
ihooke
—
- - - .......-L.' ,--- --"---. . -'.•PK-sH,...---,S. _
1
—
iz,/t/e._,/-
%
_ c,L L_,-c t q &3 -
•
, 06cEss IDG ie-- S Ho•coS
_ �_. a-• 8of}-7--s
yx t?=
—--..'"-�! 1-,•i ! ; t+. ' i :' . . : mss --
1i "! i iI
i i tC .#1 1 i I { st
( (4'�; t Iiiii
57 / O 'S
JLALj IgkG -
. _ Srr'us ofsaFrroti
a.
•��'_ i;Q ,^ W/? h A GE 30 -cr
O,a- /-9- ...7- A.1/DE D
(V 1 E ry F-Q.o m oi. z7'UE(Z —
,y. - - - S c,c.ry D Lc K�
- 9 i
. s (.t,Ly l c'f g !o
- "N-OTD S.frOcvs Qb£i7'6 OC,..,k
-', :- s' ;-,. i_ p ru L DT A-
FGC.4.ss .D c5c cT
am.
' - _ R` -F#T D p\oo DGcK
1 To F42 (ZLGj4.-7.. StOE .
____......:. -.• = J� _6/ l P12-0 rn Q,b E.,T'7-6-e_.r
Su-Nn E..G l.`s
- -- - - - 4 - - - — ---- --- - . _ . - _
;1
j -
- - _ - _ _
Me ..
cG- / 'd
----7----e-7,0 p, - 100, ,' _)
i*,'i // /$ 041 PO T-
_ - . .....,_� mum. - C y:.; To `_,)6_57- D F Q TLO T /K
__ = Iy /N OTS -
p 1...)-1-t)
o�J x--E 61._)-40 / V G
_
le. - •=- x --_��� 4Y �N p D hoc
�. 1- : — ,
Mom
- '.
•
•
-
�'A • ..1.• - - � —..k_ -< ' '.
•�`� Fir _� 1
.•_'- - = ,- '-.�� -- �(C SND " � �� 1s
-sem _
-r. , - 14.4..).D1 FT w t . 6 ,
•
N.)v DTE G 2(c.ss U NGu.T
- -
- - - A- N) D w g_t_fls L - c ,
-- . ` — rhoo�- e o,4?--
-7 -z-_---- �- :� ..,; _ C--_ £oc - -D - Ff� 2.
''s
Twin City Medical, Inc.
2344 NICOLLET AVE. S. $60 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55404
(612) 871-3375
June 24, 1987
Jim Hofin
3220 Dartmouth
Excelsior, MN 55331
RE: Dock at Excelsior
Dear Mr. Hofin,
When we purchased our home from Joe Boyer.in 1975, one of the main things
that we were interested in was lake access. Joe pointed out that there
were ten lots not located on the lake front. The out lake access was
in his name and he paid the taxes. Those ten lots were non-lakefront
lots. At that time we purchased four of those lots including the one
that the house was on.
At the time of purchase in 1975, the only two homeowners were Walmans
and ourselves at which point Peter Walman owned a dock. He subsequently
sold that. I purchased a new one and he contributed one half towards _
the purchase of that. Since then, as you are well aware, the lots have •
been developed. During the period of time that I still lived there,
Joe' s son-in-law' s house as well as the white house were built and they
had an opportunity to use that lot although they did not dock a boat. —
The feeling was as the lots were developed and the people wanted to
put a boat in, Peter and I would extend the dock and they would parti-
cipate in the cost of the dock ; installation of it and removal in the
fall . That lot was designed for the use of those non-lakefront home-
owners. It was certainly also used as an access by others to put their
boats in and so forth, but only by the people that lived in that area.
The expenses to have anything done to it were then shared by the non-
lakefront owners.
I hope this helps to clarify your position. If I can be of any more —
help please do not hesitate to call me. Again, in summary, the out
lot was to serve the non-lakefront homeowners designated on those, I
believe, ten lots.
Si : ely,
.
Michael S. Holloway
MHS/jmt
• C34 .-th • _
� •s
C 1:1111;
Arrimr
v.
/ 3arie 3030'1 a Blvd•
183268 M'n MN 55391
\
W k6121 13.1326
luI
17 ti
Jim Hofer
3220 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior , Minnesota 55331
To whom it may concern:
From 1970-1981 I was the resident of 3211 Dartmouth Drive on Lake
Minnewashata. Our lot was purchased from Joe Boyer and our
home was bulit by him. The area directly on our beach had ori-
ginnaly had a dock on it. . We were told however that we probably
could not put a dock there as the cattle had grazed there in
the past and the lake bottom was so mucky. We found posts there
as we built our beach. It was suggested to us at that time that
we would probably have to put our boats over at the access area
as that is where the Boyers kept their boats they 1 '
the old Boutell Estate. The Boyers kept can and -04111/1310 metal boat over at a dock on the acce . e ski nM•oat was
about 18 feet long. Al Schnur ''s family also kept a ki boa
and y. t at the access doc . In later years Mike Holloway
and Pete Aa man enhanced the dock and other boats were kept there .
It was my understanding when we built our home that the access
area wasto be used for the purpose of having the boats for
those who were not directly on thelake . ( Why would anyone build
there if this was not the case) Of course that was the Boyer ' s
idea when they subdividing the land)
As I recall the beach area looked like this picture. ,
Most Sincerely, att4047
11 4
IF
r -
,� �l 1, •�..�
1.41 A _
ON.- \ _
tm'
v.
Oiri VC
--.T._ 3511g1p8 a. N4
\ M� 62k744058
4
August 13, 1986 —
Ail° To Whom it may concern. . . —
I was a resident in Sterling estates for nearly 12 years . The
Builder of my home there was Joe Boyer. We arrived in 1969 —
and were aware of the right of way which was to be used for
those not living directly on the lake.
This is how I remember the dock situation . —
/5,0, , Boutell Estate had a dock there
Boyers put a dock in the place of the old Boutell Pilings . —
'---) Boyer Dock was made of long carpenter boards. .2 wide and then
posts . . . two more and more posts . . . It was rough and went about
three lengths out.
At that time the Boyers kept their boats there. . .one canoe and a —
metal boat they pulled skiers with.
Al Schnur built and moved into what is now Walman ' s home. —
Al kept a ski boat at the wood dock.
Al Shnur sold to Walman.
Boyers moved. Holloway bought. . .the Boyer home —
Mike Holloway expressed the need to make the Dock . . . "Look Good"
Walman and Holloway . . . fixed the crummy dock and had a dock builder
build a "Good Looking" dock at which the boats could be kept.
At one time we (Jim and Janie Jasin were asked to contribute to —
the upkeep and mowing of this right of way since dike the entrance,
we were "All" owners of this strip. We weren't too keen on
doing the upkeep as we felt we had our own shore to work on. —
However we did mow and kethe area raked along what is now Ray Roettge
property. We did this because of the weeds washing ashore. . . the smell
and wanting it to look nice. —
Ray Roettger moved in. He added Rip Rap for his shore and put
giant rocks into the mud to hold the level of lawn.
we experienced lots of washout due to the fact that this entire
area had been low land and the dredging actually was our back —
yard .
Enclosed find pictures of that time.
I did always know however that the property there was to be used i.
by those "off of the Lake"
Sincerely, 4
. ,---__ _,..,.
1
0-pripir 1.- I P1F;
-Prs '1r) ;4-1A
A F XI P 1 I
. ,..•4 i•S)
....
4.
.."ci)
•
!"/ i
u.91
I
r....) 1,..., - k
...../ C.......
.e.....i.c/ \K,
milinumiliiiiiiii
.._...
c,
. . _
•
.. ,„,„,....
, ON
..-.
. -...,, i,......,
•
, 0, .,„.:.. Av /_ 1 •
;; ,'It • 4/11Ft • ' .....4111111- - ••••
....
. .
7 .-A;.•;
- -a
t. •• • li A.-
..
i /..... ,...
.44 • if ..
....-
..... ' tit
sr .
. _-
...
. .
ir. •; •
S._
•
..- (..„,i',..,..:,\
....... • • __:„..__
..4.. .._ . .
..
• .., a ...
., ..
_... •• .. .
, f: '
.....r. :6.. r....: -I
1.• :4" .:......;
,.........
•.. ••.4.
... JOSEPH N H.C• ••
"Oligeirgtar.'. ' ' 2 . .
. _ _......
.......„.......
•
..„.„.-,
..._ „-..._ . . 4 r'
......
. ..
---"' "IPINT.11111111114P.7-ii-1111,17—
t' t-a- ---- ----1--- -••—
.-
• b. . . .
-
• r :Kirla:.; e:- : AEJ, 17,_".5. -. 1
.--.,. -.- -.I:• ..;.::/..4‘171;...•4:•.:. •7 -4
• _ • . •r. . ... =wet. ...„-...-....r-:Amy At• r a. .. ' • -. jr• ......1.8..."6774,..hate..„6. r.t., •I
'uorAmmia....., - •'4..-.,„%,.• I . •
A ...-. -
4..........
. I
,
..,.......:...........„...,„0,,--
. a
I
•.••%• ••:.1 • - f - fr A,
•
• •... .-• -A.-
.....‘ 't,- 1... • - -• • .
• --, - v.fitte a . - - •
. . . • L.,,, ./..' u. °. 's, ii.-- - -?:• ••
-,:- -.P.a.7.1. -- , 4, . „IOW'. . , . diti.V... .".• -4
. .. :. • tl ". ..t„,,„ . " `I _l'Ir; C.• % ,:'-' '• '
-IC* .-41 . - •".- • •%._ •• ..-
..
,••• .-"-...:. :. ‘..t4i .)t • ••• i'r fir ..• /NA' - -.
-• 1.; .".
r - rt ii''''.*•&'
• ••m• V 4.11,,!la - - -a %:.. lc*•It -
. J
., •
.J.-j./ ..
7 1 1 ark
•
ill ••
". :. VII. I:"w411 :
_ Arilid .
Ulli NI."' 1 "A 4•1.-46...
....„,. • ,„,
t EM Ali •- -•14:.:fin
f t _
• 1.4\
-L..'
Z Ilk=Z' •
, so . vs I a - 4 ii • A
...
, • 410,64:.
,,_,..- 1 i''..S. :' .. • * Z.:44jftt. ^ 1114- ..Aril'........--..... _
.- lith-...`'..'i -';'1 •-'41t. ., ..ipt.-
-"
i ..,r,o, •-••••• -- - ' '4;-.77...t., t,• f: ...
- . '--1-".-::::7--N...?'17-:-..."411.411.14.%71%—,11...,.:*•••46-41.. ...1TA.-4. '''' ----.:-.=i*.F--....-. 0,-
. - .
\-----"" , ••• •••• ...1.... _ ..... = -
--...."‘ar . .0.1.C•••.•Z' . . ..„ -r! • - ' a a
as au la la ••"
.-.' ... .--'.••-... ":.714-1.WriERIIiArkttlinter,bs•' .;
-- - • -...." 1.• 4.,• • • Itt,„:40e • I .4-1:10,
I - _.
4j./.
•I
, _I • '
. . Z
,
S94.4.1...,.....>)
/
) 1(
, I /
k iiVi
J l:
.....).1 Of\ • -
\..J „ -/
/ \ ../ ....). 1 '•
,--
.. .../ki
Li
-
• imm
., 14., t•
,....•0... . Z '‘I. P'41:‘: * . - • :
.1
'''...•trNil I 1.76. 1 lii, 4-711?-*-../.4.7f ' * ei• - ..-.„ - ..._
....
. •.... -.,,- „:-. . - , -,-,!...-.-:e,21.'_ ..-.. :V • . .. _
,..yA, r
.. --.-:.-
.-. 111.. . . - • , -
,, - ..., .- • .s...., -...... .. ,f- --- -,-- 'al&a r"AMMO,r:-.:'''. . , ..
a .
-i. , 7\
h._ -. -• -
-i-A • .
r- . a.11 , _4 .. . 4:
...I.:J.1 :4., ,•„ ....,,,„_...e. • . 7. „
I•
-..--•
.. . -3' . •...,...,,_ „„;.:‘ ;, • . , .
y*/) .-..
-6 -:-..• . 'Y...•7"--- •'1.4 - •--; -...:,--4
. ---''-:LA• -- 1 . , - .;
...• `.. . 'N• _.. ... .... .-...,
. ...... , .__
-
I
".---. 4,s1:c:•
..., t._ .. . .. + -."'
•\ ,
_
.
June 22, 1988
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCEEN:
We, Joe AND Eileen Boyer, are the developers of the sub-division
_ known as "Sterling Estates" in the village of Chanhassen.
The 15 acres was purchAsed by us in May of 1964. Situated on it
. was a large stonelhouse which we and our family occupied, and a
carraige house which was used for garage and storage .
After the first year of residence we proceeded to sub-divide the
acreage . It consisted of approval of all plot plans and documents
in both Carver and Hennepin counties. So the final approved sub-
division of 16 lots came about and with each parcel was a deeded
s "Building and Use Restrictions". In the restrictions it was stip-
ulated that each and every homeowner in Sterling Estates has equal
ingress and egress of the lake by way of deeded Outlot which they
were paying property taxes on each year.
In and before 1981 the only off-shore lots sold and occupied were
ours, Joe AND Eileen Boyers, and Alvin and Betty Schnur. We each
built and maintained a dock. We had a 181 Starcraft run-a-bout and
a i4' fishing boat plus a canoe and several other small boats off
and on. Our run-a-bout and fishing boat were docked in the lake
elka s and the canoe and other boats •art time . The Schn r-hi3- a
p easure boat •ocxea there plus various smal .oats . Jim Jason who
built a hone 2 lake front used Schnurs dock 2 summer .is
boats while he was rnishing his shore ine an an scaping.
One of the main purposes for buying and settling in this area was
the availability of the lake, the right of dockage and mooring of
boats, cur deeded part ownership of Outlet 1 which contained 601 of
shoreline originally, as well as the responsibility of paying taxes
and maintaining the Outlet.
With all of this in mind, we stand firm that our intentions as well
as the stipulations in the "Building and Use Restrictions" deszeve
to be honored to the people of this sub-division by the City of
a:_hassen whose council approved the sub-division plans and restrictions
Yours truly,
4.140
,v
, ,�•'ep {.�. .o =rte- I"""
4-4 i
ileen F. Boyer
year lot # name address sent result
68 1-2 Schur no listing -
75 1-2 Wain-tan 6220 Barberry 4/3
75 1-4,5,6,8 Holloway 1172 keystone, Lakeville 4/3 '`L17.3*'"`'' —
77 1-3 Menten 504.5 Shady Is., Shorewood4/3
77 1-1 Martenson no listing -
79 1-3 Adams no listing - —
80 1-1 Shearer 1405 Park, Orono 4/3 ^-��-
80 1-1 Roettger 3221 Dartmouth 4/3
81 1-5;6 Bigos 4820 Hwy 7, SLP 4/3 --
82 1-3 Emmitt no listing -
77 2--2 Carlson 11679 NE 3rd, Blaine 4/3
77 2-1 Roy 3110 Dartmouth 4/3
79 2-2 Peterson 435 Water, Exc, 4/3 —
68 3-4 Mager no listing
69 3-3 Merz 3201 Dartmouth 4/3
69 3-2 Jasin 19108 Clearview, Mtka. 4/3 ' {-y--�
73 3-4 Ointher no listing - —
75 3-5 Fiedler 3121 Dartmouth 4/10
76 3-6 Boche 7213 Gloucester, Edina 4/10
81 3--6 Steinberg 3111 Dartmouth 4/10 afftwi
65 misc Boyer 4/10
..jr.fAdtd
April 3, 1988
_ Dear
The City of Chanhassen has asked us to verify
Ort‘
the level of usage of dock moorings and outlot at
the Sterling Estates outlot in 1981 and before.
Based on this information we may be able to 1
— continue our usage of the outlot.
Therefore I would like to hear from you
about:
— a) any family boats you had moore
there,or
b) if you are aware of other boats t
5:)
were moored there.
If you have any pictures of the outlot or
lakefront taken prior to 1981 I would like to see
them . I will return them to you as soon as / 19villt
- possible.
e36.46,4
Please respond directly to me;
b Jia H��fer •
3220 Dartmouth Dr. 11:;)ia ,/,,.. 4°
/ Excelsior, Mn. 55331
f
(s: The ik you for your time and interest.
Regards, (
,ktill‘117
telpi9i 11611
/....p4 bliellha. t i
.77L,,........)__. . ?
N.
\.:.) 'Pandmii.c.. 4,,...--7-.J 4=:)‘"---- .
Nci.„.L% *
i.),..0.),
tt..1,, i kvp.43
_ ,
. \ %.1fik‘ii OP"401r1C'ek it(
ems►, i
_ 3 c
' '', 7 1111 I. ‘10 reiliglit" \ ' t.,,- • '' '
ke.,, Y
Ilk.-0 I 0 '-::' t:oh to, le...,•:-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ',,,,--* -���.
. �/- Foyer S-f2rtin
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , ,.e y 4 -_ , _
�'��, CAKE
Wednesday, July 7, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. ..,,=1; �.
City Hall Council Chambers �' LAKE 7 —
690 Coulter Drive •t� „ , NNE w A s N T A
w i , REGIONAL
Project: Boyers Sterling Estates l _-1---_____-- —
Non-Conforming Use Permit
jlia ___ .
`r
for a Recreational Beachlot - j r
- ! ' _ r
. F - t
Developer: Boyers Sterling Estates
k
Homeowners Association _ $R ,..„. 4
Location: Lake Minnewashta - = 7-
Notice:
,......______,
Tri.: , ---c-N
You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. Boyers Sterling Estates Homeowners Association has applied for a non- —
conforming use permit for their recreational beachlot.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform —
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps: —
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project. —
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. —
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you —
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson at 937-1900. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department —
in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 24, —
1993.
CHARLES ANDING HELEN M ANDING CHESTER LOBITZ
3631 SO CEDAR 1708 EAST 57TH STREET 3637 SO CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
NICHOLAS F HAWLEY NICHOLAS F HAWLEY ANDREW L JENSEN
1920 SO 1ST STREET 1920 SO 1ST STREET 3705 SO CEDAR
APT 1 APT 1 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55454 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55454
- DAVID HEMPEL BLAKE HORTON CLIFF PEDERSEN
3707 SO CEDAR 3711 SO CEDAR 3713 SO CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RICHARD ANDING KEVIN EIDE TIM SCHWEIZER
3715 SO CEDAR 3719 SO CEDAR BOX 115
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 NORWOOD, MN 55368
WILLIAM HAUGH RAFAEL FERNANDEZ DANIEL HERBST
3727 SO CEDAR 7620 CRIMSON BAY ROAD 7640 CRIMSON BAY ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318
JAMES REYNOLDS PATRICK BAUER FRED C HYDE
7660 CRIMSON BAY ROAD 7404 FRONTER TRAIL 3740 PURITAN DR
CHASKA, MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUNSWICK, OH 44212
- FRED HYDE ROBERT J ROY DONALD SUEKER
109 GOOD LUCK LANE 3110 DARTMOUTH DR 3111 DARTMOUTH DR
s MARS, PA 16046 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JOSEPH FIEDLER TED I BIGOS JOSEPH BOYER
3121 DARTMOUTH DR 3221 HIGHWAY 7 3630 VIRGINIA AVENUE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WAYZATA, MN 55391
JAMES GINTHER THOMAS MERZ STEVE MARTIN
- 3131 DARTMOUTH DR 3201 DARTMOUTH DR 3211 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JOHN WEBER PAULA ROETTGER PAULA S ROETTGER
3220 DARTMOUTH DR 3221 DARTMOUTH DR 3221 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
KURT WEIMER MARVIN ONKEN JAMES THOMPSON
6211 GREENBRIAR 6221 GREENBRIAR 951 PENAMINT COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
RICK AMENT MCINERNY PATRICIA HARLAN WATERHOUSE
6301 GREENBRIAR 6311 GREENBRIAR 6321 GREENBRIAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
C L JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER BAKER OLIVE G SCHMIERER
6331 GREENBRIAR 6340 GREENBRIAR 6341 GREENBRIAR
Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
STEVE EMMINGS ANNALEE HANSON EDWARD MONSER
6350 GREENBRIAR 6400 GREENBRIAR 3920 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE —
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DAVID PETERJOHN EDWARD V. OATHOUT REMAX RESULTS
3921 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE 3940 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE JULIE SAHLEN/SUITE 206
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 277 COON RAPIDS BLVD
COON RAPIDS, MN 55433
SAMUEL POTTS JAMES J MOORE ED PETERSON
3628 HICKORY 3630 HICKORY 2219 ARTHUR STREET NE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55418 _
GREG BOHRER ALFRED SMITH TIMOTHY RAIDT —
3706 HICKORY 3714 HICKORY 3715 HICKORY
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MARVIN YORK TIMOTHY NELSON JOAN E RASK
3716 HICKORY 3724 HICKORY 1030 BRIDGE STREET
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 SHOREVIEW, MN 55126
LOUIS PARSONS SUSAN MORGAN KEVIN GUTZKE
3732 HICKORY 3734 HICKORY 3735 HICKORY
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
K & W PROPERTIES ROY LEACH MICHAEL D TIMM
P.O. BOX 275 3738 HICKORY 3733 HICKORY ROAD
CHASKA, MN 55318 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ARVID OAS MARY J. MOORE WARREN HANSON
3230 DARTMOUTH DR 3231 DARTMOUTH DR 3241 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
SCOTT HANSON KURT WEIMER ANTON GUENTHER
6201 DOGWOOD 6211 DOGWOOD 6221 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
KENNETH HOGAN JEFF STEINKE CHARLES E ELY
6231 DOGWOOD 6240 DOGWOOD 6241 DOGWOOD
-- EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
TOM ADCOX WILLIS MACKLIN TOM HUNTINGTON
6250 DOGWOOD 6251 DOGWOOD 6300 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CARL A. FLOREN ALLEN CLAPP MARK LEITNER
6301 DOGWOOD 6310 DOGWOOD 6311 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MELVIN OESTREICH MICHAEL SAUL AND CARLSON FRANK MITCHELL
6320 DOGWOOD 6321 DOGWOOD 6330 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ALLEN LEIDING ROGER SPENCER MURIEL DRESSLER
6331 DOGWOOD 6340 DOGWOOD 6341 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MICHAEL SCHACHTERLE JOE KASPER ROGER W. OAS
6350 DOGWOOD 411 CIMARRON CIRCLE 7301 DOGWOOD
_ EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ANN OLSON MARTIN JONES JANET M QUIST ETAL
COLDWELL BANKER 7321 DOGWOOD 7331 DOGWOOD
17601 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MINNETONKA, MN 55345
RICHARD LUNDELL JOHN T FOLEY PETER BRANDT
7341 DOGWOOD 80 SO INDIAN ROCKS ROAD 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 BELLEAIR BLUFFS, FL 33540 Excelsior, MN 55331
JOSEPH BOYER THEODORE BIGOS KENNETH C DURR
3630 VIRGINIA AVENUE 3221 HIGHWAY 7 4830 WESTGATE ROAD
WAYZATA, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55345
RICHARD ZWEIG ROBERT W HEBEISEN THOMAS WRIGHT
3601 IRONWOOD 3607 IRONWOOD 3611 IRONWOOD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DONNA HOELKE JOSEPH W MITLYNG SCOTT GAUER
3621 IRONWOOD 3800 LONE CEDAR LANE 3820 LONE CEDAR LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318
JOSEPH STASNEY ARNOLD HED STEPHEN VONBEVERN
3840 LONE CEDAR LANE 3860 LONE CEDAR LANE PO BOX 874
CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ARNOLD HED GARY MECUS JAMES LIPE
3860 LONE CEDAR LANE 3861 LONE CEDAR LANE 3880 LONE CEDAR LANE
CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318
DANIEL HUDSON MICHAEL A JUREWICZ GORDON FREEBURG
3881 LONE CEDAR LANE 3890 LONE CEDAR LANE 3891 LONE CEDAR LANE
CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
DAN PETERJOHN JOEL ANDERSON JOHN FERM
3892 LONE CEDAR LANE 3894 LONE CEDAR LANE 3895 LONE CEDAR LANE
CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318
JEROME S AHLMAN DAVID TESTER TERRANCE JOHNSON
3896 LONE CEDAR LANE 3897 LONE CEDAR LANE 3898 LONE CEDAR LANE —
CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318
JOHN MERZ RAYMOND BERRY GERALD KELLY
3900 LONE CEDAR LANE 3830 MAPLE SHORES DR 3841 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE
CHASKA, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GERALD E BARBER EAGLE FOOD CENTERS INC SCOTT HOWARD
2201 STREET ANDREWS CIRCLE PO BOX 6700 3861 MAPLE SHORES DR
BETTENDORF, IA 52722 ROCK ISLAND, IL 61204 Excelsior, MN 55331
GERALD BARBER SUSAN L JASIN BRADLEY D. STRAKA
2201 STREET ANDREWS CIRCLE 425 CHAN VIEW #312 3881 MAPLE SHORES DR
BETTENDORF, IA 52722 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331
BARBARA SCOULER LANCE PARROW/MARY KRASKY LANCE PARROW
3890 MAPLE SHORES DR 38000 CAMDEN STREET #106 1652 CHURCH LAKE ROAD
Excelsior, MN 55331 FREMONT, CA 94536 VICTORIA, MN 55386
DENNIS W SHAFER KIRK EDWARDS TIM JENZER
3901 MAPLE SHORES DR 3911 MAPLE SHORES DR 3920 MAPLE SHORES DR
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
DAVID B. FREE THOMAS GIESEN KEN DURR
3921 MAPLE SHORES DR 3930 MAPLE SHORES DR 4830 WESTGATE ROAD
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55345
KEN DURR MR DANA JOHNSON TIMOTHY COLLERAN
4830 WESTGATE ROAD 50 PLEASANT LANE W 6560 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
MINNETONKA, MN 55345 TONKA BAY, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
KENNETH LUND CHARLES F. ANDING THOMAS ALLENBURG
395 HWY. 7 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6621 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
DALE MENTEN ZOE BROS JAMES AND JEAN WAY
6630 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6631 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6641 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
LEE ANDERSON JAMES LARKIN ROBERT M. JOSEPHS
6651 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6671 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6701 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
— HARVEY L SOBEL THOMAS MCRAITH DEL SCHOTT
1331 HILLSIDE DR 7028 RED CEDAR COVE 7034 RED CEDAR COVE
RENO, NV 89503 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
PATRICIA A BIXLER AURETHA J SMITH GARY NELSON
7038 RED CEDAR COVE REKORP FINANCIAL 7048 RED CEDAR COVE
Excelsior, MN 55331 PO BOX 343 Excelsior, MN 55331
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379
RALPH KARCZEWSKI WARREN RIETZ DAVID C. PRILLAMAN
7054 RED CEDAR COVE 7058 RED CEDAR COVE 7064 RED CEDAR COVE
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
BERNARD GAYTKO ROBERT E BOYER RED CEDAR COVE ASSN. —
7068 RED CEDAR COVE 7074 RED CEDAR COVE PAT KAREZEWSKI
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 7054 RED CEDAR COVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RED CEDAR COVE ASSN JOHN MANEY DONALD W BITTERMANN
DC PRILLAMAN 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 7085 RED CEDAR COVE
7064 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
LOUIS GUTHMUELLER LURA L GENZ JAMES HOFER
7095 RED CEDAR COVE 7096 RED CEDAR COVE 7098 RED CEDAR COVE _
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
TIMOTHY FISHER RICHARD SCHLENER T.J. SCHWABA
7099 RED CEDAR COVE MINNCAST 3603 RED CEDAR POINT DR
Excelsior, MN 55331 200 NE SO COMMERCE CIR. Excelsior, MN 55331 —
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
DOUG ANDERSON PAUL W LARSON LUMIR PROSHEK
3607 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3609 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3613 RED CEDAR PT.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MARK BROECKERT NANCY RADDOHL EMIL SOUBA
3616 RED CEDAR POINT REMAX RESULTS 14025 VALE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55331 332 SECOND STREET EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 —
STEVE KEUSEMAN ERIC BAUER BIRUTA M. DUNDURS
3622 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3624 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3627 RED CEDAR POINT DR —
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
LINDA JOHNSON TOM PARADISE RICHARD COMER
3629 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3755 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3800 RED CEDAR POINT DR
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
ROBERT OSBORNE BERNARD LEACH EDWARD ALLERMAN
3815 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3820 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3821 RED CEDAR POINT DR
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
-- JAMES GULSTRAND KENNETH SMITH HORACE LEACH
3831 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3837 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3840 RED CEDAR POINT DR
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
KEVIN CLARK GARY COBB LOUIS ZAKARIASEN
3841 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3859 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3861 RED CEDAR POINT DR
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
JAMES CONNOR ROBERT BAUER RONALD STEVENS
3901 RED CEDAR POINT DR 2700 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2720 SANDPIPER TRAIL
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
RICHARD NEWMAN FRANK SCOTT DAVID JAMESON
2721 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2730 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2731 SANDPIPER TRAIL
_ Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
E HARLAN NINOW STEPHEN HUGHES MARK KINNICH
2740 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2741 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2750 SANDPIPER TRAIL
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
_ DOUG ROPER R HINDERAKER HOWARD SCHMIDT
2751 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2800 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2810 SANDPIPER TRAIL
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
TOM SHOENECKER A M WEIMERSKIRCH HENRY NEUMANN
- 2820 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2831 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2841 SANDPIPER TRAIL
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
WILLIAM NAEGELE RALPH HEGMAN BARBARA WINTHEISER
4300 BAKER ROAD 6361 MINNEWASHTA WOODS DR 3321 SHORE DR
- MINNETONKA, MN 55343 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
FLORENCE BISCHOFF WILLIAM MCDANIEL DONALD CARSIK
3331 SHORE DR 3341 SHORE DR 3342 SHORE DR
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
- F DENTON WHITE HENRY ARNESON ANN OLSEN
3351 SHORE DR 3401 SHORE DR COLDWELL BANKERS BEST
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 17601 HIGHWAY 7
s MINNETONKA, MN 55345
RUTH AHLCRONA D POSTHUMUS TUSSEY JODE PROPERTIES —
3420 SHORE DR 3421 SHORE DR 21020 RADISSON ROAD
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DAVE ANDERSON MORRIS MULLIN FRANCIS FABER
3441 SHORE DR 3451 SHORE DR 3471 SHORE DR
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
RICHARD WING PER JACOBSON HERB PFEFFER
3481 SHORE DR 2840 TANAGERS LANE 2850 TANAGERS LANE
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
JIM SENST GENE FURY IVAN MIELKE
2820 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2821 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2830 WASHTA BAY ROAD
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
KRISTEN ORTLIP LESLIE MICHEL JEANNINE HUBBARD
2831 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2840 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2841 WASHTA BAY ROAD
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
HAZEL ANDERSON HARRY NIEMELA JOHN SCHUMACHER _
2851 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD 428 SO MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ST PAUL, MN 55105
WAYNE HOLZER GLADYS FERM NORMAN CASPERSON
2911 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2920 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2921 WASHTA BAY ROAD
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
WILLIAM J KILBY ALAN TOLLEFSON WILLIAM KILBY
2930 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2931 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2930 WASHTA BAY ROAD
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GLENN COPPERSMITH GEORGE HOCK KELLY SHEEHAN
2941 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2950 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2951 WASHTA BAY ROAD
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Ted I. Bigos Robert & J. Roy Steven C. Hall
3221 Hwy. 7 W. 3101 Dartmouth Drive6221 Arbor Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
— Paula S. RoengerStephen & Karen Martin James & C. Ginther ),t).11)(j.ot.
3221 Dartmouth Drive 4 3211 Dartmouth Drive 3131 Dartmouth Driv
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Joseph & Susan Fiedler Donald & Cherlyn Sueker , N Joseph & E. Boyee
— 3121 Dartmouth Drive h, 3111 Dartmouth Drive •I 3630 Virginia v�C e.
Excelsior, MN 55331 y yJ'{' Excelsior, MN 55331 1 Wayzata, MN 55391 1
N
John & Lori WeberPeter & J. Walman William & Mary Readel
— 3220 Dartmouth Drive 6220 Barberry Circle 6210 Barberry Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331vci Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Michael & Marie Determan
6211 Barberry Circle
— Excelsior, MN 55331
} CITY OF
CHANEASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: July 1, 1993
SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Landscaping Regulations
Attached is the proposed recommendations to the landscaping ordinance. These changes are
based largely on the Target site plan. The City Council directed staff to use the parking lot
landscaping standards as the new minimum for future development. In addition, overstory trees
have been included as a requirement. Other changes to the ordinance will be made when the tree
preservation ordinance as part of the subdivision regulations is reviewed by Planning Commission
and City Council.
tot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
DIVISION 2. TREE PRESERVATION —
Sec. 20-1178. Generally.
(a) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and
with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands
which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. —
(b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdivision,
planned unit development or site plan application. —
(c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas.
(2) Healthy shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper at four (4) feet in height
shall be saved unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to
develop the site. —
3) Replacement of trees approved for removal by the city may be required on a
caliper inch-per-caliper-inch basis. At minimum, however, replacement trees shall —
conform to the planting requirement identified in division 3 of this article.
(4) During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of —
public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be --
saved.
(6) Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means —
acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground
footprint of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur —
within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start
of grading activity.
(7) Trees designated for preservation that are lost due to construction activity shall be
replaced by new compatible trees approved by the city. The city will require the
developer to replace these trees with the largest comparable trees that are commer-
cially available for transportation.
(8) At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect _
designated tree preservation areas.
1
The above section will be amended with the adoption of the Tree Preservation
Ordinance proposed for subdivision.
DIVISION 3. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
Sec. 20-1179. Landscape budget.
(a) Landscaping shall be provided that meets the minimum landscaping budget provided
in the table below.
Project value* Minimum Landscape Value**
(FIs building construction, site (Is the minimum landscape value and shall
preparation, and the site improvements) include only expenditures on trees and
plant material excluding sod or seed)
Below $1,000,000 2%
$1,000,001- 2,000,000 20,000 + 1% of project value in excess of
$1,000,000
2,000,001- 3,000,000 $30,000 + 0.75% of project value in excess
of $2,000,000
3,000,001- 4,000,000 $37,500 + 0.25% of project value in excess
of $3,000,000
Over $4,000,000 1%
(b) At the city's discretion, the value of tree preservation may be utilized to offset
landscaping requirements. (Tree preservation as described in the proposed subdivision
amendment.)
Sec. 20-1180. Screening for visual impacts.
(a) Visual impacts must be screened or buffered as required by the city. These shall
include, but not be limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, interior lot areas
and perimeters, outdoor storage areas, large unadorned building massing, garage doors
associated with auto-oriented uses and vehicular stacking areas for drive-through uses.
2
(1) Required screening or buffering for any visual impact may be achieved with
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. All walls and fences
shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. The use of wooden
screen fences or chain link fences equipped with slats is prohibited. Earth berms shall
not exceed a slope of 3:1 unless provided with landscaping designed to minimize
maintenance. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide
effective visual barrier during all seasons.
(2) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use,
building, facility or structure to be screened. No landscape screening shall be located
on any public right-of-way or within eight (8) feet of the traveled portion of any street
or highway.
(3) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to
accomplish the goals of this section. Height of plantings required under this section
shall be measured at the time of installation.
(b) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the
requirements of this subdivision:
(1) Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory
thereto located in any business, industrial or planned unit development district
containing nonresidential uses shall be buffered screened from lots used for
any residential purpose.
(2) Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory —
thereto located in any R4, R8, R12, R16 district or planned unit development
district containing residential development at densities exceeding four (4) units
per acre shall be buffered from lots located in any Al, A2, RR or RSF district.
(3) Additional buffer yard requirements are established by the city
comprehensive plan and listed in individual district standards.
(4) Outside storage in any district subject to these provisions and allowed by
other provisions of this ordinance, shall be screened from all public views.
Sec. 20-1181. Vehicular areas.
(a) Parking lot perimeters where vehicular areas, including driveways and drive aisles,
are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or structure from any abutting
right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping designed to buffer direct views of cars and
hard surface areas. The goal of this section is to break up expanses of hard surface areas,
help to visually define boulevards and soften direct views of parking areas and provide for
reforestation with overstory tree from the approved tree species list.
3
(b) Interior landscaping for vehicular use areas:
(1) Any open vehicular use areas - -- . ••- • :, - ••• :, •••- - • •• -• -
IOP and BG districts) containing more than six thousand (6,000) square feet of area, or
twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in
accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping
may be peninsular or island types.
(2) For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area,
five (5) eight (8) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided.
(3) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty four (64) two hundred
(200) square feet, with a four ten foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of
pavement where vehicles overhang.
_ (4) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be properly dispersed, no re-
quired landscape area shall be larger than three hundred fifty (350) square feet in vehicular
use areas under thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. In both cases, the least dimension of
any required area shall be four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement
where vehicles overhang. Landscape areas larger than above are permitted as long as the
additional areas are in excess of the required minimum.
(5) A minimum of one (1) tree shall be required for each two hundred fifty (250)
square feet or fraction thereof, of required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of at
least five (5) feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs,
or ground cover (not to include rocks or gravel), not to exceed two (2) feet in height.
(6) Parked vehicles may hang over the interior landscape area no more than two and
one-half (21/2) feet, as long as a concrete curb is provided to ensure no greater overhang or
penetration of the landscape area.
(7) All landscaped areas shall be protected by concrete curbing.
Sec. 20-1182. Foundation and aesthetic plantings.
(a) Landscaping plans shall provide for an appropriate mix of plantings around the
exterior footprint of all buildings. The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of
the structures and, where necessary, break up large unadorned building elevations. These
plantings are not intended to obscure views of the building or accessory signage.
(b) All undeveloped areas of the site, excluding protected wetlands and tree
preservation areas, shall be seeded or sodded. In addition, an appropriate mix of trees and
4
other plant material shall be provided to create an aesthetically pleasing site.
(c) Boulevard and streetscape plantings Where undeveloped or open areas of a site
are located adjacent to public right-of-way, the plan shall provide for over-story boulevard
trees. A minimum of one (1) tree for every thirty (30) feet of frontage is required. The city
may approve alternatives if it meets the intent of the ordinance from approved tree species
list.
Sec. 20-1183. Landscaping materials.
(a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following:
(1) Walls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of natural stone, brick or other
appropriate materials. Fences shall be constructed of wood. Chain link fencing will be
permitted only if covered with plant material or otherwise screened.
2) Earth berms. Earth berms shall be physical barriers which block or screen the
view similar to a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be constructed with proper and
adequate plant material to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation between areas requiring
screening does not constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not be considered as
fulfilling any screening requirement.
(3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living plants; artificial plants are prohibited.
Plant materials shall meet the following requirements:
a. Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an average crown spread of greater than _
fifteen (15) feet and having trunk(s) which can be maintained with over five (5) feet
of clear wood in areas which have visibility requirements, except at vehicular use area
intersections where an eight-foot clear wood requirement will control. Trees having an
average mature spread of crown less than fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by
grouping of the same so as to create the equivalent of a fifteen foot crown spread. A
minimum of ten (10) feet overall height or minimum caliper (trunk diameter, measured
six (6) inches above ground for trees up to four (4) inches caliper) of at least two and
one-half (212) inches immediately after planting shall be required. Trees of species
whose roots are known to cause damage to public roadways or other public works
shall not be placed closer than fifteen (15) feet to such public works, unless the tree
root system is completely contained within a barrier for which the minimum interior
containing dimensions shall be five (5) feet square and five (5) feet deep and for
which the construction requirements shall be four (4) inches thick, reinforced concrete.
Trees shall be selected from the approved list of tree species.
b. Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high with a
minimum caliper of one and one-half (11/) inches when planted.
5
c. Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average
height when planted, and shall conform to the opacity and other requirements within
four (4) years after planting Evergreen shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average
height and two (2) feet in diameter.
d. Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and are generally
used in conjunction with walls or fences.
e. Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted in species normally grown as
permanent lawns, and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or seeded; except in swales
or other areas subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion reducing net, or suitable
mulch shall be used, nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate protection until
complete coverage otherwise is achieved. Grass sod shall be clean and free of weeds
and noxious pests or diseases. Ground cover such as organic material shall be planted
in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and seventy-five (75) percent of
complete coverage after two (2) complete growing seasons, with a maximum of fifteen
(15) inches on center. In certain cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks,
pebbles, sand and similar approved materials.
f. Retaining. Retaining walls exceeding five (5) feet in height, including stage walls
which cumulatively exceed five (5) in height, must be constructed in accordance with
plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect of brick, concrete or
natural stone. Artificial material may be approved if appropriate.
DIVISION 4. MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION
Sec. 20-1184. Generally.
The owner, assigns, tenant, and their respective agents shall be held jointly and severally
responsible to maintain their property and landscaping as approved with the official site
plan in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse
and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape
plan and which have died shall be replaced within three (3) months of notifications by the
city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine (9) months by the
director of planning in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions.
Sec. 20-1186--20-1260. Reserved.
6
List of Desireable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen means the following list
of tree species.
List of Desireable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen
Key to notations used:
ST = Relatively tolerant to deicing salt
DT = Relatively tolerant to drought or dry sites
Size: (in terms of expected mature height)
L = Large (over 50 feet)
M = Medium (between 25 to 50 feet)
S = Small (less than 25 feet)
Blvd= Suitable for boulevard planting
Suitable Tree Species
Broadleaf Species Size TOLERANCE LOCATION Notes
Norway Maple M-L ST BLVD Protect from sunscald
Acer plaranoides
Sugar Maple L BLVD Protect from sunscald.
Acer saccharum Prefers heavy, moist
soils. Shade tolerant.
Red Maple NI BLVD Protect from sunscald.
Acer rubrum Grows best on moist.,
acid soils.
Hackberry L DT ST
. Celtis occidentalis
: Honeylocust M-L ST BLVD Protect from sunscald.
Gleditsia Thornless varieties
triacanrhos popular
Kentucky L DT BLVD
.
Coffeetree
Gymnocladu-s
dioicus
4
Black Walnut L
Juglans nigra
White Oak L
Quercus alba
Bur Oak L DT ST BLVD
Quercus
macrocarpa
Red Oak L ST BLVD
Quercus rubra
Swamp White L Relatively tolerant of wet
Oak sites
Quercus bicolor
Ohio Buckeye M BLVD
Aesculus glabra
River Birch M Relatively tolerant of wet
Betula nigra sites
Northern Catalpa M-L DT
Catalpa speciosa
Ginkgo M BLVD Male trees only
Ginkgo biloba
Ironwood M Grows well under shade •
Ostrya virginiana of other trees
Mountain Ash M BLVD Protect from sunscald
Sorbus spp.
Littleleaf Linden M BLVD
Tilia chordata
American Linden L BLVD A.K.A Basswood;
Tilia americana Relatively tolerant of wet
sites
Amur Maple S Shade tolerant.
Acer ginnala
Hawthorn S DT ST Thornless varieties
Crataegus spp. available
5
Japanese Tree S ST BLVD
Lilac
- Syringa amurensis
' japonica
Shagbark Hickory L DT
Carya ovata
Amur Corktree S DT
Phellodendron
amurense
Black Locust L DT
1 Robinta
psuedoacacia
Flowering S BLVD Many varieties available;
crabapple check for disease
Malas spp. resistance; protect from
sunscald
Conifers
Austrian Pine L
Pinus nigra
Red Pine L DT State tree
Pinus resin osa
Norway Spruce L
Picea abies
White Spruce L
Picea glauca
Black Hills Spruce >`i
Picea glauca
densata
White Fir M DT
Abies concolor
Balsam Fir M Relatively tolerant of wet
Abies balsamea sites. Shade tolerant.
6
Colorado Spruce M
Picea pungens
Tamarack M Tolerant of wet sites.
Larix laricina Only conifer that drops
its needles each year in
fall.
American
Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1993, by the City
Council of the City of Chanhassen.
ATTEST:
•
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on .)
7
CITY OF
*‘11 CILANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner r.:0
DATE: June 29, 1993
SUBJ: Landscaping Requirements for Residential Lots
The Tree Board has requested that the requirements for landscaping of single family lots be
increased from one (1) tree/lot to two (2) trees/lot. They recommended that the trees be located
in the front yard and that they be of the type of specimen preferred by the city (see list). This
issue was before the Planning Commission and City Council in 1991. At that time, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of increasing the number of required trees/lot from one (1)
to three (3). The City Council also approved the three trees/lot at the first reading of the
ordinance amendment, but changed it back to one tree/lot before approving the second and final
reading of the ordinance. The main reason that the ordinance did not pass with the requirement
of three trees/lot was due to the increased cost which would be passed on to the homeowner.
As staff was reviewing this item again the following issues were taken into account:
TREE BOARD GOALS
1. One of the main goals of the Tree Board is to provide preservation and reforestation of
trees within Chanhassen. The Tree Board is working on an amendment to the Tree
Preservation Ordinance, which the Planning Commission will be reviewing in the near
future. This ordinance will significant upgrade our ability to protect existing trees. The
recent review of Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition is a good comparable to use to visualize
the approach and its effect. Increasing the number of trees required/lot is a means of
reforesting Chanhassen. Therefore, these two ordinance amendments are working towards
two of the Tree Board's goals.
INCREASED COST
2. Increasing the number of required trees/lot increases the cost to the developer, builder,
and as we most often see, to the homeowner. Currently, an escrow of $750 is required
%.; PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
June 29, 1993
Page 2
for one tree and sod. The cost of two trees and sod would increase the total cost to
$1,000. A main concern of the proposed amendment is that $1,000 for landscaping may
be too much for a new homeowner to accommodate.
SUITABILITY OF TWO FRONT YARD TREES PER LOT
When thinking solely of reforesting Chanhassen, the proposed amendment works well. The city
would gain two overstory trees with each new residential lot and the tree types are replacing
much of our original stock of trees. But we must also look at how it is actually going to work
on the type of lots being created in Chanhassen. Some of the subdivisions being proposed are
PVDs, which contain smaller lot sizes. Also, we are preserving a larger number of existing trees
during the approval process. Will two overstory trees, which will be quite large once they reach
maturity, fit within the smaller front yards? Another question is, does the homeowner deserve
any say in the type of tree(s) which will be in their front yard? Some homeowners may prefer
evergreens, ornamentals, oaks vs. maples, etc. A final question is whether there is another way
to accommodate reforestation. Any alternatives which are reviewed should do the following:
1. Result in reforestation of Chanhassen with recommended tree types.
2. Have the developer bear the cost, not the homeowner.
3. Allow the homeowner the flexibility to landscape their home as they wish.
ALTERNATIVE #1
Boulevard planting. The statement "Boulevard Planting" has been almost considered taboo
around City Hall, but with careful planning and the input of the Engineering and Public Works
Departments, it can be successful. The types of trees listed by the city as preferred specimens
are most suitable as boulevard trees. They reach a large size, provide the desired overstory
effect, are healthy in boulevard settings, and replace the types of trees which existed in
Chanhassen. The city may want to consider requiring the developer to submit a boulevard
planting plan which contains the recommended species. Planning staff will have to work out the
details on location, number required, maintenance, etc. If done correctly, the boulevard plantings
will work towards the reforestation goal, and allow the homeowner the flexibility to decide on _
their own landscaping. (The requirement of one tree/lot will remain, but we can increase the
city's list to include more conifers, ornamental, etc. to accommodate the residents' desires.
ALTERNATIVE #2
Reforestation plan. With each development, a reforestation plan could be required. The
reforestation plan would take into account what vegetation exists, what type of species should
be used at that location and what areas need to be reforested (perhaps a stand of trees could be
Planning Commission
June 29, 1993
Page 3
planted for the use and benefit of all rather than individual trees). Staff will have to work on a
minimum requirement for the reforestation plan (for example, the minimum number of trees
required).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission as to which alternative to pursue,
increasing the number of trees/lot, boulevard planting, reforestation plans or any others suggested
by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission feels increasing the number of
trees/lot is appropriate, staff has attached an amended ordinance for your approval. Should the
Planning Commission wish to pursue another alternative, staff suggests that the alternative be sent
back to the Tree Board to work out the details.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE —
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Section 18-61, of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
Section 18-61. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements.
(a) Required Landscaping/Residential Subdivision —
1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in
the front yard. The type of tree shall be overstory, selected from the list
of deciduous trees provided herein. Trees must be at least 21/2 inches in
diameter at the time of installation. This requirement may be waived by
the city when the applicant can demonstrate that a suitable tree having a —
minimum diameter of 21/2 inches for deciduous and 6 foot height for
evergreen and 4 feet above the ground is located in an appropriate location
on the lot. The following trees may be used to meet planting —
requirements.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of
, 1993.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor —
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1993.)
CITYOF
I --
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM ‘,/ i71t
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager u- - q r
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner -'
DATE: October 24 , 1991
is Ji , r
SUBJ: Revised Landscaping Ordinance - ZOA #90-6
The proposed landscaping ordinance was reviewed at the last City
Council meeting on October 14 , 1991, and was continued on the
informal City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 15 , 1991. There
was some confusion as to what the official action of the Council
was . The ordiance is back on this agenda for a second reading and
formal action.
Attached is a proposed summary for publication purposes which
should be approved along with the amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Ordinance amendment
2 . Ordinance summary for publication.
IS
tili PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 AND CHAPTER 20 OF THE _
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1 . Article XXV, Chapter 20, of the Chanhassen City Code is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Article XXV
Landscaping and Tree Removal
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Section 20-1176 . Intent, scope and compliance.
(a) The intent of this article is to improve the appearance
of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way;
to require buffering between non-compatible land uses; and to _
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and
value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health
and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution,
visual pollution and glare. —
(b) This article does not apply to single family detached
residences in the A-1, A-2 , RR and RSF zoning districts which are —
regulated by landscaping requirements contained in the Subdivision
Ordinance.
(c) No new site development, building, structure or vehicular
use area is allowed, unless landscaping is provided as required in
this article.
(d) No property lines shall be altered nor shall any
building, structure or vehicular use area be expanded, unless the
minimum landscaping required by the provisions of this article is —
provided for the entire property.
(e) The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for —
visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not
limited to:
o truck loading areas; —
o trash storage;
o parking lots, interior lot areas and perimeters;
large unadorned building massing;
o garage doors associated with auto oriented uses; and
o vehicular stacking areas for drive through uses
1
(f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and
low intensity uses and between a site and major streets and
highways and in areas where buffering is required by the
Comprehensive Plan.
(g) The City shall encourage reforestation through boulevard
and streetscape planting.
(h) Mature stands of trees shall be preserved.
(i) Reforestation shall be pursued as appropriate.
Section 20-1177 . Plan Submission; Time of Completion ; Financial
Guarantees .
The property owner or developer shall prepare a landscape plan
drawn by a registered landscape architect or other professional
acceptable to the city for review by the city. The city shall
apply the following conditions in approval or disapproving the
plan :
(1) The contents of the plan shall include the following:
a . Plot plan, drawn to an easily readable scale,
showing and labelling by name and dimensions, all
existing and proposed property lines, easements,
buildings, and other structures, vehicular use
areas (including parking stalls, driveways, service
areas, square footage) , water outlets and landscape
material (including botanical name and common name,
installation size, on center planting dimensions
where applicable, and quantities for all plants
used) .
b. Typical elevations and/or cross sections as may be
required .
c . Title block with the pertinent names and addressed
(property owner, person drawing plan , and person
installing landscape material) , scale date, north
arrow (generally orient plan so that north is to
top of plan) , and zoning district.
d. Existing landscape material shall be shown on the
required plan and any material in satisfactory
condition may be used to satisfy this article in
whole or in part.
2
(2) Where landscaping is required, no building permit shall
be issued until the required landscaping plan has been
submitted and approved, and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until the landscaping is completed as certified by
an on-site inspection by the building inspector, unless a
financial guarantee acceptable to the city has been submitted.
(3) When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements
to property are required by this ordinance, a letter of credit
or cash escrow shall be supplied by the owner in an amount
equal to at least one hundred ten (110) percent of the value
of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The
security must be satisfactory to the city and shall be
conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the —
city for engineering, legal or other fees in connection with
making or completing such improvements. The guarantee shall
be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and —
shall be valid for a period of time equal to one (1) full
growing season after the date of installation of the
landscaping. In the event construction of the project is not
completed within the time prescribed by building permits and —
other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the
work required at the expense of the owner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for
completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to
conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the
developer. Extensions which may not exceed nine (9) months,
may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an
extension is granted, the city shall require such additional
security as it deems appropriate. —
DIVISION 2 . TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS . —
Section 20-1178 . Generally.
(a) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland
areas throughout the city and with respect to specific site
development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands
which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted
except as approved in a subdivision, planned unit development or —
site plan application.
(c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating
subdivisions and site plans:
(1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve
significant woodland areas. —
3
(2 ) Healthy shade trees of six (6) inches or more
caliper at four (4) feet in height shall be saved
unless it can be demonstrated that there is no
other feasible way to develop the site.
(3) Replacement of trees approved for removal by the
city may be required on a caliper inch per caliper
inch basis . At minimum, however, replacement trees
shall conform to the planting requirement
identified in Division 3 of this article.
(4) During the removal process, trees shall be removed
so as to prevent blocking of public rights-of-way
or interfering with overhead utility lines.
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is
permissible only if they cannot be saved.
(6) Trees designated for preservation shall be
protected by snow fence or other means acceptable
to the city. Protective measures must be located
at or beyond the ground footprint of the tree ' s
crown. No fill material or construction activity
shall occur within these areas. These measures
must be in place and inspected prior to the start
of grading activity.
(7) Trees designated for preservation that are lost due
to construction activity shall be replaced by new
compatible trees approved by the city. The city
will require the developer to replace these trees
with the largest comparable trees that are
commercially available for transportation .
(8) At the city ' s discretion, conservation easements
may be required to protect designated tree
preservation areas.
DIVISION 3 . LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
Section 20-1179 . Landscape Budget.
(a) Landscaping shall be provided that meets the minimum
landscaping budget provided in the table below.
4
PROJECT VALUE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE
VALUE
(Including building construction,
site preparation, and site improvements)
Below $1, 000, 000 2%
$1, 000, 001 - $2 , 000,000 $20, 000 + 1% of
Project Value in —
excess of
$1, 000, 000
$2 , 000, 001 - $3 , 000,000 $30, 000 + 0.75% —
of Project
Value in excess
of $2 , 000, 000 —
$3 , 000, 001 - $4 , 000, 000 $37, 500 + 0. 25%
of Project
Value in excess
of $3 , 000, 000
Over $4 , 000, 000 1% —
At the city' s discretion, the value of tree preservation may be
utilized to offset landscaping requirements. —
Section 20-1180. Screening for Visual Impacts.
(a) Visual impacts must be screened or buffered as required —
by the city. These shall include, but not be limited to, truck
loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, interior lot areas and
perimeters, outdoor storage areas, large unadorned building —
massing, garage doors associated with auto oriented uses and
vehicular stacking areas for drive-thru uses.
1) Required screening or buffering for any visual impact may
be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or
other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall
be architecturally harmonious with the principal —
building. The use of wooden screen fences or chain link
fences equipped with slats is prohibited. Earth berms
shall not exceed a slope of 3 : 1 unless provided with —
landscaping designed to minimize maintenance. The screen
shall be designed to employ materials which provide an
effective visual barrier during all seasons.
5 —
2) All required screening or buffering shall be located on
the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or
structure to be screened. No landscape screening shall
be located on any public right-of-way or within eight (8)
feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway.
3) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be
of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this
section. Height of plantings required under this section
shall be measured at the time of installation.
(b) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
1) Principal buildings and structures and any building
or structure accessory thereto located in any
business, industrial or planned unit development
district containing non-residential uses shall be
buffered from lots used for any residential
purpose.
2) Principal buildings and structures and any building
or structure accessory thereto located in any R4 ,
R8 , R12 , R16 District or planned unit development
district containing residential development at
densities exceeding 4 units per acre shall be
buffered from lots located in any Al, A2 , RR or RSF
District.
3) Additional buffer yard requirements are established
by the City Comprehensive Plan and listed in
individual district standards.
4 ) Outside storage in any district subject to these
provisions and allowed by other provisions of this
ordinance, shall be screened from all public views.
Section 20-1181 . Vehicular Areas.
(a) Parking lot perimeters where vehicular areas, including
driveways and drive aisles, are not entirely screened visually by
an intervening building or structure from any abutting right-of-
- way, there shall be provided landscaping designed to buffer direct
views of cars and hard surface areas. The goal of this section is
to break up expanses of hard surface areas, help to visually define
boulevards and soften direct views of parking areas.
(b) Interior Landscaping for Vehicular Use Areas :
1) Any open vehicular use are (excluding loading,
unloading, and storage areas in IOP and BG
Districts) containing more than six thousand
6
(6, 000) square feet of area, or twenty (20) or more -
vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior
landscaping in accordance with this division in
addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior
landscaping may be peninsular or island types.
2 ) For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction
thereof, of vehicular use area, five (5) square
feet of landscaped area shall be provided.
3) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be
sixty-four (64) square feet, with a four foot
minimum dimension to all trees from edge of
pavement where vehicles overhang.
4) In order to encourage the required landscape areas
to be properly dispersed, no required landscape
area shall be larger than three hundred fifty (350)
square feet in vehicular use areas under thirty
thousand (30, 000) square feet. In both cases, the
least dimension of any required area shall be four-
foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of
pavement where vehicles overhang. Landscape areas
larger than above are permitted as long as the
additional areas are in excess of the required
minimum.
5) A minimum of one (1) tree shall be required for
each two hundred fifty (250) square feet or
fraction thereof, of required landscape area .
Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least five (5) _
feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall
be landscaped with shrubs , or ground cover (not to
include rocks or gravel) , not to exceed two (2 )
feet in height.
6) Parked vehicles may hang over the interior
landscape area no more than two and one-half (2 ) -
feet, as long as a concrete curb is provided to
ensure no greater overhang or penetration of the
landscaped area .
7) All landscaped areas shall be protected by concrete
curbing.
Section 20-1182 . Foundation and Aesthetic Plantings.
(a) Landscaping plans shall provide for an appropriate mix of
plantings around the exterior footprint of all buildings. The
intent of this section is to improve the appearance of the
structures and, where necessary, break up large unadorned building -
7
elevations. These plantings are not intended to obscure views of
the building or accessory signage.
(b) All undeveloped areas of the site, excluding protected
wetlands and tree preservation areas, shall be seeded or sodded.
In addition, an appropriate mix of trees and other plant material
shall be provided to create an aesthetically pleasing site.
(c) Where undeveloped or open areas of a site are located
adjacent to public right-of-way, the plan shall provide for over-
story boulevard trees. A minimum of one (1) tree for every thirty
(30) feet of frontage is required. The City may approve
alternatives if it meets the intent of the ordinance.
Section 20-1183 . Landscaping Materials.
(a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following :
(1) Walls and fences . Walls shall be constructed of
natural stone, brick or other appropriate
materials . Fences shall be constructed of wood.
Chain link fencing will be permitted only if
covered with plant material or otherwise screened.
(2) Earth berms. Earth berms shall be physical
barriers which block or screen the view similar to
a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be
constructed with proper and adequate plant material
to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation
between areas requiring screening does not
constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not
be considered as fulfilling any screening
requirement.
(3 ) Plants. All plant materials shall be living
plants ; artificial plants are prohibited. Plant
materials shall meet the following requirements:
a) Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an
average mature crown spread of greater than
fifteen (15) feet and having trunk(s) which
can be maintained with over five (5) feet of
clear wood in areas which have visibility
requirements, except at vehicular use area
intersections where an eight (8) foot clear
wood requirement will control . Trees having
an average mature spread of crown less than
fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by
grouping of the same so as to create the
equivalent of a fifteen (15) foot crown
spread. A minimum of ten (10) feet overall
height or minimum caliper (trunk diameter,
8
measured six (6) inches above ground for trees
up to four (4) inches caliper) of at least two
and one-half (2=2) inches immediately after _
planting shall be required. Trees of species
whose roots are known to cause damage to
public roadways or other public works shall
not be placed closer than fifteen (15) to such
public works, unless the tree root system is
completely contained within a barrier for
which the minimum interior containing -
dimensions shall be five (5) feet square and
five (5) feet deep and for which the
construction requirements shall be four (4) _
inches thick, reinforced concrete.
b) Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a
minimum of six (6) feet high with a minimum -
caliper of one and one-half (1=2) inches when
planted.
c) Shrubs and hedges . Deciduous shrubs shall be
at least two (2) feet in average height when
planted, and shall conform to the opacity and
other requirements within four (4) years after
planting. Evergreen shrubs shall be at least
two (2) feet in average height and two (2)
feet in diameter. -
d) Vines . Vines shall be at least twelve (12 )
inches high at planting, and are generally _
used in conjunction with walls or fences.
e) Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted
in species normally grown as permanent lawns,
and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or
seeded; except in swales or other areas
subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion -
reducing net, or suitable mulch shall be used,
nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate
protection until complete coverage otherwise
is achieved. Grass sod shall be clean and
free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases.
Ground cover such as organic material shall be
planted in such a manner as to present a
finished appearance and seventy-five (75)
percent of complete coverage after two (2)
complete growing seasons, with a maximum of -
fifteen (15) inches on center. In certain
cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks,
pebbles, sand and similar approved materials.
9
f) Retaining walls exceeding five (5) feet in
height, including stage walls which
cumulatively exceed five (5) feet in height,
must be constructed in accordance with plans
prepared by a registered engineer or landscape
architect of brick, concrete or natural stone.
Artificial material may be approved if
appropriate.
DIVISION 4 . MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION.
Section 20-1184 . Generally.
The owner, tenant, and their respective agents shall be held
jointly and severally responsible to maintain their property and
landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly
appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground
cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and
which have died shall be replaced within three (3) months of
notifications by the city. However, the time for compliance may be
extended up to nine (9) months by the director of planning in order
— to allow for seasonal or weather conditions .
Section 2 . Section 18-61 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read:
Section 18-61 . Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements .
(a) Required Landscaping/Residential Subdivision
1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one
( 1) tree to be placed in the front yard. The type
of tree shall be overstory, selected from the list
of deciduous trees provided herein. Trees must be
at least 21/2 inches in diameter at the time of
installation. This requirement may be waived by
the city when the applicant can demonstrate that a
suitable tree having a minimum diameter of 2'
inches for deciduous and 6 foot height for
evergreen and 4 feet above the ground is located in
an appropriate location on the lot. The following
trees may be used to meet planting requirements .
10
Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees Common Name
Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar or hard
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Quercus alba Oak, White
Quercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor
Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur
Tilia americana Linden, American
Secondary Deciduous Trees
Acer platanoides 'Cleveland' Maple, Cleveland Norway
Acer platanoides 'Columnar' Maple, Columnar
Acer platanoides 'Crimson King' Maple, Crimson King
Acer platanoides 'Emerald Lustre' Maple, Emerald Lustre Norway
Acer platanoides 'Emerald Queen' Maple, Emerald Queen Norway
Acer platanoides 'Jade Glen' Maple, Jade Glen
Acer platanoides Schwedler' Maple, Schwedler Norway
Acer platanoides 'Superform' Maple, Superform Norway
Acer platanoides 'Variegatum' Maple, variegated Norway
Acer rubrum Maple, Red
Acer rubrum 'Northwood' Maple, Northwood Red
Acer saccaharinum 'Silver Queen' Maple, Silver Queen
Betula papryiter Birch, paper
Betula pendula icciminta Birch, cut leaf weeping
Fraxinus americana Ash, White
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ash, Marshall's Seedless
Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis Honeylocust, thornless _
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis 'Imperial' Honeylocust, Imperial
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis 'Skyline' Honeylocust, Skyline
Gymnocladus dioica Coffeetree, Kentucky
Ornamental
Acer innala Maple, Amur
Ame/anchier Serviceberry or Juneberry
Malus bacata columnaris Crabapple, Columnar Siberian -
Malus (various species) Crabapple, flowering - Varieties: Dolgo,
Flame, Radiant, Red, Silver, Red Spendor
Prunus 'Newport' Plum, Newport
Prunus triloba Plum, flowering or Rose Tree of China
Prunus virginiana 'Schubert' Chokeberry, Schuberts
Rhamnus frangula 'Columnaris' Buckthorn, Tallhedge
11
Syringa amurensis japonica Lilac, Japanese tree
Tilia cordata Linden, Littleleaf
Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' Linden, Greenspire
Tilia x euchlora 'Redmond' Linden, Redmond
Conifers
Abies balsamea Fir, Balsam
Abies concolor Fir, Concolor
Picea abies Spruce, Norway
Picea glauca Spruce, White
Picea gauca densata Spruce, Black Hills
Picea pungens Spruce, Colorado Green
Picea pungens glauca Spruce, Colorado Blue
Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian
Pinus ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa
Pinus resinosa Pine, Norway
Pinus strobus Pine, White
Pious sylvestris Pine, Scotch
Pseudotsuga Menziesii Fir, Douglas
Thuja occidentalis Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis Techney Arborvitae
2 ) The tree must be installed prior to receiving a
certificate of occupancy or financial guarantees
_ acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure
timely installation.
3) All areas disturbed by site grading and/or
construction must be seeded or sodded immediately
upon completion of work to minimize erosion. When
certificates of occupancy are requested prior to
the satisfaction of this requirement, financial
guarantees acceptable to the city, must be
provided.
4 ) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after
development. On-site burial is not permitted.
5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the
subdivision shall be required by the city when the
plat is contiguous with collector or arterial
streets as defined by the Comprehensive Plan and
where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land
uses . Required buffering shall consist of berms
and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees
12
and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. Where
appropriate, the city may require additional lot
depth and area on lots containing the buffer so _
that it can be adequately accommodated and the
homes protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas
may be increased by 25% over zoning district
standards. The landscape plan must be developed —
with the preliminary and final plat submittals for
city approval . Appropriate financial guarantees
acceptable to the city shall be required.
b) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland
areas throughout the city and with respect to specific site
development to retain as far as practical , substantial tree stands
which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
c) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted
except as approved in a subdivision, planned unit development or
site plan application.
d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating
subdivisions and site plans:
(1) To the extent practical , site design shall preserve
significant woodland areas.
(2 ) Healthy shade trees of six (6) inches or more —
caliper at four (4) feet in height shall be saved
unless it can be demonstrated that there is no
other feasible way to develop the site. _
(3) Replacement of trees approved for removal by the
city may be required on a caliper inch per caliper
inch basis . At minimum, however, replacement trees
shall conform to the planting requirement
identified in Division 3 of this article.
(4 ) During the removal process, trees shall be removed
so as to prevent blocking of public rights-of-way
or interfering with overhead utility lines. —
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is
permissible only if they cannot be saved.
(6) Trees designated for preservation shall be
protected by snow fence or other means acceptable
to the city. Protective measures must be located
at or beyond the ground footprint of the tree ' s
crown. No fill material or construction activity
shall occur within these areas. These measures
must be in place and inspected prior to the start
of grading activity.
13
(7) Trees designated for preservation that are lost due
to construction activity shall be replaced by new
compatible trees approved by the city. The city
will require the developer to replace these trees
with the largest comparable trees that are
commercially available for transportation.
(8) At the city' s discretion, conservation easements
may be required to protect designated tree
preservation areas.
e) Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be
required to ensure satisfactory installation of landscaping
requirements.
Section 3 . Section 20-117 and Section 20-119 of the
Chanhassen City Code are hereby repealed.
Section 4 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1991 .
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1991 . )
14
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE SUMMARY NO. 153
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 AND CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPING
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN HAS ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE establishing
revised and higher development standards for landscaping in the
City. The ordinance regulates landscaping and tree removal , tree
preservation, landscaping standards, and maintenance and
installation. Trees designated for preservation that are lost due
to construction activity are required to be replaced by new
compatible trees . The requirements regarding value of landscaping
for the letter of credit has been increased to ensure installation
and maintenance of landscaping requirements.
This ordinance is in full force commencing on the date of
publication of this summary.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 14 , 1991 . )
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
— JUNE 16 , 1993
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p .m .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott , Nancy Mancino , Matt Ledvina , Brian Batzli and
Diane Harberts
— MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; Kate Aanenson , Senior
— Planner ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; Dave Hempel , Asst . City Engineer ; and
Roger Knutson , City Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING:
NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR MINNEWASHTA MANOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT . THE PERMIT SHALL DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
— THE USE ALLOWED .
Public Present:
Name Address
James Sen.-,t 2820 Washta Bay Road
Stew Peterson 2810 Tanagers Lane
Arnie , Anne & Mike Weimerskirch 2831 Sandpiper Trail
Arthur Kimber 2820 Tanagers Lane
— Tom Schoenecker 2820 Sandpiper Trail
Herb Pfeffer 2850 Tanagers Lane
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item .
Mow
Batzli : So are you recommending any particular course of action regarding
— the vac at_ i nriT
Aanenson: Well the city would like to see the street vacated because we
- think it cleans up a problem but we 're not sure . It may create another
problem with the Association , as I pointed out , narrowing down their
frontage and who would get control and does it create an even more non-
_ conforming situation and causing the dock to go , if Mr . Pfeffer gets more
property . Even go further over into his property causing an inconvenience
or a nuisance to him .
- Batzli : Let me ask our City Attorney , if I can . When the City vacates
property like that , do we have any control at all or any input into the
decision as to who it 's vacated to?
Knutson : None .
Batzli : None?
Knutson : I assume we have , is that a platted street?
Aanenson: Yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 2
Knutson: An easement is a right to use for a specific purpose . In this
case a street and utility . When we vacate , we give up our right to use it
anymore . We don 't decide who owns it . . .
Batzli : So we merely have an easement . We don 't have the , we don 't own
the .
Mancino: So what happens? —
Knutson: That 's something the City does not decide . Generally speaking
the rule is , it 's divides in half . One half going one direction , one half —
going the other direction . There are exceptions to that rule that people
litigate over at length . Usually I always advise my clients to stay out of
that battle . We don 't have the authority to decide it . We can 't do it .
Scott : This is not like a reservation that 's for a specific purpose such
as lake access . Rather something that the City can choose to use for those
purposes that you mentioned , or give it up . —
Knutson : They 've always owned it . We just had a right to use it for a
specific purpose . My suggestion is that , what you 're supposed to be doing _
as I understand it , in this process , is determining the level of use in
1981 . Just focus on that and forget about the vacation issue . If the City
wants to vacate it , the City has to go through a public hearing process for
that vacation and it will be held then . If you just deal with the one
issue . what was: there in '81 . What are their non-conforming use rights .
Batzli : Okay , thank you . Would the applicant like to address the _
Commission? Is there someone who will speak for the applicant? If you can
come forward to the microphone please and give us your name and address .
Tom Schoenecker : Commission , gentlemen , ladies . My name is
Tom Schoenecker . I 'm from 2820 Sandpiper Trail in Minnewashta Manor
sut.divisicn . And I 've kind of been involved in this for quite a number of
years . When I first bought that property about 17 years ago I was sold the —
property with the idea that we had this beautiful lake outlot , etc . and
when I finally found out it was underwater , and it 's been underwater for
years . And so we had been looking for a way of using this for a long time . _
And I 've kind of instigated trying to get this thing vacated but since
doing that I 've been informed that it has to go through a court and the
judge may decide not in our favor . We may lose everything we have and not
even have any right to the lake so I think at this time maybe we should
just request this non-conforming outlot use or whatever we call it . The
latest request that Herb sent , or that Art Kimber sent in requested these 5
spaces on the dock and the request here mentions that the seasonal dock is —
30 foot lona . It 's really 40 foot long and it has an L shape in it . The
L turns toward Herb 's property but it does give us access to the deeper
portion of the water .
Batzli : Does it extend 30 feet and then you 're counting the last section
as 40?
Tom Schoenecker : Could I ask somebody else that question? I guess it 's 40
feet and then it turns right 20 feet . So 40 feet out into the water and
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 3
then it turns right 20 feet . And it does give us access to the lake . We
don 't have everybody in the Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association
doesn 't use it but we have on an average of 4 to 5 people that do use the
lake and it varies from year to year . We would like to maintain that lot
and continue to use it as a recreational outlot for the Minnewashta Manor
Homeowners Association .
Batzli : You 've been there for a number of years .
— Tom Schoenecker : About 17 .
Batzli : Has this use been consistent since '81?
Tom Schoenecker : Yes . In fact is the dock at one time was longer . The
first dock that was put in there was put in by , it was about 60 feet long .
_ It was about 60 feet long I guess when it first went in and then over a
period of years it started to kind of deteriorate so about 5 years ago I
believe it was , we rebuilt it . And it 's been consistently used as a , right
now we 've got a bench for sitting on it so people can go down there on
— their walks and just sit on the dock and stuff like that and then they 've
been using it for boats . Just strictly fishing boats .
- Batzli : And you 've requested 5 on the dock and 5 on land but you 've
indicated that only 4 or 5 homeowners use it . Are you asking for
additional spots than what it 's currently being used for?
Tom Schoenecker : No , I don 't believe we 've ever had that many boats down
there . I think 5 on a dock would be sufficient .
— Herb: 2 homeowners that have the right to access . Not all of them have
boats .
Batzli : I 'm sorry , who 's speaking?
Tom Sc h:Jeri ker : Herb , do you want to talk Herb?
- Batzli : Yeah , if you want to come up to the microphone and give us your
name and address so we know who 's addressing us?
— Art Kimber : In 1981 we had a dock that was straight out . And then when
they dredged the channel last year . . .out lot extended westward to where our
dock is now . And they declared that the lot we had originally was under
_ navigable water and after paying taxes on it for 47 years , we end up with
nothing on anything . But the City did grant us permission to use
Minnewashta Avenue , or Sandpiper Trail it 's now called , for access to the
lake . We were to keep the property clean and put a dock on the side of the
- lot excactly in the ground that we 're supposed to own . In checking that
just a couple of weeks ago , the records , the Bureau of Records at Carver
still show that we own the lot , even though it 's under water .
Batzli : Do you remember how many boats there were in '81?
Art Kimber : It was 5 and 5 .
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 16 , 1993 - Page 4 •
Batzli : 5 on the dock and 5 on land?
Art Kimber : That 's according to the records I 've got . I 've lived over
there since 1965 .
Scott : So in the Minutes , I think it was July 13 , 1983 when you talk about
the 5 and 5 . Basically what you 're saying is that 's .
Art Kimber : I don 't think there was any change in the number .
Scott : Since 1981 because that 's the only documentation that I think the —
Planning Commission has seen .
Art Kimber : You 'll have to talk louder sir , I 'm hard of hearing . —
Scott : Oh , okay . So that would be consistent use from 1981 , which is kind
of our benchmark that we use , to the Minutes . I think they may be your
first Association Minutes in 1983 where it talked about 5 on the dock and ,
okay . Thar:E you .
Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else that would like to address the —
Commiss c;n?
Herb Pfeffer : Mi name is Herb Pfeffer and I live at 2050 Tanager Lane . r
I 'm in Lct 1O . I 've lived there for 17 years and may I use the highlighter
there? . . .The best of my knowledge , and I just had my lot surveyed 2 years
ago . This. is drawn accurate and if you compare it to a plat map , there 's a
world of difference . As the plat map shows , the high water mark . —
Batzli : You 're going to have to point out to us what we 're looking at
there . Can you point to the boundary of the lake and the road there . —
Herb Pfeffer : . . . line over here . The plat map shows that the water level
starts at this point . In actuality it starts at the high water mark . This _
is cur: er,t . So the dock , the Minnewashta Manor dock is not on Lot 11 but
it 's on your property , the city property . Now the lake depth , let me start
out with I am opposed to the L section which was installed 3 years ago when
the water level was down and we dredged , we being people that own property
along the shore . We each paid about $3 ,000 .00 to do that . The DNR would
not allow any more dredging to occur on non-riparian land which means
people that don 't live on the lake . Therefore , Minnewashta Manor could not —
have their property dredged . I have a letter from the DNR stating their
conditions . Non-riparian , one . Watershed , two . Wildlife , three .
Erosion , four blah , blah , blah . They go on and on . Anyway , the contention _
now is the deep water . I went out and measured the depth yesterday . This
is in inches . . .dock . 32 inches , just about 3 feet at the end of the dock .
27 inches at the end of the straight dock , which is 40 feet . 40 feet and
20 feet . That was the contention . So you can see that the dock is right
on my property . Now when it was installed , I can leave that up there .
When it was installed I was against it . I wrote letters stating my
opposition to the dock . My wife said , let it go . It might not be so bad _
Well it is bad you know . Now , how we resolve the rest of the situation as
far as providing the roadway or what not , I don 't know but I would like
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 5
that northerly section , that 20 feet removed and let me , while I 'm
discussing this , show you pictures of .
Batzli : Let me ask you this question . What we 're here to decide is what
was the level of use in '81 and that some semblence of that kind of use
- continues thru today . Were these pictures taken this year or have they
been taken , when were these taken?
Herb Pfeffer : They were taken about 3 months ago .
Batzli : Okay . So this shows what it was in the winter .
Herb Pfeffer : Yeah . In '81 that L section was not there . That L section
was installed '88 . Or '89 . Okay . So basically what we 've got right now
is a situation where there is adequate water . The water level goes up and
down . I mean if you looked at Lake Minnetonka 3 years ago , or in '89 ,
there were a lot of people that didn 't have docks out . There were a lot of
boats that weren 't used and they didn 't build new docks . They weren 't
allowed . So , you ' ll also note on that picture there 's a couple of boats
— there . Back in '81 , to the best of my recollection from the time I lived
there to currently , there 's only about 2 or 3 boats in use . It 's Mr .
Peterson 's , occasionally a rowboat and occasionally a canoe . I 've never
,_ seen 10 boats there . Ever . Some of those boats becomes garbage . I 've
hauled 2 away . Mr . Kerber 's hauled a couple away . It gets to be a boat
yard . So another thing they 're requesting is storage of boats there . I 'm
against that . I believe if a person 's got a boat , when they 're done using
- it at the end of the season , take it home . Put it in their own yard . Just
like I do . Just like anybody else does basically . Why leave it at a lake?
Itma,, be alright on the other side of Lake Minnewashta where it 's down
— away from visibility but when it 's next to somebody 's house , it 's not
right . The road . I 'm also against public driving on the road . Years ago
I had & fella down there who was drunk . Drove down there . Backed up .
_ Drove over a 2 1 /2 inch maple tree . Now I called the police . They
arrested him but I was still out a maple tree . In the spring of the year
when the people use the roadway , it gets ruts . I 'm the one that takes care
of the ruts . I kind of got fed up with that so I put in gravel . $300 .00
worth of gravel . So what you see there now is my doing . I also planted
grass and tried to take care of the area just as if it were in the front of
my house . In other words , everybody has the same situation when you live
— on a road . You don 't own to the middle of the road as the Village Attorney
stated . You have an easement to it but you basically only own about 15 ,
the roadway is 60 feet and the road is usually 30 feet so there 's about a
10 or 15 foot area that 's owned by the city but you take care of it . You
seed it . You mow it . You plant shrubs there . You treat it as if it was
your property . Basically it isn 't . I 'm doing the same thing on the side .
They 're requesting 30 feet of dockage . That should be changed because
— they 've currently got 65 feet . So that 's erroneous . They also stipulate
going out to navigable water . That 's too ambiguous . Navigable water could
be way to the end of the channel at some point in time . You should go by
— the law to the property lines . I guess that 's all I 've got to say . Any
questionE ?
Batzli : We may have some later . Thank you . Is there anyone else that
would like to address the Commission? Yes sir .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 6
Arnold Weimerskirch: My name is Arnold Weimerskirch , and if you 'll put the —
map back on , I 'll show you where . I 'm Mrs . Newman 's son-in-law . Mrs .
Newman lives on Lot 27 and I live on Lot 25 . I 've lived there for 30 years
and Mrs . Newman has lived on her lot for about 50 years . My interest , I
guess what I 'd like to see you do is allow the homeowners to use the
property , not really as a road right-of-way but as private property . Make
it look like it isn 't a road . Let them use it . Let them maintain it . In
the 30 years I 've lived there , the use of that land has essentially not —
changed . As Mr . Pfeffer said , the lake level does tend to go up and down .
That may impact the useage of the water a little bit but essentially in the
30 years I 've lived there , the useage of that land has not changed , and for —
sure not since 1981 . I guess my interest in being here tonight is to make
sure that that land , that property is well maintained . In the last couple
years there has been a tendency to use that property as a garbage dump . I
don 't know who 's doing it but there is debris being deposited on what we
believe is Mrs . Newman 's property . And it is Mrs . Newman 's property .
Which is an irritant to say the least . So from my vantage point , the
proper use of that land would be to let the homeowners use it essentially
as private property . Ask them to maintain it in a neat and orderly fashion
and let it go at that .
Mancino : Have they used motor , have they driven down this road?
Arnold Weimerskirch : There are occasionally cars on the road . Now there
are trees planted in a way that it is conspicuously not a road . Earlier ,
20-30 years ago it looked like a road . The road that you see Minnewashta
Avenue there has never been a road in the 30 years I 've been there . Maybe
100 years ago it was but in the 30 years . But the stub of land down to the —
lake at one time looked like a road . It really doesn 't anymore now . There
are trees planted , although there are occasionally cars trying to drive
down there . At least partially down there . And in the wintertime there
are snowrr,.biles driving on that property . Okay . Thank you .
Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commisicr,^ Is there a motion to close the public hearing? —
Ledvina : So moved .
Mancino : Second .
Art Kimber : I had a comment . I had that survey made in '83 so we 'd know
where the road was . It was never defined in all the years I lived there . —
And that 's when we discovered the roadway , part of the roadway and Lot 11
was under water . They determined that Lot 11 was on navigable water and
that was the reason it was . I 've got a survey here from a certified survey —
done and according to that . . .not to go beyond these limits . . . I believe the
homeowners , if it 's proven that the dock is on Mr . Pfeffer 's land , will
move i t .
Batzli : Thank you . Okay , we have a motion on the floor to close the
public hearing .
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 7
Batzli : Do you want to lead off?
Mancino: Sure . I first of all would like to recommend continuing to grant
the homeowners of Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association the right to the
City 's right-of-way on Sandpiper Lane . I think that they have established
"' that they had been using it since 1981 that way so I would like to see them
continue that use .
— Batzli : What do you think about if the City agreed to let them do that and
they were going to keep it clean . We 've heard some testimony that it 's
being used as a garbage dump .
Mancino : Well going there yesterday and visiting it , yesterday it was
clean . There was no garbage there yesterday . On the Mrs . Newman 's I think
property there was some wood stacked and there was a brush pile .
Arnold Weimerskirch: That 's not her 's .
Mancino : Oh okay . I don 't know who 's brush pile it is but there is a
brush pile there .
Herb Pfeffer : That 's mine .
Mancino: Okay . I don 't know , who 's property is that?
- Herb Pfeffer : There was one of the trees struck down by lightning a couple
of yeerE ago . . .
Mancino : So other than those two things . It 's kept up to me .
Arnold Weimerskirch: Well there 's other debris .
▪ Mancino. : CLe,y . Is that further in?
Arnold t.J irrerskirch: Further in .
Mancino : Okay . I didn 't see it . So the maintenance looks fine to me .
Also the 1981 use for the dock . They 're asking for 30 feet , which I 'm fine
_ with . I think the L needs to be removed because it was not a use in 1981
and needs to be removed from the dock . The L shape . 5 boats docked . What
else did you ask for? Number of boats docked , 5 . I have no problem with
that . 5 boats on land . Is there any land to put 5 boats on?
Aanenson : You saw that picture . There is , they 're pulled up on shore .
Mancino : Now is that part of Sandpiper Trail? Is that part of the roadway
easement?
Aanenson : Correct .
Mancino: That City right-of-way?
Aanenson: Yes .
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 16 , 1993 - Page 8
Mancino : So that you could fit 5 boats there .
Batzli : So are you convinced that the level of use back in '81 .
Mancino: I 'm convinced that the level of use for 5 boats docked is fine .
I 'm not convinced that there were 5 boats stored on land .
Batzli : It sounds to me .
Mancino: I think there was anywhere from 1 to 5 . And I don 't know what
that number was . • _
Batzli : Okay . Anything else?
Mancino: I guess I 've heard tonight that there was motor vehicle access .
As I look at it now , I 'd say it 's not well maintained to have vehicles on
there and I 'm not sure why you would want to drive down there . I think you
could pari. a van and walk your boat or canoe down to the end . So I would
say no to the motor vehicle access .
Batzli : Okay . Is that it? _
Mancino : Yes .
Batzli : Thane. you . Joe .
Scott : I would agree with the removal of the 20 foot section with the
intensification of use from 1981 useage level . One of the things that I
would question too is that if you 're going to have boats on land , or boats
at the dcoc � , I would not want to see any overnight . That 's really not an
issue that isn 't raised here but I think that 's something that I think we
need tc talk a little bit about . And that comes back to 1981 so I guess
I 'd like to ask a representative of the homeowners association if they
could er,lighten us as to the over , the storage of boats overnight . Because
that seems to be , that 's a very large issue that we 've had to deal with in
a couple of these other lake associations .
Tom Schoenecker : In my recollection , almost all the boats that are down
there are stored overnight . They 're left there permanently for the season .
Scott : On land?
Tom Schoenecker : Well no , at the dock . At the dock . And some people have
fishing boats in the neighborhood that they just leave them down there tied
up at the dock so they can have ready access to it . And so they have used —
it for that purpose , yes .
Harberts : I have a question for you . Are all of the boats from this dock , _
what size of motors if any? If I read in here somewhere that they usually
just carry down and put into the water versus in with a trailer?
Tom Schoenecker : Well I think probably the biggest boat would be maybe a
16 foot aluminum boat .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 9
Harberts: What size motor?
Tom Schoenecker : And I would think the motors would be maybe 7 1/2
horsepower . Something like that . At times I had a boat there about 6
years ago , 7 years ago . It was a little 15 foot kind of a speedboat thing
— and had I think a 25 horsepower motor on it . And I left it down there
permanently . At one time somebody did have a pontoon down there and at one
of the Minnewashta Homeowners Association meetings , we kind of made a rule
_ that we couldn 't put a big boat down there . It had to be a fishing type
boat . And so since that time it 's just been fishing boats .
Harberts : Thank you .
Scott : So Mr . Pfeffer you were talking about one of the objections that
you had though was not necessarily having boats there overnight but having
boats there after the end of the season?
Herb Pfeffer : Yes . No , overnight there 's no problem . . .as long as it 's not
used as a boat launch area . We 've got excellent boat launches on the lake
and I would hate . . .
Scott : Okay . The only thing I would add to this would be that all of the
boats need to be removed at the end of the season . I don 't have any
further comments .
Mancin(:, : What about vehicle access?
Scott : I would sa, no . I think it 's been used as rather light duty . I
don 't E -e it as a boat launch . I don 't see that as being a use .
Batzli : Matt .
— Ledvin=, : I ,DUE-SF I agree both with Joe and Nancy on the discussion as it
relate= t th dcc_ k . This is kind of a tight area to get large boats in
and out of . I was down there last weekend , and I know that you 're not
going to be storing 5 tri-hulls on that dock . That 's just not going to
happen so , but then again if 5 boats were stored there at the dock , I think
that 's reasonable to continue that . I don 't know about vehicle access .
We 've heard that there 's gravel there and it 's always kind of been a
- street . Well it was planted as a street obviously so and vehicles have
been down there so it appears that that may have been a use in 1981 . We 've
specifically talked about or listed in the draft permit here vehicle access
— and boat launch and I feel that it should absolutely not be used for a boat
launch but since there is gravel there and it appears to be used , I think
that vehicle access is acceptable . I guess other than that I have no other
comments .
Batzli : Otiy . Roger . We touched a little bit early on here and I don 't
know if th_ last two commissioners did but the boats on land and storage .
▪ If they 're going to he stored on this piece of property that we merely have
an easement on , can we even give them the right to do that?
▪ Roger Knutson: That 's a good question . . .there was a Court of Appeals
decision that came down a couple of months ago answering it contrary to the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 10
way I would have answered it before . It seemed to indicate the answer is
yes .
Batzli : Could do that? Okay .
Roger Knutson : My understanding previously is , we have the right to use it
for a specific use and can 't authorize any one use to use it for a use for
which we don 't have the right to use it . But they allowed an abutting , —
where there was a strip of something like this with a street and the owner
owned property on both sides . He owned property here . Owned property
here . This is an unimproved street . He wanted to do some activity on here —
and they had said , until the city opens that up as a street , he can use it
for anythin3 he wants to .
Batzli : 01,ay . Diane .
Audience- : Can I address the commission?
Batzli : Ire one minute please . Diane .
Harbert_ : I apologize for coming in late . I need to just clarify _
somethinD with staff . In your report you made comment that you have
cont c,_ a!_-'ut the dock setback zone .
Aanenson: Well this is , Councilman Wing is really concerned that all
beachl : ts meet the dock setback zone which is 10 feet away but conflicts
with the le_ l non-conforming status . What the ordinance says is that you
car, e . tend the dock out to get to 4 feet in depth . In some portions of
Minnewashta we 've seen on these other ones they go out to 120-130 feet out
into the lake . Obviously you 've seen from Mr . Pfeffer 's that these have
only a ma} irnum 30 inches of depth . Thereby limiting the type of boat that _
you can do there . So if by shortening the dock obviously you 're taking
awa/ the number of boats that can be stored at the dock . So that was the
rez s:• I r -ised that as an issue .
Harberts : As I understand the current dock is 40 feet long and .
Aanenson : 20 feet .
Harberts : Over .
Aanenson : The L is 20 , yes .
Harberts : And they 're proposing to go in there and rip everything up
except for the 30 feet?
Aanenson: Yeah . Well I 'm concerned if you try to extend it out further ,
if the channel 's wide enough to even go out .
Batzli : The applicant wants a 40 foot dock . The 30 feet is an error .
Harbertz : Yeah , that was one part I couldn 't figure out here . With the
exception of the testimony tonight , the testimony tonight presented was
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 11
that there was a dock in 1981 . Why wasn 't an inventory done if there was
at least a dock there?
Aanenson: I can 't answer that .
Ledvina : It 's a very obscure little place .
Aanenson: It 's hard to find , yeah . I don 't know if somebody just missed
it .
Mancino: Arid did they miss it for '86 and '91?
Aanenson: I believe it was inventoried in '86 .
Harberts: Well and the question , you know the question we always have to
look at , what was the level of use in 1981 . You know the documentation we
have he;e was , Minutes from 1983 which the City had granted 10 docking
spaces . 10 docking spaces at least according to the Minutes . I 'm not
really , I 'm not totally convinced that 5 was allowed . We have some people
— here like I said that have testified that they beleive 5 was there or were
there . I 'd be inclined to , since we 're kind of establishing a new beachlot ,
to cor,Eidrr 5 . I 'm having a hard time with storing 5 boats on shore . But
- I 'm not hearing any opposition from anyone that has concern . It 's City
right-cf-way . We have a special case here so I guess storing , we 're not
really sEttin^ a lot of precedence by allowing people to use city right-of-
boats on , as I 'm understanding this . I 'm torn on boats to be
store,:' . Ee,: ause with the pictures I guess that were presented , it looks
like wc ! = some boats up on some trees or things like that so I don 't
think. E i= , I 'm not real comfortable with 5 . I might be a little more
cornfcrtaLle with 2 or something like that . And I guess I 'm , the motor
vehicle access as- I understand , and what I 've seen , it doesn 't look like
it 's ver;- conducive to vehicle access . So I 'd be inclined not to recommend
_ vehicle access . And I would be inclined to go with the 40 feet and 5 boats
at thc. d .
Batzli : OI..a, , thank you . Yeah , go ahead .
NNW
Tom Schoenecker : In attempt to remain good neighbors with Mr . Pfeffer , I
think the Homeowners Association would be perfectly agreeable to no vehicle
— access to that property . And if we were given permission , we would put a
post or something so that we couldn 't get a car down there . No storage of
boats on land . I think that would be agreeable . We would like to have the
5 boats at the dock . We would like to maintain at least part of that L
structure . I don 't believe it 's on Mr . Pfeffer 's land now . We could move
it back . There is a real nice bench to sit on and going out there at
nights and just sitting on a bench and stuff like that really is neat . I
— mean it 's a real pleasant thing . It would be nice to maintain that . And
we would like to remain good neighbors and we will maintain that property .
We 've tried to . Thank you .
Batzli : Thank you . Just to run down it here . I agree . I have no problem
with 5 boats at the dock . I 'd like to get rid of the boat storage on land .
It sounds like the Association is willing to do that . Motor vehicle access
— during , if they are also willing to put a post up or a gate or something , I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 12 -
think that would be helpful . Keep people from probably dumping things on
there that don 't belong there . That 'd be helpful also . I 'd be willing to —
let them keep part of their L because I don 't believe it 's really that much
of an intensification of use as long as they 're off of the lot line . So
having said that , is there a motion? —
Scott : Can I ask a question of Mr . Pfeffer?
Batzli : Yeah .
Scott : Sir would you be amenable to having them with a 10 foot section on
the L? —
Herb Pfeffer : 10 foot section would be legal .
Scott : Oka; . And that would be . Pardon me?
Herb Pfeffer : Then I can 't fight the L .
Scott : Yeah , it seems like that 's a good compromise there so . . .Well it
seems apparent , and I particularly appreciate the way that you have been
working toyeth -r on this because as you know these lake right issues get —
ve, y emoti.:,nal . And I just have one question . Where it says 40 feet in
length from the shore and out into naviagable waters . Could that
conceivably give us cross waves with , get us into another issue if the lake —
level declines?
Aanen=_:on : That goes back to the issue I raised before is that normally we
say to get to a depth of 4 feet . But as I pointed out before , the further —
inland y': u go into the cove , the shallower it becomes .
•
Scott : You ' e going to run into land on the other side .
Aanen_on: right . So I 'm not sure how much further in the cove they can
bring it in .
Scott : C4a; .
Aanens:n: That 's something they can look at I 'm sure .
Scott : I 'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the Association 's request of a 40 foot , one 40 foot dock in length with a —
10 foot L section and out into navigable waters . 5 boats at the dock . No
vehicle access and no storage of boats on land .
Batzli : Is there a second? —
Mancino: Second , but I 'd like to amend to it . That the City allow the
Homeowners Association right-of-way on Sandpiper Lane . —
Scott : That 's friendly . I 'll accept that amendment .
Batzli : You accepted the amendment . Okay . Is there any other discussion?
I would personally prefer that we leave out the part that reads , and out
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 13
into navigable waters . Leaving that issue for another day .
- Harberts: I would be more comfortable with that too .
Scott : Okay .
- Batzli : Do you agree to that?
Mancino : Yes .
Batzli : You 're willing?
Scott : I 'm willing .
Batzli : Any other discussion?
- Scott moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that
the non-conforming use permit for Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association
be permitted one dock 40 feet in length with a 10 foot L section , 5 boats
- at the dock , no vehicle access and no boats stored on land . Also , that the
City allow the Homeowners Association right-of-way on Sandpiper Lane . All
voted in favor and the motion carried .
Batzli : L!hen does that go to the City Council?
Aanenson: Probably the 12th . July 12th .
Bat711 : Ye_ sir .
— Resident : If the Council approves that , then you . . .
Aenen=cn: Yom, . You ' ll get a non-conforming permit that will be reccrded
at th- County . You ' ll get a copy of that .
PUBLIC HEARING:
- PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4 .47 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF , RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 7500 FRONTIER
TRAIL _ LOTUS LAKE WOODS , LEANNA FORCIER AND HUBERT V . FORCIER .
Public Present :
Name Address
Nancy Manarin 7552 Great Plains Blvd .
Wyck R Lori Linder 7550 Great Plains Blvd .
Bert & Phyllis Swanson 401 Del Rio Drive
Robert Somers 7409 Frontier Trail
Zoe Zuzek 407 Del Rio Drive
_ Bill Kirkvold 201 Frontier Court
Joy Warrior 7423 Frontier Trail
Robert Davis 4010 West 65th Street
Leanna Forcier 9597 Creek Knoll Road , Eden Prairie
11- Hubert Forcier 18515 6th Avenue No , Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 14 _
Name Address
Brian Mumdstock 5E1 , 9001 E . Bloomington Frwy , Bloomington
Kathy & Ted deLancey 7505 Frontier Trail
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item .
Batzli : The tree preservation easement is in Attachment #2 in here?
Al-Jaff : Correct . In the report .
Batzli : Okay . That 's difficult to read . It 's better up there . Okay .
Would the applicant like to address the Commission?
Robert Davis : Chairman , Commission and citizens . Good evening . My name
is Robert Davis . I 'm representing the applicant Hubert & Leanna Forcier .
We have a 4 1/2 acre parcel that is single family residential with an
existing home on it now . The proposal is for 7 lots of approximately
26 ,000 square feet . Is that on your camera? Okay . One of the reasons to
keep the lots this size is we think it will help with the tree preservation
and obviously tree preservation is one of the issues that staff has —
identified as significant here . A good share of the property is wooded .
There 's maple , oak . There 's some good hardwood trees . A few of them are
in the ranee of up to 30 inches in diameter . We 've identified , as pointed —
out here , all trees above 6 inches in caliper which is what 's being
discussed both in the conservation area and in the replacement or
reforestation proposal . I ' ll try and point out some things here and you
can pick them up on the camera . The 7 lots are shown here . Access both
from Del Rio Drive on a cul-de-sac on the south and Frontier Trail on the
lower sid= . The ground elevation here is about 60 feet lower to the ground
elevation at this point of the property . The dark areas here are generic
houseplans . They are proposed with grading as a footprint of 2 ,300 square
feet .
Batzli : Can I interrupt you just one second? Sharmin , can you move that
up a little bit so that the camera can get a better view of it . . .
Robert Davis: Okay , back to the plan . We talked about 7 lots access from —
two different sides . Both at the top cul-de-sac and the lower one here .
We 're showing generic houses and I know they 're just a rectangular shape .
I 'm sure that if somebody buys the lot , they will take a good look at the —
trees and try and work around the trees and do a houseplan that preserves a
majority of the better trees . And I 'm sure different people will choose
maple or oak or whatever to preserve as their first priority . We 're _
showing driveways . This area in here is the existing residence which right
now is not occupied . It was built in 1941 by Hubert Forcier . He was the
city plumbing inspector here for a number of years . I don 't know if any of
you were on the Commission at that time . Let me put a small map on here —
if I can . What we have here is a drawing off the plat map showing the
neighborhood and the streets . There . I think you can focus it a little
better . You can see the adjacent lots drawn to scale and then the 7 lots
to scale on the proposed 4 1/2 acres . The lots down to the lake are very
deep in terns of depth from the Frontier Trail . They ' ll be off to the side
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 15
here . The 4 most affected properties then , I 've started to outline here in
shade . In other words , on Del Rio Drive this residence here is existing on
a 90 foot frontage lot . The proposed house here is , the setback distance
then would be no closer to the lot line than this existing house is to the
lot line this way . The house over here has a similar situation although it
— benefits from the moving of the cul-de-sac to one side so that the turn
around area is this way and the length of the car turning around we 're to
screen off this way . There are no windows on this that would be affected
_ by a car turning there . So the setback here is maintained the same as
here . This existing residence here then is positioned in here and we 've
left an opening this way we think to hold this house here . This one here
and we think that benefits that existing house to position the lot that
way . There 's a residence over here quite far back from the property line
and then across Frontier Trail there are residences here . A number of
those lots are quite deep . They wind towards the lake . They have frontage .
- The most affected property would be the house on the corner of Frontier
Court and that would be across from the pond that 's proposed here . The
pond they 're showing here in a dark blue as deep waters , standing water .
The light blue edge around that is one foot or less in depth and that would
— be a cattail or a marsh area . The history of the ponding is that to
develop , or subdivide this acreage the owner has to provide some ponding .
Basically the ponding is for water quality to Lotus Lake . That runoff from
— the property goes through the pond , and is basically a sediment pond to
filter out phospherous , etc . We started this process with staff in January
and one of the requests from city staff was that the city be given a chance
to loon at the parcel and enlarge the pond at a cost sharing basis for the
benefit of watershed over this area from other areas . There 's 63 acres of
area that drain this way . Obviously we can 't deal with total watershed but
the city has , at their request , just to enlarge the ponds for that benefit .
- As we studied that and took a look at this area here , and the size of the
pond is quite large and the owner actually offered to sell one lot to the
city and use for a pond . The engineer , the consultant for the city came
— back and said , that really isn 't cost efficient . We don 't want to buy land . .
In effect they said we want as much as we can get in ponding between lots
and housepads without buying any property . That has tighten up this . . .and
in effect the owner has given some property then for ponding for the
benefit of the community . There 's a few issues we haven 't had a chance to
totally resolve with staff . I 'd like to go through and clarify . Let me
switch to another plan . . .This plan shows all trees that we 've identified by
— our surveyor of a size over 6 inches of any species . There are I think 15
conditions proposed by staff . I 'd like to clarify several of them for the
commission , for the owner and for the citizens . Item number 4 is , I think
— a technical question which I think we can resolve with staff . . . Lot 1 , at
the 72 foot frontage and a majority of them are straight lines . It was my
understanding that this is a cul-de-sac and Lot 1 fronts on the cul-de-sac .
We haven 't been able to sit down and say , technically is that not right?
- The center of the cul-de-sac is here . 60 feet . This lot is , this is 72 . . .
There are a number of ways to resolve this . Maybe we just pull the cul-de-
sac south a little bit so that 's curved but I 'm not sure that 's even
— required . I would suggest that we work with staff and make sure
technically , legally we can comply .
Batzli : Sharmin do you understand what he 's saying?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 16
r
Al-Jaff : Yes .
Robert Davis : How do you read the .
Al-Jaff : The way I read the ordinance is if it 's on a curve then you have
to meet the 90 foot width at the 30 foot setback . If it 's on a straight OEM
line , then you have to have the 90 foot frontage .
Robert Davis : Okay . If it had curved . . .
Al-Jaff : We 're being technical here . But you don 't even have the half
curve .
Robert Davis : No , but what I 'm saying is , we have to comply or we have to
ask for a variance . . .we work with staff and maybe it 's a matter of just
moving this road a little bit south so that we get a curve . There are
other choices . One of the reasons the cul-de-sac is one sided . . . is that
this provides a good buffer of trees here . We thought rather than pull it
down this way and trying to squeeze a lot in here , let 's put it this way .
Have 3 lots with . . .
Batzli : we ' ll probably add something to that condition that you ' ll submit
something to staff with the revised cul-de-sac . For their approval .
Robert Da%/is : Okay . I 'd like to clarify item 6 which talks about , I did
speak the City Attorney . He said cost sharing was not an issue for the _
Planning Commission . We ' ll need to take that up with the Council , and we
did ha\. < a que=stion but I won 't belabor it now then . But I 'd like to
clarify that the applicant is required to provide .72 acre feet of ponding .
The proposal is for .92 acre feet which is less than the first request from —
the consultant , Bonestroo and Associates . When the applicant offered to
sell property , the consultant came back and said let 's get as much ponding
area as we can without buying property .
Scott : Mr . Davis . Which condition is that?
Robert Davis : 6 . Well , it 's in that report in 6 . That we ' ll deal with . . .
so obviously the applicant needs to build a pond of a certain size . The
city is choosing at this time to build the pond bigger and share the cost
because of the benefit to the water quality . I wanted to point out , and in —
effect I did at the Council , when the Council accepted the feasibility
study , that we had already gone to the point of trying that on . The
problem was this . They had a bunch of conditions such as . . .when we tried
to meet all the conditions , we couldn 't so we came back and said which of
these are more important . Obviously side slope and that 's where we got
into the question of do you want to buy some of this property and make a
real big pond . I just want to point out that that has gone farther and we
come back and the City Engineer , the consultant . . .
Scott : I would think on that issue too , I 'd agree with Chairman Batzli
that that particular condition I think can be deferred to the applicant and
staff to work out .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 17
Batzli : What you 're saying though is that the size has changed from the
date of the report and that the City 's aware of that? But you 're afraid
— that because we incorporate the study by reference , you 're afraid that
you 're going to have to make it bigger because it 's bigger in the report?
WWI Robert Davis : I want it clarified . I didn 't want to leave any
misunderstanding as far as what was proposed and what was already accepted
by the City . I think item 7 and 15 somewhat go together and I ' ll come back
to them . I 'd like to discuss item 11 , if I can call your attention to that
and that 's the condition of combining access to Lots 4 and 5 and the
utilities as a common segment for some distance . And the comment is , for
preservation of trees . I 'd like to suggest a third alternative . What we
— have here which was proposed originally was a drive here and a drive here .
The same thing makes . . .make these two common and then let this party drive
in and go this way . I 'd like to suggest do a common double driveway on the
_ property line and you won 't lose this tree so we do have a tree saving .
And we raise an issue . . .you would have two parties then sharing a part of a
driveway and I think it would require logistically a homeowners association
to deal with and share a driveway . Some sort of an agreement because you
- have two parties and you have the . . . If you have three parties dealing with
something like this , I can see that it may be manageable . Tedious but it
may be manageable . . .sharing a little bit of driveway , I 'd really like to
— avoid for the legal entanglement of how do you , if one wants to repave ,
what do you do? This way each does their half and they can drive on their
half and the; sha, e it if they want . If they don 't .
Hempel : Mr . Chairman , maybe I can just add another comment to that . That
does sound feasible from an engineering standpoint . May I offer another
suggestion that the driveways could be side by side and have a 5 foot
— buffer between them and just limit the driveway width to 15 feet each or
something like that . So the one driveway is actually on the property to
the north . The other driveway is actually on the next property to Lot 4 .
OMB That wa/ there 's no sharing of the driveways actually . Just common , or
separate diivewa;s . You ' ll still have the utilities run in those same
areas to minimize disruption to the property .
- Robert Davis: I would suggest we work with staff and put a green buffer
between is a better solution . 3 feet or 5 feet or something . The last
item I 'd like to take up is the conservation easement and I 'm not really
— versed on how common this is and what the specifics are . Generally we 're
in agreement with a conservation easement to preserve trees of 6 inch
caliper and larger and I understand that this is to allow the City . . . I 'd
- like to ask for two changes on that . Lot 5 has been squeezed quite a bit
in size because of the ponding and a conservation easement does take quite
a share of S . It takes . . .it takes some here and it takes some here . I
would like to limit the conservation eaesment on 5 to the setback line back
here . 5 is basically a level lot and it 's certainly entirely possible I
think in my mind that somebody would want a general lawn there . The other
lots then are really restricted to all of the . . .grass area and the rest is
- wooded . . .Lots 1 , 2 and 3 . Their backyards are really preserved . . .
Mancino : North of 5 , where the Lot 5 is , is all natural and wooded isn 't
it?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 18 —
Robert Davis : That 's right .
Mancino: So it is a continuation of the conservation easement that goes in
the front or on the east side of Lot 5 . It just maintains that naturalness
correct? —
Robert Davis : . . .
Mancino: There isn 't an easement but it 's natural in it 's state right now .
It 's one of the features of that whole area .
Robert Davis : My thought though is if somebody wants to do , I want to —
clarify and get , what a conservation easement is . My understanding is ,
that you cannot cut a tree 6 inches or bigger . Even if you replace them .
Is that true or can you still replace them? —
Al-Jaff : Well , we would protect those trees . No , you won 't be able to cut
them .
Robert Davis: Can 't touch them? Even if you want to replace them? In
other words , if you want to build a swimming pool and a tree is here , you
can 't plant new trees of equal caliper if you cut that tree down . Okay . —
Scott : The trees are actually inventoried from what I understand .
Robert r'ayis : Richt . So for that reason , I think it 's generally I think
it 's a good idea for everyone but Lot 5 I think really suffers because all
you 're saying is , if this person who buys this lot and builds a house and
cannot cut any trees , which in my mind is very much different than this —
person coming in and saying , okay . I 'm going to take this tree out and I 'm
going to work my plan around it and save these . I 'm going to take one out
and I 'n 'ving to replace it with you know , if that 's a 24 inch tree , would —
12-2 in;.h trees or 3-4 inch or whatever ratio of replacement trees . But
this person, then is really bogged in I think . I guess I 'd really like to •
ask for that leeway . . .
Scott : The intent of a conservation easement is to protect the area that 's
left after the house is put in and the utilities and so forth . So I guess
we feel that goes hand in hand with the value of a lot . Obviously the more —
mature trees that are standing after a house is put in , the more valuable
that property is to the applicant . So the intent is not to say , here 's
this lot and you cannot cut any trees down whatsoever . There are protected —
areas on this lot from which trees cannot be removed per this tree
inventory . So that is not meant to restrict being able to build a house
there . It 's to protect what 's left over after the house is installed .
Robert Davis : I would suggest two things we 'd like you to consider . One
is thatwe survey a straight line . . .so that we can define the line that we
know . . .and if you sell a lot , you 're going to have a red flag at each end —
arid people know beyond that they 're buying something that 's preserved . . .I 'd
like you to consider Lot 5 because it 's a small lot . It 's been squeezed
tight because of , in effect giving the property . . .giving a perspective —
buyer something with some common sense .
- Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 19
Batzli : What we see on a day to day basis here is that small lots , low
maintenance , no yard is desireable . So what you 're saying is different
than what we 've heard from every developer that 's come in here in the last
3 years . We may decide for example to eliminate the conservation , which is
up in corner there and keep it the backyard . Maybe that 's reasonable but
just so that you know where we 're coming from . We build a lot of PUD
- subdivisions where 15 ,000 is the average and they 're all smaller and
they 're all tucked back into trees when we can serve their all backyards so
what you 're saying , I don 't know if we 're sympathetic to it or not . We
— understand your desire but there 's a lot of homes being built in this area
that are on smaller lots than that with just as large a conservation
easement .
Robert Davis : True . I 'm an architect . I realize that some of these lots
are going to be a challenge to fit in well . Save trees close by and so on .
I 'm just looking for some flexibility that you 've got some leeway on a
— replacement basis to place trees but give the homeowner some flexibilty to
do a creative plan . I guess the last item is , and I 'm trying to speed this
up . Is item 7 and 15 . Speaking of this conservation easement . I 'd like
- you to consider that this is colored in 3 colors . The green are trees that
are inventoried and are being saved . The brown are trees that are
inventoried 6 inches or larger and probably will go , but not necessarily .
Each individual will make the deal with where they place the house ,
- drivew.y and so on . These are not . . .The dark blue here are trees that go
because of the ponding and the utility easements . I 'd like you to consider
that those would be donated as land for the pond and you not ask the owner
— to replan.,= the trees that he 's donated the land . That seems to be a double
taking c : asking of him . First of all he 's giving land extra for the pond
size ani then you 're asking because there are trees there , they should be
_ replaced . Mabe that 's something we can work out with staff and come up
with a reforestation plan that we can all agree on but I 'd like to ask you
to . . .
— Scott : Are those trees that are being removed because of the increased
ponding size requested by the city or all trees removed? I mean there 's a
requirement for ponds of a certain size . The city has asked the applicant
— to expand the size- of the pond for water quality purposes and so forth .
What I recall from your last diagram is that some of those are going to go
no matter what size the pond is and so maybe we need to address the
incremental tree loss due to the city 's request and I 'm sure that 's
I••••
something that can be worked out with staff .
Robert Davis: I 'd like you to consider the idea of not replacing trees
- that , to me it 's an issue of water quality or trees and if we 're needing to
put the pond in for water quality . . .replace the trees for that purpose . It
seems unfair to request for . . .that 's my request . Okay , I guess as a point
- of question, . Is there a definition of tree replacement? Is there any
allowance allowed , and you have a conservation easement in effect now for
some percentage of cutting trees to build a house? In other words , I
was . . .
Scott : Well those wouldn 't be part of the conservation easement . It 's
what 's left over after .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 20 _
Robert Davis: But for the reforestation plan , replacement , I would like to _
see . . . 10% of their trees for their house and driveway and if they cut more
than that percentage , they have to replace them on a per caliper basis .
Al-Jaff : We don 't have a percentage in the ordinance right now but our
future ordinance is going to read , you cannot remove more than 40% .
Robert Davis: 40? Wow .
Scott : 14 . Not 40 .
Robert Davis : Oh 14% .
Olsen: It hasn 't been set yet . We 're talking 20 .
Robert Davis : Well that makes sense . Obviously it 's a lot like this .
You 're saving 24 out of 25 on that lot . I guess I 'd like ydu to consider
that that person be given some allowance to cut one tree or 10% of the _
caliper size and I think it can be defined . And I will work with staff to
define a reasonable plan that anybody buying a lot knows what they 've
bought and what they have to live with and if they want to cut more trees ,
they know the> have to replace them . . .Any questions? I 've taken quite a
bit of your time .
Harberts : I have one . This is with regards to the ditch . If the _
proposed , what staff is recommended a 42 inch culvert would be placed ,
basicll; would replace that existing ditch , ravine or whatever that is .
What if that 42 inch culvert wasn 't there? Would the ditch remain?
•
Robert Dais : There is a 36 inch culvert there .
Harberts : No , there 's a ditch there . —
Robert Daiie : Oh . There 's a culvert under the road . The ditch becomes
part or t h pond now .
Hempel : If I could clarify that . There is currently a ditch section out
there . It 's out intent with this project to hopefully eliminate that ditch
section by putting in a storm sewer pipe . A 42 inch pipe . Extending it up —
to the pond outlet and filling in that ditch section .
Harberts: Well in the report staff was recommending that so I 'm guessing
that you 've talked to the applicant about it? Or it has no impact on the
property there .
Robert Davis: Well the 42 inch culvert was part of the consultant 's report
along with the ponding .
Harberts: But you 're aware of that?
Robert Davis : It 's one of the issues we want to talk to the Council on
cost sharing on . Is sharing the culvert cost . We are aware of it .
Harberts : I just wanted to . So that would basically eliminate the ditch .
- Plannino Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 21
Robert Davis : That 's correct .
- Scott : And then that also too , it kind of looks like Frontier Trail is
used as a storm sewer and it looks like there on the lake side of Frontier
Trail there are , I don 't know what you 'd call them but there 's asphalt Y
shaped things . It looks like it takes water off the road and dumps it onto
— the property across the street and then it kind of meanders it 's way down
to the lake . So it seems like this is a good opportunity to stop that
stuff because it looked pretty rough down there .
Hempel : This is actually a phase of our surface water management program
improvement project for this area . We actually have another improvement
proposed on the lakeside of Frontier Trail at some future point when the
construction dollars are available for that . And acquisition of the
property , currently right now there is a large drainageway that directly
discharges into Lotus Lake without any pretreatment so there 's a lot of
— runoff going through that area .
Scott : So basically the , Mr . Davis talked about a 63 acre drainage area ,
— the expansion of the drain area for the Forcier property is going to handle
just roughly what percent of that untreated runoff?
Hempel : Under minor storms , up to a 2 year storm event , will be treated
through these water quality ponds . Anything in excess of that will
actually b/-pass the storm ponds as it does today . There 's an existing
storm sewer line that comes down through the ravine , goes underneath
— Frontier Trail and discharges into this drainageway . Under the severe
storms , in e cess. of 2 year , we will have some drainage still going through
the pond but the majority of it will be by-passing it and continue on
downstream .
Scott : What does that mean? What 's a 2 year storm? Is that 8 inches of
rain? What does that mean? Sorry about that , I had to ask .
Hempel : You put me on the spot here but I 'll take a crack at it . It 's
based on hydrochart or whatever , but a 100 year storm event is 6 inches
—. of rainfall within a 24 hour period . Typically storm sewers in the city
are designed and constructed to handle a 10 year storm event which is
approximately 2 3/4 inch in a 24 hour period . So it 's probably between an
inch and a half 2 year . Matt , maybe you can expand on that .
Ledvina : It 's about 2 inches , inch and a half .
- Batzli : Okay . Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission?
Ledvina : I had a question for the applicant , Mr . Chairman .
Batzli : Okay .
Ledvina : As it relates to the existing residence , is there a well there?
A water well?
- Robert Davis : Yes there is . It has been abandoned .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 22 -
Ledvina : Okay . Has it been sealed according to the Health Department
requirements?
Robert Davis: Yes it has .
Batzli : I have one general question . Do you have any idea of what the
value of the homes to be constructed on these sites will be?
Robert Davis: Hugh , do you want to speak to that? I don 't know . The lots
are large . They 're 25 to 6 ,000 square feet average . I guess I don 't .
Harberts: I have another one . In the satff recommendation it talked about
a 25 foot front yard setback . Number 13 . Are we talking all the lots? One
lot?
Al-Jaff : Actually . . .Lots 1 , 2 and 3 .
Harberts: 1 , 2 and 3 would all have a 25 foot setback? And it 's being —
recommended because of the saving vegetation or something? . . . I 'd like to
just ask a general question too . Why would you , I 'm not 100% convinced on
the 72 feet frontage . Can you just give me a couple sentences why you
think i. e should give you a variance on that to allow that 72 foot .
Robert Da .- First of all I 'm not sure we need a variance .
Harberts : The frontage road . The frontage .
Robert Davis : It 's on Del Rio Drive cul-de-sac , right . —
Harberts : h - requirement is 90?
Batzli : Eut he 's going to submit modified plans on the cul-de-sac to try
and cc-,.; 1 , with the 90 feet .
Robert La,-i = : You see , I think it 's on the cul-de-sac because if you walk —
out fir, „ 7r .;r front yard here and your lot line , you hit the cul-de-sac but
technica l_;- it appears to doesn 't qualify because this part of the
cul-de-sac is straight rather than curved . But if we rotate this down a _
foot or 2 feet and we end up with a curve here , then it qualifies so maybe
it 's only a minor technicality .
Harberts : 5o what you 're saying is though it 's going to stay at 72 feet —
because you 're going to do something with your cul-de-sac to make that
curve and do that 30/30 thing that you 're talking about , right?
Robert Davis : I would like to because I think this is the most appropriate
separation of lots .
Harberts : Is that a technicality? Okay .
Batzli : Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission?
Please , come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the —
record .
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 23
Jay Warrior : My name is Jay Warrior . I live at 7423 Frontier Trail .
Sharmin , could I have that picture back up again for a second? There are
two issues here really that I want to discuss . I think you 've seen that
there 's some , at least some open questions in two areas . One is this
question of water quality and what is being done to try and establish I
guess an appropriate level of quality for handling water that runs off into
-- Lotus Lake . And the second one is this issue of the conservation setback ,
particularly on Lot 5 . I think , I mean if you look at some of the facts .
There 's a 6 . . .difference in height . There 's already some stone lines or
_ some drain lines on the property . We 've heard also about some extensive
what is going to need to be done on the south side of the property , on the
other side of Lotus Lake . The sense that I get with the recommendations
were made that said that we probably needed a fairly larger extended
- ponding area and it looks like we 're considering what 's called a compromise
without perhaps looking at the overall affect of what this compromise would
do to the water quality . I 'd like to at least hear some assurances that
— this compromise by the city is not perhaps able to purchase .the land that 's
being offered by the developer and as a consequence we have a smaller pond
size which is less than what was originally recommended . I 'd like to make
sure that that doesn 't have an effect on what 's going on . We 've always had
problems on Frontier Trail in that corner . In fact that 's one of the
reasons why that extensive work was done and inevitably when you do some
development and you 're going to lose a fair bit of ground cover and things
— like that , that does contribute quite significantly in terms of runoff .
Particularly with the kind of slopes that you see . The second thing is
this issue of the conservation easement on Lot 5 . I really , from my
_
perspective believe that it 's essential that that be maintained . We 've
heard , in fact I think it was Mr . Batzli who brought up the issue , we 've
had other lots in the city that have been this size or smaller and had
conservation easements . That whole area down there , the trees and the
- bushes dow•wn the edge of Frontier Trail have been fairly significant in
cuttin..D down on some of these issues with the flooding and keeping really
the whole- area of Frontier Trail with an atmosphere that I would hate to
— see lost . So there 's also I guess when even I look at issues like removal
of trees or how to apply the conservation eaesment , there are things that
you can do with the strategic useage or retainment of trees to preserve a
lot of what 's currently there . In other words , there are some areas which ,
as you can see in the conservation easement , are perhaps more critical than
others in terms of preserving what 's already there and preserving the
natural beauty of that area . And particularly for the stretch down by the
edge of Frontier Trail that has an impact on people who live on the other
side of the road and along the road and also because down that area is the
area where we 've seen the most and I suspect will continue to see potential
_, problems with the ponding . So the question that I really have with , I
guess the request that I really have is that the Planning Commission really
insure that this compromise that is being proposed in terms of reduced
ponding area does not affect the water quality . It looks to me as though
you have a recommendation before you from your consultant for a larger area
yet you 're coming back and looking for a smaller area . I guess the
question that I have is really , what is the affect of doing that and are we
— comfortable with the effect that that has . And the second issue is this
issue of applying the conservation easement along the edge of Frontier
Trail . Thank you .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 24 —'
Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? —
Bill Kirkvold : My name is Bill Kirkvold . I live at 201 Frontier Court ,
which is the small spur right off of Frontier Trail down in that area . In
fact I used to live in Mr . Warrior 's house and I built a house about 5
years ago on Frontier Court so I 've lived in the neighborhood for about. 15
years . I share the concerns that Mr . Warrior expressed about the size of
the drainage pond . When I first moved to Chanhassen the City saw fit to
put in the current drainage situation that exists on Lot 12 down there ,
which really was meant to expedite the flow of the water into the lake . Now
we 're talking about building a pond on that property which is a new idea to —
me , even though I 've been a member of the homeowners association down there
all along . I don 't think that 's ever been brought up to them . But
regardless of the case , I think we need to make sure that we 're assuring
the long term water quality here and not making a short term compromise
that 's going to result in problems further on down the road . Particularly
when we have a situation here where what appears to be something is going
to increase the water drainage when we 're talking about increasing the size —
of the culvert under the road here from 36 inches to 42 inches . To me that
appears to increase the amount of water that 's going to be flowing through
there at any particular time rather than decrease it . And any long term
plans the City has haven 't been divulged to the rest of the people in the
area . My only other suggestion would be , and I certainly admire this piece
of property . It 's a beautiful piece of property . Another suggestion I
would have would be to set aside a portion of this property for use as —
neighborhood and recreational park or a city park so to speak or playlot or
something like that on a portion of the property to preserve what we have
there . There is no recreational , public recreational facilities within 6 _
or 8 blocks of that particular area of the city . So there is no opportunity
and here I think we have a piece of property that certainly lends itself to
a portion of it being parkland . Let 's consider that .
Batzli : Thank you . Let me respond to two things . Do we have as one of
our conditions the issue regarding dedication versus payment of fees , park
fees? LJF i._ h condition is that? _
Al-Jaff : I have left it out .
Batzli : The Park and Rec Commission , wherever you went . Whoever was just
speaking . Has made a determination that we on the Planning Commission are
loathe to overturn . If there is some sort of feeling among the residents
in this area that this would be , that some sort of dedication rather than —
payment of fees , that should be brought up to the City Council at this
time . That 's kind of out of our jurisdiction as to whether fees are paid
versus if there 's dedication of land . But as far as the drainage goes , I —
know that our City Engineer would love to address that right now . Dave .
Hempel : Thank you Mr . Chairman . As a part of the Surface Water Management _
Task Fence , we 've retained Bonestroo and Associates to develop a
comprehensive citywide storm management plan . The plan is concentrated on
right now the priority areas which are city lakes and the one that 's got
the most , the belt areas around it is Lotus Lake and it 's very limited to
any kind of water quality treatment ponds we can develop . As part of that
study the consultant has outlined specific areas that we propose future
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 25
improvements to and I think Sharmin , did you bring down that water? There
it is . That outlines some areas around the lake that we intend on
improving and enhancing the water quality . One such area is the area on
— the east side of Frontier Court . The price tag of that improvement was
over $150 ,000 .00 . There was no improvements proposed on the west side of
Frontier Trail . With the opportunity of this development coming in , the
— city has essentially been able to reduce the size of the improvement that
we needed to do the east side of Frontier Trail because of this development
and we 're doing that at a much more cost effective procedure . We 're saving
quite a bit of money in doing it with the developer as a joint cooperative
MIN
project . So yes , there has been a compromise but overall this is still a
compromise on the pond size that we 'd like to have on the property . But on
the other hand we have to look at the developer 's economics also of the
— development and considering that we weren 't even intending on using this
parcel for storm water treatment , this is a major find for us if you will
and will reduce accordingly on the other side of the street . So we feel
▪ that it is a good benefit to the water quality and it 's a very good
investment on behalf of the city .
Jay Warrior : May I comment , ask a question? There was some discussion
about the . . .tr;yi ng to do?
Hempel : For a water quality treatment pond to NURP standards , that 's
— typically what the,: would use . It 's a 2 1/2 inch rainfall over a 24 hour
period . For the settlement of .
Jay Warrior : Wh would . . .
Hempel : That is with regards to flooding of city streets and so forth . The
storm se;.:'-; drainage , the pipe systems that are put in the city streets are
- for a 10 year storm event . But the ponding capability for extracting
nutrieot = and sediments is basically a 2 to 5 year storm increment .
Batzli : Ohs_:, . There was another question back here . Yes sir . Can you
come :- to microphone .
Wyck Linder : Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission . My name is
Wyck Linder . I live at 7550 Great Plains Blvd . My wife , Lori and I live
there . We 've lived there for about 8 years and I had a question too . We
own part of Kolbingers Addition down there and I was concerned about the
— runoff going through that trench area down there . I don 't know how many of
you were around in 1987 but you may remember that we had two 100 year rain
events in 4 days and I think it was 8 inches on Monday and 10 inches on
- Friday and I was down in that area to check on actually the house down
there and it was going over the Frontier Trail and everything else so I
know you can 't plan for 100 year events but that would be one concern . Are
_ you planning on routing that water into these ponds?
Hempel : For the 100 year storms that we had back in '87 is actually I
think they considered a 500 year storm but peak flows like that will
— continue the path that it 's going right now . The culverts that are
underneath Frontier Trail , as you witnessed , did overtop . That 's part of
this improvement and we want to increase the diameter of those storm sewer
pipes so we 're able to maintain traffic through there if we do have a
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 26 -'
flooding situation . And also for the basement elevations of these homes _
that are to be built to reduce flooding potential in the homes . So during
a 100 year flood event the water situation will essentially maintain the
same status as it is right now . _
Wyck Linder : Okay . I would just ask that you really double check the
numbers and we 're 60 feet up on the hill so it really doesn 't directly
affect us but other than that we don 't have any problem with this
development at all . So thank you .
Batzli : Thank you very much . Is there anyone else that would like to _
address the Commission?
Bert Swanson: I 'm Bert Swanson and my property adjoins Lot number 1 . I
would just like to have the lot left next to me , left natural as what it
can be . There 's a few trees there along mine that I would sure hate to see
cut down . And especially there 's a nice oak tree that 's only about 5
inches diameter . I 'd like to see that one stand . But I don 't know if I 've —
got an7 choice on that one . Because that 's just solid trees there . The
whole lot and I 'd just like to say that I 'd like to see it left as natural
as it possibl ' could . _
Batzli : H_iw far off the lot line is your house?
Bert Swanson : About 12 feet .
Batzli : F,' . _!t 12 feet , okay .
Man:ir: And the trees that you wanted saved are right on the lot line or
are they
Bert ¶.w: riaon: There 's one nice oak that 's about 5 inch diameter and that 's —
about 2 `.— _ in off of mine .
Mancino: On the ether side?
Bert Sw=,nson : Yeah . On Lot number 1 .
Harberts : Coes it show it on the tree inventory in terms of what was going
to be taken?
Scott : It 's probably too small to be on the tree inventory but there is ,
of the trees that are larger than 6 caliper inches on Lot 1 , there 's a 16
inch birch and two 19 inch spruces that will be removed so basically we 're
looking at abc•'.t a 50% tree loss of trees over 6 caliper inches . _
Bert Swanson: Yeah , but it is solid trees there though . When you start
cutting down anything like under 6 inches , you 're really going to be
cutting a lot of trees down .
Batzli : COka:J . Thank you . Do you have anything else? I 'm sorry . Do you
have something else in addition to the trees on the lot line?
Bert Swanson: No , not really .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 27
Batzli : Okay . Thank you very much .
- Robert Davis : Can I make a quick comment?
Batzli : We normally don 't allow rebuttal until the end but go ahead .
— Robert Davis: Okay . I think the property owner is willing to work with
the neighbor and say if there 's a particular tree he would like to save ,
let 's work with them and try and get it on the list even though it 's not 6
- inches and let 's try and save it .
Batzli : I think they 're more concerned with trying to leave some screening
on that lot , more than one tree in particular . Although he did mention one
that 's 5 inches .
Scott : Mostly understory .
Batzli : Yeah . Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission? Yes sir .
Joe Zuzek : I don 't want to take up too much of your time . My name is Joe
Zuzek . I live at 407 . I 'm a relatively new resident of Chanhassen . My
wife and I moved here last year . The reason for me coming this evening was
simply to reassure myself that this development wouldn 't substantially
change the character of the Del Rio Street . The neighborhood . From the
Del Pic side , I guess I don 't see any problems . In listening to the type
— of issues that were brought forward here , watershed , the double driveway
issues and physically seeing for the first time the proposal , the
development as proposed , I guess I would come back with an alternative . I
- guess what I 'd like to see done with this parcel is not divide it into 7
parcels. . I would recommend to the Board that you reconsider the
possibility of combining Lots 4 and 5 . Dividing this 4 .47 acre parcel into
6 lots . 3 off of Del Rio , 3 off of Frontier Trail . That would eliminate
— the easement problems for the driveway . You might be able to gain , I don 't
know exactly the housepad placement . It would eliminate what I consider to
be not an aesthetic placement because you 've got that one lot that 's much
— further setback from Frontier Trail than the rest . And by dividing that
lower section along Frontier Trail it would give you the opportunity to
work the watershed issues into the entire project much easier than what I
_ consider to be a little too ambitious project of cutting it up into 7
parts . That 's all I wanted to say .
Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else that would like to address the
— Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Scott moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Harbert: I just need clarification from Dave . Did I understand you to
say that in this area there 's limited opportunities to address the water
quality issue as it deals then with runoff into Lotus Lake?
Hempel : That 's correct . Most of the area is built up and underdeveloped
— conditions .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 28
Harberts: And if this development were not to occur , then there would be a
substantial increase in cost to the city to deal with it on the east side? —
Hempel : That 's correct . More property to purchase .
Harberts : Okay .
Batzli : Let me follow up on that . But does this mean by doing this
project that we don 't have to do anything on the east side? —
Harberts : That 's the amount I understood .
Hempel : No . It reduces the amount of improvement and cost associated with
the ponding on the east side .
Batzli : But currently we have no funding to do that on the east side .
Hempel : It 's not there yet , no .
Batzli : Fight . And so we 're going to be improving water quality because
we woL,ld not Le able to do these site improvements for years to come .
Hempel : Thet correct .
Batzli : C4.s . Go ahead .
Harbert: : I understand what the residents are saying with regard to the
tree. . You know I think it 's a little bit of an aggressive project too in
terms ,.c m, personal preference but I think a landowner has the opportunity —
and hay: tri right to develop the land . They 've got economic criteria .
Thin•;.= H i f 7-,at that they have to certainly keep in mind . The city
provides this opportunity by setting the minimum codes , zoning , whatever .
Rec;uieme •tc. . I am of concern . If we 've got a feasibility report that
says it si-.ould be a bigger pond , because of the water problem . We 've got
some Te-_ idcnts here that also have a concern about the water condition .
Lotus Lak.- is a popular lake . I would recommend , I 'd be inclined to
recommend that the , I 'm not aware that the City goes out and works a lot of
deals here with developers in terms of meeting water standards . In terms
of poring in area . I 'm surprised and if we have limited opportunity to _
address_ water issues in this area , that we compromise on the size but I can
understsr,c' from; a developer 's pocketbook , that we 'd have to be sensitive to
that . I would recommend or have the Council consider maybe looking at some
kind of joint cost sharing or something to develop a ponding that 's going
to meet the standards as set out in the feasibility report . 1987 or '89
that I heard we had 500 year . We 're getting a lot of water this year too .
Especially with that area . I drive Frontier Trail . I live on the other
end sc I know what kind of water problems they 're talking about in the
streets . I like Dave 's idea about the double driveway . Put the 5 foot
buffe in . Put the 2 foot buffer in and once the owners purchase the _
proper`_ . , if they want to work out a deal with themselves , you know fine .
But I tF,Ink the legalities , I think you can get into the mess . Maybe
someone.- isn 't going to snowplow or move their snow in the wrong direction .
I thinf, it just keeps potential problems from happening there . Let 's see
here . I think the conservation setback or request . My perspective I 'd be
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 29
inclined to leave it as is because low maintenance lot , that 's what people
want . They love the trees . I don 't know if there 's an opportunity to
— basically leave it as is . I 'm guessing that if a resident is differ with
what has been established , they have that opportunity to come in front of
the Council and request it . So I would just in a sense , let 's maintain the
conseivation and if the residents have a differnt matter of opinion , let
them come before the Council and think about it at that level . I like the
idea about getting rid of that ditch . I was down there last night . I know
Joe was down there too . I thought it would be interesting to see how these
— driveways would have been installed with that ditch still there so I like
that cost sharing arrangement too that 's going in . I think that 's
basically my comments . I would just encourage the City to look at what
- opportunity exists to be sensitive to the developer 's pocketbook but also
let 's look at this is the one time opportunity to make a difference with
that water quality in that area . We 've got reports that demonstrate a
need . I think we should do something about it rather than compromise .
- That 's my comments .
Batzli : Okay , thank you . Matt .
Ledvina : I have a question for Dave . How far are we off from our optimum
solution for the ponds in terms of what we have before us and what the
feasibility study recommends? What 's the difference?
Hempel : lu'c 're very close . I think we 're looking at .15 acre feet of
stc.rat o._,t there . The problems we have with the pond , it required
steepenir;.,i the side slopes of the pond and that becomes a liability and
danger izsut, with residents and walking in the area . The ponds will have a
real flat area for the first 10 feet . There will be only a foot of water .
And then it goes down to a 3: 1 slope . To increase , to get that additional
1 . 5 ace feet , or yeah . . 15 acre feet of storage , we end up steepening up
those sid_ slopes or increasing the circumference of the pond which chips
into more of the buildable area of the lot .
Ledvina : S the optimum solution is .72 acres , is that correct?
— Hempel : I believe that 's correct , yes .
Ledvina : Something like that . Okay , so that 's roughly we 're settling for
- roughly a 2O reduction on the capacity . Somewhere in there .
Hempel : In that ballpark , yes .
- Ledvina : Alright .
Harberts: Just a question , if I could interrupt you Matt .
Ledvina : Sure , go ahead .
_ Harberts : Dave , if the lots are reduced , I 'm a little confused here on the
lots . Not Lot 5 but the one next to it or the one that take care of this ,
with the pond . If they were reduced to like 11 ,000 or something and you
have to put a smeller house on , you know are we going to get our .72? Is
- that even an option? You know this certainly isn 't my area of expertise
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 30
411
but I think we 've got an opportunity to correct something so , you know what
are the options here?
Hempel : Well , you 're correct in suggesting that we could reduce the lot
size down on the building envelope or the lot size itself . But I think the _
compensation for that , penalizing the developer on that lot , the
compensation would out of the city checkbook if you will .
Harberts: Well it 's going to be out of the city 's checkbook one way or the —
other as I understand it .
Hempel : That 's correct but the ratio I guess for pond storage . The pond _
is already being constructed . All we 're doing is making it a little bit
deeper . We 're not having to require him to go out and wider so he 's not
losing any land so we 're not really compensating him for the land he is
losing . We 're compensating him for the extra digging involved . The extra —
diameter of the pipes . If we require him to give up some more land for the
house , or for the pond , then we 're looking at extra compensation for the
land . Arid we didn 't feel that based on this site that , according to the
consultant , we didn 't feel it was justifiable in this case .
Ledvins : Well given the fact that there is additional work to be done in _
the future , I think the staff has developed a real good start and actually
taking advantage of this opportunity compromise with the developer . And
Dave menticned , we are going to be doing additional work in this area to
maintain or develop an optimum treatment scenario so I guess I 'm
comfortable with this situation knowing that if this thing goes in 2 or 3
or 4 years quicker than what we could develop , the net improvement in water
quality might be even greater than if we try to force something here and
this deal wouldn 't necessarily go through . So I guess I would be in favor
of the Ecer,ar io that 's laid out in front of us , knowing that something 's
down the road to finish the needed treatment system . So be that as it is ,
other comments . I think the frontage on Lot 1 should be able to be worked
out . I don 't feel that there should be , that we should consider a variance
there . Generally I agree with your other comments Diane on the other
issues and I ' ll leave it at that .
Eatzli : Okay . Joe .
Scott : I just have one thing to add is I 'm real familiar with the
character of that area . On Frontier Trail , as probably a lot of people
here are and one of the things that actually lends it 's charm , aside from
the overstory trees , are the bushes and shrubs and that sort of thing that —
we see and I think that will be , as long as we have the conservation
easement on Lot 5 , I think that that kind of protects the character of the
front part . I think by reducing the drives or having a joint driveway , I
think that that character would probably be preserved as best as it could
given this kind of development . The city has experts that I think have
dealt well with the ponding issue so personally I 'm in favor of the
proposal , and I 'm sure one of the other commissioners will make a motion
but I don 't have any further comments .
Batzli : Okay , thank you . Nancy .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 31
Mancino: I really don 't have any new ones either . I feel comfortable with
the ponding that staff has approved and sent to us . I would like to keep
• the conservation easement as it is for the character of the area . And I
think that we have enough sites in Chanhassen where there are no trees so
if somebody didn 't want to put a bigger house or swimming pool , that there
are plenty of other sites in Chanhassen that have no trees at all . That 's
all of my comments .
Batzli : Okay , thank you . I guess I 'll talk about the ponds first . That
— seems to be the way to go . As a member of the Surface Water Management
committee , here in the city , given our limited resources and the number of
projects we can do each year , this is going to be an incredible asset .
_ Something we would not have gotten to probably for years to come so while
there is a compromise in place , clearly as our consultants have said in
their staff report , any amount of storm water quality pre-treatment
performed at the development would both increase efficiency and reduce the
▪ cost of future downstream ponds . We 're going to have to put in downstream
ponds anyway and in the meantime we 're going to achieve a significant
benefit of catching a lot of water from a lot of acres upstream here . I
— think w ' : worked with the applicant . Staff has worked with the applicant
and with the consultants very well to achieve what I think is a real good
compromise here . Because I know we don 't have any money in the budget to
start buying hunks of this piece of property . Well , if we do they haven 't
- told oE, :Jr.yws- . The other things , I guess just to touch on some of the
things the applicant stated . The cul-de-sac , the 72 feet I think it 's
clear . Let them work with staff and iron that out . That sounds like ,
— curve the line . Do what they have to . It sounds like such a technicality
I 'm sorpris_d it hasn 't been worked out already . Number 6 . I think it 's
obvir._._ that if in fact the city consultant and engineers have modified the
▪ staff repo t , cY the feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo and Associates
that cc•rdition should be modified to reflect that change . That there 's a
smallel. number of footage associated with that pond . I don 't think it 's a
prc-bler .
Led''ir+.a : Is thy ,e another reference that we can use for that?
▪ Batzli : .!x-7 1 I think reduced by , go ahead .
Hempel : If I could offer a suggestion . Maybe if we just striken in the
_ report totally and just enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the
city for maintenance cost sharing of proposed water quality treatment pondE
as per approved construction plans . The applicant still has to come back
through the city with construction plans and specifications per city
- standards and that opportunity is where we are going to finalize these
drainage plans and ponding plans and work out the cost share involved with
that .
Batzli : Okay so how about if we just , in our condition it would read , the
applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the city for
construction , maintenance and cost sharing of the storm water improvements
period . we ' re just eliminating the , in accordance with the Bonestroo
and Associates report .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 32 —
Ledvina : I think Dave wanted to tie it one step further and say , as per
approved construction plans and that would be the final agreements .
Batzli : Okay , good . I don 't think there 's any problem with anybody
straightening out the conservation easement lines? —
Al-Jaff : No .
Ratzli : In number 7 there , I think a change is in order . I liked the idea
about the driveway , if the applicant likes that . I 'd like to specify the
front yard setbacks reduced to 25 feet on Lots 1 , 2 and 3 , Block 1 . And
then we need , I would like to see 2 additional conditions . One is that '—
we 're going to receive dedication of the park fees in lieu of the land .
Our standard condition , however that reads . And also I 'd like to propose
that we include a condition asking the applicant to work with the adjacent —
homeoNners to maintain some screening between Lot 1 and the adjoining lots .
As far as the conservation easement on Lot 5 , I guess I 'd like to see it
remain . If the applicant can convince the Council that , to eliminate part _
of it c.r- an additional portion of it , I 'd like to give you that opportunity
but I haven 't seen a need on that one either .
Robert Davis : . . .conservation easement appropriate for the adjacent
neighbor . We wc,uld like to consider the back as an option and if you
sugge= t , we could take it up with the Council . Okay .
Batzli : I there any other discussion? Does anyone have a motion?
Led,/ir : I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
#W7'? -i0 as shown on the plans dated , is that correct , May .17th? —
Al-J=ff : 17th .
subject to the following conditions . As outlined in the
staff r.: ort with the following changes and additions . Condition number
shall re:.._: , t :.. e applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreemer.+. _
with t :-_- ._ it / for the construction , maintenance and cost sharing of the
story. =tee- improvements as per approved construction plans . Number 7 .
Reword te first part of the first sentence . The applicant shall provide a
refore_.tation plan on the site which is acceptable to city staff and the —
rest of that shall read as per the staff report modifying the last sentence
to read , the applicant shall provide to staff a plan which shows the
location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the _
legal de_cription .
Batzli : That 's for staff approval?
Ledvina : Yes . Change condition number 11 to read , the extension of
service stubs. to Lots 4 and 5 and also the driveways for Lots 4 and 5 shall
be in the sane general location to minimize disruption in tree removal .
Drivew7) shall follow the utility service alignment . Change 13 to read ,
the front yard setback can be reduced to 25 feet for Lots 1 , 2 and 2 . Block
1 , Lots 1 , 2 and 3 . There 's only one block right?
Batzli : Right .
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 33
Ledvina : Adding condition number 16 . The applicant shall pay park fees in
lieu of parkland dedication . Adding condition number 17 . The applicant
shall work with adjacent homeowners on property screening issues .
Mancino: I 'd like to add to that . On recommendation number 4 . The
— applicant will meet and work with staff to resolve the frontage issue on
Lot 1 , Block 1 .
Batzli : Have you modified condition 4?
Ledvina : No , I didn 't .
Batzli : Well , let 's second his motion first .
Scott : Second .
Batzli : Okay . It 's been moved and seconded . Discussion .
_ Mancino : Cdscussion . I would like to add a friendly amendment to
recommendation number 4 that says applicant will meet with staff to resolve
the frontage issue on Lot 1 , Block 1 .
Batzli : Oka; . And does the second and motion accept that? Okay . Any
other discussion?
Ledvina moved , Scott seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #93-10 as shown on plans dated May 17 , 1993 ,
subject to the following conditions:
1 . Al utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accords-ce
►•:ith the current edition of "City 's Standard and Specifications and
Dete•il Plates " . Detailed street and utility construction plans and
Ep fic &t. ic'ns. shall be submitted for City Council approval .
2 . The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed
District , DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply
with their conditions of approval .
3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the
terms of the development contract .
4 . Proposed Lot 1 , Block 1 has a lot frontage of 72 feet . The applicant
shall meet and work with city staff to resolve the front issue for
this lot .
5 . All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of
completing site grading unless the city 's ( BMPH ) planting dates
dictate otherwise . All areas disturbed with slopes of 3: 1 or greater
shall he restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 34
6 . The applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the
city for the construction , maintenance and cost sharing of the storm —
water improvements as per approved construction plans.
7 . The applicant shall provide a reforestation plan on the site which is
acceptable to city staff . This plan shall include a list of all trees —
proposed to be removed and their size . The vegetated areas which will
not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation
easement . The tree preservation easement shall be reserved over the _
area shaded in Attachment #2 . The conservation easement shall permit
pruning , removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush . All
healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4 ' height shall not be permitted to _
be renved . The applicant shall provide to staff a plan which shows
the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall
provide the legal description for staff approval .
8 . The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide drainage and utility
easement over the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines in
Lot.E 1 , 2 , 4 and 7 , Block 1 . _
9 . The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the
final plat rights over all ponding and drainage areas .
10 . The e . istina house on the property shall be razed prior to final plat
approval . The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the
necessary permits from the City and State . —
11 . Th eetension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5 , and also the
driveways for Lots 4 and 5 shall be in the same general location to
minimize disruption in tree removal . Driveways shall follow the
utility service alignment .
12 . The e, i =ting 15 foot drainage utility easement through Lot 7 , Block 1
sh , ' 1 r-, increased to 20 feet wide .
13 . The f :_.;-.t yard setback can be reduced to 25 ' for Lots 1 , 2 and 3 ,
Block 1 .
14 . The applicant 's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 1
through 3 , Block 1 to see if adjustments can be made to push the —
building pads closer to the front property line in an effort to reduce
tre• loss on said lots .
15 . All lots, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit . Staff
shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if _
it will result in saving significant vegetation . A snow fence shall
be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to
gradin• .
16. The applicant shall pay full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication .
17 . The applicant shall work with adjacent homeowners on property —
screening issues .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 35
— All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli : And when does this go to City Council Sharmin?
Al-Jaff : July 12th .
Batzli : July 12th . Thank you very much for coming in . I appreciate the
- working with the neighbors and staff . Thank you .
— PUBLIC HEARING:
DOUG HANSON, WEST ONE PROPERTIES FOR A PUD TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM BG ,
GENERAL BUSINESS TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT
_ LOTS 3 , 4 , AND 5 , BLOCK 2 , BURDICK PARK INTO ONE LOT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 16,335 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF AN OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY
LOCATED AT 7900 KERBER BOULEVARD , WEST ONE EXPANSION.
— Public Present :
Name Address
Doug Hanson 17001 Stodola Road , Minnetonka
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order .
— Doug Hanson: Mr . Chairman and members of the Planning Commission . As you
know I 'm Dc.t.!g Hanson . I don 't have too many in the audience . As you know
the project is to be done in one single and final phase instead of two as
origina13 -7, proposed in the sketch plan review . And Sharmin has brought to
you the reduced size of the building to 16 ,309 square foot , the addition
that i . And let 's see
it was also brought out that the project was scheduled to be presented 2
- weeks ago but working with her we decided to wait and I 'm here tonight . I
think we 've accomplished the improved appearance by painting the original
building with the new addition and installing the teal colored metal roofs
— on the entrances . That 's tied in with the accent stripes . The posts will
be covered with pre-finished steel of the same color as the main portion of
the building . Existing 3 foot doors will be replaced . The rooftop air
_ conditioners will be enclosed with steel siding of that color . The almond
color . She talked about public transit . We met that railroad setback
requirement by cutting off a corner of the building to maintain that 50
foot setback requirement . We brought the hard cover down to 70% by
— reducing the size of the building and narrowing the blacktop along the rear
of the building to 26 '6" . The concerns I have , one of them was with the
staff recommending that the glazed tile should be used for accent stripes .
The cost is great because it includes the old building as well as the
addition . This isn 't Target or Target 's resources . Or Target 's income .
It 's a manufacturing company and has a much lower return of income .
There 'd be about 900 lineal feet or if you added that strip on the top , I
was proposing to paint the roof flashing but if you add a strip on the top ,
there 's 1 ,366 lineal feet of this band and it would be very expensive .
I believe it 's not practical from a maintenance aspect because on the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 36
existing building it would have to be glued on the face of the block that 's
there . So all the edges are exposed to the weather and eventually probably —
would fall off . One of the most obvious reasons is that the front of our
building looks at the trucks and the loading at the back of Market Square .
In the back of Market Square are accent stripes that are painted . On the
front of Market Square there 's accent stripes that are painted . Why should —
this requirement be made of us? I don 't know . The building 's been there
for 15 years and I looked at the stripes on Market Square in front of
Festival Foods . There 's a red stripe that 's painted . It looks great . I -
don 't know why these wouldn 't look
great . You really have to study it close to see that it 's not tile . It 's
a painted stripe .
Harberts : My understanding is that these are all painted stripes?
Doug Harron : Painted stripes , right . Another issue is the truck parking —
requirement . I think you 've got , the staff report calls for eliminating
truck parking to 4 and right now we have permission to park trucks
overnight . Trucks are a necessary part of the business . There 's no semi 's . —
There 's no semi-trailers . This parking could be limited to the rear to be
completely hidden from view . Chaska Machine , we have 2 trucks . A stake
truck and a van type for hauling product and Steinkraus Plumbing would have
3 or 4 . Our firm may have an enclosed van type and in the future . We don 't —
right now but the truck parking is necessary provision for the businesses
here . We now look at the U-Haul trucks and trailers right in our front .
Sr. I don 't think we 're asking for anything that 's unreasonable . The trees . —
You require 15 more trees . I 'd like to see them on this lot , if that 's
possible . Another concern is a park and rec fee . Although I understand
you 're not to answer for that anyway . I 'd gladly pay the fee for the new —
addition but I don 't think it 's fair to charge it on an existing building
that 's been there for 15 years and you know we paid , we were probably the
first , o- , c of the first industrial buildings in Chanhassen and since 1984 ,
what we paid before that but that 's the only records I have . We paid —
$218 ,35'=° . 4,7, towards the tax increment financing that stayed in Chanhassen .
The parFino , Ecis absolutely necessary . We had to struggle to get down to
this - _ ,.d cove because of a pre-existing condition of 82% hard cover . So —
through compromise we 're down there . I hope in the future if I ever need
more parking , if Chaska Machine leaves or whatever , I hope that you ' ll keep
that in mind that we met this hard cover requirement as if it was a new _
building , and we 've fought that so we 've reduced , there 's a net loss of 8
spaces right now . Just a few things , advantages I guess . The addition
cleans up and makes immediate good use of the remaining lot and allows
Chaska Machine to remain in Chanhassen . They 're a solid company and —
they 've been an asset for the city providing jobs and income to the
surrounding businesses as well as the real estate tax income to Chanhassen .
Improvements made to the existing building as well as the addition will be _
refreshing , fit well with the surrounding Market Square complex . Tree area
will be extended to the east to accomplish what the city desires . The hard
cover area is reduced from over 80% to 70% by the addition of Lot 3 to the
layout . I just want to let you know that the timing is important for
Chaska Machine because they 're eager to , they need space as soon as they
can get it . I ' ll be glad to change the windows to the size that 's there .
The reason for the larger windows is that people would like to see out when —
they 're sitting at their desk so it was a practical thing . But they 're
- Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 37
living with what 's there now and I guess they can live with higher windows .
Is there any other questions?
— Batzli : We 'll probably have some as we go around . Appreciate your
comments . Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission?
If not , is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Scott moved , Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
- Mancino : Sharmin , I have a couple questions . On page 6 at the top of your
report , the first finding says that the back of the building will be
against the trees and all loading will be screened from view . Is that the
new addition that we 're talking about?
Al-Jaff : Correct .
Mancino: Because the back of the new addition , I 'm very concerned with
what you see from Highway 5 because it is on the Highway 5 corridor and
there are going to be some very specific and stringent architectural
— specifications on the whole corridor . When it 's going to be screened from
view of the loading , does that mean year round or are we talking about , I
mean hcc.a is it going to be screened? How 's the loading going to be
screene=d?
Al-Jaffa i_iver the past 2 weeks I drove , I made sure that I take that
section on Highway 5 that overlooks Chaska Machine and the only part that I
could see , even being in a passenger seat , the only part of the building I
could really see has been the front of the building and a small portion of
the sid- .
Mancino: Yeah , but the trees are out so you can 't see it like you can in
the wi tel .
Al -Jaffa rn;;thing that will be stored will be behind the building .
Mancin. : 0r, the west side?
Al-Jaff : On the west side . Correct . We are adding more trees to this
site .
Mancino : Will some of those be conifers so that we can keep the screening
year round?
Al-Jaff : We could make that a condition of approval .
Mancino : I would like to have a mix because I know that in the winter
time , because I make at least 2 trips a day on Highway 5 going back and
forth , you can , that is much more exposed than it is now . I mean you can
see all of Market Square . The back . The U-Hauls . Everything . And also
you car see , if you really look , you have to strain to look , you can see
the back of the existing , but as it comes out and faces more towards
Highway 5 is my concern . Under permitted uses on page 8 of the report . It
says overnight parking of a maximum of 4 trucks and Mr . Hanson is asking
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 38
for more than 4 , correct?
Al-Jaff : Correct .
Mancino: Okay . Would that mean if someone else came in and they wanted to
put semi-trailers , they could also park semi-trailers or we could put 4
semi-trailers . Let 's say that Chaska Machine and Tool left and somebody —
else rented it and it 's zoned PUD with light industrial , are we going to ,
would we allow the use?
Al-Jaff : I pulled up their original report . They were permitted , I 'll
read it here . It says motor vehicles larger than 9 ,000 pounds , licensed
gross weight , shall not be parked or stored outside . No , shall be parked
and stored outside of the building on the subject property between the —
hours of 2 :00 and 6:00 a .m . on any day . So basically the limit on the size
of the truck is 9 ,000 pounds .
Mancino: 9 ,000 tons or 9 ,000 pounds?
Al-Jaff : I have pounds here . That would be a medium size , small sized
truck . —
Scott : It 's like a big U-Haul street truck . Yeah , it 's not a .
Al -Jaff : I asked Dave .
Hempel : Lapeer than a pick-up truck . _
Mancino : So it would be limited to that size when we change the zoning
from E to PUD?
Al-Jaff : Correct . That 's what they have right now . However , they don 't
have a limit as to how many they may park there . Overnight .
Mancino: And you have 8 right now?
Dou Hens'pn : I think we can live with 8 unless . . .
Mancino : But we ' re going to limit you to 4 .
Doug Hanson : I can 't . . .
Harberts : What 's the reason for limiting it to 4? Is there some kind of
ordinance or what 's your guide?
Al-Jaff : We just didn 't want to see too many trucks parked out there . We
figured we can live with 4 .
Harberts: How many is too many?
Scott : Well that 's an indication to me and I would , I 'm going to be a —
business , as the President of the Chamber of Commerce . That 's the way I 'm
looking at this almost exclusively . I would love to see the tenants of
that area have as many , I mean if they have to , they 're not going to spend
$30 ,000 .00 or $40 ,000 .00 on a truck just to park there to tick us off . I
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 39
mean they 've got business happening . They need a delivery truck . The
constraint is purely financial and I think you can effectively limit the
size of the truck that 's there but I don 't think you should put on a top on
any number of them because they don 't buy them for fun . You know they need
them , they 'll buy them . Or if they 're not too sure , they ' ll lease them and
then when they don 't need them , they 'll give them back so I don 't think we
— should mess the guy 's business . With the trucks . We can limit the size .
I think that 's an effective way of doing it . We just don 't want huge
semi 's all over the place .
Batzli : I 'm confused . Are we talking about semi 's or delivery trucks?
Scott : There 's a limit of 9 ,000 gross weight .
Batzli : Pardon me .
Al-Jaff : Delivery trucks .
Doug Hanson: No semi 's .
- Batzli : No semi 's .
Scott : Yeah , they don 't need semi 's .
Al-Jai Medium sized trucks .
Batzli : Okay . So we could say no semi 's parked but however many delivery
trucks .
Scott : The,- 're going to take deliveries . They may get deliveries in
• semi ', or something but they 're not going to be parked overnight .
Batzli : Yeah . Well , that 's what we 're concerned about is that this
bec.oms = a .o.1 l e( t i on point for rusting trucks or has a bunch of semi 's
Scott : Yeah , and 9 ,000 gross weight will control . Will eliminate that
Problem .
Al-Jaff : E.ut you don 't want to put a limit on the number of trucks that
may he parked overnight is what you 're saying?
Scott : Nope .
Batzli : Oh I would but these guys wouldn 't .
—
Mancino : Yeah , I would too .
Batzli : We haven 't gotten to me yet , but keep going . Who was , Diane were
you? WherA was T? Was it Nancy? I knew somebody was still talking . I 'm
• sorry . I forget which end I started on .
Mancino : Visually I have a problem with the two buildings not lining up .
When I look at the front face and I see that everything is kind of askewed
Planning Commission Meeting
Jure 16 , 1993 - Page 40
a little , and I look at it and I say , oh my gosh . They must have added on
right there and why didn 't they at least add on and make it , and continue
the elements . Whether it 's the window element . Whether it 's the top parapet
element . I would like to see that continued in the same line . Now I don 't
know about the draining and what needs to be done to get proper drainage
for the building or the addition and maybe Dave can add anything . I mean I
don 't understand the draining problem .
Batzli : Before we get to the draining problem , aesthetically don 't you —
want the face of the building to be broken up somehow?
Mancino : Well it is . It 's going to have 3 more roof canopies . It 's going
to have 3 more entrances than what we see now . It will hopefully have good —
landscaping to break it up . But I don 't think breaking it up by having
just one point in time where everything doesn 't meet anymore is a good way
of breaking up a building . Maybe the architect or who 's ever designing it
can come back and say , you know there 's a reason why it goes up and looks —
right there and maybe there 's another one that echo 's it . But I think it
draws yc„_ar attention to it and I don 't think it 's aesthetically pleasing .
So I would like to see it taken care of architecturally . Whether you come —
back v.ith something that makes it look right . It just looks wrong . Anyway ,
but draining and grading , I don 't know what the problem is .
Doug Hanson : Can I speak to that?
Mancirc : Sure .
Doug Hanson: I have to raise it up 2 feet . I 'd rather leave it all level
but I h ve to raise it to get the water out of that front yard . . .to get the
w_:ter e- Tc _In^ the building and over to . . .big storm and the whole building —
g is r1e7ocI ._1 because it 's flat . It 's not good . . . It 's got to go up 2 feet .
I 'd rather have it flat too but it has to be a break up . Market Square you
krR.,t, .!i r, up all the way up . As the grade goes up , the building goes up . —
Mart: inr : Yea , but I think that 's been thought through very well
arc' it.e : tt.,ral. l , because it has different levels meeting each other and it
keeps ocino and it just doesn 't have one split . —
Doug Well , I don 't know any other way out of it . You know it is a
step uc but. I don 't think we should try to hide it . _
Eatzli : Well we ' ll hear from the rest of the commissioners . Let 's see if
everyone would like to see that problem addressed .
Mancino : My other question Sharmin , last one has to do with outdoor
storme . I saw in the City Council Minutes from the April 12th meeting
that condition number 4 was that there will be no outdoor storage permitted —
and that was one of their conditions of approving the concept plan . Arid so
it 's coming back to us to revise that? Am I correct , in allowing . This is
on page , the bottom of page number 32 . _
Batzli : So you feel there 's been a change from the Council and then to our
cc.ndi t ior, 4 that there 's no unscreened outdoor storage permitted?
Mancino : Yes . And do we have a problem there in , I know that the Highwa
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 41
— 5 Task Force Subcommittee who 's working on architectural specifications is
not allowing any outdoor storage on the Highway 5 corridor . With the
exception if it 's outside of , let 's see , let me think . The following may
not be used in any visible exterior application except when specifically
permitted by the city in areas with limited public view . And so they 're
going to be prohibiting outdoor storage . Now I think the west , the back
side of the building on the west side that faces Target is really in
— limited public view so that I feel it would be fine to allow screened
outdoor storage on that one side of the building . On that west side but
again not on the side , the south side that faces Highway 5 . So I would
like that to be a condition . Exactly where the outdoor storage can go .
Batzli : Does the applicant , do you have a need for outdoor storage?
Scott : Well that recycling . Isn't there a metal recycling?
— Doug Hanson : . . .but that 's not outdoor storage .
Mancino: Well there are pallets all over .
Doug Hinson : The pallets will go inside when we have the new addition . . .
Al-Joff : It still is a condition of approval under number 16 that no
outdooi uricr-een€d storage of materials be permitted . And it specifies
trash st':•r -c,e , shipping pallets or other materials . It 's on page 15 .
Condif_ ion number 16 . When it says , defining retail .
Batzl : r _ `!,t . What I think the issue was that the original condition
where r•:. looked at the concept plan was that there shall be no outdoor
• Stora.>e and now we 're saying there shall be no outdoor storage unless it 's
screened , which is different . I think we understand that there 's probably
going to b€ a certain number of stuff that 's outside that need to be
screened but we 're not trying to allow storage of articles of stuff so much
• as if the ,, 'ye got to put a trash container or something outside , yeah
screen it . But everything else comes inside . That 's why they 're doing the
addition to the building . My understanding .
Scott : The way the site plan is set up , it looks like on the south side .-,f
the building there 's a 28 foot area that is exclusively for cars . 26 foot ,
_ excuse me . When I measured it I screwed up . But it looks like it 's
specifically for the purpose of cars passing so there really isn 't any room
to put stuff there and then there 's a trash enclosure so that looks to be
way the site is set up is there won 't be any room because of the narrowness
of the site and having to pull cars in and out . They 're not going to t,e
putting stuff back there anyway . Not on the south .
Batzli : If condition is just modified that existing trash enclosure , you
know shall be screened or whatever we need to say there .
Manch:, : Trash and recycling .
Batzli : Yeah . And then we can leave in condition 16 as it is . Or we can
just say no outdoor storage of materials .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 42
Doug Hanson: Could I say something?
Batzli : Sure .
Doug Hanson: The recycling binds , you know they can 't be screened . —
Scott : Because they 've got to pick them up .
Doug Hanson: Yeah . You know they 're . . .filled with metal so the truck has
to come and maneuver around . But they are all basically . . .
Batzli : Where do they currently sit on the plan? Is that this one? —
Scott : The recycling , it 's right there .
Batzli : Oh , recycle area?
Scott : Yeah . And this is gated right here . So they have a metal —
recycling container .
Mancino : What did they do at Market Square where they have those
recycling?
Al-Jaff : They do have trash enclosure on each side but then you would be
able to acre== them from the front . They are not visible from Highway 5 .
You could see the side of them , which is basically an extension of the
wall . Of t. He building .
Batzli : Yc . 're not going to be able to screen this recycle area without —
takinp. rkir; stalls and he 's already short parking stalls . Like tco
punch an; ether holes in our nice plan here?
Manci r.,-. : T that 's it .
Batzli : ±e 's cine enough damage . —
Mancino : At least those were all of my questions on it . That 's it .
Batzli : What do you think of , this park and trail issue . He only wants to —
Pay on half of his building . What do we normally do?
Al-Jarf : I checked our building files and all I could find is a signed _
permit application on Chaska Machine . There is no record . Nothing on it
o .
Batzli : That he paid the first time?
Al-Jaff : Yeah .
Batzli : S:' you want to get him now .
Al-Jaff : And I talked to Park and Rec 's Director and he still wants the —
fee paid fc.r both phases . The first one that was done in '79 and .
Planning Commission Meeting
-- June 16 , 1993 - Page 43
Batzli : Did you think you paid one originally or just that you 've been
here long enough .
Doug Hanson: I don 't know . Probably they didn 't have them at that time .
Scott : Yeah , when did we start collecting that? Did we start collecting
— them in '79 or is this a thing that came after '79?
Doug Hanson: We didn 't do it illegal . We got a permit and went through
the process . That building is . . .
Batzli : We understand that . I think it 's an issue you have to take up
with the Council though . We can 't change that one . Joe .
Scott : I think that a painted strip is fine . I think that if to get
drainage the building has to be up 2 feet , I think that 's fine . I think
— limiting the trucks to 9 ,000 pounds gross weight is great . Let them have
10 . I mean if they 're making that kind of dough , they should be able to
buy tru,_ ke and park them out there . I think this is definitely a limited
public view area because I was cruising on Highway 5 and you almost have to
cause an a.:,- ident to look down there when you 're driving by there but I can
see definitely your point . So I think that Mr . Hanson has worked very
close]. ;, with the city staff and this is , you know this is an industrial.
— building you know and I was down there . I think when you compare it to the
hack of Market Square , it looks pretty good right now so I think this is
going to t-he an upgrade . I think it 's a great use . I just don 't think we
should hassle this guy anymore . You know , that 's where I 'm coming from . I
won 't say anymore .
Batzli : Do you want to see him change the size of the windows?
Scott : Nc, . No .
- Batzii : Ok:A7 . You like it as is?
Scott :
Y ;
Batzli : Okay . Matt .
Ledvina : Looking at the architectural pespective if you will of the grade
change , or the change in the roof line . I can understand that , I looked at
the grading plan and I don 't see any easy solutions for lowering the
building to match existing . There 's really not even a possibility of
_ putting a catch basin in someplace and running it . You know running it in
a storm because there is just no easy drainage out of here . So I can
understand that issue . What I was thinking possibly is , there 's a . . .one
that makes kind of the elbow . Maybe there 's a possibility of raising that
another 2 feet as well to , I mean you have the grade change at the addition
and mayb.. to give it a more uniform look or a unitized look that you 'd make
another change at that point . So I 'll just throw that out there . I think
it can be done architecturally with just the one 2 foot drainage . But I
don 't know . I 'm riot an architect . But as it relates to the screening . I
was back there when this first came in front of us and I do remember that
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 44
very limited in terms of the sight views there from off site but as I was
back there I noticed that it wasn 't as nice as maybe it could be and I hope _
that maybe with the addition that things will really be spruced up back
there and all that . I don 't know , I don 't have an easy answer or an answer
even on the screening . I think if staff will work with Mr . Hanson on
that , I 'm sure they can come up with acceptable screening for those trash
and recycling areas . I don 't know what those are going to be even . Other
than that I don 't feel the need to restrict the number of trucks . Small
trucks back there . I think that 's reasonable to , well I take that back . I
think if we looked at 10 trucks , I would think that would be ample and I
think we really should provide some guidance on that . I think that would
be appropriate . So let 's see . I don 't feel the , just for the record , I
don 't feel that the applicant should pay additional fees for park and trail
for the existing structure . I think certainly for the value of the
addition that 's appropriate but , wherever that goes . Other than that ,
that 's my only comments .
Batzli : Okay . Diane .
Harbert. : I 'nm going to concur a lot with the comments of Commissioner
Scott . I don 't think that they need to be required to put some glazing on .
According to the directions from the Council and the Planning Commission to
match and enhance the design of the existing building . I think that 's been
met . I think discussion on previous projects , we have to be sensitive to
the cost factor . Market Square , those pictures or whatever I 've seen was
painted and they looked fine . I think that would look a lot better than
tiles that max be falling off in a few years simply because they 're , in a
sense just added on later . I too don 't feel that he should be paying park
fees or the old building but only on the new building . The new addition . _
No limit on the- truck . I think your business pretty well controls that .
Work out thi • , I 'm still a little confused but work out the deal with the
storage , the screening , that type of thing . I think Commissioner Scott
summed it up well . He worked hard for it . Let 's work with him too on this
and I think he 's come quite a distance and I 'll just support the public
transit elefr:ert of this plan . That 's my comments .
Batzli : Okay . Did everybody , nobody really commented on the evergreens in
condition 15 , rather than some of the overstory trees on the south portion
of the site I think is where we were talking about putting them . Did
everybody concur that we should do some of that?
Scott : Evergreens? I 'd agree with that .
Mancino: Add conifers instead of deciduous . Or a mix .
?atzli : well , is an evergreen tree like that considered an overstory
tree? N..:. , it isn 't is it? Okay . I ask the dumb questions . I would , I
don 't know . The issue about the jog in the building . It didn 't look bad
to me . I guess I don 't have a complete picture based on the elevations
that were riven to us exactly , it didn 't look bad but maybe it would if I
really knew what it was going to look like . But it didn 't look bad based
on the drawing to me . So I have a tough time requiring that he put in
different sized windows or match up the roofline or put in a third jog when. —
it was things that , I didn 't get a sense from the staff that these were
Planning Commission Meeting
— June 16 , 1993 - Page 45
- important to them as design elements of the building .
Al-Jaff : Well they were pointed out to us yesterday by Commissioner Mancino
and we 're going to end up with two different sizes of windows .
- Batzli : Is that going to look bad? Do we have that on another building?
Scott : You know that might be the architectural element that we need , you
— know when you 're looking at the new addition kind of jogging up . Maybe by
increasing window size , maybe that can fool the eye into making it look
more compatible . I don 't know . I can 't figure that out in my head either
but you know .
Mancino: Well there 's so many horizontal elements on the building . That 's
where I think the problem is .
Batzli : There 's too many horizontal elements?
Mancino: Well yeah .
Batzli : Differing .
Mancino : They 're differing horizontal and they 're .
Batzli : But see , I would think it would make it worst by making the
— windy : uniform because then it would be even more noticeable I would
thin . I can 't know . I don 't know either . That would seem to me to
exaccerbat.e the problem . If the windows were identical size but offset , if
you 're tryinto make it look like there 's not this jog . Well I don 't
Imo
know .
Mancino:. : well actually I would like them all to line up . Not just the
window= but everything else . . .perfect world is what I 'm saying .
Al-Jaff : Staff would recommend that the same windows that are being used
— on the building today be used with the addition . You would have some
cont inuanc y with the addition .
Batzli : Okay . As far as the park and trail fees , I think we need to do
whatever we require everybody else to do . If we require other people to
pay u,= , if they didn 't pay the first time , I guess we need to have him pay
up too . I don 't know what we do . Condition 16 , I 'd like that somehow this
- unscreened storage . What I 'd like it to say I guess is , there shall be no
outdoor unscreened storage except for the existing trash enclosure and
recycle aYea . If we can live with that because it looks like that 's what
- we 're going to end up with here .
Scott : How about under number 4 , there shall be unscreened outdoor storage
permitted . Existing outdoor storage to he placed in approved screened
enclosures where applicable because .
Batzli : Yeah , that could be . I 'd like to limit , the overnight parking , I 'd
— like to see a maximum of 10 operable delivery trucks and that there shall
be no overnight parking of semi-trailers or inoperable vehicles . So we
don 't see rusting hulks there . Not that you 're going to do it . I didn 't
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1E , 1993 - Page 46
want to say that .
Scott : Now you lease that building out to not only your own company but to _
all the tenants?
Doug Hanson: Well there 's just Chaska Machine . There will be Steinkraus
Plumbing . . .
Scott : So you could put , I know in my lease there 's all sorts of
conventions about the stuff that you can 't do so I mean , that can be _
something as a landlord you can do for people that are moving into the new
space or that sort of thing . That 's something that you can control as a
landlord too so .
Harberts : What 's your feeling on 10 trucks?
Doug Hanson: Well , as far as I know that would be fine at this point but
if Che { Machine leaves and somebody else , after I get another tenant or
tenants . . .
Scott : Well you can always come back too .
Doug Hanson : . . .The one thing Matthew brought up . . .step down . Chaska
Machine , you know they don 't like to step up with the forklift truck so any —
brake= , we should just have one brake . . .and you lose the flexibility of
plarir . the punch presses around .
Scott : Do they have to mount those things to the concrete floor?
;-'_ s dnDc, they what?
Scott : The punch presses , do they have to mount those to the floor ?
YeaH . I . Uk..ld see- where that would waste some space .
Doug Ha- I know there 's one step up where you have . . .one area to
other . . .
Ledvin:- : I recognize there 's some utility concerns with grade changes
certainly . But I was speaking strictly from a possible architectural
basis . Just a thought .
Doug Hanson: You know on this grade change , what if there 's a 6 inch jog
or something . . .
Mancino: Yeah , that 's kind of interesting . Do a little stepping back of
the building or forward a little bit . Yeah . That would make , that might
do something .
Batzii : Yeah , that might help . Talk to us one last time about the strip .
Painted versus this other dealy bob . Do we really need this thing or can
we paint ?
�1-3eff : Because it 's a PUD and because we wanted higher standards , staff
recom.i.en:Sed that we go with the tile versus the painted strip .
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 47
Scott : Mr . Hanson , what 's the increased cost to put the tile on there? You
said it was a substantial amount of money . Just roughly . Plus or minus
- $10 ,000 .00 .
Doug Hanson: I don 't know but I tried to get that bid for you today but he
— didn 't call back . I don 't honestly know . I know that it 's thousands . I
just can 't see it when I 'm looking at it .
Scott : I think your point was well taken .
Doug Hanson : Looking across the street to try . . .
Scott : I think too with having those tiles exposed on the four corners , if
— they 're going to be glued on , exposed to the elements , it 'd probably look
kind of .
Doug k'=nsor, : That 's what the tile setter told me .
Scott : Versus Target , isn 't that , Target 's set right into the . Right , so
it 's a different application altogether . Yeah , okay .
Batzli : Well , I guess I would like to see better materials if he can ,
because it 's a PUD , if he can demonstrate with some real cost figures and
— _omethir•c from the people that say it 's going to fall off and be an
eyesore . I 'd certainly go along with that . But right now I guess I remain
uncon„ inc=c' . Is there anything else that people would like to discuss or
is the -e motion here?
Mancinc : I know the electrical box in the front , you have to paint that
the sa• e Coic•r as the building?
Doug I don 't know . .to do that .
Harbert = : I don 't know if they ' ll let you do that .
Mancinc• : Well it 's kind of the same color anyway .
- Harberts : No , I think there 's codes . Some kind of codes .
Doug Hanson : I don 't know . . .
Al-Jaff : What we can do is maybe screen it with some bushes . Like 3 foot
high bushes on the site only . We do have to have a clearance . That 's one
solution .
Scott : Well I can make a motion, if you ' ll allow me to .
- Batzli : You have the floor .
Scott : The Planning Commission recommends approval to rezone 97 ,163 square
feet of BG , General Business to PUD , Planned Urban Development . Approve
prelir•.inary and final development plans , preliminary plat approval and
comprehensive plan amendment from commercial to office/industrial as shown
in plans dated April 19 , 1993 , revised June 5 , 1993 and with a waiver of a
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 48
S acre minimum PUD zone requirement subject to the following conditions .
I 'd like to change condition number 3 to read , the accent stripe shall be
created by using paint , period . Number 4 to read , there shall be no
unscreened outdoor storage permitted . Existing outdoor storage to be
placed in approved screened enclosures where applicable . Number 11 , Park
and trail fees shall be paid at the time of application of the building _
permit on the new structure . 15 . Fifteen overstory trees shall be added .
Five conifers along the south portion of the site , and 10 trees on Outlot
A , Crossroads Plaza . And number 16 , and Commissioner Batzli can maybe help _
me with this one . On number 6 , Offices . Light manufacturing is subject to
the following limitations . Overnight parking of a maximum of 10 operable
delivery trucks .
Batzli : I had suggested no overnight parking of semi trailers or
inoperative vehicles .
Scott : Okay . No overnight parking of semi trailers or inoperable
vehicles .
Harbert =. : Second .
Mancino: I 'd like to add a friendly amendment to that and that is on 3 .
That the rack face concrete block shall remain as the main material used on —
the building end it shall be painted . Because we 're painting the whole
building , correct?
Scott : Oh , anyway? I don 't know . Are we? Is that what that ivory color
i= _
Harb=-rt. s : Yeah .
Scott : Oh , okay . That 's friendly . I ' ll accept that one .
Batzli : whet does conditions 3 read now?
Scott : Rock face concrete block shall remain as the main material used on
the build na and it shall be painted?
Mancino : And also , you added to it that it 's not glazed tile . It 's just
paint . However the accent stripes shall be created by using paint .
Batzli : So you 've eliminated the rest of the verbage there?
Mancino : Yeah .
Batzli : So you don 't have expansion of the building matches and enhances
the architectural design of the existing building?
Scott : That 's striken from condition 3 .
Batzli : Do you want to ask the applicant to look into setting back the
building?
Scott : No .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 49
Batzli : At the park . You don 't want to do that?
— Scott : No .
Batzli : Okay . Is there any other discussion?
Scott moved , Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval to rezone 97 ,163 square feet of BG, General Business to PUD ,
Planned Urban Development . Approve preliminary and final development
— plans , preliminary plat approval and comprehensive plan amendment from
commercial to office/industrial as shown in plans dated April 19, 1993 ,
revised June 5 , 1993 and with a waiver of a 5 acre minimum PUD zone
— requirement subject to the following conditions:
1 . Preliminary and Final plat approval combinging Lots 3 , 4 and 5 , Block
2 , Burdick park into one lot with appropriate easements . All typical
utility and drainage easements shall be dedicated to the city on the
final plat .
— 2 . Rezoning approval from BG , General Business to PUD , Planned Unit
Development .
3 . The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural
design of the existing building . Rock face concrete block shall remein
az the main material used on the building , and it shall be painted .
All cedar wood shingles shall be replaced with ribbed steel panels .
However , the accent stripes shall be created by using paint .
4 . Tr.ere shall be no unscreened outdoor storage permitted . Existing
outdoor storage to be placed in approved , screened enclosures where
applicable .
5 . The hard cover surface of the site ( the three lots ) shall not exceed
70°: . The setback of the building shall maintain a minimum setback of
SO feet from the railroad right-of-way . Revised plans reflecting those
t y._. elements shall be submitted for staff review .
6 . Prior to rezoning and development , the applicant shall purchase the
property in question from the HRA .
7 . Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development .
8 . The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer calculations prepared
by a professional engineer for the City to review .
9 . The applicant shall provide a $500 .00 security for connection to the
City 's storm sewer line and boulevard restoration on Picha Drive . This
fee will be refunded upon satisfactorily completing connection and
restoration of the City 's boulevard .
10 . Type T erosion control fence shall be installed around the perimeter
along the grading limits .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 50
11 . Park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of application of
building permit on the new structure .
12 . Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council .
13 . Stop signs shall be installed at the exit points to Picha Drive .
14 . Meet the conditions of the Fire Marshal .
15 . Fifteen over story trees shall be added . Five conifer trees along the —
south portion of the site , and 10 trees on Outlot A , Crossroads Plaza .
16 . The PUD Agreement shall include the following conditions: —
a . Intent .
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD that would allow the
eApans1on of an existing office/light manufacturing use : It is
intended that this use he operated and maintained to preserve its low
intensity character to ensure its compatibility with surrounding uses
and the greater Chanhassen Central Business District .
b . Permitted Uses . _
The permitted uses in this zone are limited to the light industrial/
office c,r less intensive uses than the existing use . The uses shall be
limited to those as defined herein . If there is a question as to
when e,) or not a use meets the definition , the Planning Director shell
make that interpretation .
•
1 . Light Manufacturing*
2 . Retail**
3 . Ne,,spamer and small printing offices _
4 . Veterinary Clinic
5 . Animal Hospital
' . Offices
*Lig`-.t manufcturino is subject to the following limitations :
- no visible emissions of smoke
- no noise emissions exceeding the MnPCA standards measured at the
property line
No outdoor , unscreened storage of materials , trash storage , shippinj _
pallets , or other materials
- overnight parking of a maximum of ten delivery trucks
- no overnight parking of semi trailers or inoperable vehicles
- all parking must be accommodated on-site
**Retail uses are subject to the following limitations :
- Eionaoe consistent with approved sign package
- retail uses must be consistent with the site 's restricted parking
Scott , Harberts and Ledvina voted in favor . Batzli and Mancino voted in
Planning Commission Meeting
— June 16 , 1993 - Page 51
- opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2 .
Batzli : Your reason for?
_ Mancino: Well I certainly hope that the . . . looks better than I think it
might . I just have some concerned about that obviously .
Scott : Mr . Hanson , when the building is finished you can invite
— Commissioner Mancino to come over .
Mancino : And I 'll say I was all wrong , I 'm sorry and I hope that that
- happens . There 's no question about it . But no , I do have some concern
about it and I would just like to have it , I 'd like to see a rendering of
the whole front face and see what else could be done architecturally to it .
So we just don 't have that one split . That 's what concerns me . We 're
going to have two different looking buildings . And that 's why .
Batzli : Okay . Out of curiosity , were we going to strike condition 5 and
— was that part of your motion?
Scott : It wasn 't part of my motion but .
Al -Jaff : Le were going to strike condition 5 but it wasn 't part of the
motion .
Ledvi r;.a : 9ut he 's met it .
Scott : ST, that 's why I just left it .
Batzli : (ika; . My other concern was that I share some of Nancy 's concerns
about that &r.d I 'd like to see a little bit more guidance , especially in
conditi : n ; r dir:a matching the . . .Thank you . This goes to City Counci '
when
Al-Jaff : te ?%;t h .
stzli : 2c.th?
Al-Jaff : Cf June . That 's next Council meeting .
Mancir:_o : I 've got to go to that one too .
— PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONE 31 .83 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO PUD ,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ; A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL INTO
— 48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AND
MITIGATE WETLANDS . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, TROTTERS RIDGE, TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim Ostenscn, 7808 Creekridge Circle #310 , Bloomington
John Prins 5120 Edina Industrial Blvd .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 52
Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item .
Harberts : Your recommendation was to go with the 60 feet?
Hempel : That 's correct . We didn 't see any advantage to going to a 50 —
foot . We 're losing additional right-of-way for no reason .
Ledvina : The width of the pavement is the same , correct? _
Hempel : The street width does remain the same .
Scott : 30 feet? —
Hempel : 31 feet back of curb to back of curb .
Harberts : What about from Public Safety there was some comments in here
about some corners . Some sharp or blind corners and in the report here it
talked about maybe additional signage .
Hempel : That 's correct . Actually I brought up that point with the street
and alignment and so forth . Some of the curves are very sharp and lower
than obviously a 30 mph speed . We do have numerous city streets with the —
same pred.ictament that we do install additional traffic signage and speed
advisitor ;. signs on those sharp curves to advise motorists . Being that
this is a lora] neighborhood , a looped street that goes through traffic so
gener.. ] ' : 90%. of the traffic is going to be local traffic and once they
drive it they 're very familiar with it .
Harbert So you ' re okay then with it? —
Hemp- t : We are comfortable from an engineering perspective .
Batzli : 0k y . Jo Ann , was that all you had for us?
Olsen : 'r`•_-�h , just to keep it brief , yes .
Batzli : Did you have anything else?
Hempel : Just to add , Monday night they did approve to go ahead with the
construction plans and specifications for extensin of sewer and water to
this site so there is a condition in there making this project contingent
upon that . So I believe that condition has been almost complied with .
Harberts: It also talked about the pre-existing homes and according to the
city ordinance . They 're required to connect to sewer lines , so on and so
forth . Do these homeowners know that? Are they like the developers here? —
Hempel : Maybe the developer can address this at a later stage . I believe
one of the homeowners will remain on site and the other is probably a
rental .
Harberts : So they 're going to know? —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 53
- Hempel : It 's advantageous with the septic systems that they do connect to
city sewer .
— Batzli : Okay , would the applicant like to address the Commission? Your
brevity would be appreciated .
Jim Ostenson: Very brief . My name is Jim Ostenson . I 'm with Tandem
Properties . John Prins , a partner is with me tonight and Joel Cooper , the
project engineer with James Hill is also here . We agree with everything in
the staff report . The only issue we had outstanding was the 50 feet versus
— 60 foot right-of-way . It was our understanding that if we went to 60 feet
we 'd have to clear or grade right-of-way to right-of-way and now if we can
save those trees , attempt to save those trees within that right-of-way ,
— that 's what we were trying to accomplish anyway . So we don 't have any
problem with that . We would still request the variance of a 25 foot front
yard setback on certain lots that are necessary . And again that 's to save
trees .
•
Harberts: Which lot?
— Jim Ostenson: I think it 's on that handout .
Harberts: It 's all inclusive in this list?
Jim Ostenson: Yes . Is that right Joel?
Harberts : Oay . Even with the 60?
Olsen: We ' ll verify exactly .
— Jim Ostenson : We can verify that with the staff if there 's 1 or 2 more
that should be added .
_ Harberts: My understanding from the report was that if the applicant was
not permitted the reduced right-of-way , the need for reduced setbacks will
be increased . So that means that there 'd be more homes that would have to
require that .
Olsen: Right . Again , it 's hard to say without seeing the actual plan but
a lot of times if you push in the right-of-way , then you 're pushing back
— even further . So I was just making an assumption .
Harberts: So it 's a matter of revisiting that issue then?
'- Jim Ostenson: Yes . The other issue that was brought up regarding the
home , we purchased both of the homes . The one tenant in the one house is
buying that house . They will purchase it with the understanding that they
— have to hook up . The other house we 're going to be remodeling and then
selling that house also . So both of those will be able to hook up to sewer
and water .
Batzli : Thank. you . I 'm sure we 'll have , I assume we may ask some
questions as we go through this . Would anyone else like to address the
Commission? Are you guys all with the applicant?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 54
Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. _
Harberts : I would agree with staff not to grant the reduced right-of-way .
I had a little concern about the corners but as long as Public Safety and
staff is okay with it , I 'll go with it . It looks like a nice neighborhood .
Any comments in terms of value of homes projected?
Jim Ostenson: I would think probably about $180 ,000 .00 to $300 ,000 .00 .
$275 ,000 .00 .
Batzli : Do you feel that what you 're looking at is close enough to what 's _
going to go in? You feel comfortable saying looks good , let 's go with it?
Harberts: Oh , with some little squares on here? Yeah right . I guess I
defer to the staff . You know I look at plans all the time and I 'll just
leave that up to staff I guess . But the wetland issue . I found it
interesting that one was concrete and I think it was B that was going to be
filled , had a diving board or something . That was interesting . I guess _
I 'm not , I won 't oppose the proposed mitigation then . Leaving things in as
much as a natural state as possible I guess is always preferred and as I
had seen it was just a matter of adding a little here and there . I guess _
that basically sums it up from my perspective . My concerns were more along
that pul: is safety issue .
Batzli : Okay , thanks . Matt .
Ledvina : Well I 've got some concerns for this development . I am
uncomfortable with the change in right-of-way and how this might affect the _
building pads . I like to see fairly accurate plans in front of me . I 'm
concerned about the tree loss . I see routinely 32 inch trees being cut
down . I didn 't count the number of them but there 's a significant number .
36 , 32 , 42 , 34 . I understand that when you develop you need to take down
trees but I don 't know . We worked fairly hard with Lake Susan Hills , with
that to deal with the trees . Some very special considerations there . I
look at the grading plan and I don 't see a lot of grading here . I think —
they 've done a pretty nice job of fitting things in and you don 't see the
exact grading for all the housepads . The major street grading that 's in
here . It 's not too bad . Mostly along the eastern edge . One thing that I , _
as Tim Erhart would say , I think is insane , is the filling of wetlands to
accommodate a setback . I can 't support that . I don 't know . I like to see
things moved along but I don 't know , I would favor tabling this .
Batzli : Joe .
Scott : Yeah . I concur with Matthew . We spent a lot of time on Lake _
Susan Hills 9th Addition . I 'm actually quite proud of what the city staff
and the developer ended up with on it and what I 'd like to see is something
that helped me visually understand the impact was to see the location of
the trees with their numbers and something that the applicants brought in
the other PUD , residential PUD that we had , is that they showed , the
Forcier property showed by lot the trees that were going to be removed and
the size . Because when I see tree 499 . Number one , I don 't know where it —
is . And then number two , on a lot by lot basis , I have no way of
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 55
understanding it . And I think we set a very good precedent with Lake Susan
Hills 9th Addition so I 'd recommend tabling this until we get a tree
inventory that not only shows the location and number of all the trees , but
— then by lot which ones are gone and you guys can provide the applicant with
a copy of what they did on the Forcier property . Because then we can make
a decision but I don 't really appreciate , and neither does city staff ,
— receiving pertinent information at 4 :30-5:00 via courier on the date that
the Planning Commission has to take a look at something . So I would
support tabling this until we get the correct tree information .
Harberts: Just a comment , question . Staff , did you feel comfortable with
receiving that information at the time you did?
— Hempel : The information we received was strictly for the right-of-way
area . It wasn 't for the house pads . I guess I am comfortable . I thought
I was going to have to fight harder for my 60 foot right-of-way . I 'm
- getting it . They 're getting the trees . We 're getting trees . I 'm
comfortable . The comfort level with the buildable pads like we did in Lake
Susan Hills 9th , that 's a different story . We have some more developments
coming down the line with similar topographic features that we 're going to
— be running into the same situation . They 're right on the heels of this
project . They don 't have a tree survey either .
— Scott : They really should .
Olsen: We 're not getting the same information that we got with Lake Susan
_ Hills 9th and that 's not the developer 's fault . We don 't have that set ,
exactly what we need .
Ledvina : This is a PUD though . . .take a look at when we take on this
- process .
Scott : We 're eating away at that 5% forested acreage .
Harberts: I guess my overall comment to be made is , you know in a matter
of saving time and everybody 's time and expense here , maybe it needs to be
communicated to these people coming up that this is what the expectation
- is .
Scott : Arid get them started on it now .
Olsen: Well we are doing that with the new ones and they 're already .
Scott : I mean these guys , their clock 's running right now and it costs
them money every .
Harberts : Every time they 're sitting here .
Scott : Yeah . If they sit here , they 've got to be building and doing what
they 've got to do .
Batzli : You 're next .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 56
Mancino: I agree with Matthew and Joe . I would like to see , as I went
through this list I circled those , it was a 36 inch white oak . Anything _
that was over 32 I circled and just have a concern about where it is on the
property . And if the house pad could be moved so that we do save other
trees because I can 't tell from what I 'm looking at . Jo Ann , did you go
out and are there tags on every tree that 's saved with a number? —
Olsen: We saw some of the tags . Some of them we didn 't see but at that
time we didn 't have , well the ones on the plans and we didn 't have the list —
so it wasn 't , but what 's difficult with this site and when you look at that
list , they 're all large . I mean , and we did look at some of the lots where
we could massage around it but. you 're still going to take down those big
trees . And they really have worked closely in trying to save that and —
we 've looked at , we 've gone through different plans . This is like the
third one with the streets and trying to save more trees and locating the
house pads and we feel that we 're saving as many as possible . We want to —
get those details down where so we know exactly for each lot, what they can
remove and what they cannot . I 'm comfortable that we can get that done
before final plat approval and all that but that 's for you decide . And as _
far as the adjustments that are necessary for the 60 foot right-of-way ,
there 's only a few lots that are close to the 11 ,000 square feet . Again ,
I 'm comfortable with those changes too . We have 2 or 3 .
Mancino : Two that are 11 ,000 and two that are 11 ,500 and 600 . It
shouldn 't be a problem .
Jim Os.tens c,,,: We have , as Jo Ann said , I mean this is probably the 20th
renditior, that we 've been on on this plat . We were hoping to be here about
6 weeH: agc and we have continued working with staff on and on in saving
the trees . I don 't know if any of you follow what 's going on in other
communitie,_ but I happen to be on the partners in the Big Woods controversy
over in Edon Prairie . We understand trees and we understand the importance
of tre,aE and we understand what you can do to save trees . On this site , —
which is a very heavily wooded site , it has wetlands . It has 2 existing
houses . It has a lot of site . It has topography . It has a lot of site
constraints in it . We are saving 75% of the trees on this site . We , in _
additi'Dn to saving these trees , will be hiring a tree company , a foresting
company called Rainbow Tree which we 've used in Eden Prairie and Centex has
used in Eden Prairie in the Big Woods project . They 'll come in early .
Consult with us . They 'll use a vibratory plow . Plow around trees that are —
in danger of being killed . Are in right-of-way or would be subject to
small utilities . And we will be making them available to all homeowners in
there . To consult with them as to how to place a house and care for the —
yard and care for the trees . It 's something that we do on our own nickel .
We feel that we can do a better job than anyone saving trees and I think
saving 75% of the trees on a site like this , I mean it 's commendable . I do .
I would guess that if we added up a number , and we could certainly do it
with the staff , or they could do it themselves , you 'd find that about
somewhere around 18% of those trees are probably going out just with the
road . Not the houses but just by putting a road through the site . So
I don 't know if we 've saved every tree in there that we can but we
certainly tried and we ' ll continue do that . And I also might , I think we
have dc.re a complete tree survey out there . The only trees that we have
not surveyed are trees that are down below the slope adjacent to the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 57
wetland that are totally removed from any development at all . Anything
that 's on the upland , anywhere near in the lot pad or street right-of-way
or anything like that , they 've all been surveyed and tagged and
- inventoried .
Batzli : Thank you . Jo Ann , assume for a moment that we table this so that
we can see the redrawn plans to show the perhaps trees or tree loss or the
difference in right-of-way from what we 're looking at here . How different
is it going to be and are those the only two things that we 're going to
see? Is there going to be any other changes to the plan?
Olsen: No . I don 't see any big changes really . I think the plan 's going
to look almost identical . We might get more lots with the reduced setback .
- You have some lot line adjustments . Maybe you can explain it more but .
Joel Cooper : I can answer your question on it too . This drawing right
here that we colored up will show the difference .
Batzli : Okay , your name is?
_. Joel Cooper : My name is Joel Cooper . I 'm an engineer with Jim Hill
Associates . I don 't know how well you can see but this dashed line right
here represents what the limit of the 60 foot right-of-way would be . And
underneath here is . . .
Batzli : What 's our requirement for frontage Jo Ann? Like for example Lots
15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , Block 1 . Are those going to have enough frontage?
Olsen: It 's the same where , if it 's on a curve or whatever , you do it at
the setback .
Batzli : Are these considered on a curve?
Olsen: wLIch ones were you saying again? 15 , 16 and .
Batzli : The ones on the west side of the development .
Harberts: 15 , 16 and 17 .
Olsen: That was one of those , it 's not exactly a straight line . It 's not
exactly a curve . It was , I did it at the 90 foot setback , or the 30 foot
setback .
Batzli : You did it at the 30 foot setback is where you measured that?
Olsen: Yeah . You didn 't . I mean you have , did you? I assume that you
hadn 't?
Joel Cooper : Well when I did this yeah , I was measuring the distance at
the distance I was given here as the front setback .
Olsen: The width at the front setback?
Joel Cooper : Yeah .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 58
Olsen: Oh okay . Well then yeah , those need to be adjusted to 90 foot .
Batzli : If that happens , then you start moving all the lines around . —
Jim Ostenson: Well , could I speak to that for a brief moment?
Batzli : Sure .
Jim Ostenson: When we were placing lot lines , what we were doing was _
actually at the same time we were placing lot lines , is looking at where
would be a logical place to site a home . On those we try to set the lot
lines basically where the trees , where we can set a home without
interrupting trees but if you start juggling these lines 3 feet here and 3 —
feet there , pretty soon you 're going to end up with a spot where we
wouldn 't have saved a tree and now that tree 's going to be . . .potentially be
gone with the advent of a house being there . We spent a lot of time . . .and —
keep tree loss to a minimum . I guess it was , our thought with the PUD that
we would have the flexibility to do those types of things to save these
trees .
Olsen : The PUD specifically says 90 foot .
Batzli : You were going to address something else? —
Joel CooTer : Yeah I was . You were saying earlier you wanted to see what
the impact was . . .and basically what I 've got on here is dashed house pads _
that move back 60 feet . Or this dash line is a 60 foot right-of-way and
what impa_: t is being the shaded green then would be the boulevard . And
when we Prepared this we were under the understanding that the right-of-way
would have to be basically 35 . . .and Dave had mentioned to us that the city —
is willing to allow the street to remain in the right-of-way . . .those trees
that we thought we were saving before but now that we 've widened the
right- of-way we 've lost . . .the same grading restraints that we had with the —
50 foot right-of-way we would have been able to save those . And the house
pads then , what we 've done is shift them back 5 feet because that 's the 30
foot Eett»ck . . .we will be able to accomplish that . . . I had a separate sheet
where I had the lot from the street and it would be affected by the lot
moving an-' the house pad moving . If we 're able to maintain a 25 foot
setback or certain lots , these red trees that I 've shaded back here within
the lot themself we would be able to save those as well . With the 25 foot —
variance on the front yard setback .
Hempel : Joel , I guess from our experience with buildable lots , custom
graded lots , these homes that you see within 15 feet of the house pads ,
they 're essentially gone . When we mark on the certificate of survey , when
it comes in , tree removal limits . We essentially border the house 15 feet .
Those trees are gone . You need that for excavation of the house , overhang , —
root damage to the trees . They 're gone anyway in a few years . So a couple
of these trees that may be highlighted in here are going to go regardless
whether it 's 60 or 50 foot . Or 25 foot setback . I just thought I 'd point —
that out now that we 're not , when it actually comes down to building , these
trees are gone .
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 59
Joel Cooper : Possibly but I 've seen . . .trees very close to the home that
have survived too so it depends on who 's doing the work and what kind of
care they give . I understand what you 're saying and I 'm not disputing that
— that would happen but I think given the right circumstances and right
perspective , that I have seen people be successful in doing that . And I
guess I would like to make every opportunity for these homeowners to pick
- and choose how they want to do it and then give them the opportunity to do
it rather than . . .
Batzli : Well we 're not saying you have to go out there and cut them down .
— Just that for the purposes of us looking at it , that those trees will be
saved is iffy .
— Joel Cooper : Well I can appreciate that .
Batzli : I 'm going to ask you one stupid question because I 'm that kind of
_ guy . 25 foot setback variance on these particular lots . Is that something
that you got as one of your conditions or that you don 't have as one of
your conditions , Jo Ann?
— Olsen: I don 't have it as one of the conditions . Again , I didn 't have the
specific lots that were going to have the 20 foot and if it 's a PUD , you
don 't have to give a variance . The PUD just allows you that flexibility
_ so , ne-. . It 's not in there . You can look , it 's not in there .
Batzli : Do we need something in here?
- Olsen: Well I think it would be , yes . It 's good to have it in there but
maybe more general that lots can be reduced . The front yard setback can he
reduced to 25 foot . It seems like we switch with each subdivision . .We
— specify some of the lots and then the other one we keep it general . So
right now I think it 'd be good to keep a general one in there .
_ F;arberts: I 'd like to just comment on the 25 . You know I don 't like 25
foot setf_ rcks . I live on one and as far as I 'm concerned , I ' ll never do it
again . But we 're on Frontier Trail and it 's heavily traveled so you can
hear it . Things like that . But I would be okay with the 25 foot setback in
— this area simply because it is kind of an isolated neighborhood . And that 's
my thinking that I use on it . If you get more of an open stretch of road ,
I 'd say no . But I 'm comfortable with it in here and that 's my own personal
— opinion .
Olsen: And again , it would only be used where it 's necessary . Where
there 's, a , you can see where they have done it . Where they 've shoved the
forward and there 's trees behind the home .
Batzli : What do you think about this 90 foot dealybob here on the west
— side?
Olsen : Well they need to adjust the lot lines . I think they can do it
— but , well I have to look at that closer . I was looking after you were
saying that and I don 't really , I see one lot where , Lot 15 I can see where
they 're on the lot line . I 'd have to look at that closer . I couldn 't , but
you know it 's , I don 't know how far . I don 't know how many lots they would
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 60
have to adjust to get that . I don 't know how far they would have to keep
shifting .
Jim Ostenson: We can adjust that and to the extent of doing that to
restict the size of a house on . . .
Batzli : Well , I guess we have two senses up here . At least I feel like
there 's two sense . There 's probably some people up here that would like to
see a plan that reflects what 's actually going to happen and in my case _
what I 'd like to do is , well it depends on what sort of precedent we want .
If we want to see a detailed survey of where the trees are and where
they 're going to be removed for each one of these , then I suppose we 'd _
better require it here , or at least require them to have it ready to show
the Council . So that we 're requiring everybody to do it . If we don 't make
them do it here . If that 's what we want to see . I don 't know that I want
to see a plan with a line of 3 feet but I understand Matt 's concern because —
you lock at that particular aspect of the plan more closely than me so you
want tc see that . So if you need to see that and you want to see that , I 'd
be happy I guess to have them bring it back . I don 't know that I would get —
an;thin:1 more out of the plan by seeing a lot line shifted 3 feet . This
kind of gives me a rough idea of some of the trees around . Where the
street ': going to go and where they 're going to lost . On the other hand ,
I understand that we 're talking about other trees and I don 't know exactly —
where the, 're going to take them out . I went out and kind of looked around
the site and it 's tough to tell where this was . So I don 't know . I don 't
know wb,. t to tell everybody . My sense is , I 'd like to see them have —
everything in order and have it go to Council but if everybody else wants
to see it L•.:,,: k_ here , got to vote that way . I think I would like to see , if
we decided to pass it along , I would like to see something about the —
applic _,.t reneo..:e the trees in the right-of-way that are killed by
constru-tion in the next several years . And the 25 foot setback where
neces�a7 to save trees and that would be submitted to staff for approval
or what h.e •,:e you . Having said that , is there a motion to either table this "
or to apr . ?
Harberts : I 'd like to make a comment first . That if the motion is made
that the applicant is responsible for removal of the trees for a certain
period of time , then I think there needs to be some type of escrow account
to insure the funds to be there .
Hempel : We can certainly incorporate that in the development contract we
secure for landscaping .
Batzli : You want them to post a bond .
Harberts: Something . To assure that the funds are going to be there . _
Batzli : If they escrow funds , they 'd have to escrow the full amount .
Harberts : Well , they 've got 17 trees .
Ledvine, : You could add that as a condition . Yeah , I would move that
the Planning Commission table the Tandem Properties proposal for . —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 61
Scott : Case 93-2 PUD?
Ledvina : Case 93-2 PUD .
Batzli : Is there a second?
Scott : Second .
Batzli : Any discussion?
— Jim Ostenson: Can I say something?
Batzli : Sure can .
Jim Ostenson: We have all the information . We 've done all the homework .
You 're asking for something that was never required of us . We 've got it
available . We can provide it to the staff prior to going to City Council .
— I don 't know if that makes a difference at all but you aren 't asking for
something that we don 't already have available .
— Batzli : Well I think there 's been several changes to the plans that we 're
approving and we 're not comfortable that we 're looking at the project
that 's going to go in the ground .
Jim Ostenson: Well the changes are , there really haven 't been any changes .
We 're aa.kino for one lot line to be shifted or . . .the right-of-way that is
shown . The road alignment .
Batzli : Wh=t will change is that granted , the alignment of the road won 't
change but it will affect the square footage and some lot lines will have
to be adjusted for that I think . And on the west side of the project there
was apprently a misunderstanding as to the frontage which may have to be
adjusted . And by doing that you may have to adjust the building pads which
_ may ha•,. e to adjust tree loss . What we 're saying is , okay . All these
thinry_ have added up to we don 't know what we 're approving . I don 't know
if we 're saying that or not . We haven 't taken a vote but I think people
that made that motion are feeling that way .
Harberts : Do we need to clarify what this commission would like to see
come back for information?
Batzli : Yeah , as part of discussion . I 'd like to know what you want to
see .
Harberts : I 'm asking .
Batzli : What do you want to see Matt?
Ledvina : Well , I would like to see a more detailed tree removal plan in
terms cf what goes and what stays . I would like to see them , just as you
indicated , the exact lot lines . I want to see the tabulations on the lot
footage-:_ and I think we can see those things . At this point I 'm not
comfortable with allowing the placement or for the development on Lot 6 , or
possibly Lot 7 , Block 1 . And I don 't know , I think there was some filling
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 62
on Lot 29 , Block 1 as indicated on . . . As it related to the wetland plan
but at any rate , where we 're filling in wetlands to meet setbacks . I think
I don 't know how the other commissioners feel but I don 't think that 's
appropriate and I think some changes should be made regarding that .
Batzli : You felt that way even though the particular wetland that they —
were filling was not considered a viable/protected wetland?
Ledvina : I don 't think that 's the case . I think 7 is a protected . The
wetland that they 're filling was that one that was man made or with the
concrete thing and the diving board and all that . I don 't have a problem
with filling that wetland . Or. it isn 't even a wetland so it 's a man made
pond supposedly . But at any rate , I think those are two of my reasons
why I 'd like to see it again .
Mancino: I would like to ask , what has been the effect of having the house —
too close to the wetland that 's in the backyard . You brought up Curry
Farms .
Olsen: As I just said , there 's constant alteration to it . The lawn has ,
the activities back there . It 's just it 's always being impacted . There we
didn 't have the buffer strip either but it 's just , it 's no longer really a
wetland . It 's now just a holding pond . I mean all the vegetation has been —
removF r-ventually by the homeowners .
Ledvina : t4e11 the homeowners have to understand that when they buy that
lot . The h= .,e no backyard . If that lot is going to be developed that
way .
Olsen: SU-E.
Ledvina : I don 't know .
Olsen: Are you suggesting then that they don 't alter the wetland and they
receive a variance to the required , or that the lot just be removed?
Ledvina : No . No . I don 't think a variance is appropriate . I don 't know .
Maybe Lot= 6 and 7 become one lot or something . I don 't know how you can
adjust that . Or maybe the road gets pushed a little bit further to the
north . The curve comes in at a point further east . I don 't know . I can 't
make that .
Olsen: See we looked at all that and it impacts trees and it was , it came —
down tc trees versus wetlands . We 've had those issues before but in this
case I think the trees won out in these areas because they were really nice
big trees and the wetland was .
Ledvina : Well that 's not the way it was presented .
Batzli : Don 't you mitigate somewhere?
Olsen: It 's all being mitigated . It 's all being replaced .
Planning Commission Meeting
— June 16 , 1993 - Page 63
- Jim Ostenson: The wetlands on Lots 6 and 7 , what that wetland is is
someone has gone basically in there and dug it out and it 's cow watering
hole . . . it 's not something that 's real pleasing to the eye . It 's a man made
cow . . .it 's just a pasture and there 's a watering hole . . .
Harberts : Has staff seen it? Looked at that particular area .
— Olsen : Yes .
Harberts : Did you know that it 's a cow watering hole?
Olsen: There is cattle in it . On the south side of it . Yeah , I felt
comfortable with what they were , with the filling . I wasn 't , and that 's
not easy for me to say because I 'm always the wetland advocate but like the
wetland that 's in Block 2 , that was , if they had been proposing the same
thing for that I wouldn 't have allowed it . Or I wouldn 't have agreed with
it . It was either that or the house pads be removed completely . Even if
— you combine those two lots , they still won 't meet those required setbacks .
And they couldn 't really get a , they 're going for a PUD and the PUD
specifically requires that you have to maintain that wetland setback and
that has to be the back yard and so you could even go for a variance to
that . So it was kind of a complicated issue .
Harberts : I thought I heard though that it was either the trees or the
wetland . And you chose trees .
Scott : In my nind too , I don 't really , when I see dotted lines and all
this kind of stuff I 'rn going , you know this isn 't really a final plan . And
then also too , I like to see where the trees are . Which ones are going .
And to be conservative . So you 're saying 15 feet around the outside , we 'll
take that C.E. a worst case scenario and then maybe by some custom grading or
repoEi t i ._gni ng of house pads or something like that . But I don 't have the
same sense and I use that Lake Susan 9th Addition . We had all the
information and we still tabled it . We don 't even have anywhere near the
— information, so I 'm just not comfortable moving on it at all . So that 's
where I 'm coming from .
- Batzli : Assume for a moment that they give you the information tomorrow .
When is the next time this goes on the agenda?
Olsen : Well we could get it on the 7th . The information is there . We
- just haven 't listed for you specifically which trees . We have looked at
what trees . Where they 're proposing the house pads . I mean we 've done
everythin:; that we did with the 9th Addition . We just weren 't able to get
— the numbers of the trees .
Scott : I guess what I sense , I sense too that there was a big difference
inbetween the "good faith" of this particular group versus the other guys .
I mean I don 't know who these people are but from what you 're telling me ,
I 'm more comfortable with where they 're coming from than those other guys?
That 's a gut feel so I mean if there 's something that we can do , I mean
- obviously waiting until the 7th is an expensive proposition . From what
you 're telling me , and I trust you too , that all the information 's there
and for whatever reason we don 't have it .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 64
Olsen: Well we just don 't have the two , they weren 't meshed . We 've got
the list with the trees and the size and the number but we just don 't have —
the numbers on here so we weren 't able to say , give you the specific
details that we were with the 9th Addition . Exactly what trees could be
removed .
Harberts: But Joe we didn 't ask for that either up front from these guys .
I mean that was not part of what we asked them to supply us with . I mean
we are now , I understand that . And I would like to from now on but I would —
like to have those developers who come in know that right up front . This
is exactly what we need .
Scott : Well I guess what I 'm coming to here is if the information is
there , and I don 't know if this is , I 'm new to the Planning Commission .
But I would certainly be willing to have an interim meeting inbetween now ,
I mean whenever the information is ready to take a look . I don 't know , do —
you do stuff like that? Take a look at it and say , I mean instead of
making them wait until the 7th when the information could be made available
sooner . —
Olsen: If thc.; 're going to do , adjust the lot lines and stuff .
Scott : Sperifically deal with this issue and get it on it 's way to the
City Council . I don 't know , what do you guys think about that?
Ledvin.& : . . . interim meeting for the Planning Commission? —
Scott : Yeah .
Harbets : I think we can do anything we want .
Scott : Yeah , I don 't think we need to , it seems like the information 's
available . Could be put together relatively quickly and if you can say ,
okay on such and such date for , and it probably isn 't going to take what ,
we can dust f ig_tre an hour?
Batzli : to have to publish . Jo Ann?
Olsen: Do we have to for Planning Commission? I know for Council you do
and you 've already closed the public hearing .
Batzli : Well we have closed the public hearing .
Olsen : So I don 't know that you have to publish again .
Harberts: I just want to also comment that I was real happy to hear about —
the Rainbow Save the Tree farm or something that they 're going to bring in .
It 's getting late . I 'm comfortable with the trees . I 'm comfortable with
filling in the wetland Matt simply because it is a cow thing and I would -
bet that it was expanded to get the herd in there . I wouldn 't be afraid to
you making it a condition of what they had said about that Rainbow person .
Forester or whatever it was going to come in and basically work with every
homeowner to place the pad in such a way that it minimizes the tree losses —
and this i= something that they 're proposing .
Planning Commission Meeting
— June 16 , 1993 - Page 65
- Olsen: We 've got that as a condition too already .
Harberts: So you eluded to , you feel really comfortable . I 'm really
comfortable with it . You know I don 't like to fill wetlands . I thought it
was a 2 to 1 . I don 't like to cut down trees but I 'm comfortable with
these folks and I 'd like to see it move foward . You know get everything in
order . Make sure staff 's okay with it and put out some of those conditions
— to make sure that they follow through with regard to the bond or escrow .
With regard to bringing in the Rainbow people and working with all of the
homeowners to minimize to the greatest possible extent tree loss , and
that 's my comment .
Batzli : What might also be a .possibility , if we don 't do an interim
meeting or if we don 't table it , what have you is , is to deliver a set of
plans to Matt and clearly go to the Council and say this isn 't what we
expected to see .
Harberts : Would that work?
Ledvina : Well sure . I could do it that way , if that 's what you .
Batzli : I mean as a courtesy to you because obviously you really want to
see i t .
Ledvina : Sure .
Batzli : And I don 't know that the rest of us want to see it back . I guess
- unles_. there 's something drastically altered , like they 've got to eliminate
a lot or they 've got to go below 12 ,000 or they 're going to be doing
something weird , I don 't see that it 's going to change enough for me to
want to see it back , based on what I 'm hearing staff tell me . If they were
going to ha,,e to realign something or move a lot or take something out ,
then I want to see it because then we 're not looking at the right thing but
they 're going to juggle a couple of lines 3 to 5 feet each way , I don 't
I 'd say let 's keep it moving and have them put it in order . Let
Council see it and make them do that kind of stuff .
Ledvina : I can understand your sensitivity to keeping it moving . I know
staff , that 's certainly their disposition but I just think that if there
were 20 residents here we would table it in a heartbeat and I don 't know , I
think there 's many . . .people out there that deserve that support anyway . In
some way . I don 't know . And that 's one of the reasons I 'm not comfortable
with it .
— Scott : Well they 're also , I don 't believe there 's a lot of neighbors .
Ledvina : Well that 's true but we 're dealing with the resources for the
residents of Chanhassen so .
Harberts: Do you have any additional feeling , based on the new information
about that wetland? That it 's cow .
Ledvina : Well maybe but I think I didn 't really know that condition . I
wasn 't able to get back to that specific site so . Just the thought of
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 66
saying the ends justify the means , the tail wagging the dog , it 's very
unpallatable to me . And that 's just my philosophy on dealing with
wetlands . If we 're going to classify it as a wetland , that means that
there 's a merit in preserving it in it 's state , whether it 's pristine or
cow dumping but I don 't know . I don 't know . Philosophically it rubs wrong
but , and that 's fine . I can see other people justifying it too .
Scott : So you want to see it again . I want to see it again . You want to
move it on . You want to move it on and Brian , do you want to move it on?
Batzli : I want to move it on .
Scott : Let 's make a motion then .
Batzli : Well we 've got a motion on the floor to table it . Is there any
other discussion? —
Ledvina moved , Scott seconded to table the Trotters Ridge Case #93-2 PUD
for further information . Ledvina and Scott voted in favor . Harberts ,
Batzli and Mancino voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 —
to 3 .
Batzli : Carl I have another motion .
Harberts : I ' ll move Case #93-2 PUD . Do you have a date?
Ledvina : man; times , June 16th .
Harberts: That 's this one though .
Ledvina : That 's today . You 're going to have to mention both of them
though .
Batzli : 19th .
Harherts : 5/1 ' and then that was 6/16 . How far did I get with my
recommendation? I recommend moving Case #93-2 PUD with the plans ,
preliminary plat dated both 4/19 and 6/16 .
Batzli : We also have a wetland alteration permit in there .
Harberts : Yeah . That we rezone 32 .5 acres of A2 to PUD . Preliminary plat
to subdivide 32 .5 acres into 49 single family lots . And 3 , the wetland
alteration permit to fill portions of the ag-urban wetlands and to create
additional wetland areas as sited in the plan . And to move the staff
recommendation= as outlined in the plan with the changes or additions as
follows . I 'm looking at with regard to the development of an escrow or
bond .
Scott : Performance bond for replacement . -�
Harbert:. : Be added as number 33 and that staff works with the attorney and
appropriate staff to get the appropriate language .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 67
- Batzli : That 's for removal of trees?
Harberts: Exactly . 17 trees or whatever trees are going to be affected .
— That the 25 feet setback , staff will work with them on the appropriate
lots . On lot , I believe it was Lot 15 . The property line needs to be some
adjustment to meet the 90 feet frontage requirement .
Batzli : What if you broaden that to check them . All of them .
Harberts : Check all of them . And also be added as a condition , and I need
— the name of your Rainbow people .
Jim Ostenson : I assume that 's who , that 's who we 've used in the past .
— It 's called Rainbow Tree . They 're a forester .
Olsen: . . . number 4 .
Harberts: Do you feel that it 's covered in there? That they have a
professional .
— Olsen: woodland management plan . Same thing .
Harbert_ : That will be included in the developer 's agreement? I believe
that 's it .
Mancin : The City Engineer on the 60 foot that in some cases the grading
doesn 't I.. - to b-= the full 60 . The grading on the side of the right -of-
way _ We c5n keep some of those trees .
Batzli : I = there a second? I ' ll second the motion . Discussion .
Mancino: Discussion is on the 17 trees that we 're trying to save . By
going to t ! e 660 fcc.t wide but not having to grade the right-of-way in those
17 are=s . To work with staff in figuring out where those are . Can anyone
make out of that?
Batzli : i.las that something that you were looking for Dave?
Hempel : That 's something I can work with on the grading plan . I can make
sure that .
Scott : Just identify those trees .
Hempel : Richt . Work with staff in preserving the trees . 17 trees located
within the right-of-way as a result of the increase in 60 foot right-of-
way .
Batzli : Is that acceptable?
Harberts : Yes .
Batzli ; Okay . Sounds good to me . It seems to me there was something else
that we 're missing here and I can 't think of what it is . I had it moments
ago . Something we talked about . I 'm at a complete loss .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 68
Harberts: I 'n sure that staff will .
Mancino: To bring plans to Matt .
Batzli : Well , yeah . I don 't want to make that a condition of approval but
I think they should send a set to Matt . I think what I was thinking of was —
that they 're going to provide plans to you for approval regarding the
trees . The stuff that we saw for Lake Susan . Those kind of plans .
Olsen : Provide a plan with the numbers that correspond to the tree loss?
Batzli : Yeah .
Olsen: I think I 've got that as a condition .
Batzli : Did you have that in here?
Olsen: Yeah , provide information and tag numbers , size and type .
Batzli : Which one is that?
Olsen : Number 2 . That 's what I intended .
Batzli : Okay , that 's intended to be what we 've seen before . Alright .
Harbe ts: I think the motion included the fact that all this information _
was Pi_,t tc -ther in time for the staff to review it , comment on it and move
it forw7,rd to Council .
Batzli : Dave , on the draintile , number 22 . Are you going to get , you 're —
goirQ to have people hook up their sumps to the draintile again? Pursuant
to your plans that we looked at last time .
Hempel : That 's correct . It was an assumption that they do not have
another acceptable discharge area , i .e . a wetland in the back yard . . .
dischaii n? into the street .
Batzli : By saying the draintile is required , are we really trying to say
that they 're going to hook up a sump pump so that they discharge into the
draintile behind the curbs . Pursuant to the plans approved by you .
Hempel : It 's kind of , not all households have to hook up . There 's a
select few that have the water problems . Not all homes . . . —
Scott : Like walkouts usually don 't .
Hempel : Yeah , or even if the house is on top of the hill . In some cases
one neighbor will have a problem and the other neighbor won 't .
Batzli : So you 're just going to leave it up to the , who are you going to —
leave it up to to connect to your draintiles is my question .
Hempel : We have a city ordinance that requires approval and permit for any
kind of discharge in the city street already . We can employ that on the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 69
— homeowner if necessary . . .placed behind the curb though .
Batzli : But here 's what happens . Here 's reality . The developer puts the
sump discharging out the back into a soggy back yard and then you , he
complains and tries to run it into the street sideways or something and you
say no . You 've got to put it into the draintile behind the curb . And by
_ that time it 's coming out the wrong side of the house and it 's too late .
Because this is exactly what happened to me . So I 'm thinking that the time
to handle this is up front . If there 's an area that you 're thinking of
that you want this to happen , let 's just have the developer run it out the
— right side of the house underground to the right area with the little
gravel down to your draintile .
Hempel : Unfortunately I don 't have soil borings that may indicate whether
there is . . .water at this point .
Batzli : But couldn 't this all be done at the time that the building permit
- is issued and isn 't that when you really want it to happen? Is fine , let 's
have them install the draintile but then let 's just say that you 'll review
it or something when building permit is issued . For connection to the
— draintile .
Hempel : Some sort of language of that could be inserted , sure .
Batzli : M::,r - work for you right .
Hempel : Just another thing for us to check but I mean it 's in the
— development contract , it 's easy for us to find . It 's different if it 's in
another file . we review all these building permit issuances .
- Batzli : I guess I propose an additional sentence that says , applicant will
submit information regarding hooking up the sump pump to the city staff for
approval at the time a building permit is applied for . Is that acceptable?
- Harherts : Yes .
Batzli : Something like that . Otherwise I think it 's going to be pcintless
— to have the draintile there . Any other discussion?
Ledvina : Yeah , I just wanted to just bring up the situation with the trail
- easement . I think that , is this the diagram that we have for the trail at
this point? The trail is shown to be on Lot 27 , 28 , 29 , Block 1 . You have
the trail , it would appear 5 to 15 feet away from the actual houses there
and I don 't think that should be constructed in that manner .
Jim Ostenson : We can talk to Todd about that . . .out on the site and walked
that . We would agree that we 're going to . . .other side of the pond .
Ledvina : This trail here? So it would be on this side? That would be the
north side .
Olsen : If that would be possible .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 70
Jim Ostenson: If that 's possible to do that . There 's an elevation that we
have to work with .
Mancino: Would you still have an easement through those lots? Lots 17 and
18?
Jim Ostenson: Yes .
Ledvina : And one other thing that we did on Lake Susan Hills . We had , we
decided that these 10 foot access easements down from the trail weren 't
necessarily a very good idea . I think we decided that we had two access
points and we decided to combine it into one with a large with a large
access point so that people would actually use them and they 'd be less —
obtrusive to the neighboring houses . And I know this is the case because
we have one next to my neighbor and the guy across the street on our
cul-de-sc and it 's never used because the houses are very close and people —
feel like they 're trespassing when they go through there so , I don 't know .
That might be a consideration for how this thing ends up ultimately . Just
a comment .
Batzli : Do you want to propose a condition that trail locations be
reviewed prior to going to City Council kind of a condition?
LedvinE : I 'd rather see it tabled .
Batzli : Wel may lose the vote so this may be your chance . _
Ledvina : well that 's why I 'm making the suggestion .
Batzli : I mean if •you were Senator so and so , you 'd be adding stuff into
her that we hated so that we 'd all vote against it so we 'd go back to your
motion .
Ledvina : Well , if someone else wants to add it , that 's fine . . .
Batzli : Yc-, don 't want to appear to support this by amending it? _
Ledvi na : N•_. .
Batzli : Is there anybody else that would like to see the trail issue —
looked' at before it goes to Council?
Mancino: Sure . I think that 's a good idea . I 'd like to move that we add
a condition to it .
Eatzli : That it be resolved before it gets to Council . What do you guys
think about that , combining the two access points? Is that something that
we want to start doing?
Olsen: Another one to answer that . That 's really a Todd Hoffman question —
but , I think the reason we did it with the 9th Addition was also because it
was in an Lica where the sewer was going to go down and the trees were
going t _ be removed anyway . To be honest , we haven 't looked at that that _
closely . Didn 't we talk about that though when we were out there?
Planning Commission Meeting
— June 16 , 1993 - Page 71
Hempel : I think we felt that where it 's going down between Lots 26 and 27
is the same lot line where the storm sewer 's going down into a NURP basin
so it made sense from our standpoint . We could double it as an access for
maintenance to the pond and storm sewer . I think . . . iniative from staff was
— the fact to keep this point here .
Olsen: We can look at that . I know that we did talk about the one between
— 17 and 18 too . I 'll talk with Todd on it .
Batzli. : Okay . Is there any other discussion? If not I ' ll call the
question . The motion on the floor is approval to rezone , approve
preliminary plat and approve the wetland alteration permit as shown on the
plans dated the various dates , pursuant to the staff report and as amended
here with our several other additional conditions .
Harberts moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of rezoning 32 .5 acres of property zoned A2 , Agricultural Estate
- to PUD, Planned Unit Development , approval of Preliminary Plat #93-2 PUD to
subdivide 32 .5 acres of property into 49 single family lots, and approval
of Wetland Alteration Permit #93-2 WAP, as shown on the plans dated May 19 ,
1993 and June 16 , 1993 , and subject to the following conditions:
1 . The landscaping plan shall be amended to include landscaping between
the westerly lots and the industrial land to the west where vegetation
does not already exist , and two front yard overstory trees shall be
required for each lot where two trees do not exist .
2 . A revised plan shall be submitted which provides information on tao
numbe,- , size and type of trees .
3 . All trees designated for preservation shall be protected by a snow
fence 1 1 /2 times the diameter of the drip line prior to any
alteration of the site . Any understory vegetation within the snow
fence shall also be preserved .
4 . Each of the lots shall have a woodland management plan developed by
the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy . The
woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed forester
approved by the city . A copy of the woodland management plan shall be
kept in the building permit file and a copy will also be given to the
homeowner .
E . Unless a lot already has two overstory trees in the front yard ,
additional overstory trees from the city 's approved list shall be
planted in each lot so that there are two overstory trees in each
front yard . If this has not been accomplished prior to the issuance
of a building permit for a lot , before a building permit is issued ,
arrangements must be made to have the trees planted within one grading
season after the building permit is issued . The city should require
security to guarantee compliance .
6 . The wetland boundaries including buffer areas will have a monument
designating it as protected wetland at each lot line .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 72
7 . All utilty and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the latest edition of the City 's Standard Specifications and
Detailed Plates . Detailed street and utility plans and specifications —
shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval .
8 . The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed —
District , DNR , Carver County Public Works , MWCC , Minnesota Health
Department and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with
their conditions of approval .
9 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city
and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance
with the terms in the development contract . —
10 . All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two
weeks of completing site grading unless City 's Best Management
Practices Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise .
11 . Utility drainage easement outside the street right-of-way should be a —
minimum of 20 feet in width . The applicant shall dedicate drainage
and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas on the final.
plat . —
12 . The street right-of-way should be increased to 60 feet in width , and
the applicant should work with city staff to preserve trees within
this right-of-way as a result of the increase to 60 feet . —
13 . Preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the city
authorizing Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Sewer and Water —
Impro<<ement Project 91-17B .
14 . All driveways shall access the interior streets . No driveway access —
will be allowed onto Galpin Boulevard . Driveway access to Lot 33 ,
BlocF i and Lot 9 , Block 2 of the preliminary plat shall be from the
street on the west side of the lot . The two existing driveways shall
be realigned perpendicular to the new street and paved with a —
bituminous or concrete surface .
15 . The applicant shall be responsible for construction of a right turn —
lane on southbound Galpin Boulevard into the site in conjunction with
the overall site improvements .
16 . The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service to
existing home sites . In addition , they will notify the property
owners of the city ordinance requiring connection to municipal
sanitary sewer .
17 . The applicant shall provide a storm sewer outlet for the wetland in
Blo'_ k -
c. .
18 . The applicant shall extend the storm sewer to maintain the
neiahborhocd drainage pattern through Lot 2 , Block 1 . —
Planning Commission Meeting
— June 16 , 1993 - Page 73
_ 19 . The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a ten
year storm event and ponding calculations for retention ponds in
accordance with city ordinance for the city engineer to review and
approve .
20 . The applicant 's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 13 and
14 , Block 2 to divert drainage further away from the house .
21 . Additional erosion control fence ( Type I ) shall be extended along Lots
11-14 , Block 2 along the street boulevard .
- 22 . Drain tile will be required behind the curbs in those areas where sump
pump discharge will not be directed into the storm pond or wetland
area . The applicant will submit information regarding hook-up of sump
pump for city staff approval at the time of building permit issuance .
23 . The proposed street names "Trotters Lane" and "Trotters Circle" are
unacceptable . The city currently has a "Trotters Circle" . To avoid
duplication new names must be submitted to Public Safety for approval .
24 . A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants , i .e .
NSP , NW Bell , cable boxes , street lamp , trees , shrubs , etc , pursuant
to Chanhassen City Ordinance , Section 9-1 .
— 25 . Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with
a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities . The road
shall be in place before construction on new dwellings start , which
are <'reater than 150 ' from County Road 117 .
26 . Fire hydrants are not shown on utility plan . Hydrant spacing is not
to exceed 300 ' , beginning at County Road 117 .
27 . Fire hydrant caps must be painted per Chanhassen Engineering specs .
28 . Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each
house pad on the grading plan before final plat approval .
- 29 . Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests , limits of
the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division . A
general soils report for the development should also be submitted to
the Inspections Division . This condition must be met before any
building permits are issued .
30 . The dedication of Outlot A as park and open space . This dedication to
include a survey of the property and field staking of property corners
and lot intersection points . Transfer of fee title of this property
shall occur through an unrestricted warranty deed at the time of
platting . The applicant shall receive 50% park fee credit , or $300 .00
per home , for this dedication . The balance of the park fees being
collected at a rate of 50% of the park fee in force upon building
permit application . At present this fee would be one half of $600 .00 ,
or $300 .00 .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 74
31 . The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement along the
entire easterly property line . This trail corridor is identified in
the city 's Comprehensive Plan and no trail fee credit shall be granted —
for said easement .
32 . The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling Outlot A as
described herein and as depicted on Attachment A . Any easements for
trail purposes which are necessitated by this alignment shall be
conveyed to the city . The applicant shall receive full trail
dedication fee credit for this condition . The entirety of this trail —
shall be constructed above the 933 elevation mark .
33 . Staff will work with the City Attorney to draft an agreement with the —
developer to provide financial guarantees for replacement of any trees
removed within the right-of-way which were not approved for removal .
34 . A 25' front yard setback will be permitted where necessary to preserve —
natural features .
35 . All lots shall meet the 90 ' frontage requirements . —
36. Staff shall review the location of the trail connections .
All voted in favor except Ledvina and Scott who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Batzli : And your reasons for voting against are , for the record? —
Ledvina : Well I don 't know .
Batzli : I r.ean it 's pretty clear but it 's really nice , it 's right at the
end so they can pick it up .
Ledvina : I don 't think we 've done our work .
Batzli : Okay . Joe .
Scott : I d:n 't have a feel for the tree placement removal and I wanted to
see it again .
Batzli : Okay . And Jo Ann , when does this go to Council?
Olsen : July 12th? I have it at the end of June . That 's the wrong date ,
sorry . So August , is that okay with you guys? I 've got it on the 28th . —
June 28th .
Batzli : That 's assuming they get everything in . —
Harberts : When do you need the materials in?
Olsen: Well , to do the report , it would have to go out next week . I don 't
know .
Hempel : It 's supposed to go out Tuesday or Wednesday of next week .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 75
Harberts : They have like tomorrow huh?
Batzli : Yeah . And Jo Ann , I 'd like a coyp to go to Matt for sure . Do you
want to see a copy?
Scott : I 'd like to see a copy , yeah .
Batzli : If you can make copies for these two guys . . .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
— Commission meeting dated May 19 , 1993 as presented .
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Olsen: Did you want to talk about the special meeting? About the
Saturday .
Batzli : Yeah . We 're going to hopefully have a special meeting . We have
incredibly hacked up , full agendas for the next several meetings and we 're
not getting to the proactive good stuff . And what I 'd like to do is
— propose that we meet perhaps not only in a special session to talk about
all of the ordinances that we 're supposed to be looking at and passing but
also , there was something else we were going to talk about . In addition to
the special meeting that hopefully we 're going to meet on . Fred Hoisington
has asked for us to meet on a Saturday with the HRA and City Council . Not
this Saturda= but the Saturday after that , which is what day?
- Olsen : The 26th .
Batzli : So if everyone can jot a note at least , the 26th and what was the
— other date we had Jo Ann? It was the second Wednesday in July .
Olsen : The 14th of July . A Wednesday .
Scott : I 'm out of town that weekend . So let 's reschedule .
Harberts: I 've got family in town too that weekend .
Batzli : Which weekend? The 26th . Well , if some of us can make it we ' ll
do it a different day but it 's important because what 's happening is
— they 're going to redo the Pony , what do you call it? Or no , the Hanus
thing , yeah .
Olsen: Where Gary Brown 's Tire and Auto .
Scott : Are we going to meet , you know that trivial little $6 million
exercise with the community center . Are we ever going to have a meeting
— like that with the HRA on that just that insignificant investment? That
one .
Batzli : You know what I totally forgot about , was getting you my comments .
I commented it all up and then I never sent it to you . Whatever happened
to that?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 76
Ledvina : I 'm waiting . I didn 't get one response .
Batzli : Okay .
Olsen: Well you have the potential to do that too .
Batzli : Which? What?
Olsen: Talk about that again too .
Batzli : Right . At that meeting but we need to come up with a date .
Who 's , are you and Fred then going to confer and try and find a different
date?
Olsen: We 'll work something out . We 'll see who can come .
Batzli : What about the Wednesday . We were going to talk about something _
else at that Wednesday meeting though besides for our ordinances . What
else were we going to talk about?
Harberts: We can 't meet with Fred on the 23rd .
Batzli : On which?
Harberts : The 23rd .
Batzli : What 's the 23rd?
Harberts,: A Wednesday .
Mancino : There '_ a Highway 5 Task Force meeting .
HarbertE : Thz-.t =tarts at 5: 00 though doesn 't it? . . . like 7:30?
Mancino : Thi is when we 're going to vote on everything . That 's on the
23rd . I d,n 't know . I mean it may be over by 8:30 or something but .
Batzli : IEr 't the 23rd when we 're going to meet the SWMP committee 's going
to meet? Is that the same day?
Olsen : I thought that was like the 29th .
Harberts : That 's a Tuesday .
Batzli : I thought it was a , well I don 't even remember . It 's been sitting
in the back seat of my car . They sent it out about 8 weeks in advance .
I 've never gotten such advance notice so it 's just been riding around in
the back of my truck and I don 't remember the date .
Harberts: There isn 't a chance of meeting with Fred like on Monday thru
Friday schedule?
Olsen: Let 's look at that . We 'll see if we can work maybe a Monday ,
Tuesday evening or something .
Planning Commission Meeting
— June 16 , 1993 - Page 77
Batzli : Okay . We ' ll all have a breakfast meeting .
Scott: That 's okay .
Batzli : Is there something you 'd like to share with the group Jo Ann?
Olsen : Oh . I 'm leaving . I think most of you know but the first of
— September I 'm going to leave working here and just be home with the kids
and stuff .
Scott : We hate to see you go but then again , that 's a better deal .
Congratulations .
Olsen: So I 'm looking forward to it .
Scott : So there 's going to be someone else coming in because Kate doesn 't
want to be .
Olsen: No , she 's going to be right on my heels if somebody doesn 't come
so . Yeah , I think they put out an ad last weekend and hopefully this
_ weekend . They 're hoping to have somebody in a little bit before I leave
so we can kind of show them what , I doubt it . It never happens that
quickly .
- Batzli : Well , we shall all miss you .
Olsen: Thank .
Mancino: Have you heard from Paul?
_ Olsen : Ha,,en 't heard from Paul . He was supposed to , we were supposed to
hear from Pani , his wife today . He 's in Peru . Paul 's in Peru .
Batzli : Did you want to?
Mancino : Well I just wanted to let everybody know that on the 23rd , a week
from tonight the Highway 5 Task Force is meeting and will be voting on some
land use issues and the access boulevards .
Scott : That 's the 5 :00 .
- Mancino: It starts at 5: 30 here . Half hour for dinner . The actual
meeting will start at 6:00 . So if you want to listen .
— Olsen: I don 't know when we 're going to meet . Maybe a breakfast meeting ,
is that doable?
_ Scott : Yeah , those work out really well with the exception of the first
Thursday of the month and Mondays before Planning Commission meetings .
Batzli : Yeah , I mean I can . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16 , 1993 - Page 78
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn . All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12: 15 a .m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CITY OF
014vCHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: July 1, 1993
SUBJ: Report from Director
At the June 28, 1993, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken:
1. Prairie Creek 1st and 2nd Addition final plat approval was granted on the consent agenda.
2. Royal Oak Estates final plat approval was granted on the consent agenda.
3. At the request of the property owner, the City Council reconsidered conditions of
approval for the Laurent Addition. The Planning Commission may recall that this was
a relatively simple lot division in Chanhassen's rural area in the vicinity of Pioneer Trail.
Mr. Laurent's farm is severely impacted by the proposed right-of-way for Hwy. 212. He
was looking to subdivide off a second home site for his son. Mr. Laurent objected to
conditions of approval which had been to agreed to by the Planning Commission and City
Council which called for two things. The first was provision of a trail easement of 50
feet on either side of Bluff Creek as it ran through his property. The second being an
issue with the requirement that the future right-of-way for T. H. 212 be platted as an
outlot. In reviewing this request, staff concluded that it was probably reasonable not to
require the creation of the outlot for the T. H. 212 right-of-way in as much as right-of-
way acquisition will be the obligation of MnDOT when the road is proposed for
construction. As to the recreation corridor along Bluff Creek, staff continued to feel very
strongly that this was an important requirement due to the significance of the Bluff Creek
corridor which extends from Lake Minnewashta Regional Park down to the Minnesota
River Valley. We noted that given delays on T. H. 212 funding, it is highly likely that
the Bluff Creek corridor and accompanying trail system may be built in advance of the
highway. The Council agreed with staff's recommendations and approved revised
is
5�iv PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
July 1, 1993
Page 2
conditions deleting the outlot requirement but continuing to require the provision of the
trail corridor.
4. Chaska Machine and Tool preliminary plat, comprehensive plan amendment, and site plan
review. The City Council generally felt very comfortable with this request with the
improvements that had been made to the site plan during the Planning Commission
review. It was approved with only minor revisions to the conditions.
5. Non-conforming use permit for Schmids Acre Recreational Beachlot. This item continued
to be controversial. The City Council was adamant that discussion on this item be held
to a minimum in as much as the Planning Commission devoted almost two hours of time
to it and this is amply documented. The applicants were it structed that they each had
five minutes to present new information that had not been made available to the Planning
Commission which appeared to frustrate attorneys representing both sides of the issue.
The City Council strongly supported the recommendations of the Planning Commission
with one revision. They essentially tried to work a compromise wherein the dock, boats
on land and dockage would be similar to what the Planning Commission had
recommended which was in accordance with what the homeowners association had
requested. However, they eliminated any parking and vehicular access to the site. The
City Council believed that vehicular access to this site was not the historic condition since
photographs appeared to indicate a very large tree root that would have blocked any but
four-wheel drive vehicles. In approving the application, the City Council also expressed
some frustration that property owners appeared to be using the city to enter into a
property rights dispute in which we had no business intervening.
6. Proposed City Code Amendment, Sexually Oriented Business, First Reading. The
Planning Commission will recall that last year we reviewed several options for code
revisions that would regulate any sexually oriented businesses that may wish to locate in
our community. There were two approaches that needed to be reviewed. One was the
"combat zone" approach wherein a community is obligated to designate an area in which
these uses can be accommodated. The second is the licensing approach which defines
these uses, requires that they be licensed and uphold standards similar to those which are
applied to liquor stores and which further requires separation between these uses and
between them and sensitive land uses such as churches and day care centers. It was
agreed that this second approach would be the one to follow. At that point, this matter
was forwarded to the Public Safety Commission for action since it was a licensing rather
than zoning based approach. The ordinance was scheduled to be heard by the City
Council at this meeting. At the last moment, the City Council realized that a public
hearing on this ordinance must be held at the Planning Commission. Although it is not
technically a zoning based ordinance since it does have a setback standard in it, he felt
that the public hearing should be held at the Planning commission. I have therefore
scheduled it for hearing at an upcoming meeting.
Planning Commission
July 1, 1993
Page 3
7. Proposal to locate a Corn Hut at the Southwest Corner of Kerber and West 78th Street.
The Planning Commission is aware that the Dimler family has operated a corn hut on
78th Street for a number of years. Their original site is now the location of the Target
parking lot and they have inquired as to the potential of locating a pumpkin patch and
corn hut this year at the corner of Kerber and West 78th Street. Staff prepared a memo
to the Council on this subject which is attached for your review. We really didn't see a
major problem with it, but we wanted to get the Council's feedback. The Council
directed staff to allow the corn hut to be placed on this property.
Other Issues:
8. Lake Ann Storage Building. Attached you will find a memo from the City Engineer to
me regarding a proposal to develop an additional maintenance building at Lake Ann Park.
Efforts are being made to site the building in a location that is consistent with the
proposed location of Arboretum Boulevard which is the north access boulevard being
proposed under the Hwy. 5 Corridor Project. Ideally, I would prefer having a more
remote location for this facility due to potential visual impacts but understand that this
would result in excessive costs and probably get dislocation of recreational facilities
elsewhere in the park. I am asking however, that an adequate landscaping plan be
developed so that materials could mature by the time Arboretum Boulevard and associated
trails are constructed. Please review the attached memorandum and illustration and if you
have additional comments for me to convey to the Engineer, I would be happy to do so.
9. Nez Perce Connection to Peaceful Lane. Those of who have been on the Planning
commission for a while know that four years ago, in conjunction with the Vineland Forest
subdivision, the city approved a routing of Nez Perce up to Pleasant View Road. The
item was fairly controversial at the time and required a series of actions to occur over a
period of years to complete the connection. When the adjacent Troendle Addition was
approved for Frank Beddor, the developer, the road alignment was maintained leaving one
parcel owned by Art Owens, as the last piece of the puzzle. Approximately a year and
a half ago, Mr. Beddor was given an IUP to grade the pond the north part of the Owens'
property, and again, the alignment was preserved. As a part of the Troendle Addition,
Mr. Beddor was required to pay $10,000 towards the ultimate connection of the street.
Recently Mr. Beddor determined that he would not facilitate the ultimate completion of
the street. In fact, he will stand in the way of it ever happening. Staff believed that this
was a 1800 turn and fundamentally a misrepresentation of past actions on the property
and brought the item back to the City Council. The City Council was angry enough
about it but they actually decided to go along with condemnation of the last remaining
piece of the required right-of-way. Mr. Beddor has since launched a mass mailing
campaign all over the northeastern portion of the community trying to solicit support for
the City Council's overturning the May 24th decision. I am attaching materials that have
Planning Commission
July 1, 1993
Page 4
been prepared by Mr. Beddor and a response letter by the city. I am also enclosing a
copy of the memo that was sent to the City Council at the May 24th meeting wherein
condemnation was ordered. Should you wish to discuss this further at the Planning
Commission, I would be happy to do so.
We had been scheduled to review a plat for the Tower Heights subdivision which was on
the south half of the Owens' property at the July 7, 1993 meeting. Mr. Beddor was
urging residents who supported his position to come to the Planning Commission meeting
and voice their concerns. Since the fundamental road alignment issue must be determined
before we can adequately deal with a plat that is depending upon this road for access, I
took the action of pulling this item from the Planning Commission agenda. Thus, this
plat will not be heard until the City Council action on the road extension is clarified.
CITY TF
CHANHASSEN
,01
.- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
- N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer 691/
DATE: June 29, 1993
SUBJ: Lake Ann Park Storage Building
File No. PW-249A
Attached please find a location map depicting the site of the new park maintenance
equipment storage building to be installed this summer at Lake Ann Park. The location for
this building has taken into consideration the alignment for the future Arboretum Boulevard
access road along the north side of Trunk Highway 5 and the topography of the area. This
location is the only level area suitable for the building and negates the need for any grading.
The size of the building structure is proposed to be 40 feet wide by 120 feet long similar in
— material and style to the existing metal storage building located adjacent to this site. The
intention of this building is agricultural in nature by providing storage for park maintenance
material and equipment used for maintaining all of the City parks and adjacent tree nursery.
If you should have any questions or need additional information on this matter for your
presentation to the Planning Commission, please let me know.
ktm
Attachment: Location map
c: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent
Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager
Tom Chaffee, Data Processing Coordinator
t«, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
i.=.:.,,, TH 5/RILEY CREEK CROSSIN . t Niskl. 1-S—Ls, , _.
ALT 3 COMMON PED. & DRAI .4
0.44S,G
- i \
i \_,
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
...r .
/ . •
• • .
..) 'i. -1- ‘-•.-:--.. / ,....:4 .1.
...
IdU '6141/ CA•42. CAZP.->C4.4 1 .
7 tj 1.1
/ \
•
-.
/ .. '
: r• 1 -.
rl rf
1 •
...:
ILAIE ANN 'PARK
.., /
I \
...
• .17_,..-- .f. kV \C \\ 6'.
....--•1 I 1...n.1\
;Cr\
...... . .......if fr A 01
i I ..../
, ......,
•.f 1- 1 i .., )
STOCK\IPILE")
/
I 1/44Ii
. 41 01 if d•
'•..... I', \........' .1 •
••••••• .. . ...4..a........t.,... ,
'''NIIIIIIIIIIIN1/4.
1,
.././.1 h )
% .
NN•
St:\
a"•
r--------
-...—
'--,', . 100. ________-•_in
.,
. • s•. • --• 4111114111k* lktk.- ..-'4.111V'
„ ca.,. ... idlig.:-'...,:-.
., ....A. -- .7...
„„,,. .:.,,
___ I 8* r.....A , --•-. .......,:a.
4111101AM7:.J-' -- - .> '-'• ,..,,. \''. TE,,,,::-, ••.-
I - •
... ,,,it•' , .. ---1-....‹.-.,....., 0, -22--,. ..' (73
• •NURSERY.-: . . 1 ki, •,,,...„. ,,, ..,. -... -
_ . -,- . .. , • / ) . '174' . '. '. . . \\, ° 0
\ \ 1
ffi" '*- i'l. ..-'' • '< -1111,......4...., \\ 0 ..1
. f f -
r21144441
. 4,1„. .., t..........•••1.z.:. ,,.. ..
---................ ----,11z_-_-„,...,...„ -„...... ..
•
..,,„ •: .
•,.--,.....-
. .
• , „... .„
, ( i.k
...
..... ...,11 .,., . . 0 •_...,:._.. \\„ * .,,k•
•
• It.-
111 III \
\\••
-t--
;
I , "./ olluitel-04 19" 1.
rflo ,, ,. ..,.. .....-eituaaA4:4.1 0 \ I 0 _
t•
---7,....-_-.-:--,-• . -----•.--.•....,-.7. -,:-.4-7.---::.,--- -7,--;,..--..-,-,-. ...-- -. • - r -•1,,.•• __,-•.-„,;„ 7
-----7-----7-7:6 :- : -• . . .. ...11;•'- .111... --- . „.,. -
.4150 -. .. ...-V::..,..-ILI. 4 .-11-•"'• :'- •--..r "...„ •-.."-'4:,•:•.:--„' l : •-iti• ,, . "ii; 't`f;455,'., -,.. ••".. • •,-,.,;,, ;A A, 1 1
. .. ..7 -
/ \
, ,.,..... .1111.......AK, _ - -..o. _,Itta..,,..„_- _...e —.......---1•ba.-......--..4,-...„.-...... ._-_— , ,
t'y IPI i 7••*C.-:`,. •1 -, ..., .,
.... ..:.-"t.... -
fw ''‘.. 6' . II ' I :: - - . '•"' _.
0
_
N:,;•,..„....rd----,.._.....-
_ ----.c---------•-,-,..-......- .... ---.
. 1
--,- _ . .j.,..,.t:a. __.
.. ..'-:- ••••. ''' i" .
. .
. .
. .. r •: tO• • .
'; -.4
Y •
...' •
... .
, .
.-: - . .
\. \ ..
.
0
..•
4'.
... . m....0. ‘......1.., ../,
s .....I ..1 Ile 1?
• • •....• I k .., .._.--,r__... I: \ \
1 .. .
.....1 .•
\ . . . • • .'\• e --• \ ; tei‘.
; %,'a•\ -. .... ! ‘'.--. .... . eit‘'.
. .. •
•
-••
C I TY OF
i
C II AN BASSEN
\ Y
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEETING NOTICE AND BACKGROUND LNFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE
EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE
Recently you may have heard about actions taken by the City Council pertaining to the extension
of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road at Peaceful Lane. We understand that a private
individual has conducted a mass mailing and held at least one meeting, although the City was
not contacted directly or asked to be involved. We have obtained copies of some of the materials
and wanted to take an opportunity to correct some of the information and invite you to attend
an upcoming City Council meeting to hear your concerns.
MEETING SCHEDULE
The issue of extending the road will not be discussed at the July 7 Planning Commission
meeting. This item never was on the agenda however, a proposed subdivision named Tower
Heights was scheduled to be discussed. This plat is of interest since its layout has a bearing on
issues pertaining to road alignments in the area. The City Council has already agreed to hear
issues pertaining to the road at their July 12 meeting. This would put the Planning Commission
in the position of being unable to take action on the plat pending potential City Council action
which would occur a few days later. We have therefore elected to postpone action on this plat
until the July 21 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Beddor has been given the opportunity to discuss the issue at the Visitor Presentation at the
July 12 City Council meeting. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. and is held in the Council
Chambers in City Hall. At this meeting, the Council will determine if they should reconsider
their action of May 24, 1993, to proceed with condemnation of land required for the Nez Perce
right-of-way. It is important to note that the City Council's past action was largely based upon
Mr. Beddor's agreement to connect his subdivision (Troendle Addition) to Pleasant View Road.
BACKGROUND
The idea of extending Nez Perce first surfaced in 1989 with the platting of Vineland Forest. At
that time, the concept of connecting the streets by running Nez Perce straight north was
considered. Why was it considered? It was clear that a number of lots would be developed in
the area and a safe and effective means of accessing them needed to be found. Good planning
and transportation engineering requires that to the extent possible and reasonable, neighborhoods
have more then one means of access. This is to limit the potential for traffic problems, improve
�s
S�«• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Nez Perce Drive Extension
Page 2
response times for emergency vehicles and reduce long term costs of providing services such as
snow plowing and school bus service.
At that time, Mr. Beddor and others located along Pleasant View Road were concerned that
running Nez Perce straight north had the potential of introducing additional traffic on Pleasant
View Road. This was never the City's intent but it must be understood that Pleasant View is a —
collector street and the only through access in this part of the city. Due to the concerns that were
raised, the City Council considered a variety of alternatives including the following:
1. Connections to Fox Chase. Fox Path was originally designed to be extended west into
the Vineland Forest area. This was eliminated from consideration due to excessive grades
and Vineland Forest was intentionally approved in a manner that made a future
connection impossible. Copies of the mailing you may have received appear to indicate
two additional street connections from Carver Beach into Fox Chase. We do not know
who thought of these but it does not come from the City and is not being considered.
2. Loop Connection back to Lake Lucy Road. This was considered but ultimately dismissed
for several reasons including poor grades, direct impact to homes on Lake Lucy Road and —
due to the fact that it would result in excessive levels of traffic on Lake Lucy Road.
Residents on this street have been actively asking the City Council for relief from traffic
impacts. For the past 31/2 years, the City Council has committed to these residents that —
their problems would ultimately be solved by the Nez Perce connection to Pleasant View
Road. The "solution" being offered in the recent mailing is not new. It was dismissed
be the City Council in 1989.
3. Connect Nez Perce to Pleasant View at Peaceful Lane. This was the option that was
selected by the City Council. It was agreed that the connection would be done on an
incremental basis as development occurred. This allows most, if not all, cost of the road
to be paid be developers as is normal with development throughout Chanhassen. —
When option 3 was selected, it was put into force over the past few years. Each lot buyer in
Vineland Forest was notified of the extension and Nez Perce ended at a temporary barricade that
had a sign indicating that the street was to be extended.
In 1990, Mr. Beddor came to the City with a proposal to develop the Troendle Addition. The
street right-of-way required to extend Nez Perce was dedicated to the City by Mr. Beddor with
the plat and the road was built. Again, all lot buyers were put on notice and the temporary
barricade and sign were erected at the west property line. The Lake Lucy Road residents were —
very concerned with the addition of new lots whose only access would be from Lake Lucy Road.
The City Council debated not allowing Mr. Beddor to plat the lots until the road connection was
completed. Ultimately, all the parties agreed to the following: —
Nez Perce Drive Extension
Page 3
1. The plat could be allowed to proceed contingent on Mr. Beddor's paying $10,000 to the
City. These funds were for the express use of covering a part of the cost to complete
the connection. The money was paid and continues to be held by the City. Mr. Beddor's
architect submitted two alternative road alignments showing the Peaceful Lane connection.
2. The City Council agreed to rehear the item in 18 months. At that time it was believed
_ that a development proposal on the adjacent Owens' parcel would be forthcoming in that
period of time. This would be the last piece of the puzzle to connect the street. Mr.
Beddor's attorney indicated that he would be attempting to purchase the property.
Since that time, Mr. Beddor did purchase the north portion of the Owens' parcel. He was
granted a grading permit by the Planning Commission and City Council to work on the site with
the full understanding that the road connection was still being planned. The south portion of the
Owens' property has been acquired by another developer and is currently being proposed as the
Tower Heights subdivision. Mr. Beddor now opposes the connection to Pleasant View Road.
TRAFFIC ISSUES
-- Is Pleasant View Road being proposed for upgrading by the City? The answer is no. Safety
related improvements may reasonably be required in the future, but even these have not been
contemplated.
Is the Nez Perce connection intended to introduce more traffic onto Pleasant View Road? The
answer again is no. The curvilinear and indirect routing of the proposed extension is designed
to minimize this potential.
Will traffic on Pleasant View continue to increase? The answer is probably yes. But this has
much more to do with development elsewhere in the City and with the completion of the
Crosstown Highway out to Highway 101 near the Chanhassen border than with the Nez Perce
connection which is intended to respond to local access issues. While it is by no means an ideal
situation, we must recognize that Pleasant View is the only east/west road between the City line
and Highway 5. This is true whether or not the connection is made or if the Owens' parcel is
ever developed.
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEZ PERCE
The feasibility study commissioned by the City Council has projected construction costs of under
$130,000. With the funding provided by Mr. Beddor and others, we have approximately $12,000
on hand. This does not cover acquisition costs and until the condemnation proceeds, we will not
have an accurate figure. The $300,000 figure mentioned in the materials you may have received
is highly speculative and questionable. This works out to about $60,000 per acre for land that
— is partially encumbered by a pond. In any event, only a portion of the site is directly required
for right-of-way. It is City policy to make new development pay its own way. It is our
Nez Perce Drive Extension
Page 4
expectation that most, if not all, of the costs would be assessed against the benefiting lots located
on the land to be developed. Thus, the investment of public dollars would be minimized or
eliminated. —
FOR MORE INFORMATION
We note that there appeared to be an accusation that official minutes of the May 24, 1993, City
Council meeting were altered and we take great exception to it. All Council meetings are public
and the one in question was well attended. A video of the meetings are aired on cable TV. The —
video is available and can be viewed by contacting City Hall. There is not now, nor has there
ever been, an attempt to mislead the public in this way. Should you desire additional information
or wish to review the many files we have on this topic, please feel free to contact City Planning
or Engineering Staff.
'Q/s /r t(0 m m
to m
E KEgBER -`S'T '�tiA w �.� 6en g /
e n 33 33 w /� qQ +. Ilehltkih.. 2 'I'll //
• couNTr mow• Ear_ .� �N t0 1241111.y-...
0 -- o
.. D4t plat. -- - _ _• --- �- =r - Jam. • � _ orf /
,./7
=A% T`:'r 0 616 i.37 �� `` - '+ �-
V• . i v • �•- �.' _ _ OUTt or 4it*1.
Lj'. 34
— _ qR
m RS�' - •'ti �
r \ co — u may $Fz��q
-440
r T O 0A'
A a N m o or ^' 'Y ( c" 3
13.0 rr OUTLOT I 220.04"- �, m j 111111 1 4, C 4IV v n
4 �j f Vy
o yF �a ��•i��� gat r ,fair m I
_ , _ tis /.�� som I I rt1 rs.m - r^
C, o at G o 1 `I j. �� 8.i I g
`"7"\ N 1-1 E
>223
-\ i 0 -I CPI
., . Z m m
1 • <A - Q es 44, O O� A
r
m
"" N C
a
01 e T
+I `� T ROEND�E �`� N FQDO N
.----
TROT
CIRCL ADDIT R
k v9 1 ; 1111; SDN _ sT°59 w ��/T
I!0 L' w Po - - y w 532°o1'w �l
VA a
- ~ N _ am S
-- �� w CTENO. `°o �`�5.
SG D N 19!103 m CTF.
21 N 0 (n x A w N _ CO N _ t.. _ •_T 325.69 _^ 19!1
SI
ce
�' I c CTr.N0.• = CTR NO.
�1 r< 3n►ao 313d Z3N1I
INNO! �IH00 02 FRGNK BEC
,in �'- CTF NO 19
w N = z N VI�IEWOOD
89 6
tr- m - - N2°C: w
N ti� w i40D1 I ON r loiva�` o o a65 qF_``
• �'mOtMN�i Y Y�TMi3EM `••
c .
I t0 r I a'34. .2.3 t;
• w Mies, auo °y2
•
) .41
; M44 g6r
—:,s7 , \ ..., ,
\ 70 �r UJyN JNCHA .i PC C.4 Sq
O`= 4`i•o _ •
D V N C NT /
�a 1
N
N 4)r at CA . A w j 3
w NVI
i kir
FOx*Alt
N g I Se:
! • N66
T 3 13.1111111. = t.
u,T
SOA Not 0 -- -+.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 11:53 air
06/30/93 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 1
Report Criteria:
Property: Address is Between "NEZ PERCE DR 6491" and "NEZ PERCE DR 6694"
or Property: Address is Between "HOPI ROAD 6670" and "HOPI ROAD 6687" —
or Property: Address is Between "MOUNTAIN WAY 200" and "MOUNTAIN WAY 271"
or Property: Address is Between "NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD 6370" and "NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD 6400"
or Property: Address is Between "LAKE LUCY ROAD 920" and "LAKE LUCY ROAD 999"
or Property: Address is Between "LAKE LUCY ROAD 1000" and "LAKE LUCY ROAD 1101"
or Property: Address Contains "PLEASANT PARK DR"
or Property: Address Contains "PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE"
or Property: Address Contains "PLEASANT VIEW COVE"
or Property: Address Contains "PLEASANT VIEW ROAD"
or Property: Address Contains "PEACEFUL LANE"
or Property: Address Contains "TROENDLE CIRCLE"
or Property: Address Contains "VINELAND COURT"
or Property: Address Contains "RIDGE ROAD"
or Property: Address Contains "FOX PATH"
or Property: Address Contains "FOX COURT" —
or Property: Address Contains "LAKE POINT"
•
or Property: Address Contains "HORSESHOE CURVE"
or Property: Address Contains "TIMBERHILL ROAD" —
or Property: Address Contains "PLEASANT VIEW WAY"
or Property: Address Contains "BLUFF RIDGE COURT"
or Property: Address Contains "HUNTERS COURT"
or Property: Address Contains "GRAY FOX LANE"
or Property: Address Contains "INDIAN HILL ROAD"
or Property: Address Contains "WESTERN DR 850"
or Property: Address Contains "OXBOW BEND 6330" —
or Property: Address Contains "OXBOW BEND 6331"
or Property: Address Contains "OXBOW BEND 6340"
or Property: Address Contains "OXBOW BEND 6350"
PROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST.
Street Address: BLUFF RIDGE COURT
252730140 2100478 140 BLUFF RIDGE COURT CARLSON, RICKI LEE —
252730150 2100480 150 BLUFF RIDGE COURT PETERSON, KEVIN
252730160 2100482 160 BLUFF RIDGE COURT PETERSON, ROBERT L.
252730170 2100484 170 BLUFF RIDGE COURT BISHOP, JEFF —
252730180 2100486 180 BLUFF RIDGE COURT LEININGER, DONALD J.
Total # of Properties: BLUFF RIDGE COURT 5
Street Address: FOX COURT —
252700400 2201250 800 FOX COURT NAPOLITANO, CHRISTOPHER
252700410 2201240 820 FOX COURT HAUERWAS, JERRY
252700420 2201230 840 FOX COURT LATTU, STEVE
252700430 2201220 860 FOX COURT HACHTMAN, STEVE
252700440 2201210 880 FOX COURT ENGEL, KATHLEEN
252700450 2201200 890 FOX COURT LARSON, WILLIAM
CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 11:54 am
06/30/93 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 2
'ROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST.
Total # of Properties: FOX COURT 6
'Street Address: FOX PATH
'52700010 2200760 6320 FOX PATH CALLAWAY, DAVID
- 52700020 2200770 6340 FOX PATH LEWISON, GIL
252700310 2201320 6341 FOX PATH TENNYSON, THOMAS
'.52700030 2200780 6360 FOX PATH COX, GERALD L.
'52700320 2201330 6361 FOX PATH BAUERNFEIND, RANDY
—252700040 2200790 6380 FOX PATH GOODMAN, JOHN
752700340 2201310 6381 FOX PATH MCGRATH, JOHN
?52700050 2200800 6400 FOX PATH ZIEBARTH, JEFFREY
252700350 2201300 6401 FOX PATH KLOUDA, TIMOTHY
252700060 2200810 6410 FOX PATH MEIER, TOM
'52700360 2201290 6411 FOX PATH JOHNSON, ERICK
_252700070 2200820 6420 FOX PATH VOLKMEIER, DOUGLAS
252700370 2201280 6421 FOX PATH SULLIVAN, DENNIS
752700080 2200830 6430 FOX PATH SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL
'52700380 2201270 6431 FOX PATH ENDERSON, CHARLES
252700090 2200840 6440 FOX PATH VOLLMER, MELVIN
252700390 2201260 6441 FOX PATH SOUKUP, GEORGE T.
'52700100 2200850 6450 FOX PATH HUBERTY, TOM
-52700110 2200860 6460 FOX PATH HAYDOCK, MICHAEL
252700120 2200870 6470 FOX PATH HOFFMAN, KEITH M.
'52700460 2201190 6471 FOX PATH BEEGLE, CINDY
252700250 2201000 6510 FOX PATH MIDTHUN, STEVE
252700470 2201180 6511 FOX PATH ISHAM, JEFF
752700260 2201010 6520 FOX PATH ZACHARY DEVELOPMENT
'52700480 2201170 6521 FOX PATH CHUVA, CHARLES
252700270 2201015 6530 FOX PATH MOONEY, MICHAEL
252700280 2201020 6540 FOX PATH PARE, P. ELLENZ/C.
'52700490 2201160 6541 FOX PATH AARESTED, BOYD
- 52700290 2201030 6550 FOX PATH DOYLE, JOHN
252700500 2201150 6551 FOX PATH ELLIOTT, GREGG
52700300 2201035 6560 FOX PATH BRUNO, FRED
_'52700510 2201140 6561 FOX PATH MILLER, WILLIAM
252700520 2201130 6571 FOX PATH ROANE, JIMMY
Total 0 of Properties: FOX PATH 33
street Address: GRAY FOX LANE
'52780050 2100500 110 GRAY FOX LANE KIDDER, TODD
'52780040 2100499 130 GRAY FOX LANE RIVERS, THOMAS R.
—252780030 2100498 150 GRAY FOX LANE SIEBER, WAYNE
'52780020 2100497 170 GRAY FOX LANE BANDEMER, TROY
'52780010 2100496 190 GRAY FOX LANE GETTE, K. BOWE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 11:55 an
06/30/93 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 3
PROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST.
Total # of Properties: GRAY FOX LANE 5
Street Address: HOPI ROAD
251600201 2300436 6670 HOPI ROAD BECKMAN, R. W.
251600280 2300438 6679 HOPI ROAD COSGROVE, JIM
251600281 2300440 6683 HOPI ROAD ANDERSON, CRAIG
251600230 2300432 6686 HOPI ROAD COLLVER, NADEAN
251600300 2300448 6687 HOPI ROAD PEDEN, WILLIAM
Total # of Properties: HOPI ROAD 5 —
Street Address: HORSESHOE CURVE
257660010 2200210 6603 HORSESHOE CURVE MILLER, DONALD _
257660020 2200208 6605 HORSESHOE CURVE HARVIEUX, RON
256300340 2200216 6607 HORSESHOE CURVE DANIELSON, JOHN
256300320 2200218 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE BROZOVICH, RAYMOND
256300330 2200224 6613 HORSESHOE CURVE GILMAN, THOMAS —
258030020 2200214 6614 HORSESHOE CURVE STEUERNAGEL, PAULA J
256300310 2200226 6615 HORSESHOE CURVE KEIPER, JAMES
258030030 2200220 6616 HORSESHOE CURVE PECK, RICHARD —
256300370 2200222 6620 HORSESHOE CURVE HANSON, ROBERT
256300300 2200232 6625 HORSESHOE CURVE CONRAD, LADD R
256300380 2200228 6630 HORSESHOE CURVE LYNCH, MICHAEL
256400020 2200234 6631 HORSESHOE CURVE DAHL, HAROLD
256400030 2200236 6633 HORSESHOE CURVE ISAACSON, PHILIP
256400010 2200230 6640 HORSESHOE CURVE TERSTEEG, JOSEPH G
256400040 2200237 6645 HORSESHOE CURVE DECATUR, STEVEN —
256400050 2200238 6651 HORSESHOE CURVE KUZMA, FRANK
256300290 2200241 6655 HORSESHOE CURVE ALBINSON, EVELYN
256300291 2200242 6661 HORSESHOE CURVE HAU, TOM _
256300280 2200244 6663 HORSESHOE CURVE JOHNSON, TIMOTHY
256300270 2200248 6665 HORSESHOE CURVE CUNNINGHAM, JOHN
256300260 2200250 6675 HORSESHOE CURVE KOPISCHKE, DAVID
256300240 2200252 6677 HORSESHOE CURVE ROSEN, TERRY —
256300250 2200254 6681 HORSESHOE CURVE KVILHAUG, JEFF
256300220 2200256 6685 HORSESHOE CURVE RYAN, JOHN
256300230 2200258 6687 HORSESHOE CURVE HARTMANN, ALEX —
256300210 2200260 6691 HORSESHOE CURVE OLSON, SANDRA
256300200 2200262 6695 HORSESHOE CURVE HURD, CHARLES C.
256300190 2200264 6697 HORSESHOE CURVE OBERMEYER, KEITH
Total # of Properties: HORSESHOE CURVE 28
CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 11:55 am
06/30/93 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 4
1ROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST.
'treet Address: HUNTERS COURT
252730050 2100460 50 HUNTERS COURT DELINSKY, JACK
252730060 2100462 60 HUNTERS COURT STOTLER, KENT
_52730070 2100464 70 HUNTERS COURT COOK, WILLIAM
252730080 2100466 80 HUNTERS COURT BUJOLD, DAN
—52730090 2100468 90 HUNTERS COURT HOLLAND, MARK
Total I of Properties: HUNTERS COURT 5
Street Address: INDIAN HILL ROAD
'56300030 2200274 450 INDIAN HILL ROAD OBRIEN, GERALD
250013200 2200316 480 INDIAN HILL ROAD ROJINA, MARY E
—256300050 2200288 491 INDIAN HILL ROAD MARTINI, BARBARA
'56300040 2200286 501 INDIAN HILL ROAD KNOWLES, RUSSELL
256300060 2200290 531 INDIAN HILL ROAD KRAMER, ALAN
256300080 2200292 541 INDIAN HILL ROAD PIEPER, KEVIN
'56300090 2200294 551 INDIAN HILL ROAD NORD, BRUCE
Total 0 of Properties: INDIAN HILL ROAD 7
treet Address: LAKE LUCY ROAD
251620060 2300070 1000 LAKE LUCY ROAD COOPER, BRIAN
251620180 2300160 1001 LAKE LUCY ROAD JOHNSON, BRADLEY
- '51620050 2300060 1020 LAKE LUCY ROAD OLSON, GARY LEE
251620170 2300170 1021 LAKE LUCY ROAD GREEK, KAREN
251620040 2300050 1040 LAKE LUCY ROAD FIER, BRYCE
-'51620160 2300180 1041 LAKE LUCY ROAD SCHREMP, DANIEL
'51620030 2300040 1060 LAKE LUCY ROAD WILLS, DARRYL
251620150 2300190 1061 LAKE LUCY ROAD JOHNSON, RODD
?51620020 2300030 1080 LAKE LUCY ROAD KLUVER, LEONARD
'51620140 2300200 1081 LAKE LUCY ROAD HANSEN, JEFFREY
251620010 2300020 1100 LAKE LUCY ROAD BOECK-KEVITT PARTNERSHIP
251620130 2300210 1101 LAKE LUCY ROAD WEINSTOCK, CRAIG
-'51620100 2300110 920 LAKE LUCY ROAD COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT
'51620220 2300120 921 LAKE LUCY ROAD HANSON, PAUL
251620090 2300100 940 LAKE LUCY ROAD MORGAN, SHARON
-51620210 2300130 941 LAKE LUCY ROAD MCKINNON, COLETTE
151620080 2300090 960 LAKE LUCY ROAD BARCK, TERRY
251620200 2300140 961 LAKE LUCY ROAD DUCHENE, JAMES
_251620070 2300080 980 LAKE LUCY ROAD DRAKE III, ROBERT
'51620190 2300150 981 LAKE LUCY ROAD LANTTO, TODD
CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 11:56 art__
06/30/93 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 7
PROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST.
Street Address: PLEASANT PARK DR
255570040 2200046 6400 PLEASANT PARK DR ERWIN, RANDY
255570030 2200044 6410 PLEASANT PARK DR NAROG, MIKE
255570050 2200048 6411 PLEASANT PARK DR BERDAHL, JON
255570020 2200042 6420 PLEASANT PARK DR OLSON, JERRY K
255570070 2200050 6421 PLEASANT PARK DR THORSON, BLAKE
255570080 2200052 6431 PLEASANT PARK DR ARDITO, TERRY
255570090 2200054 6441 PLEASANT PARK DR RING, DAVID J.
255570100 2200056 6451 PLEASANT PARK DR GROSCHEN, LEN
Total I of Properties: PLEASANT PARK DR 8
Street Address: PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE
250011800 2200010 6441 PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE WENNING, LLOYD
252780060 2200014 6450 PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE HANSEN, DENNIS —
250011700 2200012 6451 PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE NICHOLLS, JAMES
Total I of Properties: PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE 3
Street Address: PLEASANT VIEW COVE —
252150030 2200424 6370 PLEASANT VIEW COVE FOSTER. TIMOTHY
252150040 2200420 6371 PLEASANT VIEW COVE NOVACZYK, TODD D.
252150020 2200426 6380 PLEASANT VIEW COVE CALHOON, BARRY
252150010 2200428 6390 PLEASANT VIEW COVE GRAY, STEVEN
252150070 2200418 6391 PLEASANT VIEW COVE BEDDOR, FRANK JR
Total I of Properties: PLEASANT VIEW COVE 5
Street Address: PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
251140020 2200412 1010 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CARENZO, MICHAEL
258690010 2200572 1015 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD TROENDLE, JOSEPH
252150050 2200414 1020 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BEDDOR, FRANK JR
252150060 2200416 1050 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BEDDOR, DAVID A
251120010 2200534 1140 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD JOHNSON, DANIEL A.
250011200 2200026 115 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD KASK, HERBERT
258550030 2200526 1180 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD PETERSON, MARLOW
250011000 2200028 135 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NELSON, R V
250011600 2200034 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD MCNUTT, CARL F
250010800 2200036 195 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD TIMBERG, DANIEL
255570060 2200038 205 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ANDERSON, MIKE
254600020 2200002 25 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ROBINSON, DAVID
253700010 2200166 310 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD KLINGELHUTZ, BRIAN
CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 11:56 am
06/30/93 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 8
_'ROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST.
'53700020 2200168 320 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BERGMAN, DENNIS
253700030 2200170 330 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD HOLTE, JAMES S.
250012700 2200172 335 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD JOHNSON, DON
'54000010 2200182 339 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD KRAMER, LARRY
-- 54600010 2200004 35 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD SWENSON,JR., ROGUE L.
250012800 2200174 350 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD FRICKE, KENNETH
57660030 2200206 365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD SATHRE, ROBERT
_'50012600 2200184 370 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD TIVY, LARRY
256300010 2200284 400 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD KENYON, JOE
'56300020 2200278 420 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD MCCAULEY, GARY
56300180 2200266 429 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD SMITH, RANDY
2- 56300170 2200268 449 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ANDRUS, DONN
256300160 2200270 469 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ADAMS, TODD
'56300150 2200272 489 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD POST, ROBERT L
- 56300390 2200318 500 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ANDERSON, CURTIS
256300140 2200320 510 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD WALTER, JOHN R VON
'56300130 2200322 520 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD WOODRUFF, PAUL
'56300070 2200326 540 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ROBIDEAU, HARVEY
-250011400 2200006 55 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ALEXANDER, GARY
256880010 2200330 570 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD SCHEVENIUS, JOHN
56300120 2200332 600 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD SEIFERT, THOMAS
--E57300090 2200334 608 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NICOLAY, JOHN
257300080 2200336 610 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD SMITH III, CARL
57300070 2200338 620 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ROUSE, DAVID
57300060 2200340 630 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD FITZGERALD, SEAN
257300050 2200342 640 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BRODEN, DAVID
"50011300 2200008 65 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD DOUGLAS, MIKE
57300040 2200344 650 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CURNOW, SAM
—757300030 2200346 660 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD FREDRICK, JERRY
256800010 2200758 665 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD THIELEN, PETER
57300020 2200348 670 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ROSSBACH, DAVID
—.57300010 2200350 680 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD SCHELITZCHE, GARY M
256790010 2200752 695 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CLARK, MICHAEL
50013700 2200746 745 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD MAY, JEFFREY
__57910010 2200388 790 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AGUILERA, RICK
252700330 2201340 801 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BOIRE, WILLIAM
'56000010 2200606 825 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD WHITEMAN,JR., GORDON
50024800 2200390 830 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD GULLICKSON, BILL
250024900 2200396 850 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD MATHISEN, DENNIS
256000030 2200604 855 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD GRAEF JR, HENRY
50025200 2200400 860 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD MCCALLUM. MARY
,56000020 2200605 865 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CUNNINGHAM, W PAT
250025000 2200398 890 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD THURK, DEAN
50020600 2200408 910 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BEDDOR, FRANK
_58700020 2200574 915 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD VOGEL, S. EDWARDS
252800010 2200574 915 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD VOGEL, S. EDWARDS
'58710200 2200582 935 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BEDDOR, FRANK
50020610 2200406 950 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BEDDOR, FRANK
258710190 2200580 955 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BEDDOR, FRANK
CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 11:56 am
06/30/93 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 9
PROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST.
Total i of Properties: PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 62
Street Address: PLEASANT VIEW WAY
254000030 2200180 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY LENHART, ALAN W.
254000020 2200200 6580 PLEASANT VIEW WAY BAILEY, KELBY
Total 0 of Properties: PLEASANT VIEW WAY 2 —
Street Address: RIDGE ROAD
250014000 2200366 6225 RIDGE ROAD MEYER, JAMES
250020100 2200370 6250 RIDGE ROAD PRICE, SUSAN
250024500 2200372 6260 RIDGE ROAD WETZEL. DEAN
252650010 2200374 6270 RIDGE ROAD WILLCUTT, ALAN
252650020 2200376 6280 RIDGE ROAD FESS, JOHN —
Total Y of Properties: RIDGE ROAD 5
Street Address: TIMBERHILL ROAD
258640090 1601287 291 TIMBERHILL ROAD STONE, JOSEPH
258640050 1601288 300 TIMBERHILL ROAD VOELKER, BRIAN J
258640080 1601286 301 TIMBERHILL ROAD CLANCY, PATRICK —
258640040 1601289 310 TIMBERHILL ROAD STIRLEN, JAMES
258640070 1601285 311 TIMBERHILL ROAD DITMORE, ROBERT
Total F of Properties: TIMBERHILL ROAD 5
Street Address: TROENDLE CIRCLE
258690120 2300922 6500 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK _
258690020 2300902 6501 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK
258690030 2300904 6521 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK
258690100 2300918 6540 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK
258690040 2300906 6541 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK
258690090 2300916 6560 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK
258690050 2300908 6561 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK
258690080 2300914 6580 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK —
258690060 2300910 6581 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK
258690070 2300912 6590 TROENDLE CIRCLE BEDDOR, FRANK
CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 11:56 am
06/30/93 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 10
PROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST.
Total # of Properties: TROENDLE CIRCLE 10
Street Address: VINELAND COURT
—258710120 2300395 820 VINELAND COURT HAJT, RICH
258710110 2300394 840 VINELAND COURT LEDIN, JAMES
?58710100 2300392 860 VINELAND COURT COCALLAS, TODD E
?58710130 2300396 861 VINELAND COURT LAMMERS, MARJORIE
258710090 2300390 880 VINELAND COURT MORGAN, S THOMAS
?58710140 2300397 881 VINELAND COURT DONNA, DAVID
?58710080 2300388 900 VINELAND COURT SHEARER, DONALD
258710150 2300398 901 VINELAND COURT OLSEN, DOUGLAS
258710070 2300386 920 VINELAND COURT COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT
?58110160 2300399 921 VINELAND COURT SYVERSON, DANIEL
Total # of Properties: VINELAND COURT 10
Street Address: WESTERN DR
251600260 2300428 850 WESTERN DR BRAIEDY, JEFFREY R
251600270 2300428 850 WESTERN DR FALKOSKY, J BRAIEDY/T
Total # of Properties: WESTERN DR 2
Total # of Properties: 282
RICKI CARLSON KEVIN PETERSON ROBERT L. PETERSON
140 BLUFF RIDGE COURT 150 BLUFF RIDGE COURT 160 BLUFF RIDGE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JEFF BISHOP DONALD J. LEININGER CHRISTOPHER NAPOLITANO
170 BLUFF RIDGE COURT 180 BLUFF RIDGE COURT 800 FOX COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JERRY HAUERWAS EIDEN CONSTRUCTION STEVE HACHTMAN
6511 GRAY FOX CURVE 4100 BERKESHIRE LANE 860 FOX COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PLYMOUTH, MN 55446 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KATHLEEN ENGEL WILLIAM LARSON DAVID CALLAWAY
880 FOX COURT 890 FOX COURT 6320 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -
GIL LEWISON THOMAS TENNYSON GERALD L. COX
6340 FOX PATH 6341 FOX PATH 6360 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RANDY BAUERNFEIND JOHN GOODMAN JOHN MCGRATH
6361 FOX PATH 6380 FOX PATH 6381 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JEFFREY ZIEBARTH TIMOTHY KLOUDA TOM MEIER _
6157 CHASEWOOD PKWY 6401 FOX PATH 6410 FOX PATH
#102 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HOPKINS, MN 55343
DOUGLAS VOLKMEIER EIDEN CONSTRUCTION MICHAEL SCHWARTZ
6420 FOX PATH 4100 BERKESHIRE LANE 6430 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PLYMOUTH, MN 55446 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHARLES ENDERSON MELVIN VOLLMER GEORGE T. SOUKUP
6431 FOX PATH 6440 FOX PATH 6441 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -
TOM HUBERTY MICHAEL HAYDOCK KEITH M. HOFFMAN
6450 FOX PATH 6460 FOX PATH 6470 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CINDY BEEGLE STEVE MIDTHUN JEFF ISHAM
6471 FOX PATH 6510 FOX PATH 6511 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ZACHARY DEVELOPMENT CHARLES CHUVA MICHAEL MOONEY
5000 NORMANDALE BLVD 6521 FOX PATH 6530 FOX PATH
EDINA, MN 55435 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
P. ELLENZ/C. PARE CARL GUSTAFSON JOHN DOYLE
6540 FOX PATH 7719 48TH AVENUE NO 6550 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NEW HOPE, MN 55428 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GREGG ELLIOTT FRED BRUNO WILLIAM MILLER
6551 FOX PATH 6560 FOX PATH 8121 PINEWOOD CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JIMMY ROANE TODD KIDDER THOMAS R. RIVERS
6571 FOX PATH 110 GRAY FOX LANE 130 GRAY FOX LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DANIEL J DICKEY TROY BANDEMER K. BOWE GETTE
150 GRAY FOX LANE 170 GRAY FOX LANE 190 GRAY FOX LANE
- CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
R. W. BECKMAN JIM COSGROVE KEITH COLLVER
6670 HOPI ROAD 6679 HOPI ROAD 9112 OAKVIEW LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369
NADEAN COLLVER WILLIAM PEDEN ROBERT SATHRE
6686 HOPI ROAD 6687 HOPI ROAD 365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RON HARVIEUX JOHN DANIELSON RAYMOND BROZOVICH
6605 HORSESHOE CURVE 6607 HORSESHOE CURVE 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THOMAS GILMAN PAULA J STEUERNAGEL JAMES KEIPER
6613 HORSESHOE CURVE 6614 HORSESHOE CURVE 6615 HORSESHOE CURVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD FREY BJ JEANIE DE WITT MICHAEL POSTON
764 LAKE POINT 772 LAKE POINT 780 LAKE POINT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAUL KILKER JOHN OBERSTAR JANET HACKNEY
788 LAKE POINT 796 LAKE POINT 200 MOUNTAIN WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PETER J. WHATLEY DWAYNE SIGLER JOHN J. KADLEC
201 MOUNTAIN WAY 210 MOUNTAIN WAY 211 MOUNTAIN WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOSEPH C. CASEY ROSALIND NICE KARL J. BICKLER
220 MOUNTAIN WAY 221 MOUNTAIN WAY 230 MOUNTAIN WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -
JAMES A. GAPP J JOHNSON CHARLES BAUER
231 MOUNTAIN WAY 240 MOUNTAIN WAY 241 MOUNTAIN WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL J. ANDERSON STEVE PROKOSCH MARK S BENTRUP
250 MOUNTAIN WAY 251 MOUNTAIN WAY 260 MOUNTAIN WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KEITH SHERER ROBERT PHILLIPS KEN WEIGEL
261 MOUNTAIN WAY 271 MOUNTAIN WAY 6370 NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD -
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARK BRADY CHARLES STEIN PHILIP LARSEN
6371 NEAR MOUNTAIN BL 6380 NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD 6390 NEAR MOUNTAIN BL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT D. SCHULTE HOWARD YESNES FRANK BEDDOR
6391 NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD 6400 NEAR MOUNTAIN BL 649 5TH AVENUE SO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NAPLES, FL 33940
YVONNE R HOARN DAN ROGERS DAVID LUNDAHL
2050 NO TERAllA 1200 LAKE LUCY ROAD 6501 NEZ PERCE DR
DELACIENEGA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TUCSON, AZ 85715
COUNTRYSI AGEMENT COUNTRYSIDE MENT
1935 WEST ZATA BLVD 1935 T WAYZATA BLVD 1935 W YZATA BLVD
LONG , MN 55391 G LAKE, MN 55391 LO AKE, MN 55391
COUNTRYSID AGEMENT CARTER KELLY COUNTRYSIDE GEMENT
1935 W WAYZATA BLVD 6580 NEZ PERCE DR 1935 W YZATA BLVD
LO AKE, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LO AKE, MN 55391
TODD OWENS N R RANDALL ERNIE KEEFER
6661 NEZ PERCE DR 6680 NEZ PERCE DR 6681 NEZ PERCE DR
- CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAN WOITALLA STEVEN HAYES JOHN JOHNSON
6689 NEZ PERCE DR 6690 NEZ PERCE DR 6694 NEZ PERCE DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN NAGLE JON KOSMOSKI PAUL WEST
6330 OXBOW BEND 6331 OXBOW BEND 6340 OXBOW BEND
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM H. MCKENNA JIM STASSON CONRAD EGGAN
6350 OXBOW BEND 6400 PEACEFUL LANE 6500 PEACEFUL LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
A W OWENS RANDY ERWIN MIKE NAROG
6535 PEACEFUL LANE 6400 PLEASANT PARK DR 6410 PLEASANT PARK DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JON BERDAHL FRISK INCORPORATED RONALD OLSON
6411 PLEASANT PARK DR 8590 MAGNOLIA TRAIL 6421 PLEASANT PARK DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 #118 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
TERRY ARDITO DAVID J. RING LEN GROSCHEN
6431 PLEASANT PARK DR 6441 PLEASANT PARK DR 6451 PLEASANT PARK DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
- LLOYD WENNING DENNIS HANSEN JAMES NICHOLLS
6441 PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE 6450 PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE 6451 PLEASANT VIEW CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TIMOTHY FOSTER TODD D. NOVACZYK BARRY CALHOON
6370 PLEASANT VIEW COVE 6371 PLEASANT VIEW COVE 6380 PLEASANT VIEW COVE -
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
STEVEN GRAY FRANK JR BEUDOR MICHAEL CARENZO
6390 PLEASANT VIEW CO 649 5T -AVINUE SO 1010 PLEASANT VIEW RO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 S, FL 33940 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOSEPH TROENDLE FRANK JR BO( DAVID A BEDDOR
1015 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 649 5T - B�.DENUE SO 1050 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NA , FL 33940 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DANIEL A. JOHNSON HERBERT KASK MARLOW PETERSON
1140 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 115 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 1180 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
R V NELSON CARL F MCNUTT DANIEL TIMBERG
135 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 195 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MIKE ANDERSON DAVID ROBINSON BRIAN KLINGELHUTZ
205 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 25 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 2031 TIMBERWOOD DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DENNIS BERGMAN JAMES S. HOLTE DON JOHNSON
320 PLEASANT VIEW RO 330 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 335 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _
LARRY KRAMER ROGUE L. SWENSON,JR. KENNETH FRICKE -
339 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 35 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 350 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT SATHRE LARRY TIVY JOE KENYON
365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 370 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 400 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GARY MCCAULEY RANDY SMITH DONN ANDRUS
420 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 429 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 449 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD -
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TODD ADAMS ROBERT L POST CURTIS ANDERSON
469 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 489 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 500 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN R VON WALTER PAUL WOODRUFF HARVEY ROBIDEAU
510 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 520 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 540 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GARY ALEXANDER JOHN SCHEVENIUS THOMAS SEIFERT
55 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 570 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 600 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN NICOLAY CARL SMITH III DAVID ROUSE
608 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 610 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 620 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
SEAN FITZGERALD DAVID BRODEN MIKE DOUGLAS
MELINDA FITZGERALD 640 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 65 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
5337 ALDRICH AVENUE SO CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55419
SAM CURNOW JERRY FREDRICK PETER THIELEN
650 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 660 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 665 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAVID ROSSBACH GARY M SCHELITZCHE MICHAEL CLARK
670 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 680 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 695 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JEFFREY MAY RICK AGUILERA WILLIAM BOIRE
745 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 790 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 801 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GORDON WHITEMAN,JR. BILL GULLICKSON DENNIS MATHISEN
825 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 830 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 850 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HENRY GRAEF JR MARY MCCALLUM W PAT CUNNINGHAM
855 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD BOX 520 PO BOX 266
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DEAN THURK FRANK BEDDOR
649 5TH SO 890 PLEASANT VIEW ROA 649 5TH AVENUE SO
NAPL , FL 33940 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NAPLES, FL 33940
S. EDWARDS VOGEL S. EDWARDS FRANK B psi'
915 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 915 P T VIEW ROAD 649 . ' AVENUE SO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ASSEN, MN 55317 — *LES, FL 33940
FRANK BEDD FRANK BEDD ALAN W. LENHART
649 5 ENUE SO 649 5T ENUE SO 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY
N S, FL 33940 NA , FL 33940 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KELBY BAILEY JAMES MEYER SUSAN PRICE —
6580 PLEASANT VIEW WAY 6225 RIDGE ROAD 6250 RIDGE ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DEAN WETZEL ALAN WILLCUTT JOHN FESS
6260 RIDGE ROAD 6270 RIDGE ROAD 6280 RIDGE ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT PATRICK CLANCY
291 TIMBERHILL ROAD 300 TIMBERHILL ROAD 301 TIMBERHILL ROAD _
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES STIRLEN ROBERT DITMORE FRANK BED
310 TIMBERHILL ROAD 311 TIMBERHILL ROAD 649 5 VENUE SO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 S, FL 33940
FRANK BEDDOR FRANK BE R FRANK BEDD
649 STR/AVENUE SO 649 5 AVENUE SO 649 5T ENUE SO
71S, FL 33940 NAP S, FL 33940 NAP , FL 33940
FRANK BEDDOR FRANK B OR FRANK BE R
649 5TH AV,ENUE SO 649 5T AVENUE SO 649 5T AVENUE SO
NAPLES, 33940 NAP , FL 33940 NAP , FL 33940
FRANK BEDD FRANK BEDDOR FRANK BEDDOR
649 5TH ENUE SO 649 5TH UE SO 649 5TH E SO
NAPL , FL 33940 NAPLES L 33940 NAPLE , L 33940
RICH HAJT JAMES LEDIN COUNTRYSI ANAGEMENT
820 VINELAND COURT 840 VINELAND COURT 1935 W WAYZATA BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LON AKE, MN 55391
MARJORIE LAMMERS S THOMAS MORGAN DAVID DONNA
861 VINELAND COURT 880 VINELAND COURT 881 VINELAND COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
---
COUNTRYSIDE
COUNTRYSIDE EMENT COUNTRYSIDE GEMENT COUNTRYSIDE AGEMENT
1935 WES YZATA BLVD 1935 WE YZATA BLVD 1935 WE AYZATA BLVD
LONG E, MN 55391 LON KE, MN 55391 LONG KE, MN 55391
- DANIEL SYVERSON JEFFREY R BRAIEDY J BRAIEDY/T FALKOSKY
921 VINELAND COURT 850 WESTERN DR 850 WESTERN DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
".1
i'•. .1i- % ''.... : Ai* n L ." . ..•, .•
' ilk
" ' • '. ,
1 ' r 4 i 1 - ••• , ', I ,--.."---.t"./ i 1 ''s•\'E 3.. IF
.:1311 r ' , ' .-_•."-‘,. .7 , ' ....\\::.%5. • 4-%:: -; 7
•- - rvammirma.. - ° r3 .„..- \\!i.... i
,„.
4,gia • , ., . . ..• . . .
•3113 - . " - . • . gItil#i74':IlS 4
_II.
1 - N --.------
,P2
26'N. / ' • -
j
.s i 111,14
. I s' ''' • me 1, t 4.14; . •..,-,.
..-, lb., ... ___ ---....... 1:4. ,:....._... _,. . . ....„ ., ...,
,. , . ., .
[ •....„
• t.
,• -- 1.7./.,-;:\ .. i-I, ,..1 ',-,.• • ,,,.. 4/.- Lft i' '.:A !'411. ,
•,,--... . - - ... •• , ,, - -. :,..._A.).% ii • -1.. .
L. , I f•i A
. _....... -.c.,.,, 7 -" -. -"JR• ••'41% . '
..
ll c,
"S•
-.12. •
IRIMIIIP__,IIIIEWIL' '7.1• - 7'‘Iiir -• .
(11 1
.
, V
:::S=-Val. - ._. .,... '•-•• , .:„•••••••;:;•...
• ? , • ••: .
. .
.lb •
.e./.. •0,•••art'-"•
. -- • 1
-./ . . .
., . ..
T.• . .•.:• '. • 31.
' 1•:- . I -It •‘;'.•.'' .„A.* --''''.. - - g • / Prt - s•-*-4' ••
I hi- ,,-- • - eel - i''‘
x--. ..-;.- , •, • ..1 '2 .t. . k r 4,"4 4, • ,
. --`. !....! • . ,-: • ..} • • r.- - • . 1/' .
. . • I -- , - - }' -.,. :11.11 .,-. '. . .'
• . { .--' P.k 4.liffil .'.: NP..
„„- ' • 4 I I 4 .. 4 `-.,,,, \-‘
: • 1.- • --''',P, ......, , . pc, • i.
I ' ...1 1 ; f ., :•/- / ....
—,.,
•••• ...•
. ,
, . •••••--.....--:•:7.,:. ‘; 1 ,- ' . 4 •.. -..1 ...- • - . . '
• 0 I i. / .. i. • • ,
.17 - ••, .
......... •
N.
. .:."-\,• ...,—.?-.: ' 1 . -7
._
..."- _ -... • , ,-- -, ' -
-
d
- • ,. -
.-Nof . . •
..„.•. quak! -.... - --•-_-_ , .- • i; \2. •I. , —.
\ :1
7 21 ---•----• .. i
p
,0 - ,..----.-• . .. •. i -''''-- •-••••: . • -. , • ,
,t-
„.. . ,,,,,,-4,!•-•.firl. • - .
__.------ __---- ,-4"...,..__ _ .._ ,„, a .
.... _ . .
...- .... ,.. , . • . / .
, A • - ,e , 4-.
----
I , . :,:•.- / .,. -,
I'',• -,• --- ' .. ,..- . . . -7 : i . ...I
. .
•
.N. .. • . - -, ,-',/ —N,,,, . ,
,,s,.. _ .. ......
lk ‘: - . ,r."- . .. •
- __ .
.. . ,
....
....„. / 7/ .
. „
I ' ,1
I
-
1, . •,, ,N
-.6°° • ' ' 1' . ' N '' =NI!
, I
I
'II .• ••••••. ', ,
\ (
m ,/ t
, , , . I .
• ..T. / . I
• t , . ‘
\ '.\ • ,
N-'• '''. / . 1
•
MO ( • /
1, 7\ - •.
., ..
M t. . . ..,... -- , •
/\ .
. 2
0 ' , •,' •
.s, , ''',
/ •-T.. -,-... ., • )., 1
I
• t .
03 1 0\ i - • • - \
‘""48L• '' ' ,.../ —•% le a, 0..x._,ifle = ev -i-;
\ ,,.• a , _II ,.....) , 1
-..
- . 1 -0.o <
13 'a 0
0 lo T, S") a) .t, -.
. - ,
77-- =o8 a)
., -0 0 -
, • . ..., . •-.5 EL, i)-
\ 8 2
. . c, ..."....
, / 0
. .
.. .
••/. . N.,,,_,.. --..--,0z.°--d',7'.- _ _
. /
/ .-1
•1 .•, ,v0.
-1
,.
,
-- ,1r .ko ,
I • [I
I, 2 = c• ocii ,
,
/ -
. . .
--\,,.,/,</. • j.- 1; 1 j; li
•••11
•
"...I...., , 1
• s -
("( .1-- ' - r
\ •,/ - - , ..- cr_...= 7. „
‘,. .. _
, I. , ..c 65.-c a.ro 0 I.- ( -
•
; . • ' . 1\ `N::.,-./ ) , • 71.--,‘\\ ' ""''\ -----, •i '•
i . ., N .,. ;‘'•r
•, ,•-',/ 1 .
•r I 1 :-. 1
s • t ..r. • {� l I :iI 4,
elekiS•4.7%11Mignirli) 's\'
�'-����a0 • �min Itfllill IIIHI .M.IIIIRN.;,MtIN.t, • ;'! + !'-r
_�_ 44
i'‘•Or,tal C : ' . %. ' a''.INIX i - • ,n4ith. •fie i
'• • A . ,
+..
, 01 ... . . , ,, ammo .....••••
I - - ..... ., . e4, 1 -.F. . igi 4- ''''"c
I Am •. , , .....- A -.. : 1.,,111 21,11'ne. 741 II4 - 1.•
%— .°.
• Wag C•1
II 4
Z
r. �iiil • r 3 . N3 •:•
\\
n /
(- I .1 ...,., _
f':
t i
-'2 I I ) C _ ;,�
x- ) ._...:.• .. I . ...6, ,, -__ --_,...... \. ' . _
L....
i- ,: .--- . . .
7-.--- ,.............;__,,
c.,c\ ... .
... ., .....
,.. \., , , ,
L . .
/ . ,
—
., �� ( ice j
I .
. ......‘.. - ......„,„ •S
/1.... ..,......-
�a /, ,.../ .
. ............ . .
\(-- _
1
—I
• ,
. ,
, /#/2,
• Ni.-1
-- - - y- i
•,•-•
R1 I/ . i
/ 1
.......__ � ; •>•
l, ,.... . ! �I J_t :, � )1 - .
., -v ..
,; _ .__ __
,,/ .,..
\ .. _, ,.,, ....„ • (,.
. . .. , . . ----../ - I %
•'" ..-:,(-,./,f .. • _ --/> S ,
rm
-- _ j•
(.
�m�prm 4 U
y a
r
:� Z is 0c=, g.. ; ,
a a t • d6Q s�m_1=0-../'
�/ J
',/ :
•1110, ' (
] c
- . :::71:—. 7'1. .--.--..- ': 1.- ----•:::" :1(1111r:"'-17::-.1::.': 7.-:.:: ..11'!CD1:710"- ••°5:3°:";:11):::::47)1421-1.i-r....e::11 i- 'i(
' tis /, s
lr—\1� '� :-.) ti o iitI!i5J :�,r 1 _ ` .�
1
June 22, 1993
IFORTIER &ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN
Mr . Frank Beddor , Jr . r r� g Copy
7951 Powers Blvd.
Chanhassen, Minn. 55317 /t,'C'z_c,.SE1i
RE: OWENS PROPERTY ACCESS GRADES
COMM: 91-04
Dear Frank :
As requested , I have reviewed the alternate access locations for the
Owens property. Specific attention has been given to grading
difficulties as this issue has been raised several times.
PEACEFUL LANE 10 . 5%
Access via extending Peaceful Lane can be achieved but it will be
disruptive to existing trees, with a significant loss (22 trees) . To -
minimize the loss, the slope would have to be about 10 . 5% for about
180 ft. Generally, this is considered too steep. A much more
desirable slope is about 7% , which would extend about 270 ft. This _
would present some difficulties in driveway slopes and would destroy
additional trees but can be done.
LAKE LUCY ROAD 5 .3%
Access off Lake Lucy Road is readily achieved without difficulty and
losses only 2 marginal trees. The slope of the road would be about
5.3% for about 200 ft. The road would also provide an 80 ft. flat
stopping area at Lake Lucy Road. The topography in this are is very
adaptable and construction would be very simple, almost ideal.
NEZ PERCE DRIVE 5. 5%
Access via extending Nez Perce, as shown on "The Solution" , is also -
readily achieved. The slope of the road would be about 5 . 5% for
about 150 ft. There would be some loss of about 4 significant trees,
and numerous pines would have to be relocated. As you know,
relocating large pines can be very rewarding as you can readily
achieve a more finished , mature setting for future homes.
Frank, it is very clear that access off Lake Lucy is the least —
disruptive and most desirable location in terms of construction and
site impact.
ours / ,
Daryl W4 . Fort er
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255
iFORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
June 16, 1993 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN
Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr .
7951 Powers Blvd .
Chanhassen, Minn. 55317
RE: NEZ PERCE EXTENSION
COMM: 91-04
Dear Frank :
As requested, I have prepare two additional alternate solutionsfor
developing the Owens parcel. Additionally, I have also surveyed the
traffic patterns in the immediately affected area to assist in
determining impact on various neighborhoods and streets.
The following comments reflect my findings and opinions.
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
Currently there are 345 homes that access onto Pleasant View Road
between Hwy. 101 and Co. Rd. 17 . Pleasant View Road also serves as a
minor collector road, which accounts for yet additional traffic.
Should Nez Perce be connected to Pleasant View Road as desired by the
City, it would open up access to about 150 additional homes from the
Nez Perce area.
NEZ PERCE DRIVE
Currently 24 homes are directly on Nez Perce Drive. It serves
approximately 247 homes between Kerber Blvd . and Co. Rd. 17 .
However , unlike P.V.Rd. , Nez Perce homes have 3 major accesses to
distribute traffic (Lake Lucy Rd . , Carver Beach Rd . and Nez Perce) .
Although the City may list Nez Perce as a minor collector, it does
not serve thru traffic but rather only it ' s own neighborhood.
Should Nez Perce be connected to Pleasant View Road as desired by the
City, it would open up access to about 170 additional homes from the
Pleasant View Road area. Further , Nez Perce would then serve as a
minor collector road for thru traffic, just as Pleasant View Road
currently does.
LAKE LUCY ROAD
Currently 20 homes are directly on Lake Lucy Road, which serves
approximately 53 homes.
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255
June 16, 1993
Mr . Frank Beddor, Jr .
Nez Perce Extension
page 2
LAKE LUCY ROAD (con ' t. )
There is a safety problem for the 20 homes on Lake Lucy in that the
street is wider than Nez Perce and slopes down hill toward Co. Rd .
17. While traffic on Nez Perce is quite slow due to the narrow road
and obstructed views, as they round the corner onto Lake Lucy those
difficulties vanish. The combination of a smooth, unobstructed,
downhill straightaway leads to speeding . (This problem is actually
quite similar to Pleasant View Road in front of Pleasant View. Cove,
where speed and the blind rise is a serious problem. ) Speed limit
enforcement may offer lessening of the problem but is often short
lived solution.
Should the City extend Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road, traffic on _
Lake Lucy should be slightly reduced. The development of the Owens
parcel as shown by "The Solution" board will also reduce the safety
problem and traffic .
Frank , while the extension of Nez Perce per the City ' s plans should
somewhat ease the Lake Lucy safety issue (20 homes) , it is still not
a good solution as it not only shifts the problem but actually
increases the magnitude. The extension creates much more difficulty
for many more people, both on Pleasant View Road (345 homes) and Nez
Perce Drive (24 homes) . Further , the only benifit is to provide two
accesses to Troendle and Vineland. That same objective can be
accomplished without connecting to Pleasant View Road, as shown by
"The Solution" .
our . Trul
41
4111/
, 400
- 461.11Daryl P' Fortier
June 22, 1993
1FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN
Mr . Frank Beddor , Jr .
7951 Powers Blvd.
Chanhassen, Minn. 55317
RE: OWENS PROPERTY ACCESS GRADES
COMM: 91-04
Dear Frank :
As requested, I have reviewed the alternate access locations for the
Owens property. Specific attention has been given to grading
difficulties as this issue has been raised several times.
PEACEFUL LANE 10 . 5%
Access via extending Peaceful Lane can be achieved but it will be
disruptive to existing trees, with a significant loss (22 trees) . To
minimize the loss, the slope would have to be about 10 . 5% for about
180 ft. Generally, this is considered too steep. A much more
desirable slope is about 7%, which would extend about 270 ft. This
would present some difficulties in driveway slopes and would destroy
additional trees but can be done.
LAKE LUCY ROAD 5 .3%
Access off Lake Lucy Road is readily achieved without difficulty and
losses only 2 marginal trees. The slope of the road would be about
5 . 3% for about 200 ft. The road would also provide an 80 ft. flat
stopping area at Lake Lucy Road . The topography in this are is very
adaptable and construction would be very simple, almost ideal.
NEZ PERCE DRIVE 5 . 5%
Access via extending Nez Perce, as shown on "The Solution" , is also
readily achieved. The slope of the road would be about 5 . 5% for
about 150 ft. There would be some loss of about 4 significant trees,
and numerous pines would have to be relocated . As you know,
relocating large pines can be very rewarding as you can readily
achieve a more finished, mature setting for future homes.
Frank , it is very clear that access off Lake Lucy is the least
disruptive and most desirable location in terms of construction and
site impact.
soursof / /
Awv
Daryl P . Fort er
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255
6Frank GBeddor,Jr.
June 24 , 1993
Dear Homeowners on Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive:
Enclosed are two letters from Daryl Fortier of Fortier &
Associates.
One letter states that if a connection is made between
Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road, we could easily be looking
at an increase in traffic from 150 homes from Nez Perce
Drive on to Pleasant View Road.
Concurrently if this connection is made, Nez Perce Drive
could expect traffic from 170 homes on to their road.
If you are against this connection that will increase traffic,
please make a commitment to be at the following two meetings:
1) Attend the Planning Commission meeting on
Wednesday, July 7 at 7 PM.
2) Attend the Council meeting on Monday, July 12 at 7 PM
If you have any neighbors or friends who have questions or need
more background information, we are going to have a pre-Planning
Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 6 at 7 PM at:
INSTANT WEB, INC.
Fireside Lounge
7951 Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
R.S.V.P. 474-0231
Anyone who would like further information is welcome to attend. We
want to be well organized for the two upcoming meetings.
Thanks a million.
iicerely/
rank Beddor, Jr.
FB: djl —
P.S. REMINDER - be sure to mail in your petition.
7951 POWERS BOULEVARD • CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 • TELEPHONE 812/474-0231 • FAX 812/474-0379
i i ,',-.. .,. /Ali . I . 1 • - \ ' • ri ' , , .
• • . I., ...,. 1 °
-- ...„ . (.1 ,., . . • ". • •• _. _ .,: -
,,, A 1 . . .1. Afase,/****--. , ' • _
. , 1 .., , • .
. . .. (I .. . .. \
• . ) .-/.7 '. i ; i•1 , . -z,':.). • • , ... ../.4• -; • .,-..
I Io • • . 1 (.. • i ...„ . . . \ -.,,../; f'');; ° •••••.•
. C 41 io • r\ i 1 .\' . • _....dig.--,C ':.'‘ '. ' , i \:1„, Z. .
0 0 0 a.0
I . •••I 0 4.1 1.1 0 : . 1 - , ..i:_1._I • •• • '1...._\ ..\. -75.- jil (
. •41100 41• 0 .4°. l'''.5-" --._-._1;.-e-lr-T• / -
.0 >•••4 0 10 ) >t 0 • ,/ •
10 4.1) • el i ,,'. /
: 4 ct af feff :
6
(
0.0 • 0
.=.. 00,04 41 0)00 • •• ..
of 1.1 IA CP C 47 0 9 a.. 1 •
17 go 671 AC 4.) As-4 II •0 0 il .
C ID 61 4.7 03 >4 A •0 ---..,"•••...../i 1 ? ''''.. L
•••14.1111r4 4 01C4JOY41 1
4-3 0 C Ai 14 4.1 0•-•4 0 ,/ 4-., :.• !'', . Id :i •.
870 > • CY ..v •
07 31 0 OL) IS 4.1 0 .0 • ' a'
•••1
111 0 04.7 ••• • 004.; -•- • -.....„, . •
. . of ...4+Al O.>•4,1 ..313'f-> •••-...,..
• ,_-_-
84101.11> 0. 0 .00
•
a) 0,4.) 1.4 0 V „, 's ` Uoll
tO 4 0 1 0 1.1 \, • / .• ,..' . i \ .11
. ,, k..... .. .0 > -,c - /. , • • •
••
..... ox... . 10101
NI,41.4 V 13 tC....rg 0 ) \ ''". I -
- ..,.
O 4.1•••1 4)6-4 43 0 X 4/7"4.7 .."?(•• *‘
U I's MI P-1 43 Ill 0 \ •
••••?,.. N-.4N-
•N • ›•••• 'S I
P •
.0 .0 4/3,1.1 10 C , ) -
Cr
• 10 4.1 .7.1 47 gls 471
-.4• 71300 >.4J 11; \: • -
VI GI 16...4 414 4.1,I 4-' 0 )4 . • )
I C 01040 1414,1-1 • \ ' . 7\\\ :>,;') ,:: .‘ ''. -.)
l : QIN .'
. ,
••••• I I ...044.0 3 •-•4 of 0; 3•1
l
..' .', ),CL. • D.of 0;• 1. . .o• , \
XI 0• 030r1.00. 14 11 C 0. 1 1 '\ V, ', :, •
o V 3.4 44 C I-A-4 C...1 0 . i I / 1•..
1.• 4) 4A0. 4314 -647440 La 1 \ • - 1 '-. f• - / Ill
_ ....
A. . .0 41 • V ,t 0 CP 0. /
4) C CO •V Z 44.0 ..\ 4..„`i i-/ . ),,
/ ;
.0 4.7 4).0.0 0 44-4 C 0.0 FA AC '. ••• '7 . •'. ‘ k I ' . , • • ' ' ',
' ••,-' ° •`-
.,t'. ,. !'''..: - . ••.. . • , ..f-
N ' . •-•
'
,......-..• ...• •.,
.. %.- ••,.>.•4'.•.•‘'\\1'2;,7...„;...
,(/.,•
`.,•/••,.•
.•....-/,
/.
, ' • --'-I.....".7.:.......'.....,.......
\
1X
.)t
-\„k-
\."
i--
'--
„'-
-\.1 .•••\
.I,.
(„,„...••••""\', .• ,...„:\,. ..--
0 ____________1....:// i-•
< . , ...•
. .. •---- .. ..... .
VI
• . ,. •
: I 1 ' . • j
- 1
1 , I
, I I
- , 0 2•
0 , . •
.-
•,.
, ... i
.I
...i. „. u.
<
LU CO Lii
-------------Mi:---- ' i a. I .
CL .
CL ---,-3083d Z3N •-• :--- - --
-. 1- •, z ----- ,,,'"
u) 1- •,,,r ,
Z. *' _,
la
z . - .-
• ,
4.7 '' law i , : . '
, .
a.. , 1 II.. go
... , .
s .
\ ._• 1) 0
..zu,.i
'
- , -___ 1 6cU1rC.I
. -,...
..
'
x ,•. >.
%•••
. ,
.- 1
. ' / I' 0 ..,1 ..... . • I - • ,
,., ..., /. . •''. f
1 ..
\\'‘'''. • -. . .,...:..• .,-,,,-----.;
,f ,
..... s . .....
: ,
i ., •,
,
_.
, . 4.42111.1: .4,-.77-., „„ •f 1
- • ''' ..• ""'''''-:---%-, --....... -_
, -.... ...., (f.„.............., ••••-• r___....,, :, i ..„,„,
, .
• •
1 • ---.,„H .1_1. - 1 i
* ai I 1
_r_
.o..AdlIL...' - 4.4/. •u. I NIA.: /•;• 7,4:1-A.A:'. la i a : 1 ... ii 1.: •ii 61'. ; ; I .1: I .• .. ‘.... I I '
a*
. .
Ism
_____-----L1-7- 1 11
t i
/ X1_
` I•l %• • \ + 1;
�c a •o .4v _
1
1! g'
€! :i
,1 1 , ,
i
a .1 uu 9 .0 .. 7 /i —
ZI\ li
00 oa ,�b� 4v ;� , l
.1 M 0.a lli �. •
a 7 X O Y X O• •�' •
11
pMCXIY •UO•AY '�''•w. I .�I O `�
•0 a..-1 0 wav a
1-4 041X >. e °mVv - r/
of • s.. +x14• 30 1 1 •-. /
.:
aNtF 0 U••1 0
MLA 4t 4 >00 >. Cl)G.4 w Y 0 G.0 U ' Y/
10•.A0 el i 0. .m•1 4 a a r ' \I
•
�� ` �1
LLI2 1.., OM V 6I.0 2 0 C a \ //9
.0• 00.0400 401. 4 111YYY����
E., > aUw-.Y E+aoo \ r' 0
r,
.. i /• , _
, ,), .. . ,
• .
•
. :.
. ....,
..
....•, .
. :
. ..,•
_ ......,./.
/ 1,
. .‘
.... .......: . ..
‘,4 . .
\t _
.. ,,
,...... 4..1. 2. ,. .,,,...../;; i
. ...
. ......_
1
cc
I
>- .
W ,e H F- 'f ,�' 1
0/ Q
I
a
•---Z.• I •
a0 ` i
Q. 0 w cr .
c• I o a —
LLJ LL � rI
CL
.-..-7.---.-----'-‘..\\*'. - ri-PD-'c-----°L-z: �0a3d Z3N --------7-----')
iiaLu1,7
c-
c,
(..„ . 22 :, Ix •
LL
H O `y '. >+ a =
O G Uw Q
2 w
t 0 - '„ WW m
f, W
k . . . . 1 - : W 151
II
\ 1 � .a �J• (1 CC
—
`. w I `p V 1 i..r 3 I {I• _
(ir �—
.
` `1 ' \.`\��•n--�...4. i-......._L.^._tt J.. :i ii 1 is __,fes._.-..I L . ___„___LL- —.
•
GFrank GBeddor,Jr.
June 22 , 1993
Dear Homeowner:
It was unfortunate that all of us could not attend this meeting on
May 24 .
The council seems to feel that we had agreed to the Nez Perce
connection two years ago. We did not agree with this decision.
Two years ago, we accepted this decision because, at that point,
Art Owens ' property was already platted, which included five lots
on Pleasant View Road, and this plat was accepted by the Planning
Commission and the Council.
When we acquired the property, and explored other options, we saw
another choice for extending Nez Perce Drive. That choice was to
loop Nez Perce back through the development to Lake Lucy Road
rather than north to Pleasant View. This created a neighborhood
loop without increasing the traffic on Lake Lucy.
Paul Krause, city planner, makes an interesting statement on page
25. "I think you can see why we've always believed it would be a
valid thing to get a free flow of local traffic through there."
City staff wants a free flow of traffic. We do not agree with this
statement.
Another interesting coincidence p. 27 . Note there is a tape change
at that point in the discussion. It just so happened that all the
remarks Jules Smith made in favor of the "solution, " all the
background information he gave was deleted, and most of Daryl
Fortier ' s remarks were erased.
If you have a chance, I think it would be worthwhile if you could
read this before the meetings.
Thanks a million.
Sincerely,
/ a67
Frank Beddor, Jr.
mss
7951 POWERS BOULEVARD • CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 • TELEPHONE 612/474-0231 • FAX 612/474-0379
GFrank GBeddor,Jr.
June 17 , 1993
Dear Homeowner:
We feel it ' s very important that you read the enclosed.
We would appreciate your mailing the petition back in the self-
addressed envelope as quickly as possible. We are making a master
list of all the people who are against extending Nez Perce Road to
Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View.
There are three critical meetings you should attend.
First Meeting
We are having a pre-planning meeting on Tuesday night, July 6,
at 7 p.m. at Instant Web. At this meeting, we would like to
organize our game plan for the council meeting. We will
answer any questions you have at this meeting.
Second Meeting
The Planning Commission meeting, Wednesday, July 7 at 7 p.m.
If this commission OKs this plat, we have one more hurdle to
overcome. -
Third Meeting
It ' s critical that you also attend the Council meeting,
Monday, July 12 at 7 p.m. All of us can go on record at this
meeting objecting to this plan.
If you are going to attend the pre-planning meeting on July 6,
please RSVP as soon as possible so we can make sure to have enough
material to pass out.
Instant Web, Inc.
7951 Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
474-0231
RSVP to Susan, Mary or Darlene, at 474-0231, as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
• cerely,
,Y(4-'''41-2/e (a-? 1
Frank Beddor, Jr.
mss
7951 POWERS BOULEVARD • CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 • TELEPHONE 612/474-0231 • FAX 612/474-0379
The Committee
June 17, 1993
Dear Property Owner:
If you are against the City of Chanhassen increasing traffic on Pleasant View Road which
undoubtedly will lead to its future widening ...
And, if you are against the City of Chanhassen increasing traffic on Nez Perce Drive which
undoubtedly will lead to its future widening ...
And, if you are opposed to paying taxes for such an undesirable condition,
Then sign the enclosed petition as your protest to the City condemning the former Art
Owens property in order to connect Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road.
Mail your petition back to The Committee in the self-addressed envelope enclosed.
Important. Please read, sign and mail the enclosed letters to your councilman. Or better
yet, use these letters as a guide to write your own personal letter.
When you sign these letters, please add your address.
Urgent—Planning Commission meeting. This plat is going before the planning
commission on Wednesday, July 7. Please attend this meeting.
Council meeting. We are making a special Visitor's Presentation to the Council on
Monday, July 12, at 7 p.m. It is urgent that you attend this meeting.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The Committee
Dedicated to Preserve
The Quality of Our Neighborhood
JULILTS C. SMITH Wenhink it'se ludicrous for the City to
—
ATTORNEY AT LAW d $300,000 to $400,00( t0
SUITE 108
through n The Hand a rdisput thi toroad
7800 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH for this in some form, 9 9 P y
MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55435
PHONE:(612)831-1788 —
FAX:(612)831-1693
June 10, 1993
The Committee
7951 Powers Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Extension of Nez Perce
Dear Committee Member: —
To summarize our discussion with regard to the extension of Nez
Perce from the plat of Troendle Addition to Peaceful Lane and/or —
Pleasant View Road:
The costs of the roadway and the method of payment therefore boil
down to the following after approximate construction and
condemnation costs are considered.
Low Condemnation High Condemnation —
Construction $127,000 $127,000
Condemnation 200,000 300,000 _
Less : Assessments agreed
to for Troendle and
Owens property (20,000) (20,000)
EXTENSION COST 307,000 407,000
These costs can be paid for in several ways - either by the general —
taxpayer out of the general City budget, or by assessment against
property owners in an assessment district established for the
creation of Nez Perce as a collector street. Presumably that would _
include everyone from Kerber Drive to Pleasant View.
Either way, the taxpayers will pay those amounts, less, perhaps,
any proceeds from the sale of leftover portions of the condemned —
land.
•
Pleas= all if you hay- ,any questions . —
Si - e1 �'
Ju Irus . it V
At •orney at Law
J CS/kb JT11.7:.T.NEz —
•
.. -1,
i'....--„.,•• ��e• 000 -��'1a:.'
I - !i `?�'i
1 „
-s ',tel -'' .,' '''-; I . - 'fit }a, 1
• a* „s•
. � � . _ t - . t
L •,........„--
...,..:1,..,,,,
. -
• c
: . ...,•.„..
•
•., . ,
,• 1 :
. "...._ •)
. ,. .,
1 : ....
. 1 , • -,:i.
/ 1
L ., • - ,.. -, _
, • • .. ..,.//
..,,
_tic/ . •LI : •
,,. 1 - •11-
. . i . .
`�' J r •
Pr wt . '20 i
4�
jil
7.-141X-- ,� T� • - I• _ ',pt - I a'ti � , 1.tI, , '
___ji
, . . ,
.....„...--:----
,,,.... -
_ ,
i .
1
:- .4*- ,..--. ' \ ,--.-:"--t-) 7,.? . ' , ,
L _ •
., .
- :L., • . ,c. t
/ ,:' .-/ , ,
/C I ;;' I
` // \ ` / ` t
L , •_- - —Ii ...4.--,•4\, „ •, . t - - ' \
/7 ‘..?!.• \ i../.... ,'li! 1,i'i \s
�: `i j .
L :� - ,
�� ', ,
o �� A.
L, \, ` .-- . y = , , 1 k. \i g m m n r;•_ '
171 •k - - x4. , ;)(\` < ca��.o
L (^ w� NQ
J 75,7=0 3 •
L ? n§
' t me
ri
, = :56, :
L . ,, 1
. . i 'f.'
, i 1 . . . ..
i•••..---: ...Z.:\ • \------••• * \• C.-le •'. 'I) • • • ‘ ') • 3- i . —•
1 •c v)rc a m N
a � , - : ., }
•
J p
9y 1"
` oo 0 oaaav =- v iii[tifilitir-wr-.; L
wow .iir /IV
• ---Xi-
t.
\1 • �J if ,I I t 1 ,�
• f m _
, : t.- . . ITI • --- \
I O x cn_
•
' . � I , , _ ,_�-` �- 073 •- <
J / .,k, )� , N f Hq
J• .../re!...:' ✓ . V�
, 1 -/. --. ---,.?.i.:.- . ..... - ' -' ---7---------_---•-_ . ' i, ------ . :/' >
t��
7 „.,
(nom rn • ,.1 _- - c /1
• i ` \. i / /l
CcY , VIfD�0 cDm
W IQ—
a s ��- �•' rM��-$°o=Q
s go 0 O?
ii �=jJ
• • X _` axmc R _
__\_ Sao ,m =mt --- -
�, fr- �OrCm7C= ,r
O7CmH
i I --:----\\K3- 1 . -/ I
•`•` � .,i ma.C707 :
;"�� i./ -\ f I �� / �r 1, /i `y)
Petition
To: Mayor Don Chmiel
Councilman Mike Mason
Councilman Richard Wing
Councilwoman Colleen Dockendorf
Councilman Mark Senn
We, the undersigned residents of the City of Chanhassen, adamantly oppose connecting
Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following
reasons:
1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez
Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and
then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101.
Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to
make this a short cut.
Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at
Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to
Kerber Drive.
2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this
increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce
which we adamantly oppose.
3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the
adjoining homeowners.
In our opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is
completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector
road. It will severely increase safety problems.
As a member of a newly organized group, we are willing to commit all the time, effort and
financial resources necessary to back our convictions.
Petition Signatures
1.
Printed Name Signature
Address
City State Zip
Home phone Work Phone Fax Phone
2.
Printed Name Signature
Address
City State Zip
Home phone Work Phone Fax Phone
3.
Printed Name Signature
Address
City State Zip
Home phone Work Phone Fax Phone
4.
Printed Name Signature
Address
City State Zip
Home phone Work Phone Fax Phone
The Committee
June 22 , 1993
Dear Homeowners on Pleasant View and Nez Perce
I have enclosed a copy of the official minutes of the last City
Council meeting on May 24 . If you have the opportunity, you might
like to read this because you will readily see that the Council and
Lake Lucy residents are adamant on making this connection from Nez
Perce to Pleasant View Road.
I had a meeting with about 10 of the Lake Lucy residents at Instant
Web last night. They are a nice group of young homeowners with
lots of children. They are banded strongly together as one unit
and will fight any options other than the one the City is proposing
of extending Nez Perce through to Peaceful Lane and Pleasant .View.
Lake Lucy residents have the same concerns we do: increased
traffic, safety and speed. They are concerned about their block,
and we are concerned about our 20 blocks.
It' s important that you do two things.
1. Show up for the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday,
July 7 at 7 p.m. Please get there early and get a seat.
Bring a book along to read, if you like.
2 . Make sure you go to Council Meeting, Monday, July 12, at
7 p.m. Get there early to get a seat.
Planning Commission. At the planning commission meeting, the plat
for the Owens Property will be submitted. We want to have this
item tabled until after the Council meeting.
Council meeting. We are on the agenda first thing for a visitor' s
presentation. The council will not vote on our issue that night,
but we want them to put this item on the agenda for a public
hearing.
Be sure to mail in your petitions. There are over 345 families who
live on or directly off Pleasant View. I feel we need a minimum of
200 families at this meeting.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
Thanks a million.
Sin ely,
Fr nk Beddor, Jr.
mss
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call for a motion
and that part of that motion be to move todirect staff to prepare findings
consistent with denial for this. project .
Councilman Mason: So moved_
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to revoke Conditional Use
Permit 188-11 for a contractors yard at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive and direct staff
to prepare Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
DISCUSS OFFICIAL MAPPING OF EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE AND REALIGNMENT OF
PEACEFUL LANE_ .
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is a more difficult one I'm afraid. We've really
. ._to ask for some guidance relative to the ultimate extension of Nez Perce.
Some 4 years ago when Vineland Forest plat was being reviewed, we looked at
alternatives for access in the area. One of the original proposals mentioned by
staff was running the road straight up Pleasant View. That raised a lot of
concerns with the folks who lived on Pleasant View relative to traffic and we
looked at alternatives to that that could gain access for a relatively large and
growing city neighborhood. Also, keeping in mind the traffic concerns. We
looked at a variety of alternatives. Other means of accessing that area, we
outlined in purple. Originally Fox Path was supposed to be extended over to the
east. We looked at that . Unfortunately Fox Path was platted before the city
had topo maps and it runs over a 60 foot hill. Even our engineering department
couldn't make that one work. We looked at, there's a 50 foot right-of-way that
goes back to Lake Lucy Road inbetween what ultimately I think has now got 2
houses on it. There were grade problems there. It didn't resolve the access
concern. It didn't , well it raised questions for the folks who lived on Lake
Lucy Road. We came up with a series of alternatives, and in the interest of
time I'll only show you one of them. Alternative 3 I believe was the one that
the City Council approved. What it basically did is it said that Nez Perce
should be extended out to Pleasant View in the manner outlined here
incrementally as properties were developed. And that was, it was under that
guidance, under that understanding that Vineland Forest was approved. We put a _
temporary barricade up and Sharmin, you can show them where the Troendle border
is. We put a_ temporary barricade up right over there. It had a sign on it that
said, this road will be extended. I'm pretty sure there was a notice in the
chain of title for each lot saying that this is going to be occurring. And
that's the way it sat for a period of time. Year, year and a half down the road
Mr. Beddor, who was one of the primary proponents of the street , through option
of Vineland Forest , acquired the Troendle property and worked with us on
developing it . The Troendle Addition was also approved under that alternative 3
guidance. Basically the alignment of Nez Perce was set aside, taken in that
subdivision. Was built to serve part of it. During that process a lot of the
neighbors who lived on Lake Lucy Road raised concerns at the Council meeting,
for those of you who were here at the time. Their concerns was that traffic,
and Lake Lucy Road is a thru street . There's no question about it but that Lake
Lucy Road was receiving what they believed to be an excessive amount of traffic
and as more development took place with only one means of ingress and egress,
24
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
that that would continue to build. At the time they asked the City Council,
if I remember right , to not approve Troendle Addition until the road was put
through. Instead we tried to find some creative sort of a solution to that. It
II was debated as to whether or not all the lots should be approved right now or in
G; the future. I think what we settled on basically was that Mr. Beddor was
obligated to pay $10,000.00 to the ultimate construction of Nez Perce so that
when the adjacent Owens property came through, that that would be the last piece
of the puzzle and we'd have some of the funds sitting there to do a feasibility
study and to build I think the Peaceful Lane section of that road was outlined.
The reason for that being was it was always- believed that whoever developed the
Owens parcel would be obligated to build that section of Nez Perce so our only
cost would be, or the cost that needs to be shared needs- to be on Peaceful Lane.
And again, that 's the way that sat for while. In, I think it was last year,
we came before you to do a feasibility study of where exactly this road should
go and there were basically two alternatives that refined upon the ones that we
had outlined 4 years previous. One basically, well. One- basically had a 90
degree turn at Peaceful Lane. The other one had a curve at Peaceful Lane.
These by the way are illustrated by a developer that is proposing to develop
part of the Owens property. So that's the one with the 90 degree intersection.
That 's the one with the flowing curve. It's basically- on the same theme. At
the same time, I met out in the field with Mr. Beddor's representative, the
architect who laid- out the Troendle Addition. We actually realigned, or re-
oriented Nez Perce as it came through here so that it would miss some trees on
Mr. Owens' property and basically tinkered with- it in the field just to make it
a little more adaptable. The City Council received a feasibility report. We at
the time suggested that it may bewise to officially map the thing, just so
everybody knew exactly where it was going to be. At the time though the big
ril element of confusion was Mr. Owens property was in bankruptcy proceeding. It
was unclear as to what ability we had to intercede with the Judge, if any.
Mr. Beddor's attorney indicated that they were- negotiating with Mr. Owens and it
seemed that everything would fall into place in a period- of time- and the Council
asked us to work on that and bring it back to you at some appropriate time.
Shortly thereafter we also worked on a grading permit for the northernportion
of the Owens property where that pond is, if you go up there. The proposal for
regrading it was drawn up by Mr. Beddor's architect. Basically cleaning up the
area. Ultimately providing some landscaping. It seemed like- a reasonable thing
to do and it was also consistent with the future construction of the road. That
brings us up to the present situation. Clearly there's been a long term effort
of consistent decision making and planning to make this road happen in a
coordinated manner. I don't know if you want to go into the question of why the
road. I mean this is something that was debated long and hard 4 years ago but
if you take a look at how the neighborhood lays out , I think you can see why
we've always believed that it would be a valid thing to get a free flow of local
traffic through there. We're not looking to introduce anything else into the
neighborhood. There are approximately 30 some, I think 30 homes on the two
subdivisions now. It 's a dead end cul-de-sac now is about 1,500. feet long.
Emergency vehicle access and you've heard those kinds of things from us before.
There's connecting neighborhood. So the why question was pretty much
established 4 years ago. At our recent dealings on this, which came about
because we have received inquiries from a developer for the southern portion of
the Owens property. Mr. Beddor's representatives, who Mr. Beddor has since
acquired the northern portion of the Owens property. Have indicated that , as
they see it now, and as I understand it . I wasn't at the meeting but Sharmin
25
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
was, that the most appropriate location for a house on the land that they
acquired is right where the road's supposed to go. And that there is some
question as to whether the road should be put through at all. I mean clearly
there's very limited ability, and we- can look at it again but there's very
limited ability for the road to go through there. Mr. Owens' house is up here. ;.;,,
The pond's down here. The road was skewed in a particular angle so that it can
transit the hill. We were frankly a little bit incredulous about that . I mean
I understand what the concerns are but clearly, I mean I thought that there was
some understanding of where we were going with this. That being the case and
given the last guidance that we got from you, this is not a decision that we, as
staff, can or should be making. This is something that I needed to bring back
to you and get your guidance on. There's no action particularly before you
tonight but there is a suggestion of some various actions you can look at
taking. You can accept cul-de-sacs in this area. That is a possibility. There
are ways of serving all the lots, one way or another. It 's likely, well it will
be dumping more traffic back out onto Lake Lucy Road. There's various
alternatives to do that. We don't happen to think from staff's standpoint that
that 's optimal. You could go ahead and officially map the road. Pick a center
line and have it officially mapped. There again that 's, that will hold for a
while but the point of official mapping is not to have a defacto taking of
property. . .to establish officially that this is where the city thinks the road
should go. But the underlying property owner still has rights and ultimately if
they wanted to put a house right where the road's supposed to go, I believe the
City has 6 months then to condemn or acquire the property. But you don't have
the right to just officially map it and for get it. I mean it does imply some
responsibility on the city's part . There is and always has been the possibility
of condemnation, which is always a difficult thing to consider. To put the road
through and look toward assessing costs back. I wouldn't even hazard to guess
as to how assessments might go. You've been through this process any number of
times and you're all familiar with it . And one possibility that I discussed
with the City Attorney briefly today, or he suggested briefly was the
possibility of a moratorium. Again, you can't do that ad infinitum. A specific
purpose. Look for alternatives. Whatever that might be on a specific deadline.
Again, we're bringing this back to you for your guidance and we need your
direction on how to pursue this, or if we should pursue this. And with that
I'll return it back to you Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Paul, I thought that looking back on old notes that I thought
we had gone along with alternative 3. That was kind of agreed upon, but you're
recommending 4?
Paul Krauss: No.
Councilman Wing: In my packet. I thought that's alternative 3. Isn't that the
one?
Paul Krauss: Right . That is Alternative 3. You know there were variations on
all of these Councilman Wing because we didn't know how properties were going to
develop. Alternative 4 actually put Nez Perce down further to the south and
that at this point is not possible because the Troendle Addition exists
inbetween.
26
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: I know there are at least 3 of us that sat on this particular
proposal when it was made a few years ago. I know there was one of the real
major concerns that we had was that the condemnation aspect was not an in thing
1 I for us to do. I think that while that property was going to be developed
accordingly, the other land rights would automatically come back to the city for
that proposed road. Has Mr. Beddor purchased the property from Mr. Owens yet?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: That 's already done. Okay.
Paul Krauss: Yes. It 's my understanding that that was handled through the
bankruptcy proceeding.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, that condemnation portion still bothers me. I don't like
it . I don't think we should have to throw away dollars. . .I think that's a
developer's responsibility basically. To put that in. I don't see why the City
or anybody else should have to pick up those costs for that road. I think that
was. . .
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. )
Daryl Fortier: . . .we don't want to consider that alternative is the topography
to the south of the water tower is prohibitive. And that grade change that you
were showing earlier tonight is a reason that we view taking our cul-de-sac
south out onto Lake Lucy Road is being inappropriate in addition to the
neighbors and other constituents and voters in your city and taxpayers feeling
pretty strongly, from our feedback, that they don't want to see that happen.
What we're really here discussing tonight is one resident 's wishes versus
another developer's desire and some long term promises made by staff to very
many Chanhassen residents. I don't feel particular strongly personally about
this extension. I don't see that it directly affects our plat . We have access
to Peaceful Lane. Our plat can go through without that extension. So I don't
want to see the misrepresentation made that these two items need to be tied
together. They don't need to be tied together. Unfortunately they seem to be
before you at the same time. That 's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Sherry Novachek: My name is Sherry Novachek. I'd just like to start out and
say it is not just one resident who's very concerned about this. I live on
Pleasant View Cove, which is right off Pleasant View Road and 2 weeks ago my
daughter almost got killed getting off the school bus. I was here 4 years ago
when we discussed the danger of extending more cars onto Pleasant View Road.
There have been several accidents since that time. One a head-on collision this
last winter. It is a very narrow, busy, over used road right now and as TH 101
is developed and Crosstown comes in, if we extend Nez Perce it's going to become
more and more traffic used. I think there are hardships to builders but I think
the lives of children and people have to come over that . My daughter got off
the bus and as Pleasant View Road dumps into Pleasant View Cove, there's an
extreme, extreme blind spot . Several car accidents happen almost every year.
There's extreme blind spots and curves all the way around and I think, you know
we talked just a little while ago about the developments that are occurring. I
27
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
think Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road, there are no easy ways to come off
either one of them. But of the two, Pleasant View Road is far, far more
dangerous. And I think that Daryl's proposal seems to me to be,. it 's an
alternative to dumping the cars back on Pleasant View Road and I think before
somebody gets killed we really need to look at this very closely.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Mary Stassen: Would you put alternative 3 back up there for ■e? My name is
Mary Stassen and I guess I'm a little bit surprised that nobody mentioned us
through this whole thing because we live at the corner of Pleasant View Road and
Peaceful Lane and our house is located right here. Right up at that corner and
our driveway almost comes out like right at that corner and it's, I measured.
It 's 125 feet because that used to be the main thru street that went through
there. That's 125 feet acrossthat corner and so, I mean if somebody's going to
get killed, it 's probably going to be us coming out of our driveway because it 's
very dangerous for us and we've lived there, we've owned the property for 7
years. We've lived there for 6 and 6 years ago I talked to Jim Chaffee and had
him come out . He was the Safety Commissioner at that time and he agreed with me
that it was a dangerous corner and that something was going to be done about it
and so we've sat and we've been to every meeting. We weren't involved 4 years
ago because nobody notified us that all this was going on until they started —
considering the connection through to Peaceful Lane and that 's the time that we
got involved and that was about 2 years ago I guess. So we're very concerned
about this sweeping corners, as most of you know. And if anything, we want to
make sure that there's 90 degree turns put in there.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Paul.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, a quick response to that . We did speak to Mrs. Stassen
and her husband several times over the last few years. One of the big problems
though on Peaceful Lane is that you have a wide open curve through here and it —
is, I mean it's big enough to serve the Mega Mall. The alternatives that we
brought forth to you last year and looked at doing is squaring this off.
Actually tying in something like that which would have a tendency, well. It _
makes a much clearer T intersection at Pleasant View. It also tended to pull
the road some distance further away from the Stassen residence. I don't recall
how much it was but that issue was raised and dealt with in the feasibility
study. —
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Stuart Hoarn: I'm Stuart Hoarn. I have property adjoining, I guess you'd say.
The Vineland Forest Addition. I've looked at this for a long time too and
particularly in acquiring the property and my understanding has always been of
course that it was going to go through. The sign that's posted there on the
barricade has said that for years and I find it very difficult to believe that
someone could live in that area for a long time and not see the sign and then
buy property unaware of that or not in contemplation of that. But that's, so it
looks to me as though, at least I remember that where that green magic marker
spot is, the sign was there and now it 's moved. And I had the impression that
Troendle Addition, when it was put in, was in contemplation of that going
through as well and that that was part of the city's sort of give and take in
28
City Council Meeting - may 24, 1993
putting Troendle in. I think though that we definitely should have some kind of
a traffic control type of intersection. More of a T. More something that would
tend to keep people just from sweeping around the corner. The point is though
that if the Crosstown is coming through to TH 101, which it is and all those
other things are going on, that people that live in Vineland Forest and so on,
are going to go south and around Lake Lucy and up CR 17, or Mill Street,
whatever you want to call it, and they're going to cut onto Pleasant. View
anyway. I mean it 's not like they're not going to do that. I mean I know I'm
going to do that . I don't know at what speed I'm going_ to do that but if I'm
late, I'm probably going to be in a bigger hurry because I have_ to go out of my
way to get around there. I'm being: a little facetious in saying that but I
think that will happen. I think there's a tendency that if people have to drive
3/4 of a mile to get 50 feet from their front door, which essentially is what
would happen with my house. Not quite 50 feet. 250 feet. To get to Pleasant
View Road, people are going to be- in a bigger hurry. So I. think that's a factor
as well. Not to mention trying to come through by the water tower is going to
have an adverse affect on the character, if you will, of Lake Lucy Road and the
residents that live currently on Lake Lucy Road. There's sort of the character
of two different areas and I guess one of my thoughts on that is, is that the
character of an area of higher value, higher income homes and so on, may
sometimes there's an air of the word character underneath it has the word
elitism. It 's as though property of some value, their kids may be, you know
I don't know how to put it . If a kid who comes from a piece of property worth
$150,000.00 gets run over it may be different than someone who comes from a
piece of property worth a million and a half. But it's still a kid. So I. think
there's sort of a balance there that has to be struck. Some people's kids are
more important than others. I understand. Mine are the most important , but we
f ' all have that attitude. I think there's a balance that would be struck and
people are still going to pour out of Vineland Forest and out of Troendle and
try to get to the Crosstown. You're not going to ignore the Crosstown just
because the road takes them another 5 minutes out of• their way. : They just may
hurry more.
Rod Johnson: My name's Rod Johnson. I live on Lake Lucy and I got up once
before and we've been through this. I guess the biggest thing that strikes me
as another point of this is my wife's pregnant with the 29th kid on that street
from one corner to the other. And I sympathize but , hey.. It's got to be shared
equally. I think the corner needs to be fixed but the city needs to consider
too if my kid gets run over and this street didn't go through, I guarantee you
who else is going to be on the suit along with Mr. Beddor. So I mean that's the
way I look at it now and I can see it and I can understand everybody's upset .
Jim Duchene: I'm Jim Duchene on Lake Lucy Road, 961. I think the Mayor started
it off right tonight by saying commitment . We've been in front of you probably
4 times. I think Daryl had a private meeting with us. I know the Mayor was
with us that evening. Showing us plans where it would connect to Pleasant View
and that has always been one of the options presented and the option that we
accepted as a neighborhood. And to hear this come up again, I know Pleasant
View is a poor quality road but I think Nez Perce is too: I know if 'you've
walked up in that area and you come down Nez Perce, it 's probably worst than
Pleasant View. Okay. Our concern I think, and we have, I think most ofour
neighborhood here tonight on Lake Lucy Road, is that it be safe for everyone.
And perhaps there's some problems on Pleasant View and maybe speed limit
Li
29
City Council meeting - May 24, 1993
reductions can address that. I know as our family, we very seldom take Pleasant
View. We'll take Highway 5 or Highway 7. Pleasant View takes time and it does
wind as the lady said. Has a lot of dangerous curves. We don't use that road.
Will that change? I think the city can address those issues with speed
reductions and perhaps discourage people from taking that route. I'd like to
see Daryl and the developer hold to their promises or their commitment to our
community. To our taxpayers. To our citizens in that area and that 's keeping
their promise where the road was sketched several times and we came out , as Paul
had said, fairly close to this particular alternative 3 I guess. So I'd just
ask that you hold people to their commitment. Their promise. It's been a 4
year process and it 's kind of like, let 's go until we wear everybody out . Until
we don't show up. So I'd like to see you go with the plan as it was proposed.
Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, could I just interrupt at this point?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: Are you all, are you from Lake Lucy?
Resident : Yes.
Councilman Wing: Hold on a minute. I'm not going to suggest that Mr. Smith or
Mr. Fortier at any time misled staff, but I guess I am going to say, speaking
for Lake Lucy and myself, having been here every night , they misled me. There
was never any question in my mind that , thought we had some understanding. We
simply had an understanding. I mean this was to me a done deal. That 's why I'm
kind of stunned that this isn't mapped and done and we've kind of got an —
attitude tonight of God save Pleasant View but let 's dump all our traffic onto
Lake Lucy. Or we take the other viewpoint tonight with all these people, maybe
God save Lake Lucy and let 's not worry about Pleasant View. This road isn't a
big collector thoroughfare. If you look at this, it 's a nuisance to wind
through there and we talked about stop signs. It 's not going to be a convenient
way. People are still going_ to cut down Lake Lucy Road but to come in with a
development after all this time and all these discussions and again, I'm willing
to pull all these old Minutes out . To me it was an absolute clear cut deal. I
don't know why this isn't done. But tell us you're going to develop property
and put in homes and traffic and dump them onto Lake Lucy, it 's clearly already
been decided it 's been a problem and a traffic issue and a dangerous road for
kids. There's 29th young child being on there and I will say is a fact, one of
my last trips down there some little, by the way. This is for you folks again.
I said this last time. This happened again. A little kid came down the
driveway on one of these little bikes, right out into the street off the
driveway and that 's a pretty dangerous street . So anyway my point is, it 's okay
for Mr. Beddor to develop his property and then dump it onto Lake Lucy because
he doesn't want to effect his road. Well hell that 's not the way we operate in
the city as I saw it . And everything that 's been brought up tonight, every
comment that you're going to make has been heard. I mean it was a done deal.
You don't even to speak as far as I'm concerned because I've heard you loud and
clear. You don't want the traffic. You don't want that dumped down on your
street . I don't think it should happen. That road was already semi decided on.
Whether it went a little north or a little south. Bend it a little here. Bend
it a little there. But I think it 's Mr. Beddor's problem, not your's and as far
30
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
as I'm concerned, whatever we have to do to get this done Paul. Whether it 's
number 3 or number 4, we've got to do it . If it 's condemnation, we do it .
We've discussed that pond before. We've discussed Lot 5 before. We've
discussed Peaceful Lane before. Do you want to counter, or add? Just a minute.
Let me just hit my notes. Old news. Old news. This is all old news. Mr.
Fortier has not brought up anything new. He discussed this with us hour after
hour about 2 years ago. Year and a half ago. Year ago and every single comment
these people have made, I thought had been heard and decided on and I'm frankly
frustrated that this is even back here tonight. I don't want to hear more about
it. To me I've already my decision. I've already voted. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Dog gone it Councilman Wing, that 's my neighborhood and you
stole my thunder.
Councilman Wing: I want to know what we do to get this off dead center and move
ahead. I don't want to hear anymore.
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do is get a motion.
Councilman Mason: I think Mr. Smith would like to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, you may want to get some counsel as to what your
options are. There are some, well. There are some alternatives to tinker with
the alignment . The concern I have, and let 's assume for the moment that
everybody can trust everybody to deal with this in a fair manner. There is
nothing stopping Mr. Beddor from using the property as he sees fit at this point
in time. He's the property owner. He's entitled to do whatever he'd like to
do. There may be ways of introducing some more flexibility into the alignment
for Mr. Beddor's property. There is an issue there. I mean there is more of a
taking the way the road is now. However, as I recall, this road, Nez Perce is
skewed this way because of input that we got from Mr. Fortier as to how this
would happen. At that time they didn't know how much they were going to buy
from Mr. Beddor, or not . There is a hill here. It goes up to the Owens house.
One of the possibilities might be coming across a little higher. There is a
grading problem with that . That might be a possibility. That would result in a
T intersection but it would give bigger home sites over here. The problem is
that also involves a lot that I believe is still vacant in the Troendle
Addition. You can see that lot down here, and maybe Mr. Fortier knows if it 's
still vacant or not but it kind of comes up that way. And sort of tells you
which way the road has to go because it points you in one direction. You may
wish to consider, and I'd defer to Council on this. Some sort of a temporary
moratorium on that lot, on development there to allow the best alignment to come
out . If that 's your wish. I don't know. I just throw that on the table for
you. You may want to bounce that off. . .
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Good.
Councilman Mason: I'd just like to quickly add that the argument about whether
Nez Perce goes through or not will affect traffic on Pleasant View. If you're
driving down Lake Lucy Road and you want to get to Pleasant View, you're going
to do it . I mean you're either going to go through Nez Perce or you're going to
31
City Council meeting - May 24, 1993 -•
create more of a problem on Powers Boulevard by coming out there, or Kerber or _
Carver Beach, and go on Pleasant View anyway. So I don't quite understand Mr.
Beddor's, where they're coming from saying that not putting that road through
will create less traffic on. Pleasant View. I use Pleasant View. I live in
Carver Beach. I'm going to use Pleasant View whether Nez Perce goes through or
not so I don't , that argument I don't understand.
Councilman Wing: mike, the other question I had was, if this is such an issue,
why doesn't he just take all his lots and development and connect those to
Pleasant View. This thing probably never would have come up in the first place.
Why does his development have to go down to Lake Lucy? They don't deserve it .
Jules Smith: Mr. Councilman, you have to understand. We're not here asking for
anything. We weren't brought here. We didn't initiate this. We're responding
to what the city staff brought before the Council. I certainly think we have a
right to put our use for it . It 's our land. We're not asking for anything.
The City Council has an absolute right to do whatever they want. Do you want to
condemn it? Condemn it . We can't stop that . The same is true when we came for
the Troendle Addition. You said you wanted $10,000.00 and an alignment or we
wouldn't get the plat. Well, we still felt, if we ever, at that time we didn't
own that property. There was nothing we could do. If you want to put a road
through it, put it through. But don't sit here knocking us because we're here
saying well, it 's our land and maybe we'd like to have you take a different look
at it . We're not the bad guys here. We have our view over our lot but you can
do whatever you want. -
Mayor Chmiel: That's the position we'll take. Thank you Jules. Yeah, one
more, please.
Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I guess I don't agree with that comment
because he was at the meeting down at , was it at Victory Envelope or whatever.
It was pretty clear a road was going to go through. You had said that that
night . I suppose you wanted it there because then it 's not official on the
Minutes of the City or something. I'm not really sure what the point was. But
you're here to try to present a plan to influence the city to put more traffic -
on Lake Lucy and keep it off of Pleasant View. Don't tell me you don't have an
agenda. You defintely do.
Jules Smith: Well sure we have an agenda but . . .
Mayor Chmiel: Jules, out of order there. Please.
Paul Hanson: My name is Paul Hanson. I live on Lake Lucy Road also and I would
like to point out two things. One, I talked to the builder who built a home in
the cul-de-sac of Troendle Circle and they have informed me that they intend to
begin building a home on the lot in which Paul was discussing. So they are
already getting ready to build a lot on that lot . On that property, as far as
I've been told. That may be misinformation. The other thing is, we're
discussing 500 feet of Pleasant View. I don't know how long Pleasant View is. I
imagine it 's a mile and a half or so, but I think Paul could probably tell us.
I'm guessing that , I paced it off. We're talking about 500 feet from Peaceful
Lane, on Pleasant View until you get to Powers Boulevard and Peaceful Lane and
Pleasant View in those locations are not old, narrow streets. They're nice and
32
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
wide. There's enough room there for lots of traffic and I think if anyone were
to want to look for themselves, just drive over there. I think you'll be
satisfied that there's not a major problem with the road space the way they
exist right now on Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View to go through. I keep
f—J hearing this issue that they have to spend money developing it and it really
doesn't need it if you look at that small portion of the road. The last point
I'll make is if I remember right from the Minutes of the meeting the last time,
the $10,000.00 was put down for the north half of the completion of the road of
Nez Perce to go to Peaceful Lane. I think that 's worth looking into. I believe
that 's what the $10,000.00 was put in for. It wasn't put in for any
improvements on Peaceful Lane. Thank you.
Resident: I'd just like to say one more thing. That 500 feet is probably the
most dangerous intersection of all of Pleasant View Road and including Lake Lucy
Road. There's a blind spot where the cars come up and over the hill. They come
up very fastly. It 's a 25 mph. Right now it doesn't make any difference. You
could put 15 mph or 10 mph, it is a highly, highly dangerous intersection there
where Pleasant View Cove and Pleasant View Road run into.
Mayor Chmiel: Elliott , do you have any words of good wisdom?
Councilman Mason: As opposed to bad wisdom.
Elliott Knetsch: I think Paul's recommendation in the report gives you your
options. . . further addition, the possibility of a moratorium if there was a need
to study further details as to exactly how Nez Perce would connect at that
intersection. I don't know that I can add anything. It 's not really so much a
legal issue as one of if you want to proceed.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. As Council's heard, there's two issues that can be
done. One, the moratorium. As indicated to be established for a period of time
until all situations are worked out . Or to proceed with what 's presently before
us. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I guess with what Paul's comments about seeing what we can do
to perhaps nudge the road, either a moratorium right now as opposed to official
mapping might be in order just because.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that it would be because it gives us the option to
see whether or not it can be done. Without it having to come back just one more
time.
Councilman Wing: You're stating that our position is the road, there is going
to be a road there?
Mayor Chmiel: Right .
Councilman Wing: It 's just a matter of how we can work it out?
Mayor Chmiel: How that road can be worked out .
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the reason I'm suggesting that is given the way the
property's been broken out by the Judge, in the present alignment of the road,
33
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
what they own, there is probably a severance issue with Mr. Beddor's property.
Maybe that can be minimized.
Mayor Chmiel: Right . So I would entertain a motion for this particular
position.
Resident : Mr. Mayor, can I add one thing? You haven't closed your public
hearing right?
Mayor Chmiel: You're out of order right now. We're back to Council. If you'd
like to sit down, we'll come back to you.
Councilman Mason: This hasn't been a public hearing anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a couple questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Under the option that you suggested on the moratorium. Are
any of the affected parcels? I mean what are the status of those affected
parcels?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Senn, the moratorium specifically, and is it possible
you can come up with a moratorium and. . .the same night? We didn't publish one.
That 's not an issue? Okay.
Elliott Knetsch: We have to act on this moratorium at the next meeting. I
think tonight we have to authorize that though and get it ready for the next
meeting.
Paul Krauss: There probably are only two properties that need to be involved
and I think it 's been referred to as Lot 5, Jules. Is that? The northern piece
of the Owens property that Mr. Beddor owns. And I don't know what lot number it
is but it 's the northwestern most lot in the Troendle Addition south of Nez
Perce. Or at least to insure that the home is set back far enough so that
that 's a possibility. Otherwise there is no option.
Councilman Senn: Are either of those parcels already platted or preliminary
platted?
Paul Krauss: Well, the Troendle Addition's all final platted.
Councilman Senn: Then how can we do a moratorium?
Paul Krauss: We leave that up to the City Attorney to see if that 's possible.
Councilman Senn: I've heard on past things is we can't do moratoriums.
Resident : That corner lot , they've got . . .it 's all staked for a home. Starting
construction.
34
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Councilman Senn: I guess the other question I had was relating to Mr. Beddor's
representative's. Were you aware at the time that you bought the property out
of the bankruptcy court that this plan for the road was there?
' Jules Smith: Well we certainly knew it was being considered.
Councilman Senn: That was the most round about answer I've heard I guess. Were
you aware of the road plan when you purchased the land from the bankruptcy
court?
Jules Smith: Well of course. We knew that there was, I mean this study was
made long before that act.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike, did you have something?
Councilman Mason: Well, how is this moratorium going to work if someone's
already starting to dig a home? I mean that .
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that . . .jive with what we've been told in the past .
Mayor Chmiel: Paul can you.
Paul Krauss: Well a couple things. If a house is being built on that corner
lot , it eliminates a lot of the possibilities for realigning the road at this
point. There may still be some potential to realigning the road by twistingit
r - around in the right-of-way. If the home is actually back far enough, we can
acquire some additional right-of-way. Straighten it up. Those kind of things
may be warranted to look at . The concern that I have though is, even lacking
that. Even a home is built on that. corner. That Mr. Beddow is the owner of the
property and can come in with a building permit on his lot tomorrow and we would
have to issue it. I'm not saying that they're anticipating doing that . I have
no idea but we would be obligated to• issue the building permit. Official
mapping is a good way to go, if you had time. Official mapping requires a
center line survey. Then it 's got to come through the Planning Commission and
City Council. So you're probably looking at a couple months there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I think we've dispensed with one of the two
issues. The first one- being should the road go through and a year ago, I was at
the podium cipherously arguing that in my neighborhood we should not join two.
As you'll remember Paul. We should not join two neighborhoods and arguing to
maintain a mile long cul-de-sac but that was a year ago and I'm definitely a
year old and hopefully a little wiser so I would agree that the road does need
to go through. We just asked• how and, I don't know. It 's a toughy. I don't
have any suggestions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've spoken. I've made my decision a year ago with the Lake
Lucy folks. I thought it was a done deal so how can we best accomplish it .
ILI
35
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I'm pretty much in that same boat with you on that .
I don't disagree with you. The only question that I have is to find what —
legally is right for us to do and approach it from that aspect . I think that 's
what I'm looking for. His words of wisdom as to how to best accomplish this.
Either through the moratorium. Possibly tabling it or going through the
official mapping portion that Paul has mentioned previously.
Elliott Knetsch: Well the unknown is what the development plan is. . .
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. )
Resident: . . .the way I've seen things go, it 's very likely you could have a
building permit request on their desks by 8:30 in the morning tomorrow if you
don't do what you need to do to stop that.
Mayor Chmiel: We realize that . Thank you. Okay. We have before us one of two
things to go. Either to authorize a moratorium hearing or to proceed with,
basically what staff recommendations are.
Councilman Wing: I think staff ought to move ahead on the mapping but we ought
to give them some time to get their act together and get it mapped. So I guess
if a moratoriu, which I am not . I kind of agree with Councilman Senn. I'm not
so sure we shouldn't just charge full steam ahead and if they want to start
bringing building permits, that process can come before this Council and it
could take years.
Councilman Mason: Obviously there's been some disagreement and some hard
feelings here. One of the nice things I've felt about being a part of this
Council and working with this city is that this is the place for hard feelings
and you know things get sifted out and get worked out in the way that's best for
everybody and I would hope that , and up until now I think everyone's done that
and I would hope that that would continue regardless of what we choose to do.
Councilman Wing: If we went with Mr. Senn's comments and it didn't work out , is
there any reason we couldn't then impose a moratorium on future development? At
any point we can come in with a moratorium? Of some sort . —
Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I'd really like to see, I mean if we start
getting into something to me that 's really highly questionable and I'm going to
say given some past things I've heard in the last 6 months, it's highly
questionable, again to me that presents problems that weakens our case. Okay,
to me we ought to just simply pass a motion to direct staff to implement the
plan that was previously approved. . .
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I like your position but I want to make sure that legally
that I have that behind me to support that position. And that 's one of the
questions that I throw back one more time to Elliott from what Mark has
basically said.
Elliott Knetsch: I hear what Mark's saying but I haven't , I don't know how we
would accomplish that tonight from what I'm seeing. I mean if we follow this to
it 's logical conclusion, it 's right on the board. I mean everybody knows what 's _
been talked to and as Oick mentioned, agreed to in his mind and the minds of
36 —
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
many others. The question is how to accomplish that and lock it in tonight . I
think probably the only way to do that is to, and there is a question about the
legality of a moratorium. I don't have the background on how that lot . . .I was
discussing it with Don. Apparently it 's a lot of record and if it is, it may
not be appropriate for a moratorium because the moratorium ordinance does say
that you cannot delay a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval.
If it 's an existing lot of record, it's been approved. So I think what we might
be really looking at is authorizing condemnation of that Lot 5. And I would
look at the entire lot rather than just where the road would cross the lot
because- if the road goes through across 'the -lot,- and then it damages the lot so
it 's unbuildable, then you're really talking about a taking of the entire lot
anyway even if you just take the road so you might as well take the whole lot .
Councilman Senn: But is that a direction we give to staff or can we authorize a
condemnation without public hearing and everything else?
Elliott Knetsch: Yes. You can authorize a condemnation tonight.
Councilman Wing: And I would also. . .begin legal mapping and then Mike's saying,
just perhaps everybody might decide to get along and come to a consensus here
and resolve the issue anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Right . And that can always happen.
Councilman Mason: I would hope that that would be looked at. Well, are we
ready to go here?
f-7 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Being there wasn't a second to Mark's first one, then I
would entertain another motion.
Councilman Mason: Okay. I'll recommend that the City Council authorize
official mapping of Nez Perce Drive. I would also further recommend that City
Council consider condemnation to acquire the lot .
Mayor Chmiel: Lot 5.
Councilman Mason: Lot 5 as opposed to the roadway.
Councilman Wing: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Resolution $93-47: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
authorize the official mapping of Nez Perce Drive. The two alternatives in the
July 8, 1992 feasibility study should be reviewed with Alternative A being the
preferred alignment of city staff_ Further, that the City Council proceed with
condemnation of Lot 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Paul Krauss: Just a clarification. Consider condemnation or direct.
Councilman Wing: Do it .
Councilman Mason: Should I strike consider in that motion?
37
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Elliott Knetsch: As long as you're saying that you meant direct .
Councilman Mason: I meant to do it .
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, clarification's there.
Councilman Wing: Second to that .
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TH 101 TRAIL. PROJECT 88-228-6.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. As you are aware, and as
presented in the staff report this evening, this City has embarked on the
process to investigate the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along
TH 101 from Pleasant View Road south to West 78th Street , or the downtown area.
This segment of trail has been identified in the city's comprehensive trail plan
as a phase 1, 1990-1995 improvement. The TH 101 trail represents the last leg
of improvements in this timeframe. The other trails which were completed as a
part of that phase 1 include the Highway 5 trail from Eden Prairie to Powers
Boulevard. The Minnewashta Parkway trail and the Market Boulevard trail system.
Councilperson Senn brought this subject to the forefront of the public process
upon election to the Council. His effort in doing so was inspired by the -
overwhelming inquiry he received into this issue during his campaign in that
area. As outlined in Mr. Horn's report, the city has hosted two neighborhood
meetings to discuss this issue. One on March 31st and one on April 20th. With
39 and 57 residents in attendance respectively. The second meeting resulted in
the presentation of two petitions to the city containing a total of 210
signatures of residents in favor of the trail. I have those petitions here this
evening. Would you like me to present them to Council to read them into
the Minutes?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Just give it to us so we can take it from there. -
Todd Hoffman: The meetings that were held were very well received by the
residents in attendance allowing both those opposed to and in favor of the
project voice their opinions and to hear those of others. I followed up these
meetings with 8 on-site visits with property owners affected by the proposed
trail. AT this time, if it would please the Council, I would ask that Mr. Jon
Horn of BRW provide you with the information which has been disseminated to date
on this issue. During those neighborhood meetings, and then Charles will close
with some comments on the proposal to move forward with the feasibility study
and we're available for questions from the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, fine. Thank you.
Jon Horn: As Todd mentioned, the Trunk Highway 101 trail project would include
the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Trunk
Highway 101 from Pleasant View Road on the north side to South Shore Drive on
the south side. The total length of the trail alignment is about 9,200 feet .
As directed by city staff, we've completed a preliminary scoping study to
investigate the constructability of this trail segment as well as to identify
any specific problem areas that would need further investigation if Council -
decides to further proceed with the project . We prepared some preliminary
38
Date
Mayor Don Chmiel
7100 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View
Road based on the following reasons:
1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez
Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and
then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101.
Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to
make this a short cut.
Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at
Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to
Kerber Drive.
2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this
increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce
which I adamantly oppose.
3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the
adjoining homeowners.
In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely
unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will
severely increase safety problems.
As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and
financial resources necessary to back my convictions.
As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly,
Date
Councilman Richard Wing
3481 Shore Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Councilman Wing:
I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View
Road based on the following reasons:
1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez
Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and
then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101.
Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to
make this a short cut.
Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at
Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to
Kerber Drive.
2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this
increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce
which I adamantly oppose.
3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the
adjoining homeowners.
In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely
unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will
severely increase safety problems.
As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and
financial resources necessary to back my convictions.
As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly,
Date
Councilman Mark Senn
7160 Willow View Cove
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Councilman Senn:
I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View
Road based on the following reasons:
1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez
Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and
then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101.
Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to
make this a short cut.
Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at
Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to
Kerber Drive.
2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this
increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce
which I adamantly oppose.
3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the
adjoining homeowners.
In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely
unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will
severely increase safety problems.
As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and
financial resources necessary to back my convictions.
As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly,
Date
Councilwoman Colleen Dockendorf
2061 Oakwood Ridge
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Councilwoman Dockendorf:
I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View
Road based on the following reasons:
1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez
Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and
then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101.
Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to
make this a short cut.
Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at
Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to
Kerber Drive.
2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this
increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce
which I adamantly oppose.
3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the
adjoining homeowners.
In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely
unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will
severely increase safety problems.
As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and
financial resources necessary to back my convictions.
As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly,
Date
Councilman Mike Mason
833 Woodhill Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Councilman Mason:
I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View
Road based on the following reasons:
1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez
Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and
then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101.
Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to
make this a short cut.
Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at
Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to
Kerber Drive.
2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this
increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce
which I adamantly oppose.
3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the
adjoining homeowners.
In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely
unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will
severely increase safety problems.
As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and
financial resources necessary to back my convictions.
As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly,
CITY OF
ClIANIIASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
• is
June 30, 1993
Mr. Robert Lambert
Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677
Dear Mr. Lambert:
Based upon our conversation last week. I am enclosing a copy of the City's Bluff Line Ordinance. As
we discussed, the area of the bluff line in the vicinity of the Eden Prairie/Chanhassen border is adjacent
to the Moon Valley Gravel Pit. The city has been in litigation over this gravel pit for nearly three years
with the goal of limiting further expansions. In court action to date, the applicant's grandfathered rights
extend only to the area that is currently being mined, when this is extended due east to the Eden Prairie
city line. The majority of the mature trees remaining in this area are located on an adjacent parcel to the
north that is owned by the Moon Valley operator, for which no grandfathering rights exist. Thus, it is
protected by the existing City's Bluff Line Ordinance and we have every expectation to maintain tree
cover in this area.
— Additionally, the city is currently working on an improved tree preservation ordinance. While this draft
ordinance is still being worked on by a subcommittee, we expect to have it available for implementation
by the end of summer. When development actually does occur in this area, it no doubt will be subject
to this ordinance as well. Intensive development is not likely to occur until city services are available and
this is unlikely for the foreseeable future.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. The City of Chanhassen supports your
efforts to preserve mature tree cover and we believe that our efforts can only be viewed as being
complimentary.
Sincerely,
Paul Krauss. AICP
Planning Director
Enclosure
c: City Council
Planning Commission
Tree Board
Or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2P
City of Eden Prairie ecJen
City Offices prairie
7600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262
TDD (612) 937-8703
June 14, 1993
Paul Krause
City Planner
City of Chanhassen
6990 Coulter Drive —
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
SUBJECT: Natural Community Survey
Dear Mr. Krause
The City of Eden Prairie is in the process evaluating unique natural communities within the City
of Eden Prairie. Recently, the City hired Barton Aschman Associates in association with Lee _
Frelich to complete an evaluation of seven sites in the City of Eden Prairie. One of those sites
is owned by Darril Peterson and is located in the southwest corner of Eden Prairie on the
Chanhassen/Eden Prairie border. I have enclosed a copy of portions of the Barton Aschman
report that refer to the evaluation of the Peterson property. Please note that Dr. Frelich has
identified a maple basswood forest on the western edge of the Peterson property. According to
Mr. Frelich, approximately 20 acres of this big woods forest is located within Eden Prairie and —
another 20 acres is in Chanhassen. It is located on the property that is presently being mined
for gravel.
The Natural Resources Study Committee is evaluating each of these seven sites prior to
recommending which sites should be considered for acquisition by the City of Eden Prairie. Our
consultant indicates that "It would not make sense to purchase this area of woods without the —
adjacent woods because both are on a steep slope and development of the woods outside to the
west would lead to severe erosion, visual degradation and invasion of exotic species such as
European buckthorn and honeysuckle." The committee has requested that I contact Chanhassen —
officials to determine if there is any likelihood that the City of Chanhassen may be interested,
now or in the future, in preserving this segment of woods.
I would appreciate hearing from you regarding this request as soon as possible, as the committee
will be making a final report to the City Council on July 6th.
Paul Krause
June 14, 1993
Page 2
I look forward to hearing from you in regarding this consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Lambert
Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
City of Eden Prairie
111 ,
II
111 TABLE 1
COM—MUNI I Y RANK1 AND GRADE` FOR
EDEN PRAIRIE NATURAL AREAS SI 1 ES
11 Site Communities Rank Grade % Site
Area Priority
114 Fowler Oak Savanna CSE D 48 6
Floodplain Forest THR C 25
1111 Wet Meadow THR C 27
Brown Floodplain Forest THR AB 48 5
U Lowland Hardwood SPC D 20
Cattail Marsh SEC B 2 -1111
Willow Swamp SPC B 4
Oak Savanna CSE D 26
m Riverview Oak Savanna CSE D 70 7
Dry Prairie END D 22
Floodplain Forest END BC 28 -
Chanson Dry
& Mesic Prairie E\D AB 78 1
1111 Oak Savanna CSE B 11
Lowland Hardwoods SPC D 6
Pe:ersor3 Oak Savanna/Woodland CSE C 4
IIII Dry Prairie END C 60
Lowland Hardwoods SPC C
1111 Maple-Basswood END B 20
Cattail Marsh SEC C 3
U Riley Creek Woods Maple-Basswood END AB 100 2
Mitchell Maple-Basswood END BC 100 3
11
1 Rank—The measure for rarity of plant communities in Minnesota. In order of rarity,
11 there are five categories given here. They are CSE, critically endangered; END,
endangered; THR, threatened; SPC, special concern; and SEC, secure.
2 Grade--The rating for quality of plant communities in Minnesota, where A is pristine
M and D is highly degraded.
3 The Peterson site also includes about 9 percent of the land as crop fields or buildings.
U
li SR-2
In
11
TABLE2
In CHECKLIST OF IDENTIFIABLE VASCULAR PLANTS LN MAY
— , II. Transect 2-2 (deciduous forest)
11 herbs trees and shrubs
bloodroot orchid spp. sugar maple
Inanemone jewelweed ironwood
solomon's seal enchanter's black cherry
carex spp. nightshade box elder
Ibedstraw rattlesnake fern
Virginia waterleaf osmunda spp.
wild ginger red baneberry
1 wild lily-of-the- jack-in-the-pulpit
— valley cow parsnip
yellow violet nodding trillium
11 twisted stalk
HI. Transect 4 (prairie hilltop)
11 herbs trees and shrubs
r brome grass blue-eyed grass juniper
bee balm gentian sumac
pussytoes twisted stalk hackberry
kittentails
IV. Transect 5 (oak woodland)
nherbs trees and shrubs
sedges bellflower ironwood box elder
11 anemone bloodroot bur oak prickly ash
twisted stalk Virginia waterleaf brambles
n -
"old pasture herbs"
in
r
rai
ri SR-5
II
11 —,
TABLE 2
1 CHECKLIST OF IDENTIFIABLE VASCULAR PLANTS IN MAY --
Charison Site
f
111 L Transect A-A (wooded corridor in an angled, ascending direction up to the west-
facing slope of prairie)
,1111
herbs trees and shrubs
1
jack-in-the-pulpit sedges box elder honeysuckle
II red baneberry virginia waterleaf green ash blackberries
twisted stalk cleavers (bedstraw) black cherry prickly ash
blue cohosh jewelweed buckthorn white oak
U maidenhair fern wild geranium bur oak
avens (crane's bill)
catnip •
UII. Prairie
herbs
U
little bluestem big blue stem grass prairie smoke coneflower spp.
grass unidentified grass pasque flower bee balm
RIside oats gramma blue grass prairie sage ragwort
grass bird's foot violet wild onion wild lettuce
hairy gramma puccoon purple prairie clover toadflax
IIIgrass poison ivy queen Anne's lace leafy spurge
indian grass equisetum paintbrush (?) red clover
Ustipa grass purple vetch larkspur mullein
Peterson Site
I. Transect 1-1 (prairie hilltop)
herbs trees and shrubs
Uleafy spurge prairie sage juniper
side oats gramma aster spp.
II grass hairy puccoon
little bluestem wild rose
grass goldenrod spp.
11 onion purple vetch
purple prairie ragwort spp.
clover toadflax
U
NI SR-4
or N.../
;/
• \\ . li Ste!///' . 1•
N.
t ��i
._,....._
/ ,
__
......... . ,
..
r .,
•
_ cv, ,,
• o
.,.‘ ,,,..\
.... .-.7-::::::______ , ,
—......_ ,, \ , ...s , ,_ , ,$).
,,. ,,
„ , ...., , .... ,
...., , ,
i Q -- 1 . s .. --- z.-...- ___
—r / , , .;_ /17.\\ ,//'-'-r., ` s�
r . .,._______ ..
• 4."
r /
�/1 •'s•`s / fit— _ __'-• / •:s' :-_
r4-...,--, "(
.. o—
ff,
WC. . . ' . .i.:;.-../)_ ::7' : .......::.::::*: .:!..--:,. .:::::::::':ii. :::.•:..:-..:,.:•••••••-'•':,• •••••••••••:: :::-•-••••""•"••-•
r ....., ,
....‹.,„.,, \,„ f _./ . ...•...•.••. ••••• •
. ,
,..,.,..%
•, k• •• ..-•:'•::•i./.;?:i':•'•::.; -' fi •.'i. .:":::::.:::S.:::.:.: '::'::: _
f,
•
�:112 : :
—
• f: _ _ --".-.`1.•••• �./
11111 \.. :`; •:, .rte .,I..
•
_�j
_ _
ii' • • — >r �� _ _ _ -
•••
..
_. ,
i......._ /-.' ..
, . . .
. . . .
. 1 <2.ft) ..
cmtir.—
...: by .r: -ri > - .
T
NATURAL COMMUNITY SURVEY
FNatural Resources Study Committee,City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Peterson Site
in association with Lee Freiich
r
11.111
•
identified in one of the prairies. Most high quality prairie remnants in Minnesota have
11 one or two state endangered or threatened plant species.
1111 Protection
Parts of this site are protected by steep slope ordinances.
Protection of the maple-basswood forest would necessitate protection of the remainder
of this community to the west, in Carver County.
1111 Protection from water quality deterioration, sedimentation of the stream, and erosion
from up-slope developing areas to the north of the site would be necessary.
Stewardship
1111 Restoration of some parts of the oak savanna is impractical. These areas should be
maintained as oak woodland. Restorable oak savanna would require cutting of juniper
trees and prescribed burning for maintenance of the community. Deciduous forest near
U the maple-basswood forest is successional and should develop into a sugar maple forest
without management. Prairie communities should be maintained with prescribed burns.
The management guidelines for specific exotic species should be followed.
11URestoration of this tract to a mosaic of natural communities would involve a huge
amount of labor and is probably not practical. Many acres of juniper, elm, and box elder
would have to be cut and removed from the site before prescribed burns were carried
out to restore the prairie, savanna, and oak woodlands. The reason for this is that these
dense young stands of trees may torch up during a fire, leading to an out-of-control
situation. Without removal of these trees, the fire would be too intense and kill the old
open-grown bur oaks, which would be one of the most desirable features to maintain.
Prescribed burns would be required every two to three years in perpetuity to maintain
111 the open prairie and savanna areas. Oak woodlands could have prescribed burns every
20 years, or be allowed to succeed to sugar maple, which would never require burning.
One management option would be to prescribe burn the south facing steep slopes along
the highway, along with the hilltop prairie areas, and simply let the rest of the area
succeed to sugar maple forest. The rank B areas of sugar maple forest would revert to
A stands within a few decades, but the rest of the forest would take 100 years or more to
reach an A grade bigwoods forest.
U
U
SR-21
I 11
Peterson Site (C5-C6, D-1, 3, and 5)
I
An Ecologist's First Impressions
dThere is a strong allure in finding one site with more than just a little of several
ecological niches. Here one finds prairie, savanna, woodland, forest, and a little wetland
all with alot of topographical relief for variety. There are two problems: too much use
Ihas created abuse, and the fire-maintained communities are just about beyond salvaging.
Ecological Assessment
This tract contains several semi-natural communities in addition to cultivated fields and a
II 1 homestead/lawn/barn area: 1) Bigwoods maple-basswood forest, 2) oak woodland,
3) oak savanna, and 4) dry prairie. The major advantage of this site is its large size and
a mosaic of several natural communities. The major disadvantage is that none of the
I 1communities is in excellent condition (rank A or .AB) compared to some of the other
sites under consideration. Mitchell woods and Riley Creek woods both have bigwoods
stands that are larger and/or better quality. The Charlson site has a larger and better
11 savanna and prairie remnant.
The bigwoods forest near the western boundary of the property (about 20 acres), as well
!� as that on the adjacent property (another 20 acres), is grade B, with many large sugar
_ maples 80 to 120 years old, with a few older and larger trees. The spring ephemeral
cover on the forest floor is relatively poor compared to Mitchell woods and the Riley
Creek woods. It would not make sense to purchase this area of woods without the
adjacent woods because both are on a steep slope and development of the woods outside
to the west would lead to severe erosion, visual degradation, and invasion of exotic
species such as European buckthorn and honeysuckle. The remainder of the maple
basswood forest is grade C to D, and has low diversity of native herbs, young maples
only 20 to 40 years old, weedy trees such as box elder, and artificial small meadows and
111 plantings.
-
The oak woodland and savannas on the property are grade C to D. They are highly
111fragmented by farm fields, unpaved roads, and have been invaded by sugar maple,
American and Chinese elm, juniper, and box elder. There are many very old (100 to 300
years) open grown bur oak that were savanna trees in presettlement times. However,
Ifnow they have invading tree species growing up through their open and wide-spreading
crowns.
The prairie areas have many native grass and other herbaceous species. However, they
were formerly grazed (30 years before present) and have been invaded very heavily by
I leafy spurge and juniper. The prairie remnants would have a rank of C because they are
small and have so much leafy spurge. A small population of Kittentails has been
SR-20
r
CITY OF
C IIANBASSEN
\ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
June 22, 1993
Mr. Terry Forbord
Lundgren Bros.
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata. MN 55391
Dear Mr. Forbord:
The Planning Department has received your letter dated June 21, 1993, to Todd Hoffman, Park
and Recreation Director, concerning park issues with the Song Property proposal. Your letter
states that you have formally withdrawn from consideration before the Park and Recreation
Commission the review of the Song Property. The issue of park dedication greatly impacts the
layout of the proposed plat. Since the outcome of the Parks and Recreation Commission is an
integral part of our reviev,, we have no choice but to pull your item off the Planning Commission —
agenda until the park issue is resolved with a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The large amount of proposals being submitted by developers for review by the
Planning and Engineering Departments does not allow us time to review plans which have a good
chance of being amended or pulled from agendas. Therefore, I am delaying action on your
proposal until matters are clarified.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely.
4><-16(-/?-"a
Paul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
PK:
t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
J VI'l C.1 7.:r U .•4LTI'I LUI liJt71[LI1 DV= 1.-VI1Z I . •G a
•
LUflDGREf1 •
•
• BROS. •• •
CONSTRuCr1ON June 21, 1993
•
INC
•Mr. Todd Hoffman
Parks Director
Members of the Chanhassen Parks Commission
•
690 Coulter Drive
X35 E w, .a B': Chanhassen,MN 55317
Wayzaa Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
M:nrenIa
Due to the content of the Staff Report written by Parks Director Todd Hoffman, •
;612;473-123i Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. regrettably has no other choice but to formally
withdraw from consideration before the Parks Commission its review of the Song
property PUD at its June 22, 1993 meeting.
_ In the next few days we will formally respond in writing to Mr. Hoffman's
comments and look forward to the opportunity to present to the City of
Chanhassen the Song Property PUD.
With Regrets,
Vice President
TMF:bw
cc: Don Ashworth
Jerome Carlson
Charles and Irene Song
•
•
5 —
SIEBEN , GROSE ,
Harry A.Sieben.Jr. Willard L.Wentzel.Jr.
Clint Grose 11923.19871 /l William O.Bonnard
John E.Von Hokum Y O N H O L T U M , Steven D.EmminJ"
Timothy I.McCoy David R.Va
John W.Carey
McCoy & C A R E Y ,
LTD . Susan M.Holds
Douglas E.SchmidtArthur C.Kosieradzkl
Mark R.Kosieradzki Scott H.Soderberg
Raymond R.Peterson John B.Wolfe.1"'"
Mark G.Olive Robert W.Schauman
lames P.Carey 117 SOUTH PARK STREET•P.O. BOX 549 • FAIRFAX. MINNESOTA 55332-0549 lady L.Emminl
William D.Sommerness (507)426-8211 •or METRO(612) 333-4500
David A.Stofferahn Of Cowwsel
Wilbur W.Fluegel FAX(507)426-8213 Mlles W.Lor"
David W.H.►orstad
REPLY TO FAIRFAX OFFICE
April 30, 1993
Mr. Paul Krauss
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen —
Coulter Drive •
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Paul:
I just spotted this opinion which seems to hold that the State did not damage property —
interest when it restored a parcel to a wetland; it appears a little more complicated than
that but an interesting holding.
I have to tell you I am enjoying my Wednesday evenings enormously. Please say hello
to everybody for me.
Very truly yours,
Steven D. Emmings
SDE:gg
enc.
9834_1
RECEiVED
►��`r` =l 1993 -
CITY OF CHANT-ibio :r.,
900 MIDWEST PLAZA EAST, 800 MARQUETTE AVE. • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402-2842 • (612) 333-4500 • (800) 328-4529
FINANCE AND COMMERCE APELLATE COURTS EDITION APRIL 23, 1993
N.W.2d 285, 287 (1974) (statute allows the injured party more may not be cited except as provided by
certainty of recovery via liability insurance and,to that end,is to be Minn.Stat.§480A.08,subd.3(1992)
liberally construed).
A.Herrmann.Sr, STATE OF MINNESOTA
Appellants argue that because Herrmann, Sr. was "in charge of •
— watching the house,"he was also in charge of watching the Murrays' COURT OF 033. :;:
m.
vehicles,thus indicating Herrmann,Sr.had the Murrays'consent to . ...... $Z•2 �•.. >:iga
....k.;f.W7'�vL'�:'.>''.'::k'w::i:.f:;:..i`is:S�'il%'E.�.,�iv.'.be�i:'w:i
use the vehicles. Appellants maintain if Herrmann, Sr.was using
the vehicles with the Murrays'permission and allowed Herrmann, Nicollet County Schumacher,Judge
— Jr. to use the vehicles, the Murrays would then be liable for Her- District Court File No.C292100053
rmann,Jr.'s actions. Judy Bode,et al., Robert M.Halvorson
However,even assuming Hen-mann,Sr.had permission to use the Gislason,Dosland,Hunter
Murrays' vehicles,which the record inicates he did not, such per- Appellants, &Malecki
mission would only have been to protect the vehicles and thus was One South State Street
not without qualification or limitation. See Foster v. Bock, 229 v. Post Office Box 458
Minn. 428, 435, 39 N.W.2d 862, 866(1949) (for the owner to be New Ulm,Minnesota 56073
liable, the bailee must have possession of the vehicle without State of Minnesota, Hubert H.Humphrey III
qualification or limitation and,while in possession of the vehicle, Department of Natural Attorney General
permits a third person to do the actual driving). Resources, Andrew J.Tourville,Jr.
Appellants also argue the Murrays could be liable for Herrmann, Spec.Assistant Attorney General
Jr.'s actions if Herrmann, Sr. acted as their agent and gave Her- Respondent. 520 Lafayette Road,Suite 200
-- rmann,Jr.consent to use the vehicle. However,there is no evidence St.Paul,MN 55155
in the record to indicate an agency relationship.Thus, Herrmann,
Sr.did not have the authority to give Hen-mann,Jr.implied consent Filed: April 20, 1993
to use the Murray vehicles, he did not give Herrmann, Jr. implied Office of Appellate Courts
f• !
consent to use the vehicles, and in fact, after the Nissan incident Considered and decided by Schumacher,Presiding Judge,Laps
specifically told Herrmann,Jr.not to use the vehicles. Herrmann, ing,Judge,and Harter,Judge.
Sr.'s actions cannot be imputed to the Murrays to impose liability UNPUBLISHED O P I N I O N
under the Safety Responsibility Act. SCHUNLACHER,JUDGE(Hon.Norbert P.Smith,District Court .
B.The Murrays Trial Judge)
Appellants argue the Murrays gave Herrmann,Jr.implied consent Judy and Linda Bode appeal from the district court's determina-
• to use their vehicles by allowing him to use them on two prior tion that the state did not damage their property interest when it
occasions. However, the prior uses were for a limited time and restored the parcel to a wetland. We affirm.
purpose and with their express permission during periods when
Herrmann, Jr. had a valid driver's license. These prior instances FACTS
cannot be construed to indicate implied consent. See Safeco Ins. Bodes own a remainder interest in a parcel of land containing
Co. v. Diaz, 385 N.W.2d 845, 847 (Minn. App. 1986) (implied unnamed wetland no. 52-26. Bodes' parents, William and Rose
consent maybe found following series of prior uses without express Bode, retain the life estate.
permission, yet without objection by the owner), pet. for rev. In September 1979,respondent State of Minnesota, Department
denied(Minn.June 30, 1986). of Natural Resources first designated and inventoried the parcel as
Liability may also be found where the owner gives the driver a wetland. At that time, the area was at least partially owned by
express consent to use a vehicle but the driver exceeds the scope of William Bode. William Bode and others disputed the designation.
the permission. Jones v.Fleischhacker, 325 N.W.2d 633,636-37 Approximately one year later, the Nicollet County Hearing Unit
(1982). Here,the Murrays'two prior instances of expressly allow- found that the land did not qualify as a type three wetland because
ing Herrmann,Jr.to use their vehicles fora limited time and purpose it consisted of two basins neither of which were larger than the
cannot be construed to constitute express permission to use their required 10 acres.
— vehicle in this instance. Herrmann,Jr.'s theft of the Jaguar was not DNR appealed to the Nicollet County District Court. Employees
merely exceeding the scope of permission;no permission had been of DNR and the attorney general's office warned William Bode that
given. he would be taking a risk if he drained the property during the appeal
Because the Murrays did not give Herrmann, Jr. express or process. Without obtaining a DNR permit,Bode drained the land.
- implied consent to use their vehicles, they cannot be held liable In January 1986, William and Rose Bode executed a warranty
under the Safety Responsibility Act,Minn.Stat.§ 170.54(1990). deed, transferring the property to their daughters Judy and Linda,
III.Civil Damage Act subject to their parents'reservation of a life estate.
Respondents argue appellants'claims are precluded by the Civil On December 19, 1986, the district court reversed the Nicollet
- Damage Act which states in part: County Hearing Unit,finding that the property may be designated
A spouse,child,parent,guardian,employer,or other person and inventoried as wetlands because the area was significantly
injured in person, property, or means of support, or who larger than 10 acres. William Bode appealed, but the appeal was
incurs other pecuniary loss by an intoxicated person or by dismissed as untimely.
the intoxication of another person,has a right of action in On April 19,1989,DNR ordered William Bode to restore the land
the person's own name for all damages sustained against a by removing or capping the tile drainage system. William Bode did
person who caused the intoxication of that person by illegal- not demand a hearing on the order,nor did he comply with the order.
ly selling alcoholic beverages. On July 12, 1990, DNR brought suit seeking enforcement of its
Minn.— Stat. § 340A.801, subd. 1 (1990). This statute applies only order. William Bode did not answer the tom laint and a default
to commercial vendors;social hosts are insulated from liability for P
judgment was entered on December 4, 1990. William Bode did not
negligently providing liquor to an intoxicated person. Beseke v.
Garden Center, Inc., 401 N.W.2d 428, 430 (Minn. App. 1987). comply with the judgment, and on November 12, 1991,the court
We conclude the action against Herrman Sr. is notprecluded byauthorized DNR to enter the premises without notice and perform
g 4 the restoration. On May 7, 1992 DNR excavated the land down to
this act because Herrmann, Sr.was not acting as a social host, nor the tile line and destroyed the drain.
did he furnish Herrmann,Jr,with alcohol. Bodes filed suit against DNR, claiming DNR's agents entered
Affirmed in part and reversed in part. property and smashed the tile line without permission or proper
This opinion will be unpublished and authority,thereby causing damage and depreciation of the property.
They also moved to require DNR to restore the tile line. The district
60
APRIL 23, 1993 FINANCE AND COMMERCE APELLATE COURTS EDm0N _
court denied the motion,finding that Bodes'damages were subject This opinion will be unpublished and
to valuation,rendering equitable relief inappropriate. may not be cited except as provided by
While this motion was pending, DNR moved to dismiss the Minn.Stat.§480A.08,subd.3(1992)
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be •• • „......,.;.>r:. :Mc:.,K,..,..,>:::<zmm. a:..,.: .:o« :,,.,:,,
granted. The district court granted DNR's motion finding that . - • EgtO 'AK �� , ;° a
Bodes have no action for trespass,because,as remaindermen,Bodes �w RTOF P .
have no possessory rights until the termination of their parents'life • . #:x � 424. . ,..` .i ;gAi �,
estate. k>:
Bodes moved for amended findings of fact and other relief.Bodes Dakota County Schumacher,Judge
stated that suit had not been brought under a trespass theory,but on District Court File No.C8928930
the basis of their ownership in the remainder. As owners of this
remainder interest, they claimed the right to bring action against Performance Computer Forms, Loren M.Solfest
third parties for damage to their estate. Inc.,et al., Larry S.Severson
In Pretrial Order No.3 Re: Clarification of Pretrial Order No. 2, Severson,Wilcox&Sheldon,P.A. —
the district court recognized that Bodes possessed a separate and Appellants, 600 Midway National Bank Bldg.
identifiable right to protect their property interest,and that pursuant 7300 West 147th Street
to Minn. Stat. §557.05 (1988) Bodes may bring a civil action for v. Apple Valley,MN 55124
injury to their inheritance. The court found,however, that DNR's Bank of Elmwood,individually James M.Caragher —
designation procedures were not defective.Therefore,Bodes did not and as Nominee for the Foley&Lardner
suffer an injury to their inheritance as required by Minn. Stat. § Account of William D. 777 East Wisconsin Avenue
557.05. The district court refused to vacate its judgment, and this Heidemann, Milwaukee,WI 53202
appeal followed. Respondent, —
D E C I S I 0 N William D.Heidemann, Pro Se
Bodes appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint for 2869 Shorehaven Court
failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. Respondent. Oshkosh,WI 54904
12.02(e). Since the district court considered matters outside of the
complaint,however,DNR's rule 12.02(e)motion was converted to Filed: April 20, 1993
a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 56. Office of Appellate Court
Bush v. City of Lakefield, 399 N.W.2d 169, 171 (Minn. App. Considered and decided by Harte$, Presiding Judge, Lansing
1987).pet.for rev.denied(Minn.Mar. 18, 1987). On appeal from Judge,and Schumacher,Judge.
summary judgment, this court must decide whether there are any UNPUBLISHED OF!N I O N
issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly SCHUMACHER,JUDGE(Hon.John J.Daly,District Court Trial
applied the law. Offerdahl v. University of Minn. Hosps. & Judge)
Clinics,426 N.W.2d 425,427(Minn. 1988). Performance Computer,Inc.and Russell A.DeFauw appeal from —
Bodes assert that their remainder estate has been injured by the the district court's order dismissing their complaint for lack of
DNR without due process of law. To sustain their claim,they must personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
have a protectable property interest recognized by state law.Board FACTS
of Regents v.Roth,408 U.S.564,577,92 S.Ct.2701,2709(1972); Performance is a closely held Subchapter "S” corporation. Its —
Minneapolis Auto Parts Co.v.City of Minneapolis,572 F.Supp. registered corporate office and principle place of business are lo-
389,395(D.Minn. 1983). cated in Minnesota. DeFauw, an officer of Performance, is a
A remainder is a future estate that takes effect in possession or resident of Minnesota. Respondent Bank of Elmwood is chartered
enjoyment on the termination of the prior estate. State ex rel.Tozer and operates in Wisconsin.
v.Probate Court, 102 Minn.268,291, 113 N.W.888,893(1907). Respondent William D. Heide
The owner of a future interest has the right to obtain judicial po mann, a Wisconsin resident,subject to
protection of that interest in order to possess and enjoy it in the chased�'�shares in Performance. This purchase was to
a nue/cell agreement and a shareholder voting agreement. All of the
future. A future interest is a present property right.2A Richard R.
share certificates contained the language:
Powell
. & Patrick J. Rohan, Powell on Real Property 280[1] The shares • • • are subject to provisions of a Buy/Sell
(1993)
Agreement,dated February 21, 1985• • •.The shares• •
Minn. Stat. § 557.05 (1990) codifies this property interest. It • are subject to the provisions of the Shareholder Voting
provides: Agreement,dated February 21, 1985. _
A person seized of an estate in remainder or reversion may Article 3.4 of the buy/sell agreement provided:
maintain a civil action for any injury done to the inheritance, Shareholder shall not sell,assign,give,bequeath or other-
notwithstanding an intervening estate for life or years. wise voluntarily transfer or dispose of Shares••*nor shall
Bodes argue that DNR's entrance onto the property and destruc- New Shareholder pledge,mortgage or otherwise encumber
tion of the tile drain injured their inheritance. We disagree. Bodes such Shares, unless notice shall first have been given to —
inherited a remainder interest in land subject to the outcome of the DeFauw,•• •and to the Corporation*• •for the purpose
inventory appeal. Destroying the tile drain did not injure or harm of commencing the period within which DeFauw and/or the
their estate,but merely restored the land in compliance with the trial corporation may purchase such Shares.
court's wetland designation. Paragraph six of the shareholder voting agreement provides that the
Because Bodes did not sustain an injury, we need not reach the
agreement is to be interpreted and enforced according to Minnesota
issues of whether Bodes were indispensable parties to the restoration law'
action or were entitled to other protections of the due process clause. r Paragraph three of the shareholder voting agreement concerns pledges
or other forms of encumbrance with a family member. Such a transaction
Affirmed. was not involved in this case.
Bank loaned $300,000 to Foremost Printing Services, Inc. The
loan was increased to$600,000. Heidemann personally guaranteed
the loan by pledging his shares in Performance as part of the -
collateral.
Foremost defaulted on the loan. Bank had the following contacts
with Minnesota to reregister the stock in nominee form:
1. January 28, 1992: Bank's counsel, Rodney H. Dow, —
° telephoned Performance's secretary/treasurer, Joan Krejci, to ar-
f
61
Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd.
• I
April 14, 1993
Dear Mr. Krauss,
Chanhassen Community Development„
Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd. is an urban planning, design and development
consulting firm. The recognition that we have recently received in the United States and
Canada for our report "Guidelines for the Reurbanisation of Metropolitan Toronto", and the
supporting "Study", has prompted us to widen the circle of those who know our firm and
the services we provide.
At the macro scale, we provide urban policy development and research consulting services
aimed at shaping the evolution of cities. At a local level, we can assist communities in
defining an appropriate development vision for a district or a site and provide the
regulations which will ensure its realisation.
Our work always aims to achieve public objectives while recognising the hard realities of
developing land in the 1990's. We are committed to good public design and providing a
context for excellence in architecture. Both require clear public policy and regulation
oriented toward achieving positive qualitative objectives through the development process.
Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg's analytical approach is multidisciplinary, spanning urban
planning, urban design, environment, economics, movement and landscape architecture.
This comprehensive approach leads to innovative and far-sighted solutions to
contemporary urban and suburban issues, solidly grounded in the real world context.
_ The firm is headed by five internationally recognised principals: Joe Berridge, Frank
Lewinberg, Ken Greenberg, Andrea Gabor and George Dark, supported by some 20 staff
from a variety of professional backgrounds. The firm's extensive experience in urban
development includes many of the largest and most significant projects in North America,
Europe and the Caribbean.
We have included for your interest extracts from Progressive Architecture and Planning
magazines. If there are projects in your city or region that require the expertise, excellence
and experience of our firm, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours very truly,
BERRIDGE LEWINBERG GREENBERG LTD.
Fradik Lewinberg
DECEIVED
P;annmg Development Design Pnncipa.'s .Associates
11 Queen Street East. Joe aerndge Connie Pasqua rrc7 1993
Sate 2X. Frank Lewmberg
Toronto. Canada MSC 1S2 Ken Greenberg
416-363-9X4 Andrea Gabor I I Y OF CHANHA,F. 7.
Fax 363-7467 George F Dark
American Planning Association March 1993 $4 --•
. - .
•
• : •
• ..
.. :, it •
• .,, ...\ f: ),. --,
- .--. -
. .
-• • .
. i •
• . .
. - -
. .
• -
. • ,
, ..- .‘, - •
• .
. ,
•
N -
. . . . -
. .
• .
. .
•
• ' -- . , ,
. 1 "
• -
;. •
•
. . 1 ' -..- • - 4:. `..p.1",,,---,...:--•-•.1.• • ••-i • 1
i. .
•
. .. .
4 ..: .•
......,.. ...., ... . ,,,,,,..0),,.. .4--• •-", . ,....:, nrver-p. ' • -
1 '''. 114. . " - ' • .. 1`.. , • •
. -WY• ,..-
f .,-. •N,•• , . .• .,
...,-. . ,•
. ' ,.. ,I, • .
•
I ... ... .
..... ;i-
4 ..
• .... „viper.,...r- „,,_..,„Iry.47, ....:d. t i
....., , ,`1",.."_ ._.„. ..... ...or*v IN, • • .- • . ,
• ,.-
,--i-
r.....411r04'1,"7-.? .•w- r..... .....- ••• i, -, - ..-t': lit,_ . . . •- • • •• ‘`.'`.- ...- 's' - ••
-.. ••••.. ' rr- - .- . : ,.. . • .:,./ -\:-..•,-.. .
1; .....-._.,_
iOn- , '4,4' .............. . ' •- _. ,_-,,,........7••!"' ,,, , ,
• ,;!...„. - • • ;oil ''••• •• " ,•• • - .: ....".' _.,„,„•••
%. • r
i.'
se -• - -111% '''''' s•- ' •':••:::•''''''' -••-:Sm.... • .. . --... ..j.'tV ' ...•
-"`.,... . - ...- ••• •••..,..**, •
'''4Sik•'•!•-. -. ''---•'1W‘,411, '''•.. •:' - iireposvo.• •., ' ...;- ''•• .- -., ..1
- c . •1•'..N' 7:• .IW V.': . -
lir_ .
pi.'".44....-..."''''. s -.-: -.. -. -7.• .N' .". 41.'rt... -••••••••- ';:--:C:.f.:11. .'-' • --.....k. • ----, -., ,,..-. ,- ---1-.:, .
, _ • % e
. 4 •••••••fe441,, ..• •-•.‘ •• .
• .. ...i •
- '.•i• ir '. ,. ,s\ - -1 ...) - - • •-- ••- -.4*- •- -t•-• . - % ••,i,;-vvf - •
.. .. •-- • ,
- 1-.- %,-_ -• 4 ./ .,:- ...r -..-- --‘,.. -. • .,.... --._ ,‘, , -. 2-
•., A:..r- i '4• .. •' ...•
.....mipetiO• ...••• maibe,„ -.._ .
_ ,: •
•:,..
. •'i • '" dr _ - , • •
f: ,..}.!•._ -. .t,-, .,-_t -.• ,- . . :•-•_-...
. • -- • . .. •
• ., ..). ..:•-t 22.., . ., *-,,.n,.. . ... . c: N.'. • .). ' ''.
,. t 1":: • '.. . ,.. ...:
....-- r.. . . .1,, ) ,•,. . .
f
•
•••• 4 • ... . .1.,,,,_.
,- . :. , .1
p.,. -..-:-..-- iti,. ...-.. 'i: . :. •- -, , f.-- .„ _ . ,... ---.-. .t...... _N.
..::. ,._,. . •. : lo ..s. - ••
• - • .,,7•,......,
1 -
'„.1,',..- • '.. • .'•- •; ••• ••••• - I '
••• . ...k. ,..i. -.t..-"••. ' • /
....,, ;-: k __. „f----' - • . .. . ..- .."‘..,:;•. •-:..1
• •
. . . .
-- • .....0.90. - ••••
, .
•. •. ,
- • -..,.-'4.-.c. '•.-,. . . •-
.•
. . ,
. /. •-..-. rx. ., •... • . -- 'V.i.. ''',
i r .
J.,::‘,.•.rF.-
--
_ . ..<,.../., .\ . . !s•
.- . If •
- .._.-.
_ .
. __ ...
e-,..
P L A N N I N G-
-
1993
1993 Planning Awards
Landmarks arid Pioneers
—,
Journalism Winners
APA Annual Report
—..
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: LARGE JURISDICTION
Guidelines and Study for the Reurbanisation of Metropolitan Toronto
mhe Toronto planning and urban de- 4 k'
.I. sign firm Berridge Lewinberg 1.
Greenberg uses the term reurbnnisation to 4RIIIiI' IIJ —�
— describe its approach to redevelopment, _ ori t which is aimed at directing growth to = 1 anlitinirlininitliajorirrimmaxeimin
urban areas rather than the periphery. zIt's a European model of growth,the firm t' 4°`�. t i. �■,
says,rather than a North American one. , -�`—���_�
Two documents produced by the firm— �� , A!r ,� ler
its guidelines and study for the �'p
= reurbanisation of Metropolitan Tot-onto— Will.
1111K3111111E1111 - 1di�
have won this year's comprehensive plan- 01111:111311,1111F,ie
ning award for a large jurisdiction. The ;i
jury commended the documents' clarity tl r,. rA. — II /7.,
and em hasis on movement '—�D� _I,' -
P pedestrianI- : 1�1*_1
and transit. The municipality of Metro- -
politan Toronto commissioned the two _^ r'
m ; ( �
reports and 13 others as background for a
new comprehensive plan, 'The Liveable '�� ~�` � � wr
Metropolis,'the draft of which was coin- 111111rd�
pleted last September. . rt:t •
_ In a letter supporting the application, Aro
Toronto resident Jane Jacobs says she 1
'can hardly praise highly enough what Metropolitan Toronto's
the Metro Planning Department and its draft official plan, 'The
— advisors have accomplished.' She calls Metro Toronto today: Liveable Metropolis,'
the guidelines'a work of art,'adding that a dominant central incorporates the guidelines'
"they seem to me so realistic, practical area and a few multicenter approach.
_ and usable for fostering the policy aims." smaller centers.
Among those aims: Reduce auto depen- o�__
dence, protect farmland, make better use ,., B1% Applying the guidelines to a high-density
of existing resources, and promote eco- 1e \ i=-, center along Toronto's Victoria Park_/'t.
- nomic diversityand vitality. Theguide- , l _ e °, ',
h' Avenue, the planners recommend that
lines are intended to help planners deter- l° ._° - , offices and shops be located closest to
mine which areas are suitable for re- 1 •��t transit stops,with new housing
urbanisation, at what density, and with `&IN'j E ii integrated with existing residential
— what uses. \ 6 — development.Open space would link
The Metro Toronto regional govern \\ 01k the Metro subway station and the
merit was formed in 1953 and now in- `` ., regional commuter rail station.
_ cludes six cities with a population of 2-3 ' ~ /PiI
million.Itis expected to add some 300,000 o ;.1
new residents over the next 20 to 30 t 11TL 1Trj�Tl ill dlftl�il1� ,
years. Frank Lewinberg estimates thatl .3- --1 -
— about eight percent of the land will re- .. o o �_ r- Q p TQC
quire reurbanisation to accommodate this a ;_l��B a l�
population. g. to° A,+, ; ,
The study traces the history of the metro x ' 0°��1 ^ :� s �
— area's land-use patterns,which produced s .a °V° •' __ _
a dominant central business district,corn- a �� I - . . . -
mercial development along arterial streets— a \er, e e � C. - - r ' ' (� I-- r--
— and more recently, one-hour commutes ■ ° ,_° �� ` , i- �' { a `.�:.� .�
for many residents. Looking ahead, the `„ •° gb.a 9, r_�-_-__ - M -
study stresses the need to maintain social ', ' ' _ ---I •sem
and economic integration as the popula- `.- r-' ' k '..-, --- _ .
_ tion becomes more diverse. ° �J
I ji - ._
Mixed-use development, pedestrian- i i,1 ( I 1 I 1,71 71
ization, and transit are the key elements 1 I 1
� Establishingcenters and ., ,:,,,.,. �, .I ! .
of the 90 guidelines. The guidelines use a corridors across Metro . •j • I ',. ,, .'4. ;!. • ,
— density measure that reflects both resi- Toronto would result in
dential development and employment.All shorter commutes and
reurbanisation areas would include both stronger neighborhoods.
11 —
jobs and housing, with a goal of 1.5 resi-
dents per job.Acknowledging that such a —
balance may not be achievable in some
or areas, the planners would focus employ-
f \ 1 ment in central city Toronto and three
major metro centers in outlying areas,all
J' i on regional transit lines. Smaller centers
and corridorsdeveloped throu
would be h-
',�� A primary goal of reurbanisation is tog
I 1• create a lively pedestrian environment. out the metro area.
�.d s� The draft comprehensive plan incorpo-
'� t •z ,i '2,. rates the density recommendations out- —
t Si:Z , .. .... ,r r , 4 lined In the guidelines for each type of
r 0,, 4 :,,: : reurbanisation area.The plan also identi-
fies specific initiatives and transit im-
i �! r s, r provements needed to support the devel-
• -> . i— ,,-..�;; ;,, _ opment of several centers.Toronto's transit —
t' — ` R {, ... system is one of the best developed in
. t a t•i r� North America, and the reurbanisation
{ g
:.i.s aa, __ 4 _ ' ,' strategy includes proposals for further
• mitral Are. '"` increasing transit use and creating neigh- —
r•
M,pr centres - '` =,r r. , borhoods where people can walk or bi
• ,te Centres »»r- , t cycle to work and services.
— Manegiwyl Roped Tat Corridors -�" .`' £ 'We're going to grow,and the idea is to
Yto-aregianal Rapid Transit carillon '"-'� -A - -
n... P
Inaare9iaal Rapid Transit carrdors will, ,, � �, .,, "� be bigger and better rather than bigger
Eintirg Sway or Rapid%ran Facarbes00-__,-� „,,Q ,- "t"t•h,...-. rt- and worse, says tJohn Gartner, Metro
N commissioner of planning. He calls the
r.
.- - , guidelines'intelligent and innovative'and —
f_ applicable to cities across North America.
•
_ _ _ _ The comprehensive plan is expected to
'i'
go to the Metro Council for adoption
�7 before the end of the year and to the —
' t provincial government for final approval
' �.��"'1 by mid-1994. The official plans and pub-
.-., : , < <<� lic works of area municipalities must then _
r�. i r - .. . conform to Metro's plan. •
fti--'_ '-
. • , , . Juror Patricia Zingsheim praised the
��' 4 �. _- Im - reports' emphasis on pedestrian move-
_ iii iii p —
... �` :i N= meat and transit.She added: 'The whole
_, I ; ,ice notion of recognizing coming population
r.I ram' liiii EA.o... ;�� growth and planning for it is terrific.'
: =, ,E. ' I- ” r-4.-&I ( Mary Lou Gallagher
r----�_ aC — ..- wave In I
ig pit
il
Lai ,-
ial '
,tom ;.,alarm il' nimIL±,- I
e rii*i L._
f!!t .ai�t C _
it i
fIr1
—ft, 7-. — L4 rip rl 1..'r. 4P ligiffrigi'447ari
' I■ �I. �i / -:: —
;t1,- -iam
l IL • • i1i /4'1 ,
t 111111 „
... - .. _ - r T I f t 1 r Ea f
rr- , plo g IS- P dhr 61.
Re rin from
•
- Ca4(. I7 \gt
•
•
•
..., p i A
Via_ _ .
PROGRESSIVE•
•
ARCHITEE CTURE
0 1 �
_-
9 3
.411h66k••,•.: .' '-' -. „ ‘iiti,
•,_ Ox.,_ -,.-- .
Ilt
itif
Sifr
For the The
40th
F. eurbanisation of Annual
Metropolitan Toronto Awards
Research
Citation Reurbanisation of Toronto
- 'i�' : rte _,
1 1g4 -i
1 1' - '� lril
COMMERCIAL .
`� ': ,y� �sMiXEC USE 1111�� .f I' RESiCEa-:AL
Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd. �" �'I" I _
IIII
1 _ t!N"i 'i,if E • kla.' I , b
Project:Guidelines for the Reurbani- == — .,j,.-_ J 1
salon of Metropolitan Toronto. �� == �; '— �"`•.. I C -o-mii.RA � :I -
This project was submitted in the i . == ,, •
�� ' I
�� 11111 =
category of urban design,but was even- - - •--^� .--
tually vena citation in the research e, �, ; i l I
category,which says a lot about its I111■.�wll r' d 1lT l MO :-.'i i ' 1=f:' 1111 i
scope.The basic idea of this proposal - -__ F
is to develop a coherent way to redirect 1,,
�J : ii ; I. _ r. . 4/ ,1•• 1s� 1 l I
Toronto away from havinga single �+•- • I „� 'fit -
g . - ` IBM MI - sw" x •-dominant core to hatin many mixed- s� v' = . - -
use commercial nodes and condors ;tel C�'• � ` `f �_ l .
located at transit stops or along major �'ri,•,; - Ii...: E, .ims . _ I 0 i. �i
transit routes.This"reurbanisation" uanunu. . .■,
would shorten commutes,allot.more =�
density at transit stations,and provide q
diverse activities within Walking dis- -� m ,.� ;a:.Nh` /1&h ..♦moi
g =� �...■ �-��il-'. �1 L. 1111, lll� .4,
tance
tance of neighborhoods.It would also am == == ,!� .„_ u ••-^.i a .' a `;
capitalize on underutilized urban land No
liii
os 6' =�
and reduce suburban sprawl at the = imi lunNi IIIII 'u” ' 11.4 1 Itllligdi i
The first part of this submission -
1 . 111!1 !1111 !OIIIII1
_ - Trip ._ s. I= : • 1 i_=
densities and dimensions for certain -I - -- .sem ,=C •
IMII min !mem a - -- LI__I11'
types of developing areas.Accompa- MD L L
ming the guidelines is a text describ- HIGH CIE Nsm CENTER ALONG RAIL UNE ---t ei„=
ing the current situation in Toronto '", '4. t
and why these particular guidelines Jury Discussion the area around a transit station . ,��---__
are being proposed.A second part should be devoted to the public �--"� a
JLi:�MierliWN,4,.-I
goes into the guidelines in greater Both the Urban Design and the realm,but it defines that broadly to
depth,suggesting the possible shape Research jurors had many positive include the streets and sidewalks,as Ir--
I 114-1-13'L.
-
of the future city based on their rec- things to say about this entry,and the well as open spaces,so it allows for t 1- _ �j
ommendauons and ending with sug- other jurors seemed largely to agree individual buildings to hug the street �L� r' 1 ,
gestions about how the guidelines with them.Ben Refuerzo applauded where they should."As Kaliski
might be implemented. the fact that"it takes the charge of described it,"It's a kit-of-partssuiuD.NG HEIGHTS
the client to look at the issues of approach,which allows all sorts of
Principal Researchers/Authors:Bemndge housing and of revitalizing the city variety and hierarchy.without being a
Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd.. Toronto, and goes one step further."John homogeneous idea."
Canada(Frank Lewinberg,project print- Kaliski liked the fact that"it wasn't an __ L, .L.-/- _
pal;Pamela Blais,project manager; actual plan.but a study of the urban "
George Dark,urban design principal;Ken morphology and a recommendation
Greenberg,Jonah Ing.Vicola Jancso, of ways of thinking about the city."It ---
Mark Reid,Stephane Tremblay,Afrchel provides a conceptual framework,her
t
Trocmi,Suzanne Thompson,Rhonda added,"for how the city might evolve, _ 7::■ I,
Waters,Monica Cambell.project team.) without dictating any literal form at -_ai`
Client Municipality of Metropolitan this point.""It's the step before the -La
III p.m
Toronto,Canada. urban design scheme."said Refuerzo. I. .'
"and that's a very valuable thing." <dl� [�.
Alan Ward praised the direction it _ -
proposed for Toronto.it reduces ^.�
auto dependence and makes critical I - j
densities at transit stations,and it _--
begins to shape public polis.It says. I I: II
for example.that 30 to 40 percent of NET tENsmes
•-•
..m.
. -
I 1 /
.... ....IIIIII
i
_-....- =II.
3- --. -----.------iiii . i
- •-• .1,4_- . . . _ _ , • ' 1
, inimm11111W 4..
1 .111116 . .
.16 r
'41[..ir _ imileriffi !kw ..„9.ASit_- 7 It 141.411111611111*-\441.- -4 -..: .tk A 1
1 ..,..,--•-• -..- 1, ..g wag 1
LcriNC NE,SS01-D.D: -I- -- " STREET-RELATED LIG---Ir-6. STREET.RE.A-ED
DEvE6OPMEN7
SECTION DIROUGN COM/AERCIAL CORRIDOR
I
:13
3 4.:._..
33 _
I
a 6 e .—
• • d.
• a zz
t •
i i i II ti ,
! _ f
# - -
I 3.
a. 7
,. .__ ___-_____ „, _34
._
:
il.' SI 1- 11 t ,.1007116 4 0 ii.4 4
,'------ I;.....1.—Accipt.........
3 ii J-:=, ,...._,7
4 v.? arlizit- •_.A_.11q--.: _-:.-- .,!,t
g=- 9:m :31.71,
. _ . _.. ..... . . .
r==......;:... ..........,....-- _.
.
ta In ,4,-
----- ----1.r,77 ----- It 4
:. *
I ' */ - '...3. 3: .!I.-7 I------t
::2: -''''''''.-------____ii: '''' G. t
3: ..r;...--------- 3: I i
a;
$1 x '----------Th. ' .
-. z 1 t lT
, __-_,---=--v---- i t i.
I( I i
..-, :-. 3.
--- . ...3 .1 ,
..T.2'. .. ! : .. .. 1.:
3: *t
I r i•
_, ..1 -----------,.... ; I ;-1 Ic
zr.
-
1 ' ..,... ..
.-- • 7 _ ,,,..,..-: i f. 11 at . r' '
..:
zi,6:
.•.. :: i------, -. : - z; -1 n
_ J—)f 1
.f.--- ,----,_,-= = ______.i
-,-.-_tL-
I . i _______3 . ..____7„--Ip Is_ ?iri L.
----
ii (----. ---
,. v; i : ;..,
f----:--..._,.,--,j/ .; : :z % '...
---
- -, ---->
-3 •
PLAN OF DENSIFIED CORRIDOR
T _
..._ ,
--- i_ —
I ,
,a N
2 1001110\01......)
) n .
. .,-..
1 ,
\,
) ) .600'0 ta 11111
T (willik
\ j
1
\ ...-
rm ES
t--.' 1 111111
,_, • 111111t is .. 1 I N)
e \
\f 1 1 .....0-- 13 \ •so.\ %
. .1
T \\
\OM, ,
,ct::;t:111 aek
UP LI
OZ5" 1
. 5
15/
.. .13 e 40.
\ ,
1 ....... CID
. III / 1 .....15 13 IMI 57
T \ • - t.:-i ---63. A. - t.—:::,
._ . ,
LJ
1 .
,v.-1
r
ET110'S EXISTING URBAN FORM METROS IDEAL FORM
... printed from January, 1993 PROGRESSIVE ARCHITECTURE c 1993 Penton Publishing.All rights reserved.
Com' Q c-. / -c- .-R4 j l
— / Le_
MAY 1993
ZOIWNCiVelTS AMERICAN iii
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
1
Using Mediation litigation.Without question, the courts play a vital role in
I
to Resolve resolving land-use disputes,but judicial intervention is not
Land-Use Disputes always necessary'or even warranted.Local governments and
p private landowners alike can benefit from working out their
I
differences with alternative dispute resolution techniques,such
By Mark S. Dennison as mediation.
When land-use disputes arise between private landowners and The Land-Use Mediation Process
local zoning authorities,litigation should always be viewed as the Too many land use disputes wind up in court.Although
last resort to resolving the conflict.Whenever possible,alterna- mediation cannot resolve all disputes,it should at least be
tive dispute resolution techniques should be pursued first. considered. For years, mediation and arbitration have been used
I
Litigation is costly and time-consuming for both sides and does successfully to resolve a wide variety of conflicts,such as
little to foster good community relations.Just ask the California matrimonial,commercial,and labor law disputes. Only recently'
Coastal Commission about all the taxpayer dollars spent has it been recognized as an alternative in the land-use and
defending the Nollans' taking challenge all the way to the U.S. environmental context.
Supreme Court because the commission refused to budge on a Land-use mediation is a voluntary', nonbinding process in
building permit condition that was questionable at best. [Nollan which the local land-use/zoning
v. California Coastal Commission,483 U.S. 825 (1987).] Look at authority and the private
all the time and money spent by the Nollans to show that the t0 OYEReOME THE landowner(s) rely'on a
commission was unreasonable. third party's expertise
Further, imagine the time and money shelled CONFUSION AT tH 1S POINT to guide them to a
out by both sides in First Englishr PROSE TO E5TABLIS►� mutually satisfactory I
AN OFFICE OF DIV/NE
Evangelical Lutheran Church of resolution of their
Glendale z. County of land-use dispute.
Los Angeles, ARBITER BY PASSING THE Unlike an arbitrator,
.111 II
PROBLEM AREA who can impose a I. . decision on the parties,
41
the mediator helps thee
_ , ) parties decide for themselves
• �lea"alr
whether they can settle the dispute and on
• ■ .- w' what terms. I
t r III eh ..- Mediation simply means negotiating a
maisolution with the assistance of a trained
• illiA, r"
" who is impartial and lacks
I
DIVINE decision-making powers. [A very readable and
useful book on the art of negotiation is Getting
to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury I
(Penguin 1981).] Professional mediators have
482 U.S. 324 (1987), extensive training for intervention and approach the
which lasted 12 years. In the end,the dispute with a formal strategy designed to break
county won the lawsuit,but were all those years in impasses and reach a resolution. Professional mediators
court, the mounting legal fees,and the expenditure of human are listed in the telephone yellow pages under mediation or may'
resources worth the taste of victory? be found in the Dispute Resolution Program Directory published
Few people followed the final resolution of that case.The U.S. by the American Bar Association.When the parties agree to try
Supreme Court had declared,significantly,that even temporary mediation, it is important to select a mediator who can make
I
regulatory takings require just compensation.But the decision was both sides feel comfortable and who has experience in resolving
remanded to the California Court of Appeal,which two years later land-use disputes.
concluded that the interim zoning ordinance at issue was reasonable A major reason for the success of mediation is its open,
in scope,purpose,and duration and therefore did not amount to a direct, no-nonsense approach to getting the parties together to111
temporary regulatory taking of private property. [210 Cal.App.3d air their grievances and stake out their positions.The mediation
893,258 Cal.Rptr. 893(1989).] session usually is conducted at an informal location,such as a
Although land-use and zoning disputes seldom reach the law office or mediation firm.The parties,their lawyers,and
nation's highest court, First English and Nollan stand as high- anyone else affected by the dispute can and should attend. The
profile examples of the time and expense associated with such process begins with a joint meeting in which each side explains
its position. Following this joint session,the mediator begins circumstances. For example, if one side believes that it has a
meeting with the parties and their attorneys separately and very strong case, it may not want to enter into mediation,which
confidentially. During these private meetings, the mediator tends to split the pot. Litigation may be the preferred option
works with each side to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of when the facts clearly favor one side. Ordinarily, however,
• the case and to examine possibilities for settlement.The neither the land-use authority nor the private landowner will
i mediator then develops a plan for matching a dispute resolution have an open and shut case, in which case the parties would
method with the parties and the issues they have presented. likely settle before going to trial. Mediation might also be
This plan needs to be shaped and tailored to the particular considered disadvantageous when a neighborhood group seeks
dispute. This stage of the mediation is the most complicated the long delay associated with litigation, hoping that a
step in the process and involves give and take by both sides and developer will eventually abandon its proposed project.
skillful judgment by the mediator. Once a final mediation plan Because mediation is nonbinding, the final resolution is not
is developed from this bargaining session,it is agreed upon and legally enforceable if either side should fail to honor the
set for implementation. mediation agreement.This potential drawback seldom causes
Studies show that the parties to a mediation are likely to problems,however, because once the parties have negotiated a
abide by the terms of the resolution because of the large role mutually agreeable resolution,the probability of renewed
they played in working out an agreement. In the United States, conflict is small.
90 percent of mediation cases end with a successful settlement.
Approximately 80 percent settle on the first day,and the other To Mediate or Net to Mediate
10 percent settle within a month of the initial discussions. Mediation is not always possible. Patent violations of zoning
ordinances,such as siting a liquor store next to a school,
•
Advantages operating a machine shop in a single-family zoning district,or
Parties to a land-use dispute can realize several benefits from erecting a commercial office building without a building permit.
using mediation. The process is quick, flexible, open, and generally are not resolvable through mediation. In such cases, the
nonbinding. It saves time and money and preserves an ongoing local zoning authority usually is obligated to enforce the zoning
relationship between the parties. It is informal and not governed ordinance. However, mediation may work well in reaching
by strict evidentiary rules and procedures. The session is agreement with a landowner on the terms and conditions of a
confidential. Unlike arbitration or trial,the parties can reveal as variance,building permit,or development proposal.
much or as little information as they like.To encourage open Two land-use disputes over development of wetland areas in
negotiation and offer protection in the event the dispute cannot Oregon illustrate the benefits of mediation.In the Bott's Marsh
be settled. the parties often sign a confidentiality agreement at case,a dispute arose over development of a wetland area in the
the outset. In most states. laws exist to ensure that nothing Nehalem Bay estuary in Tillamook County.A developer proposed
stated or exhibited during mediation can be used in a later filling a wetland area large enough to accommodate the siting of a
court proceeding. marina,motel-boatel,restaurant,shops.and parking facilities.
There are other advantages: Strong opposition to the project pushed the case into litigation.
• Mediation encourages the early resolution of the dispute Before undertaking the project, the developer applied for fill-
before time, energy. and money are needlessly wasted. and-removal permits from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
and rhe Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL). Even though
• Mediation forces both sides to look seriously at the merits of the developer knew about the controversy surrounding the
their positions at an early stage. proposed development,he decided to apply for the permits
without negotiating with relevant government agencies and
• Mediation is a no-risk option: rhe process is voluntary and interest groups. The permits were denied,and the developer
nonbinding. and either parry can walk out at any stage. filed a petition against DSL in Tillamook County Circuit
• In mediation. no fact-finding or final decision is rendered by Court,which ordered DSL to issue the permit. DSL then
the mediator to create leverage in any subsequent appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.which overturned the
proceedings. lower court ruling. Now the developer is planning to appeal to
the Oregon Supreme Court.
• The mediator has no stake in the process,except to achieve a So far, the developer has spent more than seven years trying
settlement. Both sides retain a high degree of control over to obtain necessary permits. DSL has incurred significant legal
the process. fees,and costs to the developer for attorney and consulting fees
• Use of a mediator takes the bravado and posturing out of are estimated to be at least $250,000.
settlement discussions, thus promoting reasonable dialogue. In contrast,the Hedges Creek Marsh case involved
development of a 140-acre parcel, including 48 acres of
• The only risk is the time devoted to attending the session freshwater wetlands, for residential and light industrial use.
and the cost of the mediator,which is minimal compared Tualatin's wetlands protection ordinance requires that the
with the expense of litigation. developer work out all conflicts with the applicable state
agencies and interest groups before applying for municipal
Disadvantages approval of the proposed development. In addition, the
• The process does have its disadvantages. Some of the advantages developer made changes to its proposed development plan that
listed above can even be considered disadvantages under certain required changes in a previously approved Corps of Engineers
Section 404 (Clean Water Act) regional permit and the issuance
of a DSL fill-and-removal permit.
Mark Dennison is an attorney and author who practices Many parties had a stake in the proposed development's final
environmental and land-use law in Ridgewood, New Jersey. configuration.The developer chose to negotiate with the
2
t
federal,state,and local agencies and environmental interest Above All, Communicate
groups to resolve any potential conflicts.This process began in Sound planning and good communication of ordinance
early 1988 with unassisted negotiations between the various standards can minimize the potential for disputes between land-
interested parties and progressed into mediated negotiations. By use authorities and private landowners. Good interaction
March 1990, the parties reached a final agreement on all between municipal attorneys and planning staff can also resolve '
outstanding disputed issues.The cooperative mediation problems in zoning ordinances and ferret out legal pitfalls in -'
agreement satisfies all of DSL's permit requirements, the federal development proposals. Furthermore,early dialogue between
requirements, and the interest groups' needs. zoning authorities and landowners concerning permit
As a result,when the developer actually applies for the DSL applications,development proposals,variance applications,and •''L.
permit, it likely will be processed and approved within the 90- other land-use issues may avoid the need for either litigation or
day statutory time limit. Before undertaking the project,the mediation. Finally,as long as the municipality has the authority
developer also must prepare a wetlands area resource to decide land-use disputes through mediation,it may make
management plan,which must be approved by all parties to the sense to enact a local land-use mediation ordinance to govern all
mediated agreement. or certain categories of disputes.
In stark contrast to the Bott's Marsh case,the costs of II
mediation were only 53,000, half paid by DSL and half by the
developer.Attorneys' fees, consulting fees,and staff time costs
for the developer were only about $14,000. Thumbs Down on
These two cases illuminate the advantages of mediating land- Dade Districts
use and environmental disputes.A mediator can help to develop
creative ways of addressing the issues. Often,this can result in a District zoning boards were back on the ballot in Dade County,
win-win solution for all parties. Florida(see"Decision Day for Dade," October 1992). In a I„
March 16 referendum,the proposal to split the unincorporated
Interagency Disputes areas of the county into eight separate districts suffered defeat
Sometimes land-use disputes grow our of interagency turf wars. by a 2-to-1 margin.After the county board of supervisors chose
Local government offices with overlapping jurisdiction over not to place the issue on the ballot, neighborhood groups such lx
zoning and land-use matters. such as the city council,local as Protect our Communities and Save our Park filed an
planning board, zoning commission,architectural review board, initiative petition.
and zoning board of appeals. may differ on a particular land-use One of the biggest complaints of supporters was that the
proposal. These agencies sometimes spend valuable taxpayer county has not effectively controlled growth in unincorporated
dollars working out their differences in court. If local areas. In their initiative drive, they received support from 25
government is truly designed to protect the public welfare, these groups and collected 98,000 signatures. The Metropolitan Dade
agencies are obligated to spend taxpayer dollars prudently. The Commission then voted to place the issue on the ballot. Under
benefits of mediation are even more compelling for these the proposal, each of the eight boards would be responsible only
disputes. which often arise when one zoning authority believes for land-use approvals in its "planning and zoning ''
that another has usurped its powers in some way.A municipality" (PZM),as well as its PZM's land-use component
municipality can prevent many of these conflicts by clarifying of the 11-element county comprehensive plan.The average area
the function and authority of each office. However,when these of each boards PZM would have been 82 square miles.The
•disputes arise. the municipality can resolve them by submitting commission,however,would have retained responsibility for :_'
the issue to a mediator. funding and staffing the PZM boards and the county E
comprehensive plan. •,f
Legal Barriers Opposition to the plan came from several directions
Sometimes it is not possible to submit a dispute to mediation including the Latin Builders Association,land-use lawyer Stanley
because of legal constraints. First, a local governmental Price.and the Dade County Planning Department.A lawsuit : k
authority must determine whether it is authorized to use filed by the Concerned Citizens of Northeast Dade sought
mediation in land-use disputes. The municipal attorney should unsuccessfully to remove the issue from the March ballot.
know whether rhe state has a specific statute allowing for land- Builders argued that the boards would add bureaucracy and that
use mediation or if the state's zoning enabling act explicitly or they would have considerable power to decide land uses without i
implicitly provides for mediation. If not, the city's home-rule assuming responsibility for sewers and taxes.The lawsuit charged :ate
charter may grant mediation powers. that the ballot language was unclear and misleading.
Another important legal barrier to consider is the limited Reginald R.Walters, retired Dade County planning director,
authority of governments to delegate their police power over private and Gonzalo Sanabria,a member of the Dade County Planning '
property interests to nonelected decision makers.Clear standards Advisory Board,also noted that,while the commission would :,..
must accompany such a delegation of authority,or it will be prepare the comprehensive plan,it would not have authority on
considered improper. Local zoning officials may not delegate their land uses in the new districts.The uncoordinated local compre- •7
legislative or law-making authority to a nonelected party.This issue hensive plan could cause a problem with private property
is more likely to arise with arbitration than mediation because transactions and government decisions.The unincorporated r
mediation does not impose a binding decision on the parties. areas,they argued,would develop land uses in the best interest of '-'
Because a mediation agreement is not legally binding,it might not their own communities,which might not be consistent with the
run afoul of the delegation doctrine. However,if the local zoning regional and state policy plans. i"
authority commits to some improper zoning action,such as an Since the proposal failed, neighborhood groups have
illegal spot zoning,the mediation agreement may be challenged as a refocused their efforts toward presenting their local zoning -
bargaining away of the police power. concerns to the elected county commissioners. Becky Maroor
3
1
I
Michelle Donovan,a land-use specialist and administrative
Churches Contest assistant to supervisor JoeAlexander,is not sure what advantages
Zoning Process the churches will gain.At one time,the supervisors did consider
church cases. Because of the county board's highly politicized
Churches in Fairfax County,Virginia, are seeking more compas- atmosphere, that was changed so that the zoning board reviewed
I sionate treatment of their development permits. Under the the cases using an established set of criteria.The hearing process
current system,the board of zoning appeals hears cases,but local before the county board takes an average of four months,longer
ministers argue that the board is overly restrictive when it than the zoning board's 90-day limit. Donovan says the switch
considers special use permits for churches in lower-density back to the board will neither speed the process nor guarantee
residential districts.They complain of permit denials,lengthy that the board will waive fees. One clear advantage of the
review periods,and costly development fees.They petitioned the proposed amendment is that combining applications for a
county board of supervisors to allow them to bring their cases church together with its accessory uses will slightly lower the
I directly to the supervisors instead of the zoning board.The permit fee(to$1,980) required for two separate types of permits.
county adopted an amendment in February that allows churches If denied a permit,a church will not be able to resubmit an
to apply for special exception permits.The county board is now application for consideration by either board for one year.
considering whether to allow churches with a child care center, "The problem is with the process,"says supervisor Gerald
I nursery school, or private school with more than 100 students to Hyland. "In fact,things may not change at all."And Donovan
have the option of applying to either board. says the zoning board is"rarely as harsh"as the county board
Fairfax County allows churches by right in higher-density because of potential public pressure for development to pay its
residential districts as well as commercial and industrial districts. fair share. Amy Van Doren
I Churches must apply for a permit to locate in low-density
residential zones, including residential conservation and preserva-
tion zones. Every development application the county reviews
I incurs fees based on the time involved in processing the permit. n +
A separate department of environmental management requires ZO4IIG `fitn
another set of fees to review site plans. Finally,all rezoning orI
special exception cases are subject to proffers, legally binding
commitments set by either the zoning board or board of Reviewing New
supervisors. A church may be required to pay each fee as well as Construction Projects
to meet any permit conditions, including providing road in Historic Areas
improvements.
I Pastor Gary Haskell complains that his 20-member congrega- National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave.,
iron was required to pay thousands of dollars to widen the street N.W., Washington, DC 20036. Information Series No. 62, 1992;
when the church was rebuilt after a fire."While I'm certainly in 24 pp.;$5.00 plus$5.00 shipping and handling($2.50 each plus
favor of protections for the neighborhood,we felt like this was $5.00 shipping and handling charge for orders of 10 or more).
l '''' overkill,"he says.The ministers contend that the zoning approval As this report notes, new construction projects in historic
process is significantly easier for developers than for church districts can elicit passionate opinions from all sides. But there
members,who have little knowledge of the development process. are rational procedures that can be applied in assessing such
I County supervisor Michael Frey is working to convince his projects, including the use of technological resources such as
colleagues that churches will receive fairer treatment if allowed to videotaping and computer imaging to aid preservation
appear before them. "A church is not a 7-Eleven," he says,and commissions in visualizing the impact of proposed construction.
should not be subject to the same procedures and fees. Church But clear thinking is also crucial:What values and visions does
leaders regard the supervisors as more accountable to the public the community wish to attach to its historic districts?
and thus sympathetic to their intentions.
OK in My Back Yard:
I - Issues and Rights in
Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Housingfor the
Subscriptions are available for S45 11.:.S.)and 554(foreign). Mentaly III
I - Israel Stollman.Executive Director:Frank S.So.Deputy Executive Director.
Zoning News is produced at APA.Jim Schwab.Editor;Michael Barrette,Mark Booczko,
Marjorie Beggs. Published by the Zellerbach Family Fund.
Fay Dolnick.Sarah Dunn.Michelle Gregory,Becky Maroot.Marya Morris.Amy Van Available from San Francisco Study Center, 1095 Market St.,
Doren.Reporters:Cynthia Cheski.Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton.Production. Suite 602, San Francisco, CA 94103. 1993. 40 pp. Free.
I 6063 ed
aCopyright,E 1993 by American Planning Associati .1313
uarters E.offi60thces Satt.,1776 Chicago,IL Despite the passage of the federal Fair Housing Amendments
n
The American Planning Association has h
Massachusetts Ave..�.Vi..Washington.DC 20036.qAct and the Americans with Disabilities Act,group homes for
All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any the mentally disabled still face intense opposition in many
form or by any means.electronic or mechanical.including photocopying.recording.or communities where they seek to locate.This booklet reviews
by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the strategies and options pursued by planners and care providers
American Planning Association.
® for winning public acceptance of needed support facilities in
Printed on recycled paper,including 50'0°o recycled fiber
and iO'o postconsumer waste. four Bay Area counties.