PC 1993 06 14CHANH~SSEN PLANNING CO.fISSION
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 a~d
Diane Harberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Jeff FaTmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Senior
Planner; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING:
NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR MINNE~SHTR M~NOR HOME--RS ASSOCIATION
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. THE PERMIT SHALL DESCRIBE THE N~TURE ~ EXTENT OF
THE USE ALLOWED.
Public Present:
Name ~ddTe~
3ames Senst 2820 Washta Bay Road
Stew Peterson 2810 Tanagers Lane
Arnie, Anne & Hike 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.
Batzli: So are you recommending any particular course of action regarding
the vacation?
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
Suns 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. Ne 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. Ne don't have the authority to decide it. Ne 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. Ne just had a right to use it for a
specific purpose. Ny 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. 2ust 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. Nhat was there in '$1. Nhat are their non-conforming use rights.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Nould 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. Ny name is
Tom Schoenecker. I'm from 2820 Sandpiper Trail in Minnewashta Manor
subdivision. And I've kind of been involved in this for quite a number of
years. Nhen 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 !'ye been informed that it has to go through a court and the
judge may decide not in our favor. Ne may lose everything we have and not
even have any right to the lake so ! 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 long. 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. Ne
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. Ne 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 '817
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. 3ust 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: 32 homeowners that have the right to access. Not all of them have
boats.
Batzli: I 'm sorry, who's speaking?
Tom Schoenecker: 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 '817
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. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission?
Herb Pfeffer: My name is Herb Pfeffer and I live at 2050 Tanager Lane.
I'm in Lot 10. 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 current. 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, 3ust 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 semblance 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 thew 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 t-line I' lived
there to currently, there's only about 2 or 3 boats in use. It's Mr.
Paterson'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?
It may 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 a 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
questions?
Batzli: We may have some later. Thank you. Is there anyone else that
would like to address the Commission? Yes sir.
Planning Commission Meeting
3une 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 snowmobiles driving on that property. Okay. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission? 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 ll 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 it.
8atzli: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion on the floor to close the
public hearing.
Ledvina moved, Hancino seconded to close the ~,~blic hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Meeting
3une 16, 1993 - Page 7
8atzli: 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 1951 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 visitin8 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 Weimersktrch: 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 years ago...
Mancino: So other than those two things. It's kept up to me.
Arnold Weimerskirch: Well there's other debris.
Mancino: Okay. Is that further in?
Arnold Weimerskirch: 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. S 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 $
Mancino: So that you could fit 5 boats there.
Batzli: So are you convinced that the level of use back in '8i.
Mancino: I'm convinced that the level of use for $ boats docked is fine.
I'm not convinced that there were 5 boats stored on land.
8atzli: 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 park 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: Thank 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 dock, 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 to 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 enlighten 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
3une 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.
Mancino: What about vehicle access?
Scott: I would say no. I think it's been used as rather light duty. I
don't see it as a boat launch. I don't see that as being a use.
8atzli: Matt.
Ledvina: I guess I agree both with Joe and Nancy on the discussion as it
relates to the dock. 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: Okay. Roger. We touched a little bit early on here and I don't
know if the last two commissioners did but the boats on land and storage.
If they're going to be 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
3une 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 anything he wants to.
Batzli: Okay. Diane.
Audience: Can I address the commission?
Batzli: In one minute please. Diane.
Harberts: I apologize for coming in late. I need to just clarify
something with staff. In your report you made comment that you have
concern about the dock setback zone.
Aanenson: Well this is, Councilman Wing is really concerned that all
beachlots meet the dock setback zone which is 10 feet away but conflicts
with the legal non-conforming status. What the ordinance says is that you
can extend 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 maximum 30 inches of depth. Thereby limiting the type of boat that
you can do there. $o if by shortening the dock obviously you're taking
away the number of boats that can be stored at the dock. So that was the
reason I raised 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.
Harberts: 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: And did they miss it for '$6 and
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 here 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 consider 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-of-way. We have a special case here so I guess storing, we're not
really setting a lot of precedence by allowin~ people to use city right-of-
way to store boats on, as I'm understanding this. I'm torn on boats to be
stored. Because with the pictures I guess that were presented, it looks
like we have some boats up on some trees or things like that so I don't
think 5 is, I'm not real comfortable with 5. I might be a little more
comfortable with 2 or something like that. And I guess I'm, the motor
vehicle access as I understand, and what I've seen, i% doesn't look like
it's very conducive to vehicle access. $o I'd be inclined not to recommend
vehicle access. And I would be inclined to go with the 40 feet and 5 boats
at the dock.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Yeah, go ahead.
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: Okay. 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 together on this because as you know these lake right issues get
very emotional. 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?
Aanenson: 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 you go into the cove, the shallower it becomes.
Scott: You're going to run into land on the other side.
Aanenson: Right. So I'm not sure how much further in the cove they can
bring it in.
Scott: Okay.
Aanenson: 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
3une 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: Okay. Any other discussion?
Scott moved, Manctno 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 lO foot L section, 5 boats
at the dock, no vehicle access and no boats stored on land. Also, that the
City allo~ the Homeowners Association right-of-way on Sandpiper Lane. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: When does that go to the City Council?
Aanenson: Probably the 12th. 3uly 12th.
Batzli: Yes sir.
Resident: If the Council approves that, then you...
Aanenson: Yes. You'll get a non-conforming permit that will be recorded
at the 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 F~ILY AND LOCATE~) AT 7SO0 FRONTIER
TRAIL, LOTUS LAKE WOODS, ~ANNA FORQIER'~) HUBERT V, FORCIER,
Public Present:
Name
Nancy Manarin
Wyck & Lori Linder
Bert & Phyllis Swanson
Robert $omers
Zoe Zuzek
Bill Kirkvold
Joy Warrior
Robert Davis
Leanna Forcier
Hubert Forcier
7552 Great Plains Blvd.
7550 Great Plains Blvd.
401 Del Rio Drive
7409 Frontier Trail
407 Del Rio Drive
201 Frontier Court
7423 Frontier Trail
4010 West 65th Street
9597 Creek Knoll Road, Eden Prairie
18515 6th Avenue No, Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 14
Name
Brian Mumdstock
Kathy & Ted deLancey
Addre~
SE1, -9001 E. Bloomington Frwy, Bloomington
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-Jarl: 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 range 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 side. 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? $harmin, 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 tn.1941 by Hubert Forcter. 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 tots
to scale on the proposed 4 1/2 acres. The lots down to the lake are very
deep in terms of depth from the Frontier Trail. They'll be off to the side
Planning Commission Heeting
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 t-he 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. $o 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 look 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 podding 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 l, 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
Al-Jarl: Yes.
Robert Davis: How do you read the.
Al-Jarl: The way ~ 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
line, then you have to have the 90 foot frontage.
Robert Davis: Okay. If it had curved...
Al-Jarl: 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 Davis: Okay. I'd like to clarify item 6 which talks about, I did
speak to 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 have a question 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? 8ut 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?
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 they share 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.
That way there's no sharing of the driveways actually. 3ust common, or
separate driveways. 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 td 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 S has been squeezed quite a bit
in size because of the ponding and a conservation easement does take quite
a share of 5. It takes...it takes some here and it takes some here. I
would like to limit the conservation eaesment on $ 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-Jarl: 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 Davis: Right. So for that reason, I think it's generally I think
it's a good idea for everyone but Lot $ 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'm going to replace it with you know, if that's a 24 inch tree, would
12-2 inch trees or 3-4 inch or whatever ratio of replacement trees. 8ut
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 that we 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
and 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,
driveway 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 replace the trees that he's donated the land. That seems to be a double
taking or asking of him. First of all he's giving land extra for the pond
size and then you're asking because there are trees there, they should be
replaced. Maybe 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
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 i6, i993 - Page 20
Robert Davis: But for the reforestation plan, replacement, I would like to
see...lO~ 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-Jarl: 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 you 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 they 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,
basically would replace that existing ditch, ravine or whatever that is.
What if that 42 inch culvert wasn't there? Would the ditch remain?
Robert Davis: There is a 36 inch culvert there.
Harberts: No, there's a ditch there.
Robert Davis: Oh. There's a culvert under the road. The ditch becomes
part of the 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.
Planning 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 by-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 excess 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 a 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 l0 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.
8atz 1 i: 0 kay.
Ledvina: As it relates to the existing residence, is there a well there?
water well?
Robert Davis: Yes there is. It has been abandoned.
Pianning 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 we should give you a variance on that to allow that 72 foot.
Robert Davis: 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: The requirement is 90?
Batzli: But he's going to submit modified plans on the cul-de-sac to try
and comply with the 90 feet.
Robert Davis: You see, I think it's on the cul-de-sac because if you walk
out from your front yard here and your lot line, .you hit the cul-de-sac but
technically 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: So 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
3une 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 recommendedi 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 down the edge of Frontier Trail have been fairly significant in
cutting 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. $o 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? Which condition is that?
A1-3aff: 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 Force, 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
project. 5o 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...trying to do?
Hempel: For a water quality treatment pond to NURP standards, that's
typically what they would use. It's a 2 1/2 inch rainfall over a 24 hour
period. For the settlement of.
3ay Warrior: Why would...
Hempel: That is with regards to flooding of city streets and so forth. The
storm sewer drainage, the pipe systems that are put in the city streets are
for a 10 year storm event. But the ponding capability for extracting
nutrients and sediments is basically a 2 to 5 year storm increment.
Batzli: Okay. There was another question back here. Yes sir. Can you
come up to the 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 $ 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 traffiq 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 any 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 possibly could.
Batzli: How far off the lot line is your house?
Bert Swanson: About 12 feet.
Batzli: About 12 feet, okay.
Mancino: And the trees that you wanted saved are right on the lot line or
are they?
Bert Swanson: There's one nice oak' that's about 5 inch diameter and that's
about 2 feet in off of mine.
Mancino: On the other side?
Bert Swanson: Yeah. On Lot number 1.
Harberts: Does 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 6 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 about 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: Okay. 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.
3ce Zuzek: I don't want to take up too much of your time. My name is 3ce
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 Rio 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. ~11 voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed.
Harberts: 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: Right. And so we're going to be improving water quality because
we would not be able to do these site improvements for years to come.
Hempel: That's correct.
Batzli: Okay. Go ahead.
Harberts: I understand what the residents are saying with regard to the
trees. You know I think it's a little bit of an aggressive project too in
terms of my personal preference but I think a landowner has the opportunity
and has the right to develop the land. They've got economic criteria.
Things like that that they have to certainly keep in mind. The city
provides this opportunity by setting the minimum codes, zoning, whatever.
Requirements. I am of concern. If we've got a feasibility report that
says it should be a bigger pond, because of the water problem. We've got
some residents here that also have a concern about the water condition.
Lotus Lake is a popular lake. I would recommend, I'd be i'nclined 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 ponding 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
understand 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 3oint 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 so 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
buffer in. Put the 2 foot buffer in and once the owners purchase the
property, if they want to work out a deal with themselves, you know fine.
But I think 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 think 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
conservation 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
3oe 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 enc~)urage 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: We're very close. I think we're looking at .15 acre feet of
storage out there. The problems we have with the pond, it required
steepening the side slopes of the pond and that becomes a liability 'and
danger issue 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 acre feet, or yeah. .15 acre feet of storage, we end up steepening up
those side slopes or increasing the circumference of the pond which chips
into more of the bulldable area of the lot.
Ledvina: So 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 20~ 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 smaller house on, you know are we going to get our .727 Is
that even an option? You know this certainly isn't my area of expertise
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 30
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 Iot
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: Nell 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 di~tng 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. And we didn't feel that based on this site that, according to the
consultant, we didn't feel it was justifiable in this case.
Ledvina: 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 mentioned, 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 scenario 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 I 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.
Batzli: Okay. 3ge.
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 Heeting
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 we've 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 us anyway. 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 surprised it hasn't been worked out already. Number 6. I think it's
obvious that if in fact the city consultant and engineers have modified the
staff report, or the feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo and Associates
that condition should be modified to reflect that change. That there's a
smaller number of footage associated with that pond. I don't think it's a
problem.
hedvina: Is there another reference that we can use for that?
Batzli: Well 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 ponds
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 aye 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 wi~h the city for
construction, maintenance and cost sharing of the storm water improvements
period. So 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?
A1-3aff: No.
Batzli: 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
homeowners to maintain some screening between Lot I 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 or 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. Ne would like to consider the back as an option and if you
suggest, we could take it up with the Council. Okay.
Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Does anyone have a motion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #93-10 as shown on the plans dated, is that correct, May 17th?
A1-3aff: 17th.
Ledvina: 1993 subject to the following conditions. As outlined in the
staff report with the following changes and additions. Condition number 6
shall read, 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. Number 7.
Reword the first part of the first sentence. The applicant shall provide a
reforestation 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 description.
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 same general location to minimize disruption in tree removal.
Driveways 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 3. Block
1, Lots 1, 2 and 3. There's only one block right?
Batzli: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting
3une 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: Discussion. I would like to add a friendly amendmeot to
recommendation number 4 that says applicant will meet with staff to resolve
the frontage issue on Lot 1, Block 1.
Batzli: Okay· 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,
sub3ect to the following conditions:
I ·
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the current edition of "City's Standard and Specifications'and
Detail Plates"· Detailed street and utility construction plans and
specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval·
·
The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed
District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply
with their conditions of approval.
.
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.
·
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 be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 34
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.
·
The applicant shall provide a reforestation plan on the site Nhich 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. Ail
healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to
be removed. The applicant shall provide to staff a plan Nhich shows
the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall
provide the legal description for staff approval.
The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide drainage and utility
easement over the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines in
Lots 1, 2, 4 and 7, Block l.
The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the
final plat rights over all ponding and drainage areas·
10.
The existing 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.
The extension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5, and also the
driveNays 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 existing 15 foot drainage utility easement through Lot 7, Block
shall be increased to 20 feet wide.
13. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25' for Lots l, 2 and 3,
Block l.
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 like in an effort to reduce
tree 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
grading.
16. The applicant shall pay full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication.
17. The applicant shall ~ork Nith adjacent homeowners on property
screening issues.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 35
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli:
Al-Jaff:
Batzli:
working with the neighbors and staff.
And when does this go to City Council Sharmin?
July 12th.
July 12th. Thank you very much for coming in.
Thank you.
I appreciate the
PUBLIC HEARING:
DOUG HANSON, WEST ONE PROPERTIES FOR A PUD TO REZON~ THE PROPERTY FROM BG,
GENERAL BUSINESS TO PLANNED UNIT D~VELOpM~NT, A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT
LOTS 3, 4, AND $, 8LOCK 2, BURDICK PARK INTO ONE LOT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 16,335 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF AN OFFICE AND M~UFACTURING FACILITY
LOCATED AT 7900 KERBER BOULEVARD, WEST ONE EXPANSION.
Public Present:
Name
Doug Hanson
17001Stodo-la Road, Minnetonka
Sharmin Al-Jarl 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 Doug 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
originally 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 is. 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 ~he 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
3une 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 Hanson: 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.
So 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, one 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
$218,359.00 towards the tax increment financing that stayed in Chanhassen.
The parking, 59 is absolutely necessary. We had to struggle to get down to
this hard cover 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. 3ust 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 Nas 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?
A1-3aff: 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 how is it going to be screened? How's the loading going to be
screened?
Al-Jarl: Over 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 side.
Mancino: Yeah, but the trees are out so you can't see it like you can in
the winter.
Al-Jaff: Anything that will be stored will be behind the building.
Mancino: On the west side?
Al-Jarl: 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?
A1-3aff: 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 can 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 truc-ks and Mr. Hanson is asking
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 38
for more than 4, correct?
Al-Jarl: 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 Cbaska 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-Jarl: 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. $o basically the limit on the size
of the truck is 9,000 pounds.
Mancino: 9,000 tons or 9,000 pounds?
A1-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-Jarl: I asked Dave.
Hempel: Larger than a pick-up truck.
Mancino: So it would be limited to that size when we change the zoning
from BG to PUD?
Al-Jarl: 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?
Doug Hanson: I think we can live with $ unless...
Mancino: But we're going to limit you to 4.
Doug Hanson: I can't...
Harberts: What's the reason for limitin~ it to 4? Is there some kind of
ordinance or what's your guide?
Al-Jarl: 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 ~oin~ 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 efl:ectively limit the
size of the truck that's there but ! 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-Jarl: Delivery trucks.
Doug Hanson: No semi 's.
Batzli: No semi's.
Scott: Yeah, they don't need semi
A1-3aff: Medium sized trucks.
Batzli: Okay. So we could say no semi's parked but however many delivery
trucks.
Scott: They're going to take deliveries. They may get deliveries in
semi's or something but they're not going to be parked overnight.
Batzli: Yeah. Well, that's what we"~e concerned about is that this
becomes a collection point for rusting trucks or has a bunch of semi's
idling overnight.
Scott: Yeah, and 9,000 gross weight will control. Will eliminate that
problem.
Al-Jarl: But you don't want to put a limit on the number of trucks that
may be 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? Where was I? 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
June 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 Oave 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 wk,~'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 your 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 with 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?
Mancino: Sure.
Doug Hanson: I have to raise it up 2 feet. I'd rather leave it all level
but I have to raise it to get the water out of that front yard...to get the
water around the building and over to...big storm and the whole building
gets flooded 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
know jogs up all the way up. As the grade goes up; the building goes up.
Mancino: Yeah, but I think that's been thought through very well
architecturally because it has .different levels meeting each other and it
keeps going and it just doesn't have one split.
Doug Hanson: Well, I don't know any other way out of it. You know it is a
step up but I don't think we should try to hide it.
Batzli: 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
storage. 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. And 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
condition 4 that there's no unscreened outdoor storage permitted?
Mancino: Yes. And do we have a problem there in, I know that the Highway
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: Nell that recycling. Isn't there a metal recycling?
Doug Hanson: ...but that's not outdoor storage.
Mancino: Well there are pallets all over.
Doug Hanson: The pallets will go inside when we have the new addition...
A1-3aff: It still is a condition of approval under number 16 that no
outdoor unscreened storage of materials be permitted. And it specifies
trash storage, shipping pallets or other materials. It's on page 15.
Condition number 16. When it says, defining retail.
Batzli: Right. What I think the issue was that the original condition
when we looked at the concept plan was that there shall be no outdoor
storage 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 be 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 they've 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 of
the building there's a 28 foot area that is exclusively for cars. 26 foot,
excuse me. When I measured it I screwed up. 8ut. 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 be
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.
Mancino: 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. 8ut 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.
Hancino: What did they do at Market Square where they have those
recycl ing?
Al-Jarl: They do have trash enclosure on each side but then you would be
able to access 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 the building.
Batzli: You're not going to be able to screen this recycle area without
taking out parking stalls and he's already short parking stalls. Like to
punch any other holes in our nice plan here?
Mancino: I think that's it.
Batzli: She's done 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-Jarl: 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
SO.
Batzli: That he paid the first time?
A1-3aff: Yeah.
Batzli: So you want to get him now.
Al-Jarl: And I talked to Pa~k and Rec's Director and he still wants the
fee paid for 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 '79.9
Doug Hanson: We didn't do it illegal. We got a permit and went through
the process. That buiIding 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. 3oe.
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 do4~gh-, they should be able to
buy trucks 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 accident 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
closely 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
back of Market Square, it looks pretty good right now so I think' this is
going to be 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: No. No.
8atzli: Okay. You like it as is?
Scott: Yeah.
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 maybe 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 not 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
Sune 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 wiii 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.
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.
Batzl i: Okay. Diane.
Harberts: I'm 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 may 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 on 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 this, 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 element 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 ak,Jut 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.
8atzli: Well, is an evergreen tree like that considered an overstory
tree? No, 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 given to us exactly, it didn't look bad but maybe it would if I
really knew what it was going to look like. 8ut 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.
A1-3aff: 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
windows uniform because then it would be even more noticeable I would
think. I don't know. I don't know either. That would seem to me to
exaccerbate the problem. If the windows were identical size but offset, if
you're trying to make it look like there's not this jo~. Well I don't
know.
Mancino: Well actually I would like them all to line up. Not just the
windows but everything else...perfect world is what I'm saying.
Al-Jarl: Staff would recommend that the same windows that are being used
on the building today be used with the addition. You would have some
continuancy 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 up, 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 ~uess is, there shall be no
outdoor unscreened storage except for the existing trash enclosure and
recycle area. 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 be 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. $o we
don't see rusting hulks there. Not that you're going to do it. I didn't
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 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 wlill 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 lO trucks?
Doug Hanson: Well, as far as I know that would be fine at this point but
if Chaska 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 trudk so any
brakes, we should just have one brake...and you lose the flexibility of
placing the punch presses around.
Scott: Do they have to mount those things to the concrete floor?
Doug Hanson: Do they what?
Scott: The punch presses, do they have to mount those to the'floor?
Yeah, I could see where that would waste some space.
Doug Hanson: I know there's one step up where you have...one area to the
other...
Ledvina: 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.
Batzli: 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?
Al-Jaff: Because it's a PUD and because we wanted higher standards, staff
recommended 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'slthousands. 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 Hanson: 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 beEter materials if he can,
because it's a PUD, if he can demonstrate with some real cost figures and
something 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
unconvinced. Is there anything else that people would like to discuss or
is there a motion here?
Mancino: I know the electrical box in the front, you have to paint that
the same color as the building?
Doug Hanson: I don't know...to do that.
Harberts: I don't know if they'll let you do that.
Mancino: Well it's kind of the same color anyway.
Harberts: No, I think there's codes. -~me kind of codes.
Doug Hanson: I don't know...
Al-Jarl: 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 8G, General 8usiness 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
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 48
5 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 lO 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.
Harberts: Second.
Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment to that and that is on 3.
That the rock face concrete block shall remain as the main material used on
the building and it shall be painted. Because we're painting the whole
building, correct?
Scott: Oh, anyway? I don't know. Are we? ts that what that ivory color
is?
Harberts: Yeah.
Scott: Oh, okay. That's friendly. I'll accept that one.
Batzli: So what does conditions 3 read now?
Scott: Rock face concrete block shall remain as the main material used on
the building 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 ther-e?
Ma nc i no: Yeah.
Batzli: So you don't have expansion of the building matches and enhances
the architectural design of the existing building?
Scott: That's stri ken from condition
Batzli: Do you want to ask the applicant to look into setting back the
bu i 1 d ing?
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, ~eneral 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 ~ril 19, 1993,
revised June 5, 1993 and with a waiver of a 5 acre minimum PUO zone
requirement subject to the following conditions:
·
Preliminary and Final plat approval combinging Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block
2, 8urdick 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.
The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural
design of the existing building-. Rock face concrete block shall remain
as 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.
There shall be no unscreened outdoor storage permitted. Existing
outdoor storage to be placed in approved, screened enclosures where
applicable.
·
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
50 feet from the railroad right-of-way. Revised plans reflecting those
two elements shall be submitted for staff review·
6. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase'~he
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.
·
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 I erosion control fence shall be installed around the perimeter
along the grading limits.
Planning Commission Meeting
June !6, 1993 - Page 50
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
expansion of an existing office/light manufacturing use. It is
intended that this use be operated and maintained to preserve its low
intensity character to ensure its compatibility with sqrrounding uses
and the greater Chanhassen Central Business District.
b. Permitted Uses.
The permitted uses in this zone are limited to the light industrial/
office or less intensive uses than the existing use. The uses shall be
limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to
whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall
make that interpretation.
1. Light Manufacturing*
2. Retail**
3. Newspaper and small printing offices
4. Veterinary Clinic
5. Animal Hospital
6. Offices
*Light manufcturing 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, shipping
pallets, or other materials
- overnight parking of a maximum of ten delivery trucks
- no overnight parking of semi trailers or inof~erable vehicles
- all parking must be accommodated on-site
**Retail uses are subject to the following limitations:
- signage 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 archit~turally 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-Jeff: We were going to strike condition 5 but it wasn't part of the
motion.
Ledvina: But he's met it.
Scott: So that's why I just left it.
Batzli: Okay. My other concern was that I share some of Nancy's concer-ns
about that and I'd like to see a little bit more ~;uidance, especially in
condition 3 regarding matching the...Thank you. This goes to City Council
when?
Al-Jarl: On the 28th.
Batzli: 28th?
Al-Jarl: Of June. That's next Council meeting.
Mancino: I've got to go to that one too.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONE 31.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY ~ONED A2, AGRICU~TURA~ ESTATES TO PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEYELOPMENT; A pRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THE P~RCEL INTO
48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AN~) A WETLAND ALTERAT)ON PERMIT TO ALTER AND
MITIGATE WETLANDS. THE PROPERTY IS ~OCATED W~ST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, TROTTERS RIDGE. TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim Ostenson
John Pr ins
7808 Creekridge Circle #310, Bloomington
5120 Edina Industrial Blvd.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 52
30 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 i'n 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 predictament that we do install additional traffic signage and speed
advisitory signs on those sharp curves to advise motorists. Being that
this is a local neighborhood, a looped street that goes through traffic so
generally 90~ of the traffic is going to be local traffic and once they
drive it they're very familiar with it.
Harberts: So you're okay then with it?
Hempel: We are comfortable from an engineering perspective.
Batzli: Okay. 3o Ann, was that all you had for us?
Olsen: Yeah, 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: $o 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 3ames 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 ail inclusive in this list?
Jim Ostenson: Yes. Is that right 3oel?
Harberts: Okay. Even with the 60?
Olsen: We'll verify exactly.
Jim Ostenson: We can verify that with the staff if there's. I 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. $o 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: $o 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 ~ublic hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearin~ ~as 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 public 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: 3oe.
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 Heeting
3une 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 pToperty. 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: And 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 3ce. 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?
Olean: 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 sguare 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.
shouldn't be a problem.
It
3im Ostenson: We have, as 3o Ann said, I mean this is probably the 20th'
rendition that we've been on on this plat. We were hoping to be here about
6 weeks ago 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
communities but I happen to be on the partners in the Big Woods controversy
over in Eden Prairie. We understand tKees and we understand the importance
of trees 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
addition 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. $o
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 done 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
3une 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. 3o 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 ~oing to
see? Is there going to be any other changes to the plan?
Olsen: No. I don't see any bi~ chan~;es really. I think the plan's goin~
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.
8atzli: Okay, your name is?
3oel 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...
8atzli: What's our requirement for frontage 3o Ann? Like for example Lots
15, 16, 17, 18, 8lock 1. Are those goin~ 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: Which 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?
3oel Cooper: Yeah.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 58
Olsen: Oh okay. Well then yeah, those need to be adjusted to 90 foot.
8atzli: 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 Cooper: 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 impact 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 setback...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 and the house pad moving. If we're able to maintain a 25 foot
setback on 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. $o 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, no. 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 be
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. $o
right now I think it'd be good to keep a general one in there.
Harberts: I'd like to just comment on the 25. You know I don't like 25
foot setbacks. 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.
8atzli: 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
thew'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. $o 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 look at that particular aspect of the plan more closely than me so you
want to 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
anything 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's 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 they'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 what 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 back 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
applicant remove the trees in the right-of-way that are killed by
construction in the next several years. And the 25 foot setback where
necessary to save trees and that would be submitted, to staff for approval
or what have you. Having said that, is there a motion to either table this
or to approve?
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.
Ledvina: 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?
3im Ostenson: Can I say something?
Batzli: Sure can.
3ira 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.
3im Ostenson: Well the changes are, there really haven't been any changes.
We're asking for one lot line to be shifted or...the right-of-way that is
shown. The road alignment.
Batzli: What 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 apparently 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 have to adjust tree loss. What we're saying is, okay. All these
things 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.
8atzli: What do you want to see Matt?
Ledvina: Well, I would like to see a more detailed tree removal plan in
terms of 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
footages 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
removed eventually by the homeowners.
Ledvina: Well the homeowners have to understand that when they buy that
lot. They have no backyard. If that 10t is going to be developed that
way.
Olsen: Sure.
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 Lots 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 to 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 mind too, I don't really, when I see dotted lines and all
this kind of stuff I'm 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 as a worst case scenario and then maybe by some custom grading or
repositioning of house pads or something like that. 8ut 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
everything 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 Heeting
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 3oe 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 they're going to do, adjust the lot lines and stuff.
Scott: Specifically 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?
Ledvina: ...interim meeting for the Planning Commission?
Scott: Yeah.
Harberts: 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 just figure an hour?
Batzli: We 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 is something that they're proposing.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 65
Olsen: We've got that as a condition too already.
Harberts: $o 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 it.
Ledvina: Sure.
Batzli: And I don't know that the rest of us want to see it back. I guess
unless 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 have 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
personally, 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 ~,at 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: Can I have another motion.
Harberts: I'll move Case #93-2 PUD. Do you have a date?
Ledvina: ...so many 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: May 19th.
Harberts: 5/19 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 %o fill portions of the ag-urban wetlands and to create
additional wetland areas as sited in the plan. And to move the staff
recommendations 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.
Harberts: 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.'
Batzlt: 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.
Harberts: That will be included in the developer's agreement? I believe
that's it.
Mancino: The City Engineer on the 60 foot that in some cases the grading
doesn't have to be the full 60. The grading on the side of the right-of-
way. We can keep some of those trees.
Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Discussion.
Mancino: Discussion is on the 17 trees that we're t~ying to save. By
going to the 60 foot wide but not having to grade the right-of-way in those
17 areas. To work with staff in figuring out where those are. Can anyone
make more sense out of that?
Batzli: Was 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: Right. 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.
PIanning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1993 - Page 68
Harberts: I'm sure that staff will.
Manclno: To brlng plans to Matt.
Batzli: Well, yeah. I don't want to make that a condition of approval but
I thlnk 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 thmt we saw for Lake Susan. Those kind of plmnm.
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.
Marberts: I think the motion included the fact that all this information
was put together in time for the staff to review it, comment on it and move
it forward to Council.
Batzli: Dave, on the draintile, number 22. Are you going to get, you're
going 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...
discharging 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.
Mempel: 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 o4 the hill. In some cases
one neighbor will have a problem and the other neighbor won't.
Batzli: $o you're just going to leave it up to the, who are you going to
leave it up to to connect to your drainttles is my guestion.
Mempel: We have a city ordinance that requires approval and permit for any
kind of discharge in the city street already. Me 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 realtty. 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 ail 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.
8atzli: More 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?
Harberts: Yes.
Batzli: Something like that. Otherwise I think it's going to be pointless
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 mould 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
187
Jim Ostenson: Yes.
Ledvina: And one other thing that we did on Lake Susan Hills. We had, we
decided that these lO 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-sac 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. 3ust
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?
Ledvina: I'd rather see it tabled.
Batzli: Nell you 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
here 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...
8atzli: You don't want to appear to support this by amending it?
Ledvina: No.
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.
Batzli: 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 area where the sewer was going to go down and the trees were
going to 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 Heating
3une 16, [993 - Page 71
Hempel: I think we felt that where it's ~oing 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.
Olean: 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 ameDded
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 R2, Agricultural Estate
to PUD, Planned Unit Development, approval of Preliminary Plat #9~-2 PUD to
subdivide 32.5 acres of property into 49 single family lots, and approval
of Wetland Alteration Permit #93-2 $~P, as shc~n on the pla~ dated May 19,
1993 and 3une 16, 1993, and subject to the following conditions:
·
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 tag
number, size and type of trees.
·
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·
·
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
·
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·
·
The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed
District, DNR, Carver County Public Works, NWCC, 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 8est Management
Practices Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
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
Improvement Project 91-17B.
14. All driveways shall access the interior streets. No driveway access
will be allowed onto Salpin Boulevard. Driveway access to Lot 33,
Block 1 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
Block 2.
18. The applicant shall extend the storm sewer to maintain the
neighborhood 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 butldin~ 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, N~ Bell, cable boxes, street lamp, trees, shrubs, etc, pursuant
to Chanhassen City Ordinance, Section 9-1.
25.
26.
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 greater than 150' from County Road 117.
\
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 SO~ 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
3une 16, 1993 - Page 74
31.
32.
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.
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 1=es credit for this condition. The entirety ol= this trail
shall be constructed above the 993 elevation mark.
33. Staff will work with the City ~ttorney to draft an agr. eeHaent 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. R 25' front yard setback will be permitted where necessary to preserve
natural features.
35. ~11 lots shall meet the 90' frontage requirements.
36. Staff shall review the location of the trail connections.
all voted in favor except Ledvtna and Scott who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Batzli: And your reasons 1=or voting against are, for the record?
Ledvina: Well I don't know.
Batzli: I mean it's pretty clear but it's really nice, it's right at the
end so then they can pick it up.
Ledvina: I don't think we've done our work.
Batzli: Okay. Sos.
Scott: I don't have a feel for the tree placement removal and I wanted to
see it again.
Batzli: Okay. And 3o Ann, when does this go to Council?
Olsen: Suly 12th? I have it at the end of 3une. That's the wrong date,
sorry. So August, is that okay with you guys? I've got it on the 28th.
Suns 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 backed 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 Saturday 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 3uly. 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.
8atzli: 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's a Highway 5 Task Force meeting.
Harberts: That starts at 5:00 though doesn't it? ...like 7:30?
Mancino: This is when we're going to vote on everything. That's on the
23rd. I don't know. I mean it may be over by 8:30 or something but.
Batzli: Isn'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
3une 16, 1993 - Page 77
8atzli: Okay. We'll all have a breakfast meeting.
Scott: That's okay.
Batzli: Is there something you'd like to share with the group 30 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 goin~ 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 hopir~ 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: Thanks.
Mancino: Have you heard from Paul?
Olsen: Haven't heard from Paul. He was supposed to, we were supposed to
hear from Para, his wife today. He's in Peru. Paul's in Peru.
8atzli: 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
Hancino 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