PC 1993 07 07CIt~NH~SSEN PL~CNING CO~MISSION
REGULAR MEETING ·
JULY 7, 1993
Vice Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Nancy Manctno and Ladd
Conrad
...
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli, Joe Scott and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; and Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
PUBLIC H~AE~NG:
JOHN PRZYMUS FOR AN INTERIM USE PER~IT FOR ~ION OF TE ~F ~IVI~
R~_~ M~XI-MINI PUTT C~EX TO I~~ E~~I~ ~ ~ ~ILDI~ ~ ~
B~TTING C~GE L~TED ~ ~~TY Z~D ~2. ~I~~ ESTATE .~ L~ATED
AT T~ ~RT~EST C~R ~ HI~Y 5 ~ ~PIN ~EV~. ~I~S
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman
Conrad called the public hearing to order.
John Pryzmus: First of all we don't, I won't entertain that you look at
Option 2. That's not an option.
Conrad: John, would you come up to the microphone and then the people at
home can see you. · I know it's a big audience tonight.
John Pryzmus: Yes. Option 2 is not something that I would entertain...
and so I don't want an interim use permit. That won't work. Going back to
Option 1. Their request for denial or recommendation that you would deny
this. First I'd like to have Jo Ann explain to you the difference between
the holding tank that I have and the septic tank that they think should be
there. And that it would benefit my customers and the city and whoever if
I have a different. First of all, the city made me put in the holding
tank. Now you explain to them what would be a better reason to having it.
Olsen: Well I don't know that the city made you put in the holding tanks.
What happened was that when you first went through this process, you did
designate two sites protected for septic sites which were destroyed by the
alterations to the site.
John Pryzmus: No, they were not destroyed until after the city said I had
to have the holding tank. Once ~ou put the holding tank in, there was no
reason to...
Olsen: Well then our facts are different but.
John Pryzmus: The reality...because they do not know. The holding tank is
something that you fill up and when it's full you pump it. My bathrooms do
not work if it's full so I can't be open for business if my bathrooms don't
work. So the truck comes and... A septic system that they say could have
been used, before they changed this to a tank, could possibly now be a
hazard because the ground water is so high. They wouldn't even be
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 2
functional for an expansion so what I have now would never be a probiem for
the city of Chanhassen or for any of my customers or for anyone else. $o
that is just something that the city staff was using to do something. The
applicant has expanded this site without prior approval. I did put in now
a building, two 8 x 10 storage sheds. They weren't an expansion to my
building. They were just storage sheds. You can buy them at Menards.
They look like just to see them sitting there so I wanted them to look kind
of like the building that I have. $o that is the intent. £verytime I get
in here before Conrad and whoever else is sitting here, because the City's
request I come here. Usually either in a letter or summons or whatever,
and usually it's been because on my original plan, which I've shown these
people time and time again, everything was approved and I did do it all at
the same time .... I've owned that property since 1990, 1980 and I've been
working on it since 1980. I've been planting trees. Doing things. I
finally opened for business in 1987 and I've been building on it and making
it better every year. The only people that have a hassle With this, not my
customers. They all love it. People of Chanhassen love it. The only
people that have a problem with it is city staff. They are continually
hassling me and making it impossible for to run a smooth business. First
of all because I've never been able to have a building to put my equipment
in. Put my fertilizer in. My seed in. I always have to be moving it
around. It's always getting wet or it's always a mess and that's because
the city has decided that they don't want me to ever have a... I thought
we had everything done last time...Now I guess we don't have it done again.
$o like I say...I've already spent half a million dollars making this place
nice and they're going to say that they're going to take these, next year
tell me I'm out of here because I .... I won't do it. You should, from my
point of view, look at it as, what is good for the city. Is this going to
look good? Is it screened right? Is it bermed right? First of all, I
don't have to expand my parking. The building I want to add is-not for
video machines. It's for video lessons for golf. You set up TV screens in
private booths to tell you, you take movies of a person hitting golf balls
and then you watch it. It's not going to be a video operation. I have 4
of these machines. I looked at some of...but I think from a planning
standpoint, is it good for the city? Or is it bad? Is it something that
the children can use? That families can come and use. Is it going to be
detrimental to us as citizens of this community? Obviously no. Planning
standpoint, they think it's detrimental because they recommend denial of
everything I've ever asked for. That place has been detrimental to the
city and the people of Chanhassen according to Chanhassen staff from the
day I proposed it and that's all I have to say. You make your decision on
what you think is good for the city, not on what they dream up every time.
Conrad: Talk to us a little bit about the holding tank.
Olsen: A holding tank is as he described it. It has to get pumped out.
It's only allowed as an alternative if you cannot have septic sites. So
again, we obviously disagree on how it happened but the two sites were
designated and that's what supposed to be used o~ the site. Then going
back through the records it appears that those sites were damaged. Could
not be used and his only alternative was to do the holding tanks. I don't
believe the city required him to. Actually I remember there was a lot of
discussion whether or not he could even do anything and the holding tanks
were the alternative that they allowed.
Planning Commission Meeting
3uly 7, 1993 - Page 3
Conrad: Yeah I was here unfortunately, and that's my recollection too. In
terms of the use of this property. Yeah, the holding tanks were not the
preferred use as I recall. But now that that property may change uses,
does it make sense to have, for us to change it at this point in time, or
force him to change it?
Olsen: Right. That was an issue from the Building Official and as long as
we have the proof that it is being properly pumped and properly disposed
of, I think that we are comfortable with keeping it the way it is. With
the holding tanks.
Conrad: Good. It's a public hearing. Any other comments from neighbors
or residents? Jo Ann, I was looking for a mailing list. Did this go
out? Did we mail to the residents?
Olsen: Yes we did. Yeah. We always have one, Partridge, or art Partridge
has always the one person that would show up but he might have moved.
Conrad: Build a berm and art will be here.
Ledvtna moved, Hancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: another question before we open it up. Diane, what do you think?
You've got to catch up. This has a lot of history.
Harberts: Yeah, it certainly does. Well ! guess from, you know I've
driven by Swings and I think the owner made a positive comment and I
support that. I think it is a nice facility. It seems to be used quite a
bit by people. It's certainly in the past 3 years that I've been out and
about in the area I've certainly noticed some improvements. I have no
problem with the expansion. I welcome development. I welcome business. I
have a problem when there's a process that's been established. When the
process is not followed. That's the only way that basically can in a sense
insure that, basically what's best for the community. It's your process in
which to manage the development, different things like that. That.'s why
codes are established. I guess I've worked with staff myself outside of,
just on a professional basis and I guess I '11 differ with you on it. I
have very positive feedback in terms of that staff always looks out for
what's best for in the community. I guess I'm not, I'm familiar with the
1995 study area. I know it's a priority for Chanhassen. So I would like
to hear from others on the Commission with regard to an interim permit
versus what I understand would be a non-conforming permit as the option.
The only thing that really bothers me is simply that it seems that the
process has been set up. The owner went through the process earlier.
Early 90's and I'm Just having a little difficulty understanding really why
the process wasn't followed for the continued expansion. The way I
understand it is that when there's a building permit, it usually has a
termination time on it. It's usually good for a year or something like
that. and then they come back and renew it if you haven't completed, and I
don't know if that's the issue here or Just a misunderstanding in terms of
here's the overall plan and I'm Just going to work on it for a period of
time. Sut we have a process in place, I think 'communication needs to
continue so that's what I'm just uncomfortable with. That there's really a
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 4
good faith effort, and I'm not sensing that in terms of the communication
to keep the city up to date. Or if there's Just a misunderstanding or
what. Overall I certainly.support the expansion but given the fact that
it's the 1995 study area, and really what is best for the community and
that's really I think, you hit it right on the nose. What is best for the
community? When you have a study area, you don't know what that is yet.
And the interim permit certainly gives us the opportunity to have more
flexibility but from a dollar perspective I can understand where the owner
would certainly prefer to have that non-conforming permit. I don't know if
the city's in a position to want to issue that.
Conrad: Well that's a good question. The applicant is not asking for
that.
Olsen: Yeah, it wouldn't be a non-conforming use. His Only option is an
interim use permit. You don't have to set a date on that. It can be
considered a conditional use permit, similar to a conditional use permit
but the interim use permit allows you to put that deadline. You don't
necessarily have to tie it into anything. It no longer is a conditional
use permit. That's been switched so if you look under this district,
miniature golf, driving ranges are now only permitted as an interim use
permit. You have to, as far as what the process is. When this was tabled
at the last time it was because he had so many outstanding issues. He did
complete those issues and that's where we contacted him again and said,
Mr. Pryzmus you now need to continue now to bring that into compliance but
your other expansion you have to get the interim use permit. And then
during that conversation back and forth to go through that process, we
discovered more expansion had taken place and so again that's where we said
you have to get the interim use permit to get permission for what you've
done. There's not a non, I mean he doesn't, there's not a non-conforming
use permit that we can give him.
Harberts: So that's not an option then?
Olsen: That's not an option.
Ledvina: So essentially an interim use permit is his only option?
Olsen: His only option, right. I mean now that it's going through the
process.
Mancino: And it could be when we have done the 1995 study area, that a
golf range does fit in in the 1995 study area. That it then can be a
regular, what does it then become?
Olsen: It's still an interim use permit.
Mancino: It's still an interim use permit?
Olsen: Yeah.
Mancino: But it could go on past the date of when we have rezoning or,
okay.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 5
Olsen: Yeah. You don't necessarily have to assign a-date. A termination.
It allows you that option. But that's really his only option now. For any
expansion, or else he can have denial of any of the expansion beyond what
was originally approved with his conditional use permit and he can just be
maintained at that, the old conditional use permit. But then you have the
question, do you have to make him revert back to what was originally
approved.
Harberts: Does the city feel that they have the understanding of what type
of expansion will happen?
Olsen: In the study area?
Harberts: Ah no. With regards to all the different things that are going
on there.
Olsen: Well this is what I've asked him to do his ultimate plan so I think
what you're seeing now is what he wants to do. With the batting cages.
He's always wanted to have those but it was never approved with the
original approval.
Harberts: And what ! understand is that staff can support the septic tank,
holding tank as long as there's documentation?
Olsen: Yeah. We just want proof that it's being disposed of correctly and
we are not opposed to the use. We've recommended approval in the past so.
Harberts: You feel that there's, you 'know in terms of the process, that
you both have an understanding in terms of what needs to occur in terms of
communication?
Olsen: Yes. I would think so.
Harberts: Basically that's the jist of my comments.
Conrad: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: Well then, just so I understand this perfectly. We can, the
interim use permit can be indefinite then?
Olsen: Yeah. There's nothing that says that you have to tie.
Krauss: I'm looking through the language here. I'm not certain of that.
I think that...I mean that's the difference between.
Olsen: Do you have to? Well you could say the year 2020.
Mancino: It's got to be between two things.
Olsen: So you could say 2050. If it has to have a deadline.
Ledvina: Well what types of ultimate development pressures are going to
happen here and what do you see when you look...in terms of the timing of
the next few years? That's in the 1995 study area.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 6
Krauss: There's a couple of things going on. We do not know when this
land is going to come into the MUSA system. We haven't made a request for
it and the owners haven't asked fo~ it' yet. I'm not sure if we'd want to
go through it right away. Also the construction of Highway 5, the
upgrading of Highway 5 and Highway 5 access boulevards. Is also scheduled
for 1995-96...in that kind of a window. In fact we met with MnOot for
lunch today and that's...What I can tell you Matt, instead of gazing into a
crystal ball, I can tell you what the Highway 5 Task Force has already
essentially approved in it's recommendation on that property. It shows a
variety of medium and low density housing.
Olsen: Okay, well the definition. It mays a temporary use of property
until a particular date, particular event or zoning regulation is no longer
permitted. $o when I was saying that you don't necessarily have to tie it
to the street or the rezoning or MUSA. If you want to, him to permit it,
you can do a date way out there. When we got these interim use permits in
here it was because we were thinking, if we're not sure if it will still
fit in and it's tough to tie. We had to discuss what kind of event do we
tie it to because the frontage road possibly will cut into the northern
portion of this and maybe that will make him have to stop him business by
itself but if it doesn't, we're not convinced that it's still not a
suitable site. You know suitable use.
Ledvina: Then just speaking of that time then. What is it, is it the
Highway $ upgrade? Or development? I mean how do we administratively deal
with the interim use?
Krauss: There's a couple of potentials here. I mean if it's tied to the
construction of the Highway S access boulevards. It seems that any
alternative that's being considered.
Olsen: They kind of go through there.
Krauss: And that would have 'to be compensated for at thatltime but if it
doesn't, one way or the other it becomes...You also could tie the extension
to the zoning of the property. It's possible that this land could be
brought into the MUSA line and rezoned for development...
Ledvina: How about something like a re-evaluation of the interim use
permit at that time? I mean in terms of if we have to identify a trigger,
maybe we can do it like, not necessarily that it ends but that it's
re-evaluated.
Mancino: And it may end or it may continue.
Ledvina: Based on the re-evaluation at that time. I don't know.
Olsen: They can always request-for an extension. ! mean may that you say
1996. He could also request and that's, but you know if you're considering
the approval, we do have to bring it back to you. Well we should bring-it
back to you anyway with the conditions and then we could probably get Roger
to come up with some good legal way to allow you that flexibility. Because
nobody really knows.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 7
John Pryzmus: Could I address you one more time? You know here you are
deciding when it can possibly be turned into a'shopping center and a low
income apartment complex. When you've got i8 acres of trees and grass that
you guys keep fighting for. You just hired somebody to harrass developers
so you can't cut too many trees down. I planted 500 trees there. You
should be fighting for me to keep this forever. For 20 years. ~s long as
I want to keep it. For 30 or 40 years. You should be fighting for this to
be in the community rather than fighting me to get it out. I mean what did
I ever do wrong out there? People love it. I can't believe you people. I
sit here last time and you're harrassing people, don't cut any trees down.
I've planted all these and you sit here trying to figure out how you can
possibly get me out in which year. I Just don't understand i't. You should
be planning on going around me and making sure you keep me there so you've
got a beautiful corner. No, you'd rather take the taxpayers dollars and
spend a million dollars on downtown and then tear it all back up and just
make a mess of everything with our money. I'm spending my own'money and
you're trying to figure out how to ruin me. I just can't understand you
people.
Conrad: No John, what we're trying to do is add some planning sense to
what's happening. Now John, you've been here long enough to know that the
city is expanding. You know the city's expanding your way. We're trying
to figure out how it happens. We're trying to figure out. No John, you
haven't followed any of the things we've ever asked you to do. Very
seldom.
John Pryzmus: You decide and then let me know.
Conrad: Okay, thanks for attending John.
Ledvina: Well I guess, so essentially you're recommending that the matter
be tabled while the conditions of an interim use permit.
Olsen: Right. If you feel that we should allow the expansion and get it
under an interim use permit, that would be best because then we can really
look at the setbacks and make sure he's meeting the DNR and the Watershed
District and yeah.
Ledvina: Well I don't know but I think that route seems to be a fair way
of handling this situation. Considering what the future needs of that area
are going to be, I think it's reasonable to let him use his property to
maximize his business while he can. But then a'gain, we're responsible for
guiding that activity as it moves that way
Mancino: I agree. We'll have you come back with some conditions. I am in
favor of approval of the interim use permit with the expansion of the site
allowing a sign, the 10 video games, the additional building and the
addition to the building. Parking spaces, I think that's all fine. I have
no problem with the expansion but as Matthew said, I would like to see
maybe Roger come up with whether we can evaluate it at some point in the
time when it's either in the MU$~ line or the northern access boulevard. If
we can stop right then and evaluate whether it still fits in with what's
going on there. I would also like staff to work with John on putting a due
date for all this expansion. To just say, to ask him how long he thinks it
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 8
will take him to get the batting cages up. To get all this done and I'd
like that to be one of the conditions. That there actually is a due date.
The other condition I would like to see is an annual review or inspection
of the site so that we are sure and he knows that we're going to be
checking, making sure it is kept to the conditions that we have on it. And
I think it'd be great if there was a written report after each inspection
so that we have it in our files of what we inspected and exactly what was
happening. Whether it's visual pictures, written, etc.
Conrad: Thanks Nancy. I agree. Are batting cages part of this? That's
the only thing I'm not sure of. What's the logic? You know there was
logic for allowing the driving range there. Agricultural area. Something
close to I don't know, grass and driving range. Agricultural. And now
we're talking about batting cages. And I think we've resisted in the past.
What is his proposal? How many and do we know?
Olsen: Well, no. Yeah, that's why we Just really don't know all'the
details. Ail it is is fencing.
Conrad: Is it a wire cage?
Olsen: It's a wire cage.
Conrad: So top. It's not just sides, there's a top to it? .
Mancino: There's mesh. It shows...mesh and ! was going to ask to see
whether that was year round mesh or is it something he takes down in the
winter?
Olsen: You mean on the top mesh?
Mancino: Yeah.
Conrad: Usually it's soft so it stops the ball from bouncing. And where
is that Jo Ann?
Olsen: The new buildin~ which you were talking about the video.
Ledvina: North is to the right, right?
Olsen: This is Galpin. TH 5 is down there, And then you've got the creek
too approximately where the road is going through?
Krauss: Right about, well it's the alternative right now. Actually a
little further south. Kind of right through the.batting cages. One of the
concerns, and I really don't know to what extent we can legitimately
consider. Having something for Roger to answer. One of the concerns I
have is the idea of encouraging additional investment in something that the
public is going to have to pay to take down in a f~ years.
Conrad: Yeah. Is there any logic to where he's putting that building?
Krauss: Well there's logic on his plan for where he's putting it. ~nd the
access boulevards are working towards being approved but it's still not an
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 9
approved concept.
Mancino: And that's, you know MnDot. may not have t'he money until 96-97-98.
Krauss: Well it's not on the plan to be built until '96 anyway but Ne Just
got reassurances from MnDot today that they are still looking to work with
us on it and they're looking to build it before they upgrade Highway $.
Harberts: Just a follow-up question. I had read in the Minutes from days
gone by here. They talked about the hours of business. Is it still
sunrise to sunset? Does it make a difference? I've seen different.
Olsen: Right. It's supposed to still be sunrise to sunset but I'm hearing
now that he is doing evening hours with the lighting.
Harberts: What I would like to see, even with tabling it, is basically an
inventory or a plan or whatever in terms of exactly what's going on out
there. You know I don't think if he's going to expand it, I don't think
there's anything wrong with having some type of site plan. You know the
material. Different things like that. It's nothing less than what we
require of everybody else that comes through.
Olsen: This is as much as we've ever gotten.
Harberts: Well I'm talking about materials. Things like this. Just to
have an understanding because you know Just being relatively new. to the
commission, I don't know. You know I have an idea what a batting cage
looks like but I don't know what someone else's interpretation is. I would
recommend that we get some type of overall understanding. You know what
the hours are. If he's going to put a sign, where the sign's going to be.
Ail of that and like I said, I don't see that any different than what we
require of any other developer that walks in this door.
Krauss: Is there some kind of consensus on night hours?
Olsen: Yeah, it was tied before.
Krauss: We've received complaints from the ballfield lights at Lake Ann,
from people living in this neighborhood.
Harberts: Well you know, and I have no problem with the owner in a sense
presenting the information to us and basically as we ask everybody else
that stands here, Just tell us. What you want to do and why or whatever.
You know if we got some complaints on files, make him aware of it. Maybe
he's not aware of it. Maybe he needs again, the city has certain
standards. That's all we ask for from anyone. If it's lights or whatever.
I remember when Southwest Metro built the park and ride lot, you know
halfway through the city requested we change our lights. You know that was
a cost that we ate and it's simply because this is what the city codes are
and the purpose of the codes isn't to hassle anyone. It's simply to, in a
sense enhance the community for the people. I think that's the only bottom
line. That's the only reason why I'm sitting here. You know I'm not here
to hassle anybody. $o that's why I don't think we can, we should ask
anything less or anything more. So I would recommend that, if this is
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 10
going to be tabled, is that it comes back with, to give us an understanding
of what's going on there. Like I said, I read sunset to sunrise. I didn't
see anything in here that said that it was actually approved. Maybe there's
some loose ends that can be tied up, both between the city, the owner,
whatever but I think it will just improve that communication.
Conrad: Do we have many complaints? Any?
Olsen: Not of this...
Conrad: Yeah, I think most every resident is pretty happy with Swings.
Harberts: Yeah, it's a nice place.
Conrad: Yeah. I don't think it's too bad 3ohn walked out of here because
I think it's a good facility. He Just doesn't like to follow any rules.
And it's just unfortunate because we're probably going to give him what he
wants. But he walked out. I still am stuck on the batting cage. It
really seems like a different use and I guess as long as staff is feeling
comfortable, that it's not really over intensifying. You know traffic.
Hundred kids. Whatever. Batting cage is going to, it probably is not
going to do anything but I guess I want to make sure that, we've turned it
down in the past because it wasn't in snyc with a driving range. And you
know the logic is real tough to follow. I'm going back. Driving range.
Grass. Agriculture. That's the logic. But when you put in batting cage,
that's a real commercial use. And it's a little bit different.
Mancino: But I like that better than video games. At least it's outside.
You're batting. You're outside. The video games is completely an indoor
recreation.
Conrad: But it relates to golf.
Mancino: Not the video games. Are they video, golf video games?
Olsen: Well he's got those now and now he's talking about the video golf.
Conrad: $o it's beyond golf.
Olsen: It's up there now and that's gotten approval already.
Harberts: Is he going to require lighting with his batting cage if he's
going to operate it after sunset?
Mancino: That's all the stuff we need to know.
Harberts: Yeah, exactly and like I said, I don't think we're asking
anything more of him than any other developer.
Olsen: It's just whether or not we get it. I mean we've been very clear
on what is required and all the information and we've never received it.
Harberts: Well I think in order to understand the, if expansion is in a
sense appropriate for this site, appropriate for the community, this is the
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 11
information that we need to know. Ultimately I would think that the
Council's going to want to know the same thing.
Olsen: Right. I request it. We don't receive it.
Conrad: It really goes back to, how do you want to leverage this situation
to make him come into compliance with some of the things. He's never in
compliance, and that's a generalization. On some things he's ~ot in
compliance and you know, then we've got to figure out how to get him there
and if we're comfortable going over some ordinance, we're basically giving
him more than what the ordinance gives.
Olsen: We process an application that is incomplete too.
Ledvina: Are you ready for a motion?
Conrad: Wait, any other questions? Comments? Anything? Yeah.
Ledvina: Okay, I would move that the Swings Interim Use Permit be tabled
until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the
operation and the terms of the permit. Also, taking into account the
comments that Diane had made. And also, Paul touched on it briefly. If
staff feels it's worthwhile to get an opinion from the attorney regarding
the situation of continuing this or even expanding this activity when we
might have to take it at a later date by whatever public authority we have
for right-of-way, we should know about that and we should have an opinion
on that as well.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Conrad: Thanks Nancy. Any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the
Intertum Use Permit for S~ings until such time that sufficient conditions
can be developed to define the o~eration and the terms of the ~ermit. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBL[C H[ARING:
NON-CONFORNIN~ USE P~RMIT FOR BOYERS STER~IN~ ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL 8EACHLOT.
Public Present:
Name
Scott Remmke
Paula Roettger
Stephen C. Martin
Lori Weber
Mary Jo Moore
Arvid Oas
3221 Dartmouth Drive
3220 Dartmouth Drive
3211 Dartmouth Drive
3220 Dartmouth Drive
3231 Dartmouth Drive
3230 Dartmouth Drive
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 12
Name
Joe & Eileen Boyer
Robert & 3olean Roy
Thomas Metz
Don & Cheri sueker
3630 Virginia Avenue, Deephaven
3110 Dartmouth Drive
3201 Dartmouth Drive
3111 Dartmouth Drive
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman
Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Rob Roy: My name is Rob Roy. I live at 3110 Dartmouth Drive. I am not
the applicant. Ted Bigos was the applicant. There's a couple issues right
away that I would address. I do not live on the lake. I think it is
inappropriate for that outlot to be utilized as a boat launch. I'm not
sure what the beachlot application is. I've noticed there were other
notices about this situation from Kathryn. I was not made aware of this
until just recently, and if I was I would have had the neighbors get
together to discuss this a little bit and at least we could come to some
sort of consensus anyway. But I think the, for a boat launch it's
inappropriate and I think if there can be anything done, and I don't know
if the city can do this or not, but to stop any vehicular traffic on that
outlot. The problem I see is there's a storm saner that runs at the end of
the outlot and I don't know if the city would want anything there that. I
know the Heights have put in posts to Stop ingress and egress by cars, and
I'm not too sure that the Association shouldn't do the same thing on that
particular outlot. 3ust from the standpoint of even in the wintertime
people running across the property and then the lakeshore homeowners
property also just to get onto lake access. And dragging ice houses out.
Going back to the 1981, I find it very difficult to find that a snapshot of
1981 was the number of boats was then became the basis of decision. Ne had
documentation and letters from the former owners that there was at one
point 5 boats down there. Okay, non this goes back to people that lived
there and who had moved before this issue ever became an issue. That we
had wrote and tracked them down in Florida and so forth to find out how
many boats at one time were down at that outlot. $o driving by in 1981 to
take a snapshot and determine how many boats should or should not be there,
I find very difficult and I guess that's what we're trying to resolve
tonight. The original intent I believe of the City, going back to the
original platting of the property was to allow an outlot which would allow
people to have access to the lake. Whether that's an established marina or
not. I know there's excessive marinas around Lake Minnewashta that are not
exactly picturesque. But with 10 outlots, the availability of at least 4
boats on a current dock would allow two small boats and two, let's say 19
foot boats into that area. I don't think that is excessive. I'm not sure
what the definition however of a beachlot is. I'm not too sure people want
to swim where a storm saner drain is in that particular area but I think
the utilization of the property and the original intent of the builder was
to allow, as the land had been developed in 1981 or 19 whenever the land
was developed, had it developed all at once he would have had a marina
there. Now you have 10 lots, I believe it's 10. '9 lots that are off the
lake but should have some access to boat useages.
Conrad: Thanks Rob. Any othe~ comments?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 13
3ce Boyer: I'm Joe Boyer. I'm the original developer of that area and the
intent in 1966-67, when we developed that property, was to have lake access
for the 10 inside lots. And at that time I think we had that in our
covenants. We had at one time 3 boats of my own. One-of the people I
built for, A1 $chnurr had 2 boats there and that was in the 1960's. But we
never envisioned, ever, that people from the adjoining area could shut down
our lake access, or that anybody else could chan~e the covenants to shut
out the inside subdivision owners. I still don't understand how you can
cut people out of their lake access Nhen it's, it Nas accepted in the
original plan. In the original covenants.
Conrad: The point tonight, that's a fairly, Ne could discuss that item.
Is to bring out how can you? The reason there are controls is because
there were abuses and that's why the controls went in, especially in '$1.
That's when the ordinance went it that basically froze the use and that's
where we're here tonight to do. Not really to debate the wisdom of that
use. Or that ordinance but trying to assess the 1981 status so that Ne can
tell the oNners what to expect. The only other thing that any beachtot
owners or recreation beachlot owners should.know. The current restrictions
are fairly significant. And they're for a reason. It's a pretty good
reason but that's, again we're.not debating that tonight. Not debating
what you did in the 6O's. We're trying to figure out what a fair level of
use was in '81 and to set that and therefore we kind of, and we've done
this to 16, Nell we've done it to every unconformtng beachlot in the city
and we're almost wrapping it up right no~.
3ce Boyer: Well that lakeshore access Nas kind of utilized and brutalized
I'm afraid by some adjacent property owners you know. And when we
originally put that access in Archie Carter, the engineer for the City of
Chanhassen, and Bill Schoell, who is my engineer, for my subdivision.
Schoell and Madsen. Agreed that since Ne had so much water drainage over
the area, and sewer drainage from all of the properties in the adjacent
area, it Nas best to drain the Nater out on the surface of the ground.
When the lake was up, a below ground culvert would be full of water anyway,
as it is now. It's useless. The only drainage they have is surface
drainage. So somewhere along the line the City of Chanhassen was either
coerced or sold a bill of goods on how on a below ground drainage that is
almost lakeshore anyway you kno~. And the original plan was all drainage
Nas surface drainage on a blacktop surface. It Nas a 3 inch rock lake
access area. A base for the lake access where people could launch their
own boats and then would have a common dock where they could each have a
small boat. Minnewashta was never really, as we thought, intended to have
240 horse 18 foot ski boats in it you know. MinneNashta really is about a
5 or 10 horse motor lake. You should think about that. But anyway, I Just
think that the people Nbc bought into my subdivision have fully expected to
have lake access as the covenants provided. Like a 16 foot'motor boat or
Nhatever. At least a fishing boat. I don't think the adjacent property
owners should have the right of cutting them out of that.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. Other comments.
Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been before you
many times on this issue and I come again. This time it's very personal to
me because I'm one of the adjacent property owners. I'm Just west of this
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7. 1993 - Page 14
beachlot, which has been in contention really since '78 when Mike Holloway
put in this dock. [t's probably the largest dock in the area. I am not
trying to deny access to the lake. I am trying to deny boats out this lot
which is about 40 feet. It was in 'B6 when my complaint was filed. There
was a survey done and it Nas 40 feet, as I understand at the water line.
That's not sufficient. I, as a property owner on the lake bought the best
house Z could afford with one criteria that it be on the lake. I have 120
feet. I am restricted to 3 boats. Max[mum on that property. I pay high
taxes. Why should lO people who are off the lake be able to have more
boats on 40 feet of property and this large dock does encroach in the dock
setback zone. Now I think there's adequate documentation in the files that
there were two boats grandfathered in, in spite of the fact that this was
not a legal dock or boat. There were two boats in '81 and one dock and that
was grandfathered in. However, when Jim Hoffer moved out of the area, the
useage dropped to one boat which is now Tim Bigos, who is the applicant for
this. Under the grandfathering law, if useage drops for a significant
number of years, in fact I think it's only one year, then you lose the
right. It's use it or lose it. So I really think at a maximum there
should be one boat and I also request this L section be removed from the
dock setback zone. And I have written a letter and outlined my position. I
would like to get rid of the whole thing. The city'really has eliminated
the boat launching, has eliminated the swimming by installation of that
storm sewer, which I objected to also because it's direct drainage of all
the fertilizer and salt and everything directly into the lake. That was
not my doing. I objected to it and I had the City people out to see what
was happening to the lake in that area because of that storm sewer. Now it
is not accessible as a boat launch or a swimming beach. Like Joe said, who
wants to swim when the storm sewer's dumping into the lake. At any rate,
I request that you deny this permit. I think it's illegal. In fact the
other residents in Sterling Estates were advised of this permit request...
joint decision to have a boat or a dock do~n there from this association.
So I request that it be denied and at a very minimum one dock, no L, one'
boat. Thank you.
Conrad: Other comments? Other people? Before you get back, anybody else?
We'll give other folks a chance to talk first.
Lori Weber: I'm Lori Weber. I live at 3220 Dartmouth Drive and that is
the home directly across from this outlot that we're talking about this
evening. As Mary Jo mentioned, there's only been one boat docked down
there since Hoffer's moved out of the area. We replaced Hoffer's. We also
bought a home that was the most we could financially afford and
unfortunately it didn't allow us to buy a boat immediately. We are now in
a position to buy a boat and with there being one boat docked down there
already, that leaves no room for us if we were going to drop this down to
one. So unfortunately I'm against it being dropped do~n to one for that
reason, because we certainly would tike to enjoy that dock and boat and
have access there. Be able to utilize it living directly across the street
from it. Thank you.
Conrad: Other comments. Anything else?
Rob Roy: I would like to also support her position. Back when this was
going on, I was not able to afford a boat. The property wasn't totally
Planning Commission Meeting
2uly 7, 1993 - Page 15
developed. Mr. Bigos has decided to have a boat down there and he's had
his boat down there. I think it's for' the outlot owners to decide the
rotation of the boats and that's why we're requesting 4. This property has
not been abused at all. It's very evident that there's only one boat down
there right now in the middle of the summer. We have not abused the
situation one bit. And that's why the request is for, I don't think
there's been since the Boyer's and the Schnurr's and I believe that was it.
Had the 5 boats down there. That there's been any more than 5 boats and
recently is 2 and 1 boat. So I think our request for 4 boats, whether the
4 boats show up there or not, allows the people on the 10 outlots to have
access and boat dockage.
Conrad: We reviewed a lot of, we've reviewed a lot of the, and it's not a
whole lot of fun. But I just want to let you know the process.. Most
beachlot folks have come in. Again, we're going to arbitrary as can be.
You know this is like a mini court of law here you know and what we're
trying to do is get somebody to show us a use in 1981. Now whether it's
good or bad or whatever, we're trying to say hey. What happened in
because that's what we're trying to determine. In front of us we've got a
lawyer, the City Attorney who said there's a particular use. We have a'
staff inventory that set it at a particular number. We're kind of hoping
that somebody would say, show us a.use of '81. And that's not easy. Nobody
goes around taking those pictures but just to let you know, a lot of folks
have come in with that and supported their position. And again it being a
little mini court here, we try to be-as liberal as, we're t~airly liberal
but again we need information to make the decision. It's really not a case
of, do we think you should have this because you're nice or you live across
there. That doesn't enter our minds. It's in this case what we're trying
to do is say hey, what happened in '81 and we go from there. So I just
wanted to let you know that boy, that makes our decision arbitrary here
when we don't see anything that's kind of, and it puts you in a tough
situation but that's what we're trying to do.
Tom Metz: Well I didn't come here.
Conrad: You've got to tell us your name first.
Tom Metz: My name's Tom Metz. I've known these people my whole life and
3oe sold me the lot that I bought and it's been a wonderful place to live.
And I do object to the boat access. I don't think that's in keeping with
the, or not the boat access. The ability to drive cars down and launch
boats. I think that Joe, so that you understand, if you know I fought this
thing for 30 years when I first got on that Park 8oard Commission and my
whole emphasis has been to try to preserve the quality of Lake Minnewashta.
And we did that by closing down all the accesses around the lake and
allowing only access to come through the park. We did that for a specific
reason. That the lake becomes used and abused by too many boats. There's
just riparian which means there could be 60 non-lakeshore owner boats using
that lake and beyond that it would become abused. We've now got a total of
maybe we're double that. We've got 120 so each time these Planning
Commissions and these outlots come up, I'm up here fighting to maintain
this '82 baseline so that we maintain the quality of the lake. Because
what happens when they take 1982 Sterling Estates and go from 2 to 4, then
they take Minnewashta and they take each one of these things and we not.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 16
only add 4 boats but we add 20-30-40 boats. And in keeping with that,
we're all losing. I mean we're losing as lakeshore owners. You're losing
as people who are trying to use that lake. I think, my personal opinion to
buy that beautiful lot that you sold me and to think that 3 homes or 4
homes down somebody could build a narrow dock with 5 or 6 boats, I don't
know if that was in keeping with your plans. I think that that lot should
be used for access to the lake. I'm for the 1982 baseline but again, I'm
for that for preservation of something that's going on 20-30 years from now
for our kids. And once we start with Minnewashta increasing, then
everybody else increases.
Conrad: Thanks Tom. Don't you miss being on the Plannln~ Commission Tom?
Any other comments? Anything? Anything new? One more crack, sure.
Joe Boyer: Well this whole thing appears to me as kind of a I'm here and
you're not. You know. A dog and...type situation. I have lakeshore, you
don't. And I think the original intent should kind of be adhered to here,
at least in part. These people bought into this area with the idea that
they would have lake access. How can you kill that? It's part of the
ordinance. Or not the ordinance but part of the covenants for the
property. I really don't understand this.
Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Hancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The ~ublic hearing was closed.
Mancino: Well I am, no this is not fun. My feeling is that we do need to
keep the level of the use in 198X and to look at the beachlot survey that
was done on 3uae 4th in 1981 that is in Barbara Dacy's letter to our City
Attorney in 1986. And at that survey it says that there is a seasonal dock
of 50 feet with a 10 foot perpendicular extension so we do know that in
1981 there was a dock with the extension so I would be in favor of keeping
that dock there the way it is.
Conrad: Does the extension go over into the, is that within 10 feet of'the
property line?
Mancino: Yes but well, to tell you the truth, I don't know if it is. But
I can say that again the City Attorney said that legal non-conforming docks
do not have to observe the dock setback zone. The zoning ordinance provides
they can continue at the same location. Now this was written in 1986. Is
it still?
Aanenson: We did pass a dock setback zone requirement. We've asked for
voluntary compliance as we've gone through this process. It is a concern
of the adjoining property owners. In some circumstances we haven't always
been able to do that based on maybe there's a wetland or something that we
don't want it to but there's a few circumstances based on the fact that
they're very narrow that it's impossible for them, based on the level of
number of boats that have been granted that they can always meet that.
Although we have pretty much gotten voluntary compliance on that.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 17
Mancino: So then what you're telling me is that it is legal.
Aanenson: Roger told me that it would be an interesting challenge if
someone absoluteIy refused to do it.
Mancino: So what does that mean? Taking off 10 feet of this...
~anenson: We've done it. We've asked' for compliance on all of them to do
that. I'm not sure that they can all meet it based on the number of boats
some of those, that we've given such as Pleasant Acres and the like. It's
pretty tough. Some of those. The Heights where they're very narrow and
we've given them maybe 10 boats. It's difficult.
Mancino: Well then let's see if this one can meet it.
Aanenson: Sure .
Mancino: As long as, I would like to go ahead and have it meet the setback
requirements then. The other questions are, let's see motor vehicle
access. And in 1981, it doesn't say. ~ccording to your survey does it
show in 1981 whether there was motor vehicle access?
Aanenson: Yes .
Mancino: It does?
Aanenson: You're talking about boat launch or the access?
Mancino: Just the access.
Aanenson: Yes ·
Mancino: Okay. So if there was in 1981 motor Vehicle access, I would be
in favor of continuing that. There was no boat launch in 198l so I would
say no boat launch now. Boats at dock, in 1981 it says there were none.
However there is supporting evidence from the City Attorney's letter in
1986 saying that there may have been boats out on the water. That the
Walman's had a boat and the Hollaways had a boat. So I would be in favor
in allowing 2 boats on the dock and to go ahead with the City Attorney's
1986 opinion.
Conrad: Good, thanks Nancy. Matt.
Ledvina: I think that letter is, that October, 1986 letter is fairly
crucial and I really don't see any additional information to invalidate
that opinion so I think that was, as I went through this thing, I used that
as pretty much the benchmark and was looking for other information. $o I
concur with Nancy on the opinion as it relates to the 2 boats. I also think
that if we can, we should meet the setback requirement. I think, and I
don't know what the legal requirements are there but if that is an
ordinance in place, that ordinance should have to be adhered to. The
situation with the boat launch, I don't feel that should be allowed. The
motor vehicle access, I think that should be restricted or not allowed. I
think the applicant, the representative for the applicant has indicated
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 18
that they'd like to delete that part of the request. $o I don't know if
that's essentially a modification of the application in front of us but I
think that the access could be deleted. Let's see. That's about it.
Conrad: Thanks Matt. Diane.
Harberts: My understanding as we, on number 9. The non-conforming
beachlot survey. My understanding is what we look for too though is kind
of the responsibility or accountability from the association. I'm a little
concerned. Some of the letters that we've received that talked about some
of the garbage, tires, debris, things of that left there. Isn't it Kate,
my understanding that you know these associations in a sense we ask that
they take accountability for the area. Am I incorrect or am I correct on
that?
Aanenson: Well we've asked that in a good neighbor sense but technically
the City Attorney's opinion is what we're trying to do is establish the
level of use. If there's a complaint, we can certainly handle that in a
different forum. Or we've attached that in some of the conditions where
we've asked them, under miscellaneous to post where they have boat
launches, a milfoil sign and I think under the process that we'Ve gone
through as far as being amicable, they've all agreed to do such things as
keep it clean or post it that this is the association property. Members
only. Those sort of things. I think if you want to do that under
miscellaneous, I think the parties may be willing to do that.
Harberts: Yeah, it's more of a comment. I guess I'm just raising that
concern for that. I guess with regard to the primary issue at hand, with
the beachlot permit, I would concur with the Commission members. Basically
leaving it at the 198l baseline and simply because we don't want to make
decisions on an arbitrary basis. For instance tonight with the extension,
I would support bringing it in compliance with the ordinance. I didn't
hear anything tonight that would convince me that it's necessary, and that's
all we ask is that, you know if there's some particular reason or whatever,
bring the information to us so we can really look at it in an informed
basis and based on the information that I have here, and I agree that the
letter from the Attorney is really an important piece to making my
decision. That we stay with the 198l baseline. I would also recommend
some kind of restriction on the motor vehicle access. The area doesn't
seem very conducive to a lot of access by vehicles. And I would just
encourage the Association maybe to take some steps. I don't know, a fence
or whatever. Gate to control it.
Conrad: So you're in favor of the access Diane?
Harberts: Yes, with some restrictions of use. It was there in '81.' And
haven't heard a whole lot for or against it in the sense of really swaying
me to go against that. $o I would Just encourage some restriction or
control or whatever by the Association if it's a problem. But based on the
information today that I've received, I don't have any problem with it.
Conrad: Kate, what's your opinion about the motor vehicle access on t. his
property?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 19
Aanenson: It seems to me that they've stated that they'd be willing to 'put
a post there, if that seems to be a problem. Maybe they couId put a post
up. If they're willing to do that. I don't want to speak for them. Put a
post up that says, Sterling Estates 8eachlot and put it in the middle such
that a car can't get down there. Or people can't run their ice houses.
Mancino: But the applicant isn't here.
Aanenson: Except that these people are also of the Association. Mr.
8oyer 's. They have spoken to the applicant about representing the
Association. So I mean if they're willing to do that, why not put it down
as a condition and make both parties happy. We have done that or requested
that on other associations. That they do post it for security reasons. We
just did that on Schmid's Acres. That they post that because that's
another one where it's.
Conrad: So when we say a post, are we closing that down? What are we
doing?
Harberts: Putting a sign up or what?
Aanenson: Well, putting a post in the center restricting cars from getting
down there. Restricting people from, it seemed to me the concern was,
people bringing their ice houses out. Or fishing houses out onto the ice.
That would restrict that. That was a concern and if they're willing to do
that, why not put it in as a condition.
Conrad: Okay. Are you done?
Harberts: Yeah.
Conrad: Okay. I have nothing has taken me away from the information that
I've got. I think it shouldn't be a boat launch. I think the docks have
to be taken out of the dock setback zone. I think two boats is probably
more than fair, and it's substantiated to a degree based on some of the
information we have. And if we want to restrict the motor vehicle access,
that's fine. It doesn't look like it's, well. I think if the applicants
want to do that, I think that's appropriate. I'd like to see it. I don't
have anything else. Any motion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the issuance
of a non-conforming recreational beachlot permit to the 8oyer Sterling
Estates with the following conditions as we've discussed. Just briefly
going over these. No motor vehicle access. As far as no off street
parking. No boat launch. No buildings. A seasonal dock. 50 foot dock
with the extension to be reviewed for compliance with the setback
ordinance. No canoe racks. No boats on land. Two boats at the dock. No
boats moored. A swimming beach. No swimming raft and I think that pretty
much covers it.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Ma nc i no: Seco nd.
Planning Commission Heating
3uly 7, 1993 - Page 20
Conrad: Any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Nanc[no seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of a Non-Conforming Recreationa! Beachlot Permit to Boyer's
Sterling Estates with the following conditions: No ~otor vehicle access.
No off street parking. No boat launch. No buildings. A seasonal dock 50
50 feet In length .ith the extension to be reviewed for compliance .ith the
dock setback ordinance. No canoe racks. Nob oats on land. T~o boats at
the dock. No boats moored. A a~[mm[ng beach. NO ~[mm[ng raft. All voted
in favor and the mot[on carried.
PUBLIC HEARIN6:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE LANOSCAPXN~ RE~ULATXONS FOR SITE
PLAN REVIEWS,
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item going over the
proposed ordinance.
Mancino: Does it include labor?
Harberts: It should exclude labor.
Mancino: Yeah, thank you. Labor, grading, maintenance. Any of that
stuff?
Aanenson: Yeah, this is just planting materials.
Ledvina: $o previously those things were included and now they're excluded
so?
Aanenson: No, it wasn't defined. In the bold, under minimum landscape
value, that definition is completely new. We never explained what value
meant. So I guess if somebody said that includes the site prep.
Krauss: Well actually it was pretty nebulous. It did include, if you
wanted to put.
Aanenson= The project value.
Krauss: If you wanted to put nice pavers in, you could have included
anything.
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying.
Krauss: It's strictly landscaping now which gives us a lot more...
Aanenson: Or even site prep. It could have included that. That's what I
was saying. So now we're excluding that out. We want to use, if planting
materials, trees, shrubbery, that sort of thing.
Krauss: It's also a lot easier for us to administer because we say give us
a contract and show us that you did it.
Planning Commission Heating
July 7, 1993 - Page 21
Mancino: Well and the other part is that $20,000.00 for a million to $2
million building isn't very much. If you included all that other.
Aanenson: Right.
Krauss: Well except it isn't except that most construction goes up pretty
radically from there and if you figure a million dollars, I mean that's, a
house is normally $200,000.00 plus these days so if you want to take 1/5 of
it so you're spending, according to a house, you're spending $4,000.00 or
$5,000.00 in landscaping for a house which is probably pretty reasonable.
Aanenson: Again, what we found is that the percentages held through. What
we need to do is clarify what we're going to include as far as the
landscape material or the value. $o that's been clarified.
Kate Aanenson continued with her staff report.
Manctno: I have a question about that. I'd like to see year round
screened.
Aanenson: Well what we need to do is develop a definition. I didn't put
it in here Nancy but that's a good comment. We'll develop that definition
of screened as what it means in this definition and year round.
Mancino: Right, because all through here I felt that.
Krauss: It probably would be appropriate in the definition but it would
also be appropriate Just to list it that way every time it appears in the
text.
Manci no: Great.
Harberts: Comment on (b) when you talk about the, at the city's discretion
the value of tree preservation may be utilized to offset landscaping
requirements. Are you comfortable with using the city discretion or does
it need to be something more defined so that the city isn't perceived as
harrassing someone or something?
Krauss: Well, we're comfortable with it.
the developer going to be comfortable.
I think more appropriately is
Aanenson: Well I guess my concern would be, what if someone decides to
save some trees that we don't consider of high value or junk and tries to
give us, well geez these have been here for 20 years.
Harberts: Well that's what I'm saying. When you say at the City's
discretion. Does that really give you enough meat?
Krauss: Jo Ann's pointing out, we did define substantial tree. What that
means in the new tree protection ordinance .... assigned a dollar value and
offsetting something. And where is it located on the site. It's really a
subjective matter that's going to change on every plan.
Planning Commission Meeting
~uly 7, lgg3 - Page 22
Harberts: Do we need to use maybe as the baseline, and maybe you touched
on it Paul, is the fact that we have some standards here in terms of dollar
values and then if we've got the, you know like the size of the tree, it
somehow offsets and if they don't make that amount.
Krauss: Well we can ask 3elf if there's any kind of a way to assign a
dollar value. But you know, it ~eally, I'm not sure you'~e going to be
able to...scientific measure. Nhen ! look at something like Target.
mean Target came to us and said well...trees on the site, therefore you owe
us a credit and we shouldn't have to have to landscape as much. Nell,
first of all they didn't save the trees. We bought them but and then
you're not going to want to trade off the fact that they have a 350 car
parking lot and that you have to do something sensitive to i-t. So I think
you want to leave yourself some outs.
Harberts: Well and I can understand that. My only concern was, you know
when you leave things being subjective, it's us against them type of .thing.
Who's right and then we sit here as the arbitrators in a sense. So that's
why I was just trying to come up with something a little bit more...
Aanenson: No, I think there's some things we can look at. Ny other
concern would be, even though there is a substantial tree preservation in
one area, but we still have a large parking lot and we still feel like we
need some buffer and they said, gee we've already met it with saving all
this. But we still may want additional basis, so I think you're right, l
think maybe we can build in some qualifiers there.
Harberts: Yeah, and I'm Just looking how do a I make a decision here.
Aanenson= Okay. We'll look at that.
Mancino: Well we're writing a whole new conservation easement.
Aanenson: Right, and that's why this really needs to dovetail with that
ordinance.
Hancino: Nhich may help give some guidelines.
Harberts= That's what I'm looking for is basically the guidelines.
Ranenson: Correct. That will have to be brought into this one. Okay then
turning to page 3. Again, the buffering issue. Then on Section
Vehicular areas.
Hancino: Oh, [ have lots to say.
Aanenson: Okay. You know the goals of breaking up the hard surface and
then we added the and provide for a reforestation with overstory trees from
the species list. I did attach a species list. That hasn't been adopted.
That's what they're looking at as far as the tree preservation ordinance
but I Just put that in there so you could have an idea of what sort of
things we're looking at. But again, the intent is not to put shrubbery in
there but to create a different, a micro environment where we have over
story and shading of the parking lot. A canopy.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 23
Mancino: I think it's great. I just would like to add some things for us
to think about in there for guidelines for developers and one is, a list ot=
suitable trees for these small landscaped areas in the parking lots. It's
different from the list that l=ollows that are 1=or small .areas in a parking
lot and can take the heat of the parking lot surface, which I think we can
do. And I'd also like to talk a little bit about irrigation in those
areas. Should we.
Aanenson: Ne did on Target require irrigation and that's a good point.
Maybe that's something we want to go to on a commercial.
Krauss: Minnetonka always mandated it. I think Eden Prairie requires it.
We never have. Now you have developers that put it in and then you have
people like Gene Borg who we made put a lot of landscaping in. This is a
number of years ago, who then went through 5 or 6 years of drought and was
working overtime just to get the stuff to live and lost a lot of stuff.
Mancino= And this year we wouldn't need it at all.
Krauss: It may well be an appropriate thing to do and I don't think we'd
be out of line with other communities. There is a signi1=icant expense of
course attached to it.
Mancino: We're also helping in the long run instead of having to replace
these trees and the shrubbery every year.
Aanenson: I think that also ties into one of the conditions that we put' in
here is that, which is some new language, is that we want to have continued
maintenance of the site and that may be one way to achieve it is requiring
irrigation. And a lot of the bigger developers like Target, that's pretty
much mandatory. It's the small ones and maybe there's a breaking point. I
don't know.
Mancino: Yeah, that's a good question.
Aanenson: Maybe that's something we can look at too. Compare with other
cities. If there's a size parcel that they look at but I know like Target
just does it automatically.
Krauss: We can do a check of ordinances again but I haven't looked at it
for 4-6 years but I don't know...
Harberts: What's considered expanses of hard surface? What's the number?
You know, what's considered an expanse? I mean is it like a parking lot?
Aanenson: It's defined further in here 'in the ordinance. Where it talks
about 6,000 square feet. Anything over $,000 and then we start giving
percentages. $o I think that's really more of an intent statement. What
the goal is to have over story trees to break up that and then if you look
under the top of page 4, that kind of gets into the specifics as far as how
much, based on the square footage. I can go through those really quick and
then if you feel like we need to add something there to clarify that~ you
can go back and do that because maybe that makes sense. I don't know.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, i993 - Page 24
Harberts: Well you know, just in my thought process here is, you know the
industrial area where we have the parking, things like that, they seem to
sometimes be at a premium for space. Is it really necessary to put the
trees there? I guess I'm not a real strong proponent.
Aanenson: Maybe industrial versus commercial area too?
Harberts: Yeah. I don't know. I'll certainly defer to some of my other
colleagues here but is it always a good idea or necessary to try and get
that effect in an industrial area? In a parking lot?
Krauss= Well the screening we certainly want.
Harberts= Yeah. Oh the screening.
Aanenson: You're talking about the interior?
Harberts: Interior yeah.
Krauss: I don't think it's necessarily a bad example of how to do things
but industrial area isn't necessarily hidden someplace down in the park.
It's also on Highway 5 and it's Redmond Products, it's DataServ. It's
sites that have a tremendous amount of visibility. Now the Highway 5
corridor plan is going to give some additional drive as to what you're
going to do on properties in those areas but we really weren't going to
change the landscaping standards much Kate, were we? I mean that's pretty
much.
Aanenson: Well I did make one or two small changes that aren't on your
copy and I'd like to review with you.
Krauss: You know I think when you have a Rosemount that has l,lO0 people
working there, that's an awful lot of parking stalls. And it's not an
invisible site. It's sitting astride what's going to be a State, well...
I'd be relunctant to kind of waive it. On the other hand, I understand why
you know, especially in public transit and stuff, if we can get people
closer to the door.
Aanenson: But we have looked at other issues. We kind of use that word
micro climate but you know they do need a place for snow removal. If they
build any larger areas where they can put some of this stuff and Just all
the heat loss and what that's doing.
Harberts: I guess there's always the opportunity'to request a waiver with
reasons why.
Aa nenson: Sure .
Harberts: And I think the comment that was said earlier that there's
numerous communities that do this. 8ut I know it's expensive to maintain
and looking from the perspective of the employer or business owner.
Krauss: And the common, the complaint I've heard for 16 years is, snow
plow drivers will hit them. You can't put the curbs there because snow
Planning Commission Heeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 25
plow drivers can't steer around them. Well, you'd think that sooner or
later they could learn. Yeah, we could hold a snowplow derby or something
and train them to turn. Not to be facetious but actually what we're doing
here is advantageous because instead of allowing there to be 40 or 50
little tree planters stuck in a parking lot, which is the typical thing,
we're saying we want fewer bigger ones.
Harberts: Right. Oh and ! agree with you on that. Z find it a hazard at
Market Boulevard but that's my comment for what it's worth.
Mancino: I'd also like to add a section in here about soil preparation for
the parking lot trees. Because one of the things that we saw at the
parking lot seminar at the Arboretum was they showed some of the holes that
were dug and there was still Just construction material in it. .There was
not good soil preparation. So I think there needs to be some, also for any
tree, any landscaping material to survive, it's going to need a good soil
composition. And I'd also, on page 4-5. A minimum of one tree shall be
required for each...
Aanenson: I was going to make some changes to that who-ts section.
Mancino: Okay, good. I'd love to add to these, Just to expand people's
thinking of landscaping in areas, especially of retail/commercial that you
could also add flowering plants. Perennials. You could add indigenous
grasses. So to give a little more openness to what could be ground cover.
It could be you know indigenous grasses. Perennials. Because perennials
are great because in the winter they won't be up and they won't get, you
could put rebechi or something there that would just come up and be great.
Wild flowers.
Kate Aanenson continued with her staff report.
Mancino: On page 5. C, Boulevard and Streetscape plantings. I'm not sure
I understand the last sentence. ! think what you want to say is that trees
shall be selected from the approved list of tree species. The city may
approve alternatives if it meets the intent of the ordinance period.
Correct? Page 5, (C).
Aanenson: Oh C at the top, I'm sorry. Right.
Mancino: I would just reword that.
Aanenson: Well yeah, it needs to tie back down to what we said before.
The two different lists maybe even.
Ledvina: Are we in a public hearing situation?
Conrad: I don't think so. No. No...
Mancino: Kate, on the species of all the trees. Can we put those in
alphabetical order according to common name? I think that would be easier
for people to locate.
Aanenson: According to the.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 26
Mancino: I'd do common name. Because I don't know what, you know people
don't know how to look for.
Conrad: When this comes back, this comes back for a public hearing.
Aanenson: It is. It's noticed as a ~blic hearing.
Conrad: Is this itt
Aanenson: Yeah. 8ut if you'd like to see it back with the changes, that's
great.
Conrad: $o have you just been giving a staff report? Okay, thanks.
Aanenson: Detailed.
Conrad: Okay. We will open it up for public comments. We'll note that
there's nobody. Richard, anything you want to talk about?
Councilman Wing: It's over my head.
Conrad: Okay. We'll note that there were no comments. Is there a motion
to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearin~ was closed.
Conrad: Kate can you, I guess the only thing that concerns me, I think
it's some neat stuff. The cost associated with the water and whatever. I'm
not sure that.
Aanenson: That's something I think if you'd like to have it brought back,
that's something I would do between now and then is research what other
communities do and then look at, and then maybe as we...maybe there is a
breakdown in the size as efficiency whatever. Like parking for the Target
lot obviously is very large and maybe it makes sense based on far away it
is to sprinkle it. Maybe there's smaller ones so that it doesn't...that's
something we can look at.
Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to know a little bit more.
Harberts: We've got irrigation over at the park and ride. And that was
just recent. What was that last year that we completed it I think. We put
irrigation in.
Aanenson: How big is your parking lot?
Harberts: Well Filly's.
Krauss: But it's not in the parking lot. It's around the perimeter.
Harberts: Well it's around in the grass, yeah.
Mancino: What about down at Chaska? Does your new one have irrigation too?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 27
Harberts: Yep. The only way to water it. Then we'make the city pay for
the water.
Conrad: How do you trigger that? What turns it on and off?
Harberts: Just a box. There's a box and.-
Ledvina: A black box.
Harberts: Yeah, or is it green. I don't know. But it's.
Aanenson: It's a timer.
Harberts: Timer, yeah.
Krauss: Well for that matter, I mean we irrigate all the islands in 78th
Street. It caused an accident when it went off and froze and somebody
slammed into a light pole. 8ut otherwise it worked perfectly well.
Aanenson: So we'll look at for next time, That'S a good comment.
Conrad: It's a public hearing. What do you need in terms of, you don't
need a motion do you?
Aanenson: I can make the changes and bring it back. Table it.
Ledvina: I have some additional comments or questions.
Conrad: Oh, okay. That's right, we've only gone through Nancy's comments.
Ledvina: I'm just going to start at the beginning here where on page 1. I
was thinking that maybe we can in some areas we can tighten up the language
a little bit. I mean if we're going to, just my philosophy that if we're
going to lay this thing out for developers to follow, we don't want to have
so many may's in there where the developer thinks it's at his discretion
whether he needs to do this or not. I have a concern about that. I
understand when you want to use discretion on how you apply it but when I
looked at this thing kind of from the developer's perspective, I'm thinking
for example number 3. Replacement of trees. Approve for removal by the
city may be required.
Aanenson: Well that section right here, maybe I need to make that clear
again. That section we didn't make any changes to because we're going to
take the new tree preservation ordinance and kind of work those two
together.
Krauss: Jo Ann and I are working on that right now.
Aanenson: So this whole section is going to be completely rewritten.
Krauss: We'll take out the may's and substitute with shall's.
Ledvina: Okay. Nell I would just say, by the city will be required and
then maybe another paragraph. Exceptions granted in certain instances and
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 28
describe those or something like that. If you want to identify
alternatives for that specific requirement. Again let's see, so that
that's specific one. In what instance will we not require the replacement
of trees on a caliper per inch basis?
Aanenson: They're considered ot: no value, isn't that what you're looking
at?
Olsen: Right. That's a hole in the ordinance. When do we not require it?
Ledvina: Yeah.
Olsen: What we're doing now is that we'll be specifying which tree, when
it goes through review process. Which trees can be removed like we've been
doing with Trotter's and such. You don't have to replace that for
instance. And what we're saying that if they're trees that were designated
for preservation that were removed that were not supposed to be removed,
then you have to do...
Ledvina: Okay, I see that you've go't a good idea o1: how this works down tn
terms of the developer following this thing and working toward compliance
and to meet the requirements. And let's see. Moving down to number 5.
Just using the terminology, removal of diseased and damaged trees is
permissible only if they can be saved. I mean who determines that and all
of that and what is saved? If that's flushed out in some other place, so
someone that's readin~ this can interpret that somehow.
Mancino: Yeah, I'd like to say it's determined by the City's Forester.
Harberts: I think with something like that too, isn't there some
consideration 1:or even like cost. Maybe a diseased tree can be saved by
that cost. I mean we have to be sensible about it.
Olsen: Ne're looking at an ordinance that if it is a diseased tree, you
have to remove it.
Krauss: Yeah, we actually flipped it on it's head and changed the
orirentation o1: that section.
Ledvina: $o this is all rewritten?
Krauss: The whole thing. What we said is if trees re~uire trimming or
removal, that we're ordering people to do it as a part of the tree
preservation plan.
Aanenson: Unfortunately saying that this will be rewritten appears on the
top of the next page. $o I tried to make an attempt to say that we didn't
really look at this because that will be, as it says here, will be amended
with the adoption o1: the tree preservation.
Ledvina: Just one other thing and I won't belabor the point 'but Just one
other thing in item 6. We talked about this and our deliberations here.
When we talk about looking at the third sentence. No fill material or
construction activity shall occur in these areas. I think we should also
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 29
say something to the effect too. No fill material or construction
activity, including heavy equipment traffic, shall occur within these areas
because I can just see the developer needing to get through an area and
just taking his 50 ton tractor and going right' over this big old oak and
then putting the fence back up. And who's to know that he hasn't.
Olsen: Well we'll know because the tree will die and you'll be able to see
that.
Harberts: But how long later?
Ledvina: I know we've talked about that many times but I think it's a real
important thing that the developer understands.
Aanenson: Jo Ann, aren't you going to put in snow fence around all of
them?
Olsen: Right.
Krauss: I mean we're doing everything we can but you're talking about long
term tree loss?
Ledvina: Just talking about construction activity. And I would just say
it includes heavy equipment traffic because you might want to take the
fence down to get something over there. Not doing anythin~ to the tree.
Aanenson: It still damages the roots.
Ledvina: Yeah, it will still damage the root system. $o at any rate. And
then let's move to. On page 2. Section 8. Just so I understand. When
you say, at the city's discretion.the-value of tree preservation may be
utilized to offset landscaping requirements. You mean the value of tree
preservation easement?
Krauss: The value of the trees.
Ledvina: The value of the other trees on the site? We're not specifically
tying it to the tree preservation easement in this case. Okay.
Krauss: You mean some kind of a land cost analysis?
Ledvina: Right. I thought about that and I was wondering, was that when
you were getting at here? That's it.
Conrad: Diane, anything else?
Harberts: No.
Conrad: Nancy, anything?
Mancino: No.
Conrad: Well you know, we've given some comments. Again Kate I'm back to,
what are we doing here? We're really not passing, the comments you're
Planning Commission Meeting
3uly 7, 1992 - Page 30
ooing to incorporate them. Will they come back?
Aanenson: Yes. I'd like to bring them back.
Conrad: So really our comments are good and we don't really have to make a
motion now do we?
Aanenson: No. Unless you want to table it.
Conrad: Maybe we should just table it.
Krauss: Or continue it.
Aanenson: It'd be at least a month for me-to do a quick tuTn around and
call other cities and may Jeff maybe come up. with different species list.
Interios. Exterios. So maybe a month so maybe the first one in August.
The next one in July is pretty full. So August would be a month so August
4th probably would be.
Conrad: Nancy, you had a motion?
Mancino: I move that we table the, what are we looking at? Zoning
Ordinance amendment to the landscaping regulations and we see it again when
Kate has added our comments to it.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Ledvina: Second.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance amendment
regarding the landscaping regulatlon~ for site plan reviews. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
pUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED PER
RESIDENTIAL LOT FRoM I TO 20VERSTORY TREES.
30 Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: Is there concern by engineering or whoever, when you talk about
boulevard planting. I'm guessing you're not just talking trees. Maybe
some other type of planting materials.
Olsen: We were just talking trees.
Harberts: Are they concerned that the root system may, in a sense somehow
get involved with the utilities and cause problems?
Olsen: Oh yeah. Sidewalks.
Mancino: How have other cities dealt with that? I mean Minneapolis. You
go to any city around the country.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 31
Krauss: Yeah Minneapolis, that's true. Minneapolis has broke up sidewalks
but Minneapolis also has overhead utilities. Your cable and your electric
and telephone run down alleys and you don't, ! think you have gas lines.
don't know. There's got to be some way of working this out. It seems
unfortunate to think that first of all we need a 60 foot right-of-way and
then we need a 10 foot utility easement so there's going to be 80 foot of
space whese you can't put a tsee.
Olsen: Right. So you know, and I have been working with them on-this
othes psoject and we'se finding that these is a mutual middle gsound where
it does work. But I don't have the facts on how. If that was something
you wese intesested in, then we would pussue it.
Conrad: You've been working with who?
Olsen: The engineering department and the stseet maintenance depastment.
They're involved. I bsought them into this process, that other
landscaping, the boulevard psoject because we really need it and it seally
had gone quite a ways before they were even bsought in and then we drove it
with them and they were like well, you know we're out these measuring it
and we find out that again the wing on the snowplow would have been cutting
them all down. Because we had it. They had the, the consultant had the
trees between the sidewalk and the street. So now we have it on the other
side so it should work. But there is the concerns with the utilities.
Harberts: So the trees are on the inside of the sidewalk?
Olsen: .Outside now.
Krauss: No inside, you're right.
Olsen: Yeah, right. Toward the house.
Conrad: Our culture is dictated by snowplows.
Olsen: But it should work. And they can, where they'se located they can
swing out. They can make adjustments too.
Mancino: What happened then on Lake Susan Hills subdivision? Didn't the
Council pass 2 trees?
Olsen: The Addition, the 9th Addition. Yes.
Krauss: As a PUD, they added it as a condition.
Mancino: And so what happens there about the $750.00, did that go up to
$1,000.007
Olsen: That was only $750.00. It was still at $750.00. It was at $150.00
and we switched it up to the $750.00.
Ledvina: Oh okay.
Mancino: So the developer was still able to do the 2 trees for $750.007
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 32
Krauss: Well but it doesn't mean it costs that.
Mancino: Yeah, I brought my wholesale price list of trees and.
Krauss: See that $750.00 is $500.00 of which is seed and sod. And to sod
a home, you're talking about $900.00, $1,000.00, $1,200.00.
Olsen: But $250.00 is just for the tree. Well anyway, that was one
alternative we were looking at that might take the place of the other one.
And then the other one was just the reforestation plan. There might be a
project. Picture if Lake Susan Hills 9th had none of the nice trees. It
was all cornfields. Well we've had that with the other additions where
maybe they would have provided an outlot for just a stand of trees instead
of having boom, boom, boom, boom. They might, so again. Again, these are
all flexible things that we can do. That we can add as some of the options
that they have. Using the goal of the Tree Board, what they really intend
or what they want. Maybe I'm not speaking correctly for you but maybe some
of the reforestation wasn't just per lot but also if we could bring back
some of the stands of trees. $o in the future that's for all public use.
Mancino: I'd love to see each development have a 'complete whole
reforestation plan and within that reforestation there may be some
boulevard plantings. There may be, there needs to be some guidelines about
the reforestation things but I think it'd be wonderful for every
development. Even those that are wooded. I mean they're obviously going
to have to take down like on the Song property, they're probably going to
have to take down trees to put in the house pads and to put in the streets
and there's going to be areas where there aren't any trees so how do we
keep reforesting that?
Conrad: When you talk about boulevard plantings, you're really not talking
about every street. You're just talking about the impact in certain
streets.
Olsen: Well it would be every street in the subdivision. Local streets.
Conrad: See I like boulevard plantings but that's not, my impression is
not every street. I like an impact with, I think you can make a terrific
impact on any new development or like any facility. Entryways. The sense
of presence. The sense of getting into it. A boulevard. One'boulevard
that has a lot of trees Just sets the tone for that development so I guess
I've always, and when we were talking about this before. I like the
boulevard planting concept. It may be a little bit more complex. The
bottom line is, you require two trees per house. Isn't that simple? We
don't have to screw around with rules. We.just change the number from 1 to
2 and it's done. I think I said that before, that's so simple to reforest
the city is just increase, with just one little number. Whereas you get
into boulevard plantings, then we get into difficulties. Maybe some
arbitrary things and costs and I don't know so. But I do like the thought
of boulevard plantings. When it's concentrated. When it makes an impact.
I guess I'm not interested in figuring out how we make every street a
boulevard and I don't know if that's, you know. I don't know why not. It
just seems.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 33
Mancino: Then find the homeowner would say, well why didn't you put the
trees on this street.
Harberts: Why didn't you buy on that street?
Mancino: Well like when I bought a little house in South-Minneapolis, and
they didn't put big trees on our street because it was a very small street.
Two block long and it doesn't have any sidewalks. A nice little place in
South Minneapolis and they put buckeye trees. What are those chestnut
trees? And they're not huge and it's a small scale street and the small
scale homes so it wasn't big, huge sugar maples or anything. They kind of
kept the scale with the area. And each of us, I think got one boulevard
tree. It was wonderful. I mean we replaced huge elms. I would have
wanted one on my street...
Harberts: I think there's some discussion too though with the fact that
the way some of these lots come in on the plans. I don't know if 2 trees
are going to fit.
Ledvina: I have that concern also.
Mancino: But what if they're ornamental like you get a crabtree and you
get, I mean I like the idea of putting in many more trees than what we have
on the list and your idea was the ornamentals and more conifers so they
don't have to be huge trees.
Harberts: Well yeah, and I don't disagree 'with having 2 trees in a sense
but you know like I said, from all practicality-even that one that went
over on Frontier Trail. That one little cul-de-sac across from Frontier
Court, there's an interesting front yard. I don't even know how you'd put
2, even 2 small ornamental trees in there.
Ledvina: And you're also dictating to the homeowner what he or she can do
with their property. I mean we always are but try to cut them some slack.
We have a cul-de-sac. We live on a cul-de-sac so we have a pie shaped
front yard and it works for us. We have two trees but some of the other
houses, they only have 1 tree and it's just right.. They don't have to have
another tree there so I'm not convinced that 2 treesper lot is the right
thing to do. We've got a lot of new lots that are going in that have 25
foot setbacks.
Harberts: That's what we have, yeah.
Ledvina: And is that appropriate? I don't know.
Harberts: Well and I think also that, you know what I'm seeing from the
homeowners is because of the area, kind of that presence or whatever,
people they like to put in more landscaping themselves to personalize their
homes. Rather than the tree, maybe it's the bushes or they have flowers or
something like that. So are we, as personalizing their home but I don't
know. Do we want to just stand up and count trees or look at it from the
overall landscaping perspective?
Planning Commission Heeting
3uly 7, 1993 - Page 34
Conrad: What do you, basically it boils down to, what do you want the
developer to do? We kind of want the individual to do their thing but what
do we want the developer to do? They come in.
Ledvina: That's a hard thing to say. I mean I look at it, you know we
talk about a reforestation. Replanting trees that we cut down and we're
dotting the landscape with trees. And I think about some of the concepts
of cluster zoning or open space zoning where we don't put all the houses
like once every 2 acres. Or once every 10 acres. We cluster them together
and have nice areas. And I'm wondering if we can use, well we've talked
about using that concept and I think for tree plantings and it seems to
make some sense as well. Have nice stands of trees where.they can be more'
noticed or more enjoyed as a grouping or whatever. I don't know necessarily
how to translate that into reality but I think there's maybe some
transference in that concept.
Olsen: That's why I think those two alternatives we can work, use those
together and it will kind of be like we'll know it when we see it but
hopefully we can come up with some guidelines to, minimum guidelines.
Conrad: Okay. Hy perspective is, there are major corridors in Chanhassen
that should present an.image that we don't have right now. Whether it's on
CR 17 or major arteries that really we should have had some significant
landscaping to. And it's going to set a feel for people who's traveling or
for us. And then once you're in the neighborhood, I don't care. I guess
don't care if it's 1, 2, 3 trees. Whatever we want to do. That's fine but
I really do believe that we should have, I don't know if we call it an
overlay zone or whatever but ! think we should have a plan for those major
thoroughfares, streets that tell us this is going to have a certain image.
That's my vision.
Krauss: Jo Ann kind of points out though, you're talking about, those are
not streets the developers build. Those are streets we build and the
county builds.
Olsen: Those would be city projects.
Krauss: Yeah. On Kerber Boulevard we're doing a reforestation this year.
We have an arrangement where we are funding the upgrading of virtually
every county road in the city.
Harberts: Every county road?
Krauss: Every county road through TIF dollars and that gives us the
leverage of saying what we want it to look like. What becomes part of the
process.
Olsen: We are pursuing that part of it. Again, this just focuses on the
subdivisions that are coming in now. I think it's valid to have it on the
local streets too.
Conrad: I don't understand it though. I guess it may be but I don't
understand it.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 35
Olean: Well it's essentially what you're doing with the I tree per lot
too.
Conrad: What you're telling me on 1 tree per lot is maxtng out that front
yard so how are we going to change it? If i tree per lot maxes it out, how
are we going to make it any different?
Olean: Well the boulevard plantings allows you to get more towards the
street.
Conrad: So we're back to the covering the street. That's the difference?
Instead of it being a tree in the middle of the yard, it's really covering
the street.
Olean: Yeah. And then also we could work on maybe it's, you know adjacent
to the lot lines or like on each lot line. You know it's not boom, boom,
boom, boom.
Krauss: One of the things that concerns me throughout the whole thing, and
I in the past have been a supporter of the multiple tree approach but it
seems like we're tailoring an ordinance for the lowest common denominator
and that's something we just don't normally do. It's like you don't write
an ordinance to catch 100~ of the criminals because it makes everybody
else's life miserable. 95~'s a good rate. Relative to tree preservation,
we don't find too often many sites and we do have them in the city, but
eveybody points to Lake Susan Hills. But there aren't too many cornfield
lots in the city. As we move south of Highway 5 we'll come into a few of
them but we're doing, I mean and Nancy everything around your neighborhood
has significant trees and now we work to save those trees. And you can
even look on the old farmsteads, you'll find hillsides that they didn't
touch or creek areas or whatever.
Mancino: So the important part is going to be Preserving?
·
Krauss: Yeah. So I'm not certain, you know I think we may be laboring
overly intensively to solve a problem that's not really there most of the
time. If you add into the mix the fact that most people want to landscape.
Most people will do this all of their own free will. It will take them a
while maybe but they'll do it.
Ledvina: They'll do what's right. I put 2 trees in my yard. Not because
I had to but because that worked well. I thought it did anyway so. And 3
trees doesn't work. I would have been upset if somebody would have told me
that I had to put that third tree somewhere.
Mancino: As I drove around I looked over on the city thinking about it,
and most front yards, and I didn't really look to see the size of the front
yards. I just saw a lot of average front yards and it was mostly north of
TH 5. A lot of east of where I live. Had 2 trees in their front yard. I
mean somebody put them there. I'd say almost 95~ of the houses had 2 trees
in the front yard.
Krauss: I know that this original discussion, Jo Ann was there too, came
specifically out of people's frustration with the Lake Susan Hills and a
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 36
couple of other projects that tended to be large, mass graded projects
offering entry level houses.
Mancino: And you can see that all the way almost to Galptn, almost to Lake
Lucy Road. If you look down you can see that Lake Susan Hills and you
can't see a tree at all.
Krauss= But there's a lot of, there's some photographic retrospectives on
Levittown. I mean look at what Levittown looked like in 1947 and every
house was exactly the same and it was all perfectly flat and.not a single
thing standing that was green. You come there today and every house looks-
different and it looks forested. I mean it's just the natural evolution of
what people do to their property.
Ledvina: They've got to do something and one of those something's is plant
a tree. Everybody does something.
Olsen: And I tried to figure out if there's a way to say, if your lot was
this small, you could do 1 tree. This big you could do the 2 or 3 and,
I don't know. Maybe there's a way we can combine all.
Harberts= I kind of like that overall plan in terms of development but I
still like to see the homeowner have their own control or choice in terms
of what they do with their individual property. That's Just my personal
feeling.
Mancino: I agree. I still would be very interested in a development
that...where a developer had some sort of plan for reforesting.
Harberts: With clumps of trees or whatever.
Mancino: Development allowed me to do what I needed to on my parcel but
had some maybe common areas which you see so much of now. The backyards
that are common together. And if the developer had gone to that degree.
Krauss: And the way the tree preservation ordinance is set up, the new
one, it kind of gives us the leverage to say, I mean you've got to break a
few eggs to put a subdivision in. You're going to lose some trees anyway.
As soon as they do that, we then have the leverage to say, well where are
you going to replace them and how are you goin~ to do that? How are you
going to address this issue? And I think we get to your comprehensive tree
preservation plan or reforestation plan.
Harberts: Yeah, and if it's designated as a corridor or whatever, then
they know there's going to be a lot more requirements up front. But again,
I still think the individual properties really should lie with the
homeowner.
Krauss: Well we'll continue to do it. I mean but it's been very difficult
for us to administer.
Olsen: The individual lots.
Planning Commission'Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 37
Krauss: I can't tell you how much time Sharmtn spends on these things and
going out to visit them and giving extensions and giving back checks and
getting yelled at for not giving back checks and getting caught in the
middle because the developer made the buyer escrow $750.00 and didn't tell
them about it until closing, even though the builder knew about it for 4
months. I mean it's just endless.
Harberts: Well exactly and I think that conversation too about the
$1,000.00 and stuff like that. I mean showing up at a closing and coming
up with, cough up another $750.00 or $1,000.00. Break the deal.
Olsen: The two alternatives that we showed in here, we could solely put on
the developer and those are conditions that they have to meet and before
they would get, they all have a letter of credit. In fact we've kind of
been doing that lately anyway like with the 9th Addition and with Royal
Oaks. They've all gone through their development contract and letter of
credit has money that covers the whole landscaping plan that they proposed.
We will not let go of that until all that landscaptng's in that they, and
that was the 1 tree per lot.
Ledvina: Until every last tree is in?
Krauss: Well what we do is we allow them to draw down their letter of
credit as things are installed.
Olsen: And they usually do that once the utilities come in.
Krauss: But we'd much prefer to have the developer over a barrel than...
Harberts: Isn't ultimately though the costs are still born by the
homeowners?
Krauss: There's no question they're passed along but the developer has
tremendous effiencies in buying wholesale and getting.crews to do things
when they want to and staging things. Rnd the developer is budgeting, if
you're talking about budgeting $40,000.00 or $35,000.00 a lot or whatever
it is for improvements, and land carrying costs and everything else, I'm
not going to say it's not a burden but it's easy to roll in the cost of
that. It's a lot easier than you showing up at Northwest Title and being
hit with it.
Ledvina: ...when I saw that in print, have the developer bear the cost and
not the homeowner. I mean that's going to be a pass thru cost. I know
you're right in what you're saying but we shouldn't be naive to think that
that, oh the developer's Just going to suck that up.
Krauss: It really isn't a matter of the cost going away Matt, it's a
matter of equity and how it's applied. You know then it becc~es a cost
that's rolled up in the price of a house and it gets sucked into the
mortgage and nobody.
Harberts: Which is easier than out of pocket.
Conrad: Okay, so what's our direction to Jo Ann?
Planning Commission Heeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 38
Harberts: Well I think the comments she made eaiter about maybe combining
i and 2. I think we talked about the overall comprehensive plan. In a
sense establishing those corridors and the developers know right
think we've talked about really Just one tree per lot. Leave it up to the
individual landowners to go further. Or homeowners to go further with
landscaping or tree planting or whatever. Those are the things that I'm
hearing.
Olsen: And what we are suggesting is that we would take it back to the
Tree Board and let them.
Conrad: And they're not going to like what we just did, right?
Olsen: No, I think that they will.
Conrad: I thought they wanted, I thought Richard was here because he
wanted 3 trees.
Olsen: No, he was actually looking at 2 trees and I think that these other
alternatives are still meeting what it was we're going for.
Krauss: Richard wants to achieve goals. I mean the bigger goal with
reforestation of the city and I'm not sure he'll dicker on the details of
how you get there.
Conrad: Okay. Just talk to me one more time. The overall plan. It's like
we're focusing in on the subdivision but I'm back out of that. I'm looking
for the overall city plans so we have these treescapes.
Olsen: Yeah, we haven't gotten to that yet.
Conrad: But that's what I really care about. I honestly don't, I'm not
sure of our impact here. I know we have to have something that goes. Not
just subdivision oriented. It's the whole street and roads.
Krauss: If you look at the way we've been doing business in the last few
years, it's already happening. I mean look at Minnewashta Parkway. There
is, I don't think the landscaping is in yet but that does have a
significant landscaping component. We're doing it on Kerber. The designs
for the north and south access boulevards include extensive landscaping and
trails and I mean it's becoming just the way we.
Conrad: Why are you doing that? I guess what's forcing you to do that
Paul?
Krauss: The fact that we thought it was a good idea and it fit the goals
that we were trying to obtain. We're able to wrap them into construction
projects where the landscaping.
Olsen: Yeah, there's nothing requiring that. There's nothing that we're
going to that says this is what we should be doing but.
Conrad: So then why are we, if you're getting that done anyway, why do we
need what we're looking at right now?
Planning Commission Nesting
3uly 7, 1993 - Page 39
Olsen: This Is Just dealing with the subdivisions again.
Harberts: Nell I think at the same time though it's putting the
developer's on notice though in terms of what expectations are because when
they come into the door, they want to know what their out of pocket costs
is up first. And then come to us with a plan that shows that.
Olsen= I mean this is one way that we do have control.
Harberts: And if a subdivision, as I understand it, is going to go into a
primary corridor that's been established, they know this up front. When
they put their site plan together, what's expected so when we see it here,
it's going to be a total package deal. That's the way I'm interpretting
this.
Conrad: $o the Tree Board does not, who's on the Tree Board?
Olsen: Nancy. Tim. Dick Wing. And then it's.
Conrad: So you guys don't, what Paul's telling me is you guys don't cafe
about the overall, what's going on overall in the city.
Mancino: Well yeah we do.
Krauss: I think they care about the overall goal and not necessarily
incrementally exactly how you achieve it as long as we achieve it.
Olsen: The only problem with what you're doing tonight, you know by
sending it back to the Tree Board and bringing in these two new
alternatives is that it's going to take a while. You won't have something
in there immediately to all of a sudden require the additional, 2 trees or
whatever. That's the only down side but the fact is we've really been
doing this lately anyway. I don't see a.
Ledvina: Do we have a lot of PUD's coming up?
Olsen: Yeah, we do have some. Yeah we do.
Mancino: Do we have any just standard subdivisions coming up?
Krauss: Yep, you have some of those too.
Conrad: Okay.
Mancino: How long would it take, a month to go through the Tree Board?
Olsen: Nell we can talk about this, we can get this one, we've got a
meeting next week. I would say about a month. Then it comes back to the
Planning Commission and then to City Council.'
Conrad: $o it's not this summer.
Krauss= Well honestly, with our schedules and with the load we've been
carrying and with 3o Ann leaving in September and with my being in Peru a
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, 1993 - Page 40
lot of this summer, we can't commit to too much of anything.
Conrad: Jo Ann, you'll just have to stick around. Okay.
DISCUSSION OF TH 101 RE~I,..IG~NT ~-TERNF~T]I:VES.
Conrad: Paul, you've got something under new business, Trunk Highway
realignment.
Krauss: I do but do you want to go through that briefly or do you want to
save it?
Conrad: I'd prefer to save it.
Krauss: I could tell you that after having met with MnDot this afternoon,
it's probably not going to be going very fast. Just briefly, you know that
Fred Hoisington was hired by the City to do the TH 101 study 4 years, $
years ago. Because ~'ve been tinkering with the interchange design at 212
and TH 101, in part because we've been trying to fit in a park and ride
facility and part because we're trying to work with property owners. In
part because we want better access to Lake Susan Hills and then MnDot's
refining designs. What's happened is the interchange is skewed a little
bit. And what it did is it reraised the issue of exactly where should the
final link between Highway 5 and 212 be. And what it tends to say is maybe
we ought to look at alignments a little further west than the originally
proposed alignment. Plus since then the ISTEA bill has passed and we think
we can do a better job of highway design than may have been done in the
past. So we had one meeting with the neighborhood residents. We're going
to have to have more to refine the design. I've hired Fred Hoisington to
kind of shepherd the thing through because he's got all the experience from
the first time around and we figure this is right up his alley. One of the
things we met with MnDot today about though is, we were always anticipating
that. Well, the City's basically been rebuilding a State High~ay piece by
piece,, which we shouldn't have to do but because of that goofy designation
of TH lOl, we have been doing it. Initially we thought that we'd use TIF
dollars to finish it. But we've just heard that the TIF cornucopia is not
what it was supposed to be. I don't know if you've heard this news yet
officially but we had estimated that the TIF districts would generated
million in excess revenue. That's after we paid for all the things that
we've already got committed. So you have a wish list $11 million long.
Mancino: Total.
Krauss: Total. Which included things like community center and senior
housing and everything. I mean all the stuff that we're doing. That
doesn't include the currently funded projects. Anyway, because of. all the
devaluation of commercial/industrial property, there's been a 20~ knockdown
in the valuation of commercial/industrial property. You say 20~, maybe
that doesn't sound like enough but multiply that out over the 6 or 7 years
remaining in the district. Ail of a sudc~n your $11 million is now $4
million. And one of the things we were meeting at lunch today with MnDot
about is saying well guys, you've developed a cooperative program to work
with us on finishing Highway 5 and the frontage road. The access
Planning Commission Meeting
July 7, ~93 - Page 41
boulevard. It makes sense that you'd also want to work with us on
ifinishing off this state highway that we keep building for you and while
they basically said, and we understand their position. They're very nice
about it. They basically said we'd love to be in a position to help you
but (a), we're broke. (b), because the legislature made it a temporary
highway in 1935, they can't. So what we're going to do is kick it over
into another arena. It's an issue that always should have really needed to
be decided. Who's going to take responsibility for Highway 101 from
the Minnetonka line down to the Minnesota River? Who's going to ultimately
possess it and bow do we get it fixed? And there are some, the. probability
is it's going to be a county road of some sort. And the probability is we
may get some state dollars through some different funding sources than we
thought about but we have to have these set of meetings which means that
the neighborhood meetings that we've been having on the road alingments are
probably going to have to be delayed a little bit until we get this
straighten out because we don't want to spend a whole lot of city dollars
doing environmental assessments unless.we know we have the Fed's behind us.
8ottom line fact of the matter is, if we don't do anything with Highway
101, and the State does 212, all that traffic-running between 212 and TH.5
is going to run on old TH 10~, which doesn't do anybody any good. That's
enough said on that. We'll keep you posted. There are some land use
issues too by the way. I mean when we were finding the plans, it does have
some implications on a detailed basis on how the land use plan lays out in
there. 8ut we can present that to you. I can have Fred come to another
one of your meetings.
Conrad: Good.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chairman Conrad noted the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated 3une ~6, 1993 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Conrad: Report from the Director. Anybody want Paul to talk? Anybody? I
sure like your reports Paul.' I tell you that solves so much concern. It's
good communication. Anything else?
Manctno moved, Harberts ~econded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim