Loading...
1992 06 03CHANI~SSEN PLA~IN6 CO~IS$ION REGULAR HEETIN~ JUNE 3, 1992 Vice Chair Ahrens called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEHBERS ;~ESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Steve Earnings, Hatt Ledvina and 3can Ahrens MEMBERS ~J~SENT= Brian Batzli and 3elf Farmakes STRFF PR~[SENT= Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Dave Hempe[, Sr. Engineering Technician; and Tom Scott, City Attorney F~JBLIC HE/~RING = $/ETL~E) ~LT[RATXON PERMIT FOR A WETLanD ~LTERATION FOR THE PL/~CEt~-NT OF A DOCK THROUGH A CLASS ~ WETL~ ON .PROP~TY Z(~4ED RR. R~ R~SZDENTI~L ~ ~QCATED AT 7570 DOGWOOD RO~D. PETER ~ DE~ BRANDT. Public Present: Na,~e Peter Brandt ~ddress 7570 Dogwood Road Kate Aanenson presented .the staff report on this Item. Ahrens: Kate, on your first three conditions. Who monitors that and how often is that monitored? Aanenson: As far as the? Ahrens: Or I guess the first two. I'm sorry, I and 3-. Aanenson: When we've passed basically, it's my understanding that we passed the water fowl breeding season now and so that's my understanding they want to put that in shortly so that wouldn't be a concern at this point. I guess we would ask that they, we would advise them of when that time is. We do know what those dates are and I believe that's June something Dave. End of the water fowl breeding season. Hempel: According to the U.S. 'Fish and Wildlife, June 15th. Aanenson: Okay. So we would advise them not to put it i.n until after that date. I guess it's a complaint basis sort of thing too. Ahrens: I mean, how about numbers 1 and 3? Who checks to make sure that this wetland is not going to be disturbed after the dock is put In? Krauss: I think you're raising a real good point. These things do not require a building permit as does'normal construction. And your raising the point tonight points out that we have been responding to these things on a case by case basis. We have typically not had a program of going out periodically to check them. We certainly should be doing that the first Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 2 year with the construction. If you'd like to make, add a condition sayihg that the applicant shall notify staff upon installation so that it-can be reviewed and signed off on, I think that would be appropriate. Ahrens: Couldn't you Just go Out maybe 3 months from now or on a periodic basis and check it? Krauss: Well yes, sure. Ahrens: I mean we have a lot of conditions 'it seems like that say that wetlands aren't going to be altered and who's knows if they ever are. Krauss: Most of the times though that you see those conditions, they're associated with a larger development where you do have on site inspection and follow up. Either through our staff's engineering department or for the building department. This is kind of an unusual case. Ahrens: Would the applicant like ko address the commission? This is a public hearing. Anybody. Conrad moved, Erhart ~econded to close the public hearing. AIl voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as clo~ed. Erhart: Just to follow up on your suggestion. Whet did you mean by periodic inspection 3can? Continuous or Just after construction?. Ahrens: Well I don't have a real definite idea of what I mean by periodic inspections. Just that we see a lot of wetland alteration permits come through here and my experience, particularly in the development I live in is that the city doesn't go back out and make sure that .people aren't altering wetlands unless there's a complaint made by somebody who lives around it. Erhart: We'I11 guess that gets into the basic philosophy is if we want to have your government, you want them actively going out and looking over this and all the other things or do we want to respond by complaint. I think our philosophy has been to respond by complaint because for one thing I'm not sure it's practical to go out and inspect every project. Ahrens: Well we're trying right now to track all the wetlands it seems like in Chanhassen. Hasn't there been an intensive effort to do that? Krauss: You're both correct but there is an administrative problem. Clearly we have an obligation to make sure that the conditions are adhered to when the thing's initially installed and constructed. Periodic'checking of, we don't even know how many wetlands we have in the city. It's someplace between 300 and 400 and how many docks we might have in the.city, that's simply beyond the ability of our staff to do it so we've been relying on a complaint basis. Or we do have our building inspectors are out in the neighborhoods constantly and they.report back problems and we respond to those problems. Erhart: Okay, well anyway beyond that.. I assume then it's consistent with the requirements we imposed on the development next door?- Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 3 Aanenson: Yeah but as ! pointed out, there was a significant larger span of wetlands, the depth of that from the 925. Erhart: Yeah but essentially we're requiring the same thing. Aanenson: Exactly. The same conditions. Erhart: Why did we go fromw what's the difference between the dock and an elevated boardwalk. Or wasn't I supposed to ask? Krauss: Jo Ann knows and she's not here. Aanenson: It's really kind of one and the same. The intent is to keep it above the vegetation so it allows the vegetation to grow. Whether you call it a dock or. Erhart: I know we discussed this the last time when we did that. But anyway, I guess an elevated boardwalk is-what we're talking about here and perhaps must be acceptable. Other than that ! think it looks okay. No other comments. Conrad: I would attach just a condition that says, and I think it should happen with all permits. I don't know how we monitor.it downstream in years but I do think that after a permit is issued, like a building inspector should go out and take a look. And so I just wrote, staff review upon completion of the project should occur. And I think that's Just real reasonable and I don't think I want to single this project out. really would like to be doing that for..everyone so staff, if that makes sense in the future, I sure would like that and I'd like to attach it to this. Otherwise I think everything looks good. Ledvina: The boardwalk, that's a permanent i.nstallation? Aanenson= No. It's a seasonal dock. It will come out. But the intent is to just have it raised. That's why it's called a boardwalk. It's not on grade. Emmings: It's a high dock. Ledvina: Okay. $o every year they're going to be going back in and they're going to be putting it in and taking it out? I don't know. I see that, there's going to be a lot of traffic in the wetland and. I don't see that as a good thing for the wetland. Aanenson: The area that they're putting it in right now, their dogs. I walked the site. The dogs have been swimming down there. There's kind of a cleared, slightly cleared area right now and as I stated before, I'm not sure that all the posts will be coming'out. Maybe you might want to make that part of the recommendation. Ledvina: That the posts be set on a permanent basis? Aanenson: Yeah, or something like that. Planning Commission Nesting 3une 3, 1992 - Page 4 Ledvina: iWell I don't know· I don't know what's best for the wetland in terms of the least disruptive activity that would occur down there. If you feel that that would help the situation. Aanenson: Yeah, this is how Crimson's Bay doing their's. Krauss: I guess I have a question for the city engineer' In the past I've seen a number of the installations where the boardwalk section I think stays there all winter and it's Just the dock that comes in and'out. The one we had on Lotus Lake was built that way. Hempel: That's correct Paul. I think the freeze/thaw, the ice out condition will do damage to the docks that are out in the water themselves but back in the wetlands they are protected from froze heave or-ice heaves. Ledvina: So then in the wetland area, that will be a permanent installation then right? Semi-permanent. Hempel: Semi-permanent, yeah. I believe that's how they are on the Lotus Lake. Earnings: Isn't most of this wetland in the lake? Aanenson: That's what I was going to say. All the wetland .in this situation is in the lake. It's all grass. Emmings: It's below the, where the water' meets the land. It's to the lake side of where the water's meeting the land. This wetland. But I think on Crimson 8ay we did not require any permanent installation through the wetland according to the same reasons. Aanenson: Yep · Emmings: There was talk at that time too I remember. There has been other. times of what it would mean to leave permanent posts in these areas where' you've got docks there and where you've got snowmobile traffic in tbs winter time. So I don't know. I can't think of one where' we've require permanent installation and I'm not sure it would be a good idea without looking at it and maybe having your engineer look at it. Ledvina: I think that's reasonable. I just-had a question as lto what's physically going to happen there. What are we permitting over the long term for this wetland? Okay, that seems reasonable. Ahrens: It does sound like a good idea and maybe in the future for wetlands that aren't submerged in water to include that as a condition. Ledvina: Ladd mentioned the review of the-project upon completion. One other thing that Paul mentioned I think that could also be added would be the notification. The applicant shall notify City staff as to when the dock installation will occur to enable inspection. I think that gives the city the opportunity to go out and take a look at what's happening as well as follow up once it's completed. So I think that would be helpful as well. That's it. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page $ Emmings: I agree with Matt~s last point here. The way to do it is to have the applicant notify staff. I think that's the way that condition ought to be worded. And number 3. There should be no filling or dredging permitted. I think there ought to be a period right there and we ought to strike the rest of that sentence. They're not asking to do any filling or dredging anywhere are they? Well let's Just make that real blunt then. The only other thing that occurred to me is condition ! says that the ground cover abutting the wetland won't be disturbed. We.'re talking about a 1 inch strip or a 1 foot strip or a 10 foot strip. I don't know if they can read this and know what you mean. Aanenson: Okay, it's about 15 feet and I met with the Brandt's out on the, Mrs. Brandt out on the property. What the concern is we want it left in a natural state because it is abutting the wetland and in the past when we haven't addressed this, maybe over the next 2 years they'll end up moving it and then we're back to the situation where we don't have that butter against the wetlands. £mmings: But the condition doesn't tell them what you mean in terms of the depth of that strip and I don't know what would be reasonable there but. Aanenson: I can extrapolate that from the contours of the, it's about feet. Emmings: Does it follow a certain contour? ~anenson: Yes. Emmings: Do you know what that contour is so we could Just put it'in right now? Well, why don't you put that in between now and City Council. I don't have anything else. Ahrens: I agree with the comments made by everybody so far and I don"t have anything further on-this. Can I have a motion? Conrad: I just have one comment. We're assuming the wetland can*t be tampered with basically. What we're trying to do is keep the barrier there for whatever reason. That's assumed. And is that assumed based on our, DNR requirement? Assumed based on an ordinance that we have? Aanenson: Yes. What we're trying to do is get the doc. k out past the wetlands so it will Just be over the top of the wetland and then all the docking and stuff will occur past the edge of that wetland fringe. $o there will be minimum disturbance of the wetland. Conrad: The idea is really not to tamper with the wetland. Let the dock go through and keep the thing there. The first point, the ground cover abutting the Class A wetland not be disturbed and shall be left it's natural state. We really want that to apply to the Class A wetland itself too don't we? Ground cover is insignificant compared to the wetland. Insignificant. Emmings: Ladd, isn't what's going on here, the general rule. is, you can't- touch a wetland unless you get a wetland alteration-permit. Now they've Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 6 come in here with their permit. Here are the conditions and sort of what I hear you saying is, you want to restate the general rule as a condition, which I don't think you need to do. Conrad: I just want to make, yeah. Other than the fact that the applicant will know what the general rule is. Emmings: Well he-knows because he knows he had to come in and get this. Ahrens: It may be assuming too much though. I think it's never a bad idea to restate something that is very important. Emmings: Alright. Ahrens: I think that's a good idea. Conrad: The Planning Commission, I recommend the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #92-7 to allow construction within 200 feet of a Class A wetland and installation Of a dock through a Class A wetland with the conditions listed by staff. Adding point number 5, that the applicant will notify the staff for ir. eview upon completion of the project and that point number 6. The Class A wetland will be allowed to return, the Class A wetland will be maintained'in it's natural state. Ahrens: Maintaining implies though that they're going to be doing something to it. Conrad: Is there a better word? Ahrens: It should be left. Conrad: Will be left in it's natural state? Erhart: I'll second that. Conrad moved, Erhart aeconded that the Planning Commia~ion recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-7 to allo~ construction within 200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a dock through a Class A wetland with the following conditions= 1. The ground cover abutting the Class A wetland not be distrubed and it shall be left in its natural state. 2. The dock cannot be installed during waterfowl breeding season and shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. 3. There shall be no filling or dredging permitted. 4. The dock shall be raised a minimum of one foot above the OHW 944.5' level through the wetland. 5. The applicant will notify the staff for revie~ upon completion of the project. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 7 6. The Class A wetland will be left in .it's natural state. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARXNG: NON-CO~FORMXNG USE PERMTT FOR A RECREATION6L _RE/~'lflLOT FOR P%EASANT ACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Publtc Pr ese nt: Name ~dre~ Pete Warhol Don Bulen Steven Erickson Jerry Johnson Steve Knigge Chuck Hultner Bob Hebeisen Tom MeTz Mark Rogers, Pres. Pleasant Acres Homeowners Assn. 3831Lesiee Curve 3871Leslee Curve 3850 Lesiee Curve 3940 Glendale Drive 3910 Glendale Drive 3900 Leslee Curve 3607 Ironwood 3201 Dartmouth 3951Leslee Curve .- Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this issue. Ahrens: So if I can summarize here, what"s different is the size of the dock, the number of the boats at the dock and the 7 power lifts? Aanenson: Yep . Ahrens: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to speak? If you'd step up to the microphone here and give your name and address. Mark Rogers: My name is Mark Rogers. I live at 3851Leslee Curve and a resident of Pleasant Acres since 1986. I'll try and be brief. ' I know you are familiar now with who we are and so forth. A couple of corrections. One, our subdivision was not done in 1984 as Kate just said. It's 1954. Ahrens: No, it says 1954 in our report. Mark Rogers: She did just state 1984. I Just wanted to-make sure. Ahrens: It's right in our report. Mark Rogers: Okay, fine. Just making clear here. "And before I start, I'd just like to again say that our beachlot has always been in very good condition as maintained by our neighbors. Stated by our neighbors and the city surveys and to my knowledge we have no outstanding complains by neighbors or other residents of the area and since I've been there I have known of none. Okay, that said. A couple of' items. First, Kate you had asked me for the Deed and Articles of Incorporation because you were unsure of the date. We were incorporated in 1968 and I have other copies of the Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 8 Deed if you're interested. Presently we have some, by my count 82 homes in the association. The City staff's Minutes I believe mention 65. I think'. that number was taken from the blank on the application which said, how many existed in 1981. So it's not 65 now. It is 82 or more. There are more homes under construction. And here's a list of the known homeowners in the association. Now to the issue. He request that the Planning Commission approve our non-conforming use permit for the beachlot at our requested levels in some cases in contrast to the city staff, for the following reasons. Basically the first issue is that we do question the 1981 survey. The ordinance passed just this past February obviously refers to the nature and extent of the beachlot'use and obviously also sets maximum limits on what can exist down at the beach and what can-be used down at the beach. However, the survey was also obviously a one time shot and there's no evidence to say that the city attempted to determine what the maximum use was during the summer of 1981. Only they did a one shot survey. While the physical dock configuration might have appeared as described, as you all know there's lots of different ways of tying up boats to a dock or beaching them on the same shoreline or an adjacent shoreline which was undeveloped property until about 1989 or so and some of our residents did use that to beach boats. Secondly item A(2), Thomas Metz. A resident. Long time resident of the Minnewashta area and a lakeshore owner was called to the City Council meeting by Councilman Wing to testify on what his recollection were of the old studies and levels of boats and so forth and he stated that he recalled that there were 15 boats at Pleasant Acres back in 1981. Mr. Metz has no known obligations and was not under contract or being paid by Pleasant Acres to do this. This was totally at the request of Mr. Wing that he came and his own desire. I Just mentioned the fact that we had more boats in the adjacent lot to the north and our own members' recollection is that there were never as few boats as what was contained in the city survey kept down at the beach. And lastly, the issue of dock length. The letter that came out for this meeting was the first that my association had seen any information regarding the length and width of docks. It was not contained in the survey which was previously distributed and this calls into question my mind the city's conviction that either those numbers may not be accurate or that they may not be important. Indeed the City's own 1982 ordinance has two specifications for length of dock. I believe it's either 50 feet or the length of'dock necessary to reach 4 feet of depth of water. Now, the item that I just uncovered today as to why the city may not even legally be able to limit the use of this beachlot is based on a legal opinion written by the law firm hired as the City Attorney. Now this was another issue that dealt with Pleasant Acres of whether or not a proposed subdivision, Country Oaks could be included as part of the beachlot and the conclusion was that the City could not limit the number of homeowners and their use of that beachlot or any other future owners because their use effectively already existed because the lands were deeded to the association before the ordinance was passed. And this item, and I'm real sorry the City Attorney isn't here to address this. Obviously I'm not a lawyer. I think it takes someone with that sort of expertise to comment on but the legal opinions I've gotten on is this a valid issue or not state that it is. And again this is his own firm and one of his staff people and he signed the cover letter for it which to me indicates that'he approved the memo that the City must consider the use and extent that existed in 1981 as that which could potentially result 1=rom all the lands which are not yet developed as well. Alright, now some details. On the Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 9 issue of the permit. One other item is that we're requesting which maybe goes on a separate piece of paper is we do have a chemical toilet now and have had one since way back when and it was there in 1981 and I'd like that to also appear on the permit. Ahrens: That is a separate application process.. Separate permit. Mark Rogers: Okay. But my understanding is though is that it would be grandfathered under the same sort of process or this kind of umbrella that this procedure is here today. At least that's the understanding I got from Kate. .. Aanenson= Yeah, that should have been included on there because he's stating that as part of the grandfathering issue. I don't think we're disputing that. It showed up on the 198l inventory. That should be included. Mark Rogers: Another question ! have is conerning the number of boats, ! just want to be clear. There would appear that you're count method for boats on shore now does not include any canoes. There is one canoe rack and it can have, I think the new ordinance states up to 6 canoes on it so that the boats you've listed now, 3 on shore, do not include canoes, and in our case, over turned fishing boats laying on timbers. Now what they were in 1981, I don't know what was there. Whether they were boats on trailers. Boats with motors on shore that were beached. I don't know. With that I guess I'd just like to respond as required to'discussion and allow other people to make statements. I believe this is going to be somewhat of. an interactive process. Ahrens: I'm sure there will be some questions for' you Mark. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this? Step up to the microphone. Pete Warhol: I'm Pete Warhol. I live at 3831' Leslee Curve and I'm the Treasurer of the association. Anything that's built, to my understanding,. anything built in Pleasant Acres or property owned or sold by Mrs. Anderson becomes part of that association. My count is, with the lots in Pleasant Acres and then the lots in Country Oaks, we have 1i3 lots and I know now that on TH 7 across from the fire house, I think that's Mrs. Anderson's property too and there's I don't know how many lots but there's several houses that are built there and they're going to be in the association. I just wanted to go on record with that. Ahrens: Okay, thank you. Mark Rogers: Yeah, the number of homes is not limited to just Pleasant Acres...All of the land described on... Ahrens: Okay. Would anyone else like to say anything? State your name and address for the record. Tom Metz: I'm the fictitious Tom Metz that you quoted so I thought I should perhaps defend myself. I don't know where this 16 to 18 boats that I said that was on there in 1981. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page lO Mark Rogers: I said Tom Metz. 15. I was trying to draw a parallel to last time. when we were talking about how we had designed through planning of this Lake Minnewashta because I also served on the Planning Commission and I served on the Park ~nd Recreation Committee for I don't know, 8 years. And part of this was finding a way to control the riparian, non-riparian, use of this lake. think what you're saying is that we said that there was like 50 boats that should be the non-riparian type of use and we said that by the time the park was introducing about 40 boats and that Pleasant Acres was introducing 20 and there was 3 or 4 housing areas that were introducing boats. Probably that we are doubling and tripling the non-riparin use on it. That's the statement I think I would have made. For me to say that there was 15 boats on there is something I wouldn't have said. My opinion is, number one I support that 1982 baseline. I think that for all of you who haven't been on Lake Minnewashta. ms you drive along Lake Minnewashta and you see all of these beautiful homes with 1 or 2 boats on it. One for sure. Maybe 2 and finally you come to this outlot and you see a smaller outlet than the conventional and you see 16 boats on that thing. To me that's objectionable. I think that you people are'here asking for 16 boats to go onto our lake. It would be like saying, let's take our housing area and we'll knock down a few homes and put in a nice parkin~ lot and we'll see 16 cars sitting up there in the middle of their housing area. So to me to think that 16 boats on a small lot is acceptable~ is something that's completely out of, is not something that I would supp~>rt. I've. come here tonight to perhaps ask you people that our issue i's, we've got access to - that lake through the park. We've got an area to bring on aM extra 20 or almost 40 boats so if you would do your share of using your 4 to 6 boats, whatever was there in the 1982 baseline, it would be very simple to come onto this lake and we could start preserving Lake Mtnnewashta instead.of trying to build up this lake use so that we'll continue to deteriorate what we've got. And I think that's my main purpose for talking here. I think that the '81 baseline as we've hassled with'this thing for so long. We had agreed to the '81 baseline and there ~re 4 or S boats there. You substantiated this last time and I totally support' that you do not go above this 4 to 6 boats. I was at a Planning Commission, or not a Planning Commission but as you know this Council meeting, the main Council meeting and thew took where you had voted the Trolls Slen and substantiated for that thing to say, stay 2 or 4. I think it was 2 boats. And they used the premise about some pre-existing covenants. 8ut to say that this applies. We are never going to stop what we're trying to do here and that's outlots that we have developed for all of these neighborhoods do not, any of the new ones, do not have access. I mean they do not have boats for overnight storage. We had a~reed to grandfather this thing in for the or '82 baseline and to now come back and bring this thing 300~ or 400~, I mean that's against what we've all worked so hard for. So that's all I have to say. Ahrens: I have a question for you Tom. You said you don'~ remember that there were 15 boats there in 1981. Do you remember? I mean do you have any recollection at all of 198I and what that beachlot looked like? Tom Metz: Gee, I've driven by it but to say. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 11 Ahrens: I don't have any recollection of 1981 either. Tom Metz: No, but I know that they did a survey. The City did a survey and they took pictures. It was substantiated. So that's all.' Mark Rogers: I stand by my statement and I would challenge the City to go back and listen to it's video tapes and transcripts. Ahrens= Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission? One thing, either Kate or Paul. Maybe you could explain why we're using. There seems to be maybe a misunderstanding of why we're using the 1981 base 1 i ne. Aanenson: That was the level-of use. Even though the ordinance said roi1 back to 1982, January of 1982. That's what the ordinance stated. Basically what we're looking at is the level of use for the summer prior to that. So is that what your question was? How 1981. Ahrens: There seems to be a misunderstanding that maybe 1981 was just a date pulled out of the sky someplace. Aanenson: That's when the new beachlot ordinance went into place that requiring, and I talked to Mr. ROgers on that this afternoon. There was a concern that he said you know, when we adopted this new ordinance, what is non-conforming mean? Non-conforming means'that you c~n't expand so I tried to explain to him the only way you can expand non-conforming is by going to the Board of Adjustments and asking for that relief. $o what we're trying to do now is figure out based on what information we've got and information they've provided, what that level of use was for 1981. And that's what the ordinance that we recently adopted states. To try to go back to the level and determine what that level was. Ahrens: Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing? E~tngs moved, Ledv[na seconded to close the public hearing-. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: Tom, do you have anything to say at all about this? I hate to put you on the spot like this. Tom Scott: No, I wish I could be helpful but I'm not familiar with your recent ordinance... This memo is just a generalized discussion about expanding non-conforming use which relates to ~he Pleasant Acres beachlot back in 1988. Aanenson: The clarification, as I just briefly read it too, and this is what Mr. Rogers and I were talking about earlier today is that it'talks about the expanding of the number of homes into the beachlot. It doesn't talk about the expansion of the level of activity of the beachlot and I think that's where the confusion lies. ! think Roger's point is that if there's more homes being brought into the association, that may be acceptable but what our understanding is that the level of beachlot use should remain stagnant at the 1981 level. Planning Commission Meeting 3une 3, 1992 - Page 12 Emmings: Not that more people couldn't use this. Aanenson: More people can swim and go down there, fine. But the level of the docks. Earnings: The facilities and the number of boats would remain the same. Ahrens: The public hearing is closed but ii= you'd like to make a short comment, that's fine. Resident: Yeah, if you read the whole thing it talks specifically about an example of a marina in Wisconsin ~here they extended the length of the dock and expanded the boat storage. It is not just the number of boats or the number of people. It is the size of... Ahrens: Well I don't think that we're going to be giving a legal opinion up here tonight. First of all, we are not in the position to do that.' That's left up to our City Attorney. Steve. Emmings: I've just got a couple of things. I guess first of all, I do live on Lake Minnewashta and I'd agree with his comments that they do a nice job of maintaining the beachlot. As a homeowner on ~ake Minnewashta, the-only thing that bothers me about, two I guess is the things that bother me the most about the beachlots that are non-conforming are the cars that are parked on them and they're used to launch boats. I don't like that but both of those things they clearly were doing back in 1981 and I think we can't really do anything about that. As far as the number of boats is concerned, that's obviously the biggest issue. It says that in 1981 our survey showed that there 4 boats at the dock and there was room for 6 boats so I want to be sure I understand that that's 4 plus 2. Or does it mean that there was 4 boats and there was room to dock 6 more? Aanenson: 4 plus 2. Emmings: 4 plus 2? And then the 1981 survey also sho.~ed that there were 6 boats on land. So in 1981 there were 10 boats on that beachlot, zs that _. right? Aanenson: Correct . Emmings: Do we have-photographs of those boats? Aanenson land. have photographs-from last summer and the boats that are on Emmings: I'm talking about 1981. So when they say 6 boats or 4 boats on the dock and 6 on the shore, we don't know what they're calling a boat right? Aanenson: The notes that I have from the person that did the inventory; the boats that were on the dock specifically said motorized. Emmings: Okay. How about the ones that were on land? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 13 Aanenson: It just says land. There's no comment as to what type they' were. .Earnings: Okay. Well then ! have a question for Mark. Apparently the docks seemed to have been half the length in. Well no, one was 60 and one was 48 feet according to the '81 survey and now we've got 2 docks that are 96 feet long. As they sit today at 96 feet in length from the shoreline to the end. First of all, is that an accurate number do you know? Mark Rogers: To my knowledge it is. Emmings: How deep is it at the end of the dock? Today. Mark Rogers: Approximately chest deep or so. Emmings: 4 feet. Okay. I guess the way I'd come down on this. There's evidence that there was 10 boats there in 1981 and I'd be comfortable with the 10 boats. The dock length, it doesn't make any sense to me to ask them to cut the dock back to a depth that would be less than our ordinance presently allows. Aanenson: Except for this is an L shape so I'm not sure that that argument is getting out to meet that 4 foot in depth holds because it goes out and · then takes. Earnings: Well except that it's the 96 feet that gets them out to 4 feet I think is what he's. The L is another. 67 feet. Now that is clearly longer. Well no. You didn't measure the L in 1981 right? That's what our report says. Aanenson: Right. Earnings: So we don't have that number. And then the T dock is 96 with, and then the top of the T is 12 feet but we don't know what that was back in 1981 either. So if the 96 feet I guess is getting them out to 4 feet, that is fine with me. It doesn't make sense to restrict th~. To make them cut the dock in half because they have to be able to get 'out to that depth as far as I'm concerned. Our ordinance allows it now. And anything else, I don't know if there are any. other issues really are there? Ahrens: The 7 power lifts. Emmings: Well yeah. Now we haven't-talked about lifts before as we're working our way through this but it seems to me that's just, either you tie your boat to the dock or you put it on a lift and raise it up. -I don't see that that makes any difference. I think that ought to be. If we allow a certain number of boats, whether that boat owner uses a lift or just ties it to the dock or pulls it up on shore, it seems to me is up to the association and the boat owner. I wouldn't ~et involved in that. But I'd allow it I guess. Ledvina: I also support the 1981 survey. It's from the direction of the City Council. That's clearly the way they'want us to deal with these non- Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 14 conforming beachlots and I would also support the 10 boats that were documented in 1981. Other than that I have' no further comments. Ahrens: What about the dock? Do you have an)> problem with the .size of the dock? Ledvina: No. That's fine. Conrad: Homeowners were notified. Haven't heard from anybody on either side right? Of this beachlot. I think I can, one thing that's photographed quite a bit are lakes and beaches and whatever. There are a lot of homes in this association and I think the one thing that would sell us is if somebody came in and showed us how many boats whe~.e there. It's not that people don't take pictures of the lake so if you don't agree with what we come up with tonight, I think that the homeowners themselves really have some power in proving what was there because other beachlots owners have come in and done that and we pay attention. So again I'm going back to '81. '81 is our baseline but if you can prove something different versus hearsay. Something that has some merit in it, I think we'd all listen. I think what you've proven and what the staff inventory shows, and ! think a liberal approach on our part. Far more than what we've really given anybody else. At least on this level. Maybe the City Council has given more but I think that 10, given the 10 boats that were inventoried or possibilities, I guess I'm comfortable with that. That that can be proven. And all the other things that the homeowners or the beachlot request permit is asking for. T'm comfortable' with the seasonal dock. 96 feet. Now l would be uncomfortable with that but especially if a local or a neighbor showed up but no neighbor showed up. Emmings: You should also know. I've got 125 feet of dock out and sometimes have more. Conrad: And it takes that much.. Emmings: And I have neighbors with 150 to get out to 4 feet so that's not uncommon I think for our lake. Conrad: Okay. - Bill Finlayson: Dick Wing has a 160 feet. Conrad= He uses that for a runway I understand. Is Dick here? Dick Wing: I missed that. Conrad: We were just making light of length of docks Dick. Dick Wing: ! didn't get it...you've obviously measured it. Bill Finlayson: Well, I'm pretty sure about that number. Dick Wing: I can't tell you. How long is it? Bill Finlayson: Between 150 and 160. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 15 Dick Wing: And what does the ordinance say? Bill Finlayson: That will get you out to about 4 feet. Aanenson: 50 feet or whatever it takes to get you to 4 feet in depth. Conrad: I'm just challenging. I Just want to make sure that that 96. Ahrens: It's just a joke Dick. Conrad: Dick, watch it on TV. It's going to be pretty good. So. as long as everybody's comfortable with that 96 takes us to 4, I'm comfortable with that too. And all the other requests. The only other thing, we're talking about with other beachlot owners or homeowner associations. We're talking about milfoil signs. As you know, we don't allow private accesses anymore.. All the lakes are so, we're all so concerned with milfoil getting into the lake. that we really want your associatioD to post milfoil signs and although that doesn't catch it, at least it might make your association members as they bring boats in and out a little bit more sensitive. That is really a huge issue. You have the right to have the boat launch. It's grandfathered in but you've got to control it and you've got to make sure that, I think the city is going to get you some. Aanenson: Yeah, thank you for bringing that up Ladd. I had written that down. I was going to mention that when you got done with your comments. That we do have a name and we've given those to the other associations that have boats launched to put the sign up. Conrad: That's all. Erhart: What do you mean in your summary that the'dock is 96 feet by 67 feet in length? Aanenson: It's an L shape. It goes out 96 feet. Mark Rogers: The dock itself is 3 feet wide and it has.two sections of 32 feet... Erhart: I just wondered, the way that's written now~ is there, some potential to use that later to add more co~fusion and make longer Planning Commission meetings. In another 8 years when you review this again and argue about the same thing. , Aanenson: I think when we do the permits, we're trying to synthesize this information. Erhart: If you could make that a little clearer ! think it'would be helpful. The ordinance now says that you can have 50 feet or whatever it takes to get to 4 feet.. Aanenson: A depth of 4 feet. Erhart: Why is the term 50 feet in there at all? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 16 Ahrens: Maybe there's some place on the lake that it gets to 4 feet at 25 feet out. Erhart: Do we, in our current ordinance, are we trying to deal with Off street parking at all in this hen ordinance? Off street parking and trying to document that today· Are Ne... Aanenson: Yeah I guess we Nant to because we'd be concerned if they try to expand that· Erhart: Is that on the other applications? Aanenson: Yes. Some of them do. The last two that we had. Both had off street parking. Sunrise and Frontier TraiZ. .. Erhart: Is it separate than off street parking. Okay, so Ns're definitely trying to document. That's clear that that's 10. Okay. The ordinance, on a neN beachlot we Nould alloN. There was no canoe rack in 1981, is that right? There Nas a canoe rack? Ahrens: There Nere no canoe racks noted in 198i. Erhart: There was no canoe rack, okaY. Is there one now? There is one now. . Aanenson: Yes . Erhart: NoN that would normally be allowed on a neN beachlot now. Aa ne nso n: Yes · Erhart: And the chemical toilet's been there, that was there in '$17 Aanenson: Yes. Erhart: The only issue is the number of boats. In a new ordinance now, how do Ne determine the number of boats? If someone came in with a new. Aanenson: Three. Erhart: Three? So we don't distinquish betNeen boats on land and boats in the water or anything? Aanenson: Well Ne say 3 can be docked. They can have a canoe rack holding 6. Erhart: So it appears that really the, it's almost arbitrary. The only thing we can do is go back and look at the one instance. Somebody Nent out and looked at it and whether it Nas busy that' day or not, I guess is, Nithout photographs is going to be real hard to determine. Conrad: Well, as staff inventoried it and the homeowners can show us pictures. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page i7 Erhart: Yeah I know but at that time there was no appeals process for the inventory or no interaction. Somebody just went out on a certain day and counted the number of boats. Ahrens: Rs they did with all the other beachlots. Erhart: Yeah, so whether it was a good process or a bad process, I guess will be determined. Given that then, I guess I'd go along with what everybody said with 10 and suggest that if the people involved in this can come back and show that there was actually more useage, then they should do that with the City Council because 10 is as good a number as any at this point. Ahrens: Okay. The location of these docks, there's no. Is there any question that the perpendicular extensions don't. Aanenson: The extensions still are within the 10 foot setback. Ahrens: Okay. To be consistent, you know this has not been an easy process for us at all. You're not the first beachlot to come before us. We're trying to be consistent with the 1981 baseline unless there is other information and it's tough also bringing pictures in and documenting that the pictures were taken in 1981. I mean you know, I don't know what kind of evidence that is. Conrad: It depends on the boats. Erhart: Type of swimsuits. Ahrens: 198i style. Conrad: Earnings as a child would be running through-it. Emmings: A very young child. Ahrens: So the kind of documentation that I think the City would need to document the 1981 use would have to be something more than a picture because how could we tell when the picture was' taken. I don't know. It's kind of a tough thing. Erhart: A lot of photos have dates. Conrad: They used to. Ahrens: Yeah, in the 50's and 60's. If it's dated, that"s great. Yeah, if it's dated that's great. Anyway, I-'m going to go along with the 1981 survey also because it is the only thing that we have documentation of at the moment. The power lifts, I have no problem with and the size of the docks, I don't have any problem with. Do we have a motion? . Mark Rogers: And the toilet is included. Everyone understands that? Emmings: Let's just talk about that for a minute. Now we've got a separate conditional use permit for chemical toilet now but. they had one Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 18 back in '81 and that's been documented. $o that's grandfathered in as to that ordinance even though the purpose of that ordinance is in large part to protect the lake from' these things spilling over. We still can't regulate their's, is that right? Aanenson: That's my understanding. Emmings: That's a funny idea because you know they could stop me from dumping my sewage into the lake and hooking up to a sewer and stuff like that. Why wouldn't this be similar? Krauss: I think it is. If in fact this chemical toilet were leeching into the lake and causing a pollution problem. Emmings: Oh! So it would have to cause a problem. You've got to stack up some dead bodies before you can... Ahrens: How is this being maintained. Maybe Mark can tell' us how. Mark Rogers: It's presently being maintained by BFI. How it was done in 1981, I don't know. Ahsens: But currently you have a contract with BF! and they come out? Neekly or something? Emmings: How often do they get at it? Resident: Weekly. Emmings: Okay. That's what we're requiring in the new 'ordinance. sounds like you're doing it anyways. It Aanenson: It's Set back. It meets probably what would be required if they came in anyway so that's why I guess we didn't see a problem. Ahrens: One more thing Mark as far as the letter you have from the fir'm Roger Knutson used to work for. If you have a question about that, perhaps you could forward that to Roger and get an opinion about that and you can talk with the staff about that. Do we have a motion for the second time? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission ~ecommend approval of the Pleasant Acres Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit with 10 boats and essentially the docks as they exist. And everything else stays essentially the way it was in 1981 except I note that there was no canoe rack in 1981 and these is one now apparently. Conrad: They're asking for one. Emmings: Yeah. And I'd have no problem with that. Aanenson: Can I ask for clarification? Emmings: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 19 Aanenson: Then on the boats on land, 'that would be included in total number of boats? Emmings: Well yeah. I was afraid, yeah. Aanenson: Well canoe rack, we're assuming you can put 6 canoes in there. guess Ne can put it that way. Is t~at what you're assuming? Emmings: Yeah, I'm assuming that the canoe rack is. Any boat that's not a powered boat. A sailboat's fine. A 12 foot fishing boat is fine. I think we lived through that when we talked about canoe racks originally. Canoes are fine but not boats with motors. Conrad: And you agreed with the power lifts? Emmings: Yeah. And the rationale there is the lift is. just one way to · dock your boat and why get into it. Ahrens: Is there a second? Erhart: Yeah, I'll second it. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the PlanninglCommismion ;ecommend that the Pleasant Acres Non-Confo;ming Rec;eational Beachlot be allowed to have two docks, one g6' x 67' in length and the second one 96' x 12' in length, with space fo; 10 moto; boats to be docked, continued use of the boat launch, pa;king, chemical toilet, ~oto; vehicle access, and s~immin; beach. AIl voted in faro; and the motion ca;;ied. pUBLIC HE~J~IN~: BLUFF CREEK ESTATES. KEYLAND HOMES LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 ON THE E~ST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD: A. REZONING FROM A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO I~. RESIDENTIAL SIN~I-E FAMILY. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 61.45 ~?~S INTO 78 sINOLE FAMILY LOTS. C. WETLAND ALTERRTION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF WETI..AND. Public Present: Name Dave Johnson Gayleen Schmidt Rod Grams · Gary Horkey 3ames R. Hill Richard Schuller 821 creekwood 8301Galptn Blvd. 8640 Audubon Road 3471 $o.-173rd, Jordan 2500 CR 42, Burnsville 2724 Isle Royale Court Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on' this item. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 20 Ahrens: Sharmin, I have a question about, on page 2 of your report where you talk about Willians Pipeline Company with their 75 foot easement. And you state that, the third sentence down. Your questioning the design of two lots, Lots l0 and 14, Block 2, that they're buildable. What about all the rest of these lots? Like I guess Lots 1! thru 13 also and 29 and 30. Al-$aff: Usually when we look at a parcel, we.make sure that you can'place an average home with dimensions of 40 x 60 feet. You can place a 40 x 60 feet on those parcels. Ahrens: On these other ones? ~l-3aff: Yes. Krauss: If I can add too Commissioner. The easement is useable as rear yard area. The home just can't be in it or a deck can't be in it but gardens, yards, possibly even play structures I suppose can be within that area. Emmings: How deep is the pipeline? ~l-Jaff: Normally it's 3 feet. Krauss: The pipeline itself? ~l-Jaff: Yes. Emmings= Is that all? A1-Jaff: When we spoke to the pipeline company, they said becuase this area has been farmed, they might have lost some soil but normally, it is a depth of 3 feet. Ahrens: But there's no problem with Lots 1! or 137 They could fit a 40 x 60? R1-Jaff: We don't foresee problems with it. Unless they decide to build extremely large homes which then we would recommend that they find different sites. ~hrens: I hope the City makes sure that there are signs put up in their backyards warning them not to plant trees back there. Al-Jaff: Williams Pipeline usually sends their staff to meet with people that live along the easement to educate them about problems that might take place if they should dig in that easement. Rhrens: This is a public hearing. Is the'applicant here? Hill: Madam Chair, if I may. Jim Hill.- Consultants for Keyland. Ahrens: Sure, would you like to step up to the microphone please. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 21 Jim Hill: Hadam Chair, Jim Hill. Consultant for the applicant and the applicant here is represented by Gary Horkey who's a principle of Keyland Homes and Dick $chuller who is their sales and marketing director who will speak to the two lots that staff had concern about. Show you how their homes can fit on those lots. 10 and 14.. And then Rod Grams, the fee owner who'd like to speak to you about the homestead driveway. If we may. Dick $chuller: We had an opportunity to meet with staff here a few weeks ago. She gave us a chance to look at this and suggested that me come up with a couple, some plans that would fit on the lot. What we did is we had the engineering company... And the line that you see across the front there is the setback in front of the house and your 10 foot setbacks on the side. The line in the back is a '10 foot setback along the pipeline easement. Now an FHA loan you'd need to be 10 feet away from that easement because all these homes are, in the range where they're really not going to be getting that basic financing so conventional financing you can bring your house all the way up to the dotted line. So we're within 10 feet away from that closest point. 10 feet away from the easement line. Ahrens: What about a deck on that? Dick $chulIer: The deck would be on the west side but you're also 10 feet away so you're lO feet plus whatever this space is which is a good another 10-15 feet on that side so you could put a real large deck there. This is the house that one of our nicer homes that we'd be building. This is the plan that. This would be the sketch if we got it platted out on Lot So it would be real easy for us to be able to build that house on that lot. We don't see that as a problem at all. Ahrens: Why does the City see that as a problem? Dick Schuller: It's really difficult to see sometimes on a small picture so we've measured it out. Ahrens: .$harmin? Al-Jarl: We didn't think that you could fit a house easily on it. It would be a tight squeeze. Ahrens: What do you think of what he's saying here? Al-Jarl: What are the dimensions on it? Dick $chuller: I had a little picture of it. This house here is 60 feet wide and the deck on it is 34 feet. $o it's not as deep of a house as 40 foot. That makes 60 of the different although when I think she originally drew that up there was a concern about this 10 feet. Trying to stay 10 feet away from that back easement line. That really isn't a requirement on a conventional home so as long as we don't need to stay within, as long as we go up to the easement line... But it's 3ust less of a concern because of that. Krauss: It's our position that the developer has an obligation to demonstrate that the lot's buildable in a reasonable manner. In this case Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 22 it appears that he's done so. I would ask you to let the 'condition stand and we would work on this a little bit more p~ior to City Council. You konw I don't think they're doing that in this case but if you can squeeze a certain building footprint onto a limited site and it doesn't mean that it has a great deal of flexibility. In this case it looks like there is ample room. And I guess keep in mind though that again that utility easement is a great deal of open space. It 'is not., I mean it's the termination of a buildable area but it's not the termination of useable space. But we'd like to research that a little further. Ahrens: Okay. Dick $chuller: That would be your one lot. This would be the footprint on that one house. The other one is just, even easier.for us to work on. The garage would be on, right there. We have movement left and right...street real well and then curves the way... Lots of space for decks out in the back on the left side here. Or we could put.the house around here directly... Ahrens: Would you like to address any of the other conditions set forth in the staff report? Jim Hill: Madam Chair, the Keyland Homes accepts the report except for the comment regarding the two lots which they've shown they can build on. And then Rod Grams would like to address the driveway on the homestead. The other conditions are acceptable. Ahrens: Thank you. Jim Hill: I think he said he only has an hour to talk about that driveway. Rod Grams: I've only got an hour. Ahrens: You do? Rod Grams: To keep you here. Thanks. I'm Rod Grams. I .currently live on the homestead and as most of you I don't know maybe are familiar with the house, it's a Chaska brick farm home and it has a lot of historic value in the area and we've gone to great lengths in this project to try and maintain that historic value of the house. Part of the Planning or in my view is we've tried to put it on a larger area because of the uniqueness of the house to blend in with the rest of the subdivision. But to take away those two driveways would destroy the character I think of the way the house sits now on the site because it wouldn't then match with the other three homes along the same street. $o what'I'm proposing is that the driveways be allowed to remain as they are because it is only for the one house. And again it would stabilize or maintain the integrity of the site as it is and the way the house is there now. So if you take those driveways out and to push it off to the back I think would not maintain the integrity that is there now. Ahrens: Do you see the driveways following the westerly lot line of 8 and 7? Lots $ and 7. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 ~ Page 23 Rod Grams: No. I would like to see them stay where they are. The existing. Ahrens: Where is it now? Rod Grams: They come out to Audubon Road. And like I say, it's only for the one house so I mean you wouldn't get that much traffic from it but to just leave the site as it is. Because to take the driveways out and to change it, it would also change the whole apperance of the house and it wouldn't. Conrad: Why would it do that? Rod Grams: Because of the way it's setting there now. I think the way the house is and the historical preservation efforts that have been made of all the houses in that area. So I think to take the driveways out, I mean you would change the whole appearance of what it is now. And we've gone to great lengths to try and keep the house and to keep it and to blend into this subdivision but it's unique and it should stay that'iway from the rest of the subdivision. Conrad: The driveway comes from Audubon and it goes straight up to the front of the house? Rod Grams: Correct. Between the house and the garage there on the side. Ahrens: It was a safety issue the city was concerned with right? Al-Jarl: Correct. Rod Grams: But it's there now. Ahrens: But there aren't the other two roads.- That Road E and Road D. What's the minimum on a collector road? Hempel: Access we consider 500 feet. I'd like to point out that Mr. Grams, is there in fact two accesses to that lot? Rod Grams: Yes. Hempel: It's a horseshoe type driveway at this time so actually it's two driveway entrances to that lot. Ahrens: Do you want to maintain the horseshoe? Rod Grams: It's been there all along, yes. I mean it's been there-for, it was build in 1900's so I mean. Erhart: Yeah but you're tearing down the barn right? Rod Grams: That's right. Erhart: So I mean you aren't leaving it the same. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 24 Rod Grams: But we are trying to preserve the house the way it is. And the house is unique and to take it away and try to move the driveways out, then you're trying to take a nice big cid brick farmhouse and trying to conform it to a lot where we're going to be building a ne~er house so it's not the same. So we're just asking that the uniqueness--that is there now, to stay there the way it is. Hempel: If I may add another point. We will be requirin~ deceleration and acceleration lanes into and from site and that may also impact the driveway access to the existing house there. Ahrens: I'm kind of confused about your vision o~ access to Lots 7, 8 and 9. The City's. Sharmin, in your staff report you said it should be pointed out that Lot 9 should also gain it's driveway 'access off the interior street Road E. Are you expectin~ then that all three lots, 7, 8 and 9 have access off of Road E? Krauss: No, I don't think that's ever been proposed. We would typically put a condition in there just to make sure that that doesn't happen. Erhart: 9 is the temporary one right? Al-Jaff: Correct. That's when they will build a model home. It will be sharing the existing driveway. That's where Road E goes then. Oick Schuller: The reason we... This road right here, we're going to be trying to be into the Parade of Homes this fall. Our concern is that this street may not be ready yet so we were hoping to be able to come temporarily off of Audubon through Rod's driveway to get to our house. When this street comes in, then this driveway's going to go here across from Audubon... So that would just be temporarily that will be hooked up...Just for a month until, and we're not even sure that that will be the case. It depends upon how long or where we're at on the street. Emmings: There's nothing that keeps you from putting in a paved driveway over that easement? That's fine is it? Ahrens: Williams Pipeline allows a paved driveway over that? Al-Jaff: Yes they do. Jim Hill: Madam Chair if I may. Exhibits indicate that driveways.i. Rod's talking about the homestead maintaining his own driveway along with the Chaska brick home and not take away the individual access as there are some other Chaska homes, brick homes on Audubon and not as proposed by. staff to bring a driveway from here. Rod Grams: We want it to remain. I mean if it does have historical value and to have it retain that is important I think. I think the access there is going to set it apart. ~. Ahrens: Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, i992 - Page 25 Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded 1:o clcrse the public hearing. Al! 'vol:ed In favor and 1:he motion carried. The pub]~:c hearing .as closed. Ledvina: One thing that I noticed as I was going through the information here. I have some questions regarding the variance that was proposed for that building. I'm wondering if staff could explain how the situation meets the criteria for a variance because frankly I don't see specifically why it's being proposed. Krauss: Well, this explanation is not going to fall within the normal legal context of a variance, which frankly was the reason that I wanted to get a range of variances reviewed by the Planning Commission instead of the Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments is very good at taking a variance in it's usual hardship context for a garage or ifor a deck or you know, to make a lot buildable. What they're less adept at doing is taking a proposal, a development proposal in total, you know that does this thing. work? Is this variance not so much a hardship but does it reflect the way this property should reasonably be developed; And in this case we thought it did. I mean theoretically you can bump property lines further out to eliminate the variance. Conversely you can, or alternatively you can require that the garage be torn down and moved. I mean we've done that. If the garage is not in great shape, we've had that done in the past too. But in this case there's a tree line back there.. It lends itself to be the appropriate place for the property line. Moving the property lines significantly raised some problems with interior lots' further in. $o while I can't tell you that it's a traditional hardship, it ch>es fall within the realm of things we've considered at times in the past. $o I hope that, that probably didn't put your mind at ease. Ledvina: You know I look at the issue as far as the vegetation is concerned and in the winter there isn't vegetation and you can see thru tree lines. Our activities, our approvals at this point don't in the future prevent those trees from dying or being taken out. I see the issue with maybe contrasting building styles with an older shed or garage there with newer style houses on, I'm not so Certain that that really works together and I'm wondering if we should try to separate that as much as possible by the ordinance. Is there another mechanism we can use besides a variance to allow this type of situation? Krauss: Short of not catching it in the first place, no. There really isn't. I mean it does exist. Now again, there are alternatives and the alternatives do include bumping the line or tearing it down. I'm looking at the lot right behind it. Lot 5 is a 16,000 square foot lot and it's possible that we could kick the lot line around a little bit to mitigate that. I'm not sure we can eliminate 'it. Ledvina: That would make that lot 14,500 roughly. 14,500 feet' and that wouId be Iess than if you took it off the whoIe map. Krauss: No, it's 16,000 now. Ledvina: Right. You could just do that along the southeast part of that lot line. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 26 Krauss: We can sure look at trying to do that. Ledvina: Yeah, I would be against the condition for the variance. I just don't believe that it meets the intent of, or the letter of the variance and I think some alternatives should be investigated for that. OtherwiSe I really didn't have any other comment. Emmings: I agree that we should do something other than a variance. Maybe we can be more flexible. I still think though...and I think if something can be done to eliminate granting variances, it should be done. If they make that lot in back a little smaller, I'd rather have it that way. As far as the driveways go, I guess I don't know how much distance there is between the ends of the two ends of the U and particularly to the one to the south would be more concern. There's only one person going to be using that driveway so it isn't a lot of use but would you regard that as-being unsafe or too close? Hempel: It sets kind of an example for the other 5 homes also that are adjacent to Audubon Road which someday will be'developed also. Their access on a horseshoe driveway, granted it may be singl-e use or whatever but they do generate average 8 to 10 trips a day. It's an additional curb cut along the road and it may also impact an acceleration lane and so forth. - . Ahrens: What's the speed limit on-that road? ·. Hempel: Right now it's 45. Actually it's probably a rural standard~ south of Huron Drive it's probably 50 mph. There's a crest there however with some sight distance but eventually when the road is urbanized, stmiliar to what was done north of this development where it made the 4 lanes with curb and gutter and so forth, use is intensified. More curb cuts out there'. Speed limit may be reduced to 35 or 40 eventually. Emmings: Does the County have anything to say about the number of accesses onto that? Hempel: No. This is not a county road. This is a city street. Emmings: I guess what I'm trying to get you to commit to is, do you think that it's a bad situation? A situation that should be avoided by us? Hempel: We believe it is, yes.. Or at least limit the driveway down'to one access. Emmings: That was my next question. If we take out the U'and just give him a single drive in, would that make you feel any better? Hempel: Every little bit would help. Krauss: If I could put into context. I don't remember the exact amount of traffic that's being forecasted by the Eastern Carver County Study but I thought it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000 to 8,000 trips a day. Emmings: For? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 27 Krauss: When this area is fully developed. TH 101 right now is 10,000 trips a day so if that puts it, you can get a feel for that. So 50~-60~ of what you see on TH 101 today is going to be the ultimate traffic on Audubon Road. Emmings: Another alternative might be to give them one driveway and put a driveway easement across TH 7 and put that in our pocket in case it's ever deemed to be a hazard? Krauss: You can certainly use that as a fall back position but those things tend to, if they're not utlitized at the outset, they typically won't be. Also, as Dave points out, we do have similar situations with the Chaska brick homes across the street. Now they're-all sitting on 5 and lO acre lots. In fact, the developer of Lake Susan Hills. Hempel: Joe Miller Homes. Krauss= 3oe Miller Homes is talking to us about the. possibility of developing directly across the street from the north road. And that one is a Chaska brick home. It's Willy Molnau's. And we've even seen a concept for that one and as I recall, I thought it was ~oing to access internally off the new street. Hempel: I've never seen it I guess. Emmings: It's hard sitting up here to know whether this. is dangerous not dangerous. I think as a general rule we should limit the number of accesses onto Audubon but I can see the point of wanting to maintainI the driveways since everything is oriented that way and my position on this I guess would be that we go along with the, I'm going to have to go with. the City Engineer and say that the driveway is going to have to go out through Lot 7, unless the applicant can convince the Engineer from now until the City Council, that it's a safe thing to do. That's all I've got. Conrad: For our front yard width, what do we do? Especially on cul-de-sacs. It has to have a 90 foot width at what kind of setback'from the road? Al-Jarl: 50 feet setback. Conrad: And all these do meet that? Al-Jarl: Correct. Conrad: There are a lot of narrow lots here and fairly deep. The square footage by the depth. But I guess I don't have a concern with that. I am struggling, I don't think we should grant a variance that was for the out building or the garage. But I am struggling with the curb cut for the farmhouse. And I kept looking for another way to design this and I can't do it in 5 minutes. I have a tendepcy to want to grant one curb cut for the Lot 8. My concern is the, what is necessary for safety for Road E and D and I don't know that right now. Therefore, my tendency is tolgo along with Steve's motion until the applicant can sell our engineer on the safety and the engineer knows the acceleration and deacceleration lanes. I think Planning Commission Meeting 3une 3, 1992 - Page 28 the farmhouse orients to the road. I guess that tends to sell me that it should have Audubon access but I'm going to go along with a motio~ similar to Mr. Emmings to allow the applicant to. I'm concerned about safety and I need the applicant to be talking to the engi'neering department on that one. That's all. Ahrens: Any discussion? Erhart= Yeah I do have some. Maybe I'm tired and crabby but you know, for 6 years I've been trying to get a plan on this Bluff Creek Greenway. Six years ago a development came in and put houses where'I thought we should have preserved a corridor. Ne were real lucky back then because that development never got built. We all committed at that time to lay out a plan so when south Chanhassen got developed, and properties which include Bluff Creek came in, that we'd have a plan. I walked out there this afternoon and I had no foggy idea where, in walking around that property, where the backs of those houses are going to be'relative to this green~a¥ corridor. I'm looking at it and looking at the contours. I hope it doesn't interfere with the vision that I share with a lot of people on this greenway. But after this thing gets approved, the worlds not going to move it. I hope all of you, we got it on the action tonight and I don't understand why the Pa~k and Rec, who is spearheading this effort? Park and Rec or is it us or who? Krauss: Park and Rec has really taken this and hopefully is running with it. Erhart: Running with it? Krauss: There is no plan that exists. We have been taking land to get the trail corridor in. Erhart: I'm not talking about a trail corridor. We're talking about a greenway here. Krauss: Well the greenway is there Tim. Erhart: Maybe your idea of there and my idea of there might be two different things. Krauss: I think you've got a substantial amount. That's the half of the greenway that happens to be on this property. The other half is on the' other side. The creek channel itself is way up there.- Erhart: Okay, the line that you cross, does that include what"s currently tilled also today down there? Krauss: Yes. Part of that is. Rod Grams: No, the line falls just about... Erhart: So the tilling would be on, it's under the high water mark or above it? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 29 Rod Grams: Some of it goes below... Erhart: Well, I'm not asking to hold this up but I think we'd would use this to tell us. Al-Jaff: We were out there and. Krauss: We're a little confused. I mean Rod lives there and obviously knows the place a lot better than we do but we were convinced-that there is tilling in this corner. And then when we get up on the Ryan piece, I know that some of that area... Rod Grams: A lot of that is meadow grass right no~. There might be some tilling... Krauss: But in any case, there is a substantial amount of land being reserved so that we not only have green space. Frankly the green space there, it is not, we're talking about a ditched creek in this area and I think' at some point in time the city's going to want to come in and do tree planting and whatever else along there. Erhart: Right, and what you've got to have to do that is you've got to have enough high land so the trees will live. You can't plant oak trees and maple trees in a wetland. That's my point here. Krauss: That is true. But a lot of this area is out of the wetland proper. It's mostly in the flood plain. 100 year flood plain. Erhart: Z couldn't relate this plan to that and.that's why ! 'think it's important that we get in and we, just like we're doing on TH 5.. You know everybody who lives north of TH 5 wants to get this. TH 5 defeineJ. Well I want to, for 6 years have wanted to get this Bluff Creek greenway defined so when we got plans, we could actually compare it to some elevations and say, okay. Yeah, this is reserved for a future greenway and we're not going to have people's properties and we may have to buy that land at that time but today I'm real concerned that we don't know what we're doing and I can't tell. Krauss: Well !'d certainly support the idea of the Planning Commission stating a desire to have a specific plan developed for the corridor. You know we have gone on record of going to the Park Board and asking for just that and there is a meeting on June 18th that has, a special meeting-that has to do in part with the potential of a golf course. But the other part of that agenda is Lance Neckkar from the University who's worked with Bill Morrish and us on the TH 5 matters,, did a design for a Bluff Creek Park that was featured at the Minneapolis ~rt Center. I have not seen it yet myself but he submitted that for design competition and I'm kind of hopeful that that's going to get the ball rolling to do just what you're asking. Erhart: Yeah, that's my cohcern. In the future when-the city, you know we all talk about preserving open space and to me this 'is the perfect example of doing that. In order to get what ! envision as a Bluff'¢reek Park, Planning Commission Heeting June 3, 1992 - Page 30 you're going to have to have trees on either side as a Buffer between the trail'and the developments along the park. Krauss: Yeah, clearly that's the case and clearly that's, not available in this area. It would have to be planted, eut while I can't. Erhart: It's high landed. The question is, is there adequate upland to plant oaks and maple and stuff with this plan? Between the backs of the houses. Krauss: Based upon what I know now, I'd have to say yes there is. And again, we're talking about land that might flood every $0 to 100 years. Erhart: That won't kill trees. Krauss: While unfortunately Tim, I can't show you the plan for Bluff Creek. I know that at a staff level we have some very firm ideas as to what that might embody and we've taken, you might recall on the Ryan development we took that outlot with the island in it and the cseek that has the only mature trees left south of the railway tracks. We're working with the rallroad to get the underpass. The Hans Hagen develo.pment fits into that concept and we've been working to get that further north and then with MnDot so there's a lot of things happening. There just is not a plan showing how it's going to work. Erhart: Well I just ask that we get on with this. I would ask that the Commission consider this and if the Park and Rec isn't moving on it, that we assume responsibility and get on with it. Maybe take that later on in discussion so let me go ahead with this. Should we be doing anything here today to provide utilities to Lot 1, 8lock i in Sunridge Addition? We should have in our mind when that lot gets developed, that that be an urban lot. Let it be divided into 4 or 5 logical lots and get it on the tax rolls. Krauss: We have not been requested to do that. We spoke, I. mean I think we spoke to the person that bought it. That does cause a problem. -That is the problem that we've been telling people about that Timberwood's going-to face and Sunridge Court's going to face. That you have one lot, two lots left that are going to attempt to be rezoned.- Remember this is not RSF land. 8ut at the bottom end of a large lot, 'rural' cul-de-sac is somebody's going to sooner or later request urban density. That's a tough one. I'm not certain the city's going to look on that kind of thing ~avorably. I'm sure the neighbors, reasonably sure the neighbors wouldn't. I don't know if that's a reality. Erhart: I'm not trying to decide t-hat today. I'm just asking. Krauss: As far as the ability to serve?. Erhart: Ability to put in sewer and water into that lot. Are we doing anything today that would... Krauss: I guess I'd defer this some to Dave' My understanding is that there is a utility easement that comes down through that area and we could Planning Commission Meeting 3une 3, 1992 - Page 31 possibly look at terminating something there. Hempel: I was just going to point out that utility service to these phases, Phase 1 will be served from the sanitary se~er line...extending down Audubon Road on the west side which will serve approximately an area here to, from Audubon Road to approximately here. The remaining area west of there will be served at a later date or next year I guess when the trunk interceptor is brought up along Bluff Creek and then crosses across Bluff Creek to service that area. Because of the lay of. the land, it drops off very severely, elevation wise, it doesn't work without bringing this line across from Bluff Creek. So at that time we can make a. provision. They are providing a drainage utility easement across here. I believe it was for the watermain extension and storm sewer in this area to stub out sanitary sewer lines to service in the future these lots. Erhart: Okay, so there is an easement there? Hempel: There is an easement in Sunridge. Erhart: What about this development? Is there an easement" here? Hempel: Yes. They are providing a 7 1/2 foot each side and we're recommending that be increased to a 10 foot wide each side. Erhart: Okay. So if somebody wanted to come in and petition to get tha~ moved into the MUSA line, they have the provisions to hook in? Krauss: It is within the MUSA line. Erhart: No, Lot 1 isn't. Krauss: Yes it is... Erhart: No, I'm talking about Sunridge. Oh it is? Okay. Alright', so he can get access to sewer and water? Hempel: That's correct. With future phases. With this first phasing, no. Erhart: What are we doing, Paul or Sharmin, what are we doing on water quality with regard to I guess our swamp committee. Basically trying to ensure that every development has post runoff that's equal to pre runoff. What are we doing in this plan to assure that? It wasn't clear to me. We're not adding any holding or any retention ponds or anything. Hempel: With this first phase, they are not providing any interim storm sewer ponds, retention ponds. The ultimate'plan ch3es provide two'retention ponds on the westerly portion of the development. If you look at the grading plan provided there, it will show two small retention ponds. Erhart: Okay. Now is that discussed in here? Hempel: Ne have made mention of it in the staff report, yes. In fact in the conditions of approval I believe it's also stated. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 32 Erhart: Okay. The lots backing up to Audubon Road Sharmin, are they, given that they're double sided lots, do they meet all the standards regarding depth and setbacks? Al-Jarl: Yes. Erhart: Okay, so we're sure that there's adequate room to put in this landscaping that they've shown here, which the way it looks on this drawing is great. But is the drawing what we're really talking about doing here? Krauss: We would commit them to this landscaping plan the same as any other developer. Erhart: Yeah. It doesn't look like they're going to have much of a back, well it looks like their whole back yard is going to be wooded.the way this looks. Is there a berm there at all? Al-Jarl: No, there isn't. Erhart: No betas, Our ordinance does not require, or our new landscaping ordinance does not require a berm there? Krauss: It's either/or or both to accomplish the goal of providing. screening. Erhart: And you're satisfied? Krauss: They're doing quite an extensive landscaping plan. Erhart: Alrtght. Well I didn't notice the berm although I missed the ponds so. Okay, I agree with Steve amd Matt there. You know as much as I'd like to, it doesn't make sense to worry about the 20 feet. I just think we can start getting into a habit of allowing variances just.., makes sense. That's the problem but it's also what's right with our system of ordinances. I would agree that we should try to keep the things meet the ordinance. Thought I was done didn't you? Okay, now we get to this conservation easement. I noticed in the Minutes you didn't take that up at the last meeting. Or did we? Krauss: No we didn't. You asked that it be. Erhart: Yeah. And I know I've asked that we do this and I'm not going to get into detail tonight but I've got a couple questions. Help me. What do you mean by a conservation easement on what is a finch row of trees. What does that mean? What is this conservation easement going to say? Krauss: Well, you know unfortunately I have a copy of the conservation easement on my desk upstairs. It basically says that the developer's not allowed to remove it and it even says, as I recall, that the homeowner can thin and maintain and remove diseased trees. Otherwise, the trees are to r emai n. Erhart: He can't take trees out? Or thin, what does that mean? Is that the terminology that's used? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: I don't recall exactly. I 'mean I'm hoping that Roger's terminology is more explicit but I don't recall. Erhart: Well, the point I wanted to get into the discussion was that I guess I am of the belief that a homeowner has the right to do what he wants with his trees and we shouldn't get ourselves in the position here of essentially defining people's lives so strictly that we-go in and tell them what trees he can remove in his yards. I don't want to get into that discussion here because it's not the subject on the agenda but again we're asking for that and I think we need to really think that out. Now in this case, are we talking about conservation easements Just on the, it seems to be at the discretion of the staff. Are we talking about easements just on the trees along the north boundary? Krauss: Yes. We considered doing it on other trees that are highlighted as being preserved in this plan but we reasonably didn't think that they stood much of a chance. Erhart: Okay. If we're going along the north boundary, I guess I don't have a problem because they're in 'the back yards but once again, I think it's a subject we need to discuss because I think Ne need to think it through and we're starting to see a lot of these things and to the extent that the one development we actually changed our setbacks to preserve trees and quite frankly, I just don't, why we have a problem with developers, used to have problems with developers cutting down trees. Most of them don't do it today. We had one and I'm-all for holding them to the fire but when we get to the homeowner, that's where I want 'to have this discussion. So I'm okay with as long as we stick to the north area. I think it's impractical to get in and try to, this tree control thing so. The Park and Rec recommended that the city acquire ownership of Outlot A. And it appears to be, then change to where we're askin~ the developer just-to turn over Outlot A to the city. Is that, does the process seem equitable? Or is that we're just doing that or what is Our city's, what is the process for making these things equitable? Krauss: This is our means of preserving the Bluff Creek corridor. In terms of equity, first of all we're talking about land that has marginal values since it's all in the flood plain and can't be developed anyway. Secondly, there is a cost offset and as I-recall, the' Park and Rec Director's report is that in exchange for the land, they are not going to be required to pay trail dedication fees. Erhart: But then it adds in, they're putting' in a, I'm a little 'confused. Aren't we asking them to actually put in a trail? Krauss: No. We're asking them to put in a stub of a connection. What. that does is it's to provide access from this development to the future trail system that the city has to develop. Erhart: Alright, so we're not asking them to put'in some trail that we haven't really defined yet? Krauss: No. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 34 Erhart= Okay. Why did we ask the developer to.remove the island that he was proposing on...? Hempel= Ne delete them for ma'intenance purposes. Vehicular access to it and so forth. Snowplowing reasons. They're essentially in the way. They're a maintenance problem if.there's landscaping and so forth on it.- Typically what goes in them is a landscape monument with a light shining on it or something like that. A more appropriate place for that would be on a lot corner entrance. One o1= the corner entrance. Erhart: What do other cities? You know Eden Prairie has got a number of them. Hempel: Some cities have them. Some don't. Ahrens: Have you ever seen what our snowplows do to the curb? They' destroy them. Ours are destroyed every single year. Curbs and gutter. Hempel: It's hard on our trucks too when they hit them. Ahrens: Huge chunks ot= concrete out every single year. .It seems like they need really expansive space in order to move the plows around, and they don't even make it then. Erhart: Nell again, maybe that's something we need to discuss outside this development but again, I think they add character to the city. I hate to see it, just reject them cart blanche without some kind of value decision. I'm not an expert and that's not the kind of thing I'm going to decide by myself but again I would hope that we're just not throwing them out without some due consideration because I think they do give it some character and again, after or before we maybe recess tonight, if anybody's interested in discussing it, then we should throw it out and do it so. Right now, help me understand this. The City trunk sewer and water improvement project will include construction of 8 1=oot sidewalks along the west side o1= Audubon Road. Yet the trail coming down to this development is on the east side. How does that all work out?' Krauss: I don't know that any of us can adequately-explain that. There were two separate public improvement projects that occurred.' Ne had a group of residents that fought having a trail put in. Made it cross over. I don't know. Dave, do you have anything? Erhart: We've decided there's going to be a cross over? Krauss: There's actually several. Al-Jarl: There will be two. ' Erhart: Oh, you're kidding. Ahrens: Back and forth across Audubon Road? Emmings: How many trips a day? Planning Commission Heeting June 3, 1992 - Page 35 Hempel: Originally it was proposed to have a trail, the trail system down along the east side of Audubon Road with the original Audubon Road improvement. However, I believe the Council felt. at the time that there would be no use for a trail south of Huron Drive because there was really no development south of there. And so at that time they felt to leave it out until future development warranted it. I believe with' Ryan Business Center, there was a trail proposed. Sharmin, is it on the west side? Ryan's Construction... It also looped back through the business center, if I'm not mistaken. Erhart: So we do have a plan for a trail. Once you get from Park Road along the east side, is that the way I see that? Al-Jarl: Correct. Erhart: What is this on the west side then? Krauss: The original Audubon Road improvement plan, if I recall correctly two years ago, was supposed to put the.trail down the east side of Audubon. Area residents fought that. There were some trees located in the right-of- way that would probably have had to be removed. Trail work put in as proposed. There's a consequence the City Council didn't put any trail in at all in that area. Erhart: Now that's developed? Is it too late to get a trail in there now? Krauss: The road project that had the trail attached to it is finished. Erhart: Yeah, I mean we still can get a trail on the. undeveloped land next to it perhaps or not? Krauss: When that land develops, yes. Erhart: Okay. Well, alright. Outlot extends to the east, okay so that's the trail. On page 10, that's the trail you're talking about. Okay, I guess that's all. Again just a couple points here. The Park Commission's recommending that no development occur in the wooded area. What does that mean? Al-Jarl: Disregard that. Erhart: This is driving a point with me. We're getting some and I'll tell you what. I planted more trees in this city than anybody ever has but we are getting to the point where we're tree nuts. The idea of not' putting them in, the urban forest is something that's alive and over 30 years people do plant trees and today, I've read someplace recently again where because of urbanization there's less trees in 'our city. 'That's a bunch of crap. There's less trees in this city when it was farmland. There's a lot more trees here today than there was 50 years ago. It's a living thing and trails are something that you put in and trail easements are permanent hundreds of years. The idea of not putting in a trail because there's a tree is crazy. And not putting in decent setbacks because there's a tree is crazy. Those are permanent. Trees are something you can plant-and in 30 years you've got a shade tree. This city's going to be here lO0 years Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 36 and 200 years so we're setting a pattern here. evaluate where we're going with this tree stuff. things I've got. Ahrens: That's it for you? I think we've got to really So I think that's all the 5rhart: That's it. Ahrens: Do you have anything specific on the wetland alteration permit or the rezoning? Sharmin, on page ~1. The lot width and page 12 and 13. There's a number of them that appear to be less than the required 90 feet. Al-Jarl: Those are on cul-de-sacs. If you take the setback of 30 feet, then you would meet the 90 foot width required by ordinance. Ahrens: Okay, so every single one of these that's under, it goes on page 14 and 15, it seems like a lot of lots here. I count 29 lots. Al-Jarl: They're either on a cul-de-sac or on a curve-and the ordinance allows it. Ahrens: Okay. Do you have a condition in here, maybe I just missed it about the applicants demonstrating to the staff that a house and deck can be placed on those two lots? Al-Jarl: It should be in the preliminary plat. Ahrens: Maybe I missed it. Krauss: We believe there was one that probably dropped out in the editing process. There should be one. Ahrens: Okay, and that should be in there? Krauss: Yes. Ahrens: And also I think we should have a condition that all driveways in the development not exceed 10~ grade. This seems to be an issue with several of the driveways right? A1-Jaff: It's in condition number 11. Ahrens: Okay. Is there a question for any of the other lots besides Lots 25 and 26? Maybe we should just in general put. Because it's not just those two lots we're concerned with. It's any lot in the development. A1-Jaff: Correct. Hempel: It appeared based on the contours that they provided that those. were the only two lots impacted at this stage but if further modifications are done, so it's known that 10% is our maximum grade. Ahrens: On page 6 of your report, $harmin you talk. about protective measures being implemented for using snow fences and other means during the Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 37 construction period. Do you have that in there? On page 6, your second full paragraph? . . Al-Jarl: I don't have it as a condition of approval. Ahrens: And it should be. I have kind of a cryptic note in my notes here and I'm not sure what I'm talking about but someplace in your report you talk about redesigning and raising lot grades to minimize runoff-toward Audubon Road. That's in here as a condition? If not, it should be. Hempel: Condition number 11, I think one of the sentences could be expanded. Ahrens: Pardon me? Hempel: On condition number 11, midway through it. The applicant shall amend the grading plan for Phase 1 to accommodate future upgrading of Audubon Road. That's where it was implied the back yards should be graded. Ahrens: Maybe we should make it more specific because the concern seems to be pretty specific about the runoff. ! agree with everyone here who said there should be no variance. I think that's a good idea. The driveway access, I think we should somehow try and have a driveway access there. don't think the main goal of the city is'just to make sure that cars travel as quickly as possible down roads. As long as we're building residential neighborhoods along collector streets, I think that we should be concerned with what they look like and how liveable they are and the character-of the city. Erhart: I didn't follow your recommendation. Conrad: What'd you say? Ahrens: That there should be a driveway. We should allow a driveway. Conrad: A curb cut? Ahrens: A curb cut, yeah. A driveway out to Audubon Road. Erhart: Just leave it the way it is. Emmings: Single or U? Ahrens: It doesn't matter to me. I mean whatever can be worked out with the engineering department. I don't see that the horseshoe, it hasn't been proven to me that that's a dangerous situation so. ~ Emmings: Has it been proven that'-it's safe? I mean in his opinion. Hempel: It may be safe at this time but we're looking long range down the road. Down the way as the road capacities are reached. Ahrens: But also as the road capacity is reached, the traffic slows down right? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 38 Hempel: The speed limit changes, yes. Typically it'probably would in that area somewhat. Still there'd be some concerns with turning movements into the driveway and so forth. Ahrens: How many trips a day do you think Mill Street has down at Excelsior? Where CR 17 ends up. And there's curb cuts ali along that street. There doesn't seem to be any problem. They get a lot of traffic. You know what I'm talking about? Krauss: They also have lots of speed traps along there. Hempel: 30 mph I believe too. Ahrens: 30 mph, yeah. Okay. I don't have anything else. Is there a motion? Conrad: Let me ask one more question because I'm confused about the trail on Audubon. On this parcel. 'Where is the trail on Audubon? Al-Jarl: West off Audubon Road. Conrad: Okay, it's close to the tree. Erhart: On the street? Al-Jarl: It's part of the public right-of-way. It's not on the property and the landscaping is being installed on the property. Ahrens: Kind of like Lake Lucy Road. Conrad: And is that the way we've been doing trails? That the city has been developing the trail? Krauss: It's actually been a combination of either it's in the right-of- way or occasionally there's a separate easement provided. Within the downtown sidewalk system and Market Square here is not going to be in the public right-of-way. It wasn't originally in the public right-of-way. It was in an easement, off street. It's really a matter of how wide the right-of-way is and can we accommodate it within it. In this case we can. Conrad: And who's responsibility has it been to build the trail? Krauss: We have done it with public improvement projects. Hempel: As we upgrade the section of street to urban standards, we would include the trail section at that time. In some cases however we have made the developer actually go back. Or include it in his project to build it at this stage. Conrad: I have a recollection that we have done that. So we are doing it two different ways. Hempel: I believe in this area because it's kind of a piece meal, we have development down here. We have no development up here yet so you're going Planning Commission Meeting 3une 3, 3.992 - Page 39 to have a stranded piece of trail out here with no connection tnbetween. I think that's where staff believes that the trail system will be built under an improvement project with the upgrade of Audubon Road. Er hat t .' Hempel: Erhart: Hempel: Erhart= At 50 feet it'd have to be on street right? It mould be within the street right-of-way, yes. It would be on the inside of the curb. It would be between the curb and. the property line· Oh it would be on the outside.of the curb like a sidewalk then? Hempel: That's right. Typically it falls one foot inside of the property line on the right. One foot towards the street. Erhart: Hempel: Emmings: 50 feet gives you adequate? Yes. Mr. Grams has left and don't we'have a standard condition that in the year an approval is given to a plat, the applicant has to declare himself a Democrat? Haven't we used that before? " Ahrens: That was one of the conditions that was left out too. Emmings: We'll add that in. Ahrens: Steve, you're making a motion right? Emmings: Sure. I'll approve that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #92-6 with the conditions contained in the staff report. Conrad: I second. Emmtngs moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-6 with the following condi%lons: i · All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. Ail erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized. 2. The wetland area remain undisturbed. 3. The applicant shall receive a permit from the Watershed District. 4. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92-5 and Rezoning #92-3. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. Ahrens: Motion on the Rezoning. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 40 Conrad: I move that the Planning Commission approves Rezoning #92-3, property from A-2 to RSF per the staff report's two conditions. Erhart: I'll second. Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commie~ion recommend approval of Rezoning #92-3 property from A-2 to RSF with the following conditions.' · The applicant shaI1 enter into a development contract containing ail of the conditions of approval for this. project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions Of Subdivision #92-5 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92-6. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Ahrens= Do we have a motion on. the Preliminary Plat? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Subdivision #92-5 as shown on the plans dated.May 4, 1992 subject to the following conditions. I'll stop right here and emphasize that I'm striking the language granting a variance. It Will be all the conditions in the staff report· With regard to condition number 6, that deals with the driveway for Lot 8 going out to Road E over Lot 7. I would move that that language be retained in here with the understanding that we feel that it may be appropriate for the character of the property to have a driveway of some kind going out to Audubon Road, but that it will be the burden of the applicant to get to the City Engineer and see what they can work out between now and the time of. the City Council hearing. With regard to condition il. 3oan raised an issue that I didn't understand with regard to runoff. Making something more explicit about runoff going out to Audubon Road and I want that one changed to be more specific to'take into account the comments that she made, which will be in the record. There will be an additional condition number 16, that between now and the time of the City Council hearing the applicant should work out with city staff whether or not Lots lO and 14 in Block 2 are in fact buildable. And then an additional condition number 17 related to the language on page 6 of the staff report having to do with trees designated for preservation as was also pointed out by 3oan. Erhart: Before someone seconds. ! 'have a question· The last'one on the tree conservation easement. That's what Steve? Emmings: That's on page 6. The second full paragraph be added as a condition that the trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence. Erhart: Could I ask you to change 7(d) where it says conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas to conservation easements over areas as designated by staff. Would you agree to that? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 41 Ahrens: What's the point of the change of language? Erhart= Because now you're requiring essentially to have a conservation easement over every colored area on this map. And Paul's already said that he doesn't plan on doing that. Krauss: And I think that's mentioned in the staff report too. Emmings: Okay, that's what I meant· Erhart: Alright, then I'll second it. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision ~2-5 as shown on the plans dated Hay 4, 1992 and subject to the following conditions: · All storm sewer drainage pipes should be designed for a 10 year frequency storm utilizing a rational method. Storm drainage retention pond, detention areas and outlet piping shall be designed for a 100 year frequency, 24 hour single event using the =SCS Method' established for use in Minnesota. The discharge rate shall 'not exceed the predeveloped runoff rate. Ponds shall also be designed to "NURP" standards. Ail storm retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards· 2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of "City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates". Detailed street and utility:construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval· · The applicant shall apply and obtain' permits from the Natershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. · Watermain systems shall be designed to ensure adequate fire flow for the site. Design calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to verify pipe size. · The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract· The final plat shall be contingent'upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project' for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service the site. · All lots shall access from interior streets'and not Audubon Road· Street grades shall not exceed the 7~ maximum street grade per City ordinance· A deceleration/acceleration lane shall be provided on Audubon Road. The center island shall be deleted from the southerly access street (Road E). The existing driveway to the site shall be ' relocated to access from the northerly loop street through Lot 7, Block 2. A cross access easement shall be convenyed to Lot 8, Block 2 wlth the understanding that the Planning Commission feels that it may be appropriate for the. character of the property to have a driveway of Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 42 · some kind going out'to Audubon Road, but that it wil! be the burden of the applicant to get to the City Engineer and see what they can work out between the Planning Commission and City Counci! meetings. The final plat shall be amended to include expanding the 15 foot wide drainage and utility easements to 20 feet wide and extending the drainage easements through Lots 12 and 13, Block 1. The following easements shall be provided: a. Dedication of all street right-of-way. b · Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas. Provide access easements to allow the city to maintain all ponding areas. c. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement over all sewer, water and storm sewer lines located outside public right-of-way~ d. Conservation easements over areas designated by Staff. e. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. f. Dedication of Outlot A to the City. 8. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the pipeline company for any grading or construction activity within the pipeline easement. 9. Fire hydrants should be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations· All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless MnDot's planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. Until Phase II improvements are completed, interim sediment and/or retention ponds shall be constructed and-maintained by the applicant to accommodate Phase I storm runoff. The applicant shall amend the grading plan to take into consider the runoff from the back yards for Phase I to accommodate future upgrading of Audubon Road (urban design). The grades on Lots 25 and 26, Block 3 shall be redesigned so the driveway grades do not exceed 10~. The 'applicant shall supply earthwork calculations for both phases to the City Engineer for review. Erosion control fence along the westerly portion of the development (Phase II) adjacent to the wetlands shall be the City's Type III. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed on Lots 7, 14 and 15, Block 3 and Lots 8, 10 and 11, Block I as check dams. 12. Outlot A shall be deeded to the city. In consideration for this, full trail fees will be credited. An 8 foot wide bituminous trail shall be constructed from proposed Road ~ to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 43 13. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Road E. In addition, a sign shall be installed on the barricades stating that the street will be extended in the future. Ail street 'right-of-way for all plat phases to be dedicated with Phase I platting. 14. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health. i5. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92-3 and the Wetland Alteration Permit #92-6. 16. The applicant-should work out with city staff to provide whether or not Lots 10 and 14 in Block 2 are in fact butldable between the Planntn~ Commission and the City Council meeting. 17. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the City. All voted in favor and the mot/on carried. PUblIC HEARIN~: INTERIM USE pERMIT FOR EARTH WORK/MINiNG OF F~ ~R~¥E~.PIT, LO~TED AT 100 FLYING CLOUD . TOM ZWIER$ , MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE. . Public Present: Name Richard and Gayle Vogel J.E. Brill, Jr., Esq. Tom Zwiers 105 Pioneer Trail 100 Washington Avenue $o., Mpls, 55401 9390 26th Street,.Lakeville .Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item and went through the City Attorney's Findings of Facts. Erhart: table? In this case, how do you know when you excavated below the water Krauss: Well, we looked at the possibility of putting in a single elevation. A not to exceed elevation but in the City Engineer's opinion, the ground water elevation was fairly variable across the property. Erhart: A lot of changes. Hempel: Sample borings can be taken to determine what the water level is in a specific area there. It's kind of to document the water table. Water tables do fluctuate with seasons so it is a difficult to pin point a certain elevation. You do receive modeled soils after just a couple feel underneath the surface in some areas in fact. $o it is a difficult answer to give at this point but we feel by random borings to determine the water table would give us a significant benchmark if you will. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 44 Erhart: In your opinion it's not excavated below the water table now? Hempel: In some areas, we do have well waters of adjacent properties where the wells are 145 feet deep. Static water level is about 90.feet. As you come to the bluff lines and so forth, the water table does eventually get lower through a transition of the soils. In this case, some areas, it's possible. It could be on the surface ground water. The aqua firs, the city wells are and so forth are 300 and some feet deep. The wells though in adjacent neighboring properties may only be 90 feet. lO0 feet deep. Erhart: Do we have anything that limits the depth of this dig at all? I mean like below highway level or any arbitrary level? Krauss: Maybe this is something Mr. Scott can get at. I mean we had an earlier plan submitted to us in the original packet that we effectually called it Dig to China plan and there was a reason for that. The applicant has told us repeatedly that they reset.ye the right to dig the mineral out wherever and whenever it exists. Now what we're saying is, yes. You probably do but within limits of protecting public health and safety, we have the obligation to see that it's properly managed. Tom, do you want to clarify that? Tom Scott: That's essentially it. We can limit how far they'll dig if we have valid health and safety reasons for doing that. Ahrens: What would be one? What would be a valid? Tom Scott: Well ground water is the primary one that we have right now.- Erhart: Yeah. A second one would be, well if you're requiring 2 172 to slopes, eventually you get to a point I guess so there might be another one. I'm trying to visualize where do we stop it. Krauss: The important thing to note there though Commissioner Erhart-is 2 1/2 to 1 slopes are finished grades. Mr. Zwiers' plan is to take out considerably more than that and then put stuff back-. £rhart: Put what stuff back? Krauss:. There's over burden. There's black dirt~ Other material may be trucked into the site. Erhart: I 'wonder if we just shouldn't set some kind of feel for, I guess my feeling is we should have maybe something in mind here as an agreement with the owner here that there is some point where we ail agree you can't go below that or something. Does that seem reasonable? Or desireable I guess on your part. Krauss: It's desireable. Again, I go back to the fact that this is not a normal application and we're somewhat constrained. · Tom Scott: Certainly that, if we can reach an agreement with the applicant on that issue, that 'd be preferable. Krauss: He'd know our expectations then. Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 45 Tom Scott: Right. But to this point in time, that hasn't been the posture that the matter's been put in. So what we're looking at right now-is regulating based on health and safety issues. So we're not really in a position where we could set certain depth limit. Unless we can justify that by some safety reason. Erhart: Yeah, and you're using the water table and the problem is, we all agree that the water table is something that you can't pin down. It's very difficult so it might be easier at some point to negotiate with the owner to say look it. Let's come to some agreement on a level at some point. Ledvina: The water table, you should be able 'to pin that down within 10 feet and the scale of this thing is huge so it doesn't make that much difference. Erhart: You think you can pin it down to 10 feet? Hempel: A soil's engineer maybe will be able to determine based on the types of soils and the fines and the sands and so forth. The glacial layers and so forth. -- Ledvina: Given my experience, I think you could pin down to 10 feet. Within l0 feet in a certain area. It will vary across the site but you can determine that as well. Erhart: But then you change the site and then it changes. Ledvina: Partly that's true. Due to the differences in recharge. If you change the surface water, drainage around the site, that will tend to change the water table as well. .Not from strictly removing ~terial above the water table. Erhart: No, not above. Yeah, okay. Well my concern was that you couldn't, this wasn't something that you could really measure. Now if you can measure it, then that's fine. Paul Krauss continued with his staff presentation at this point. Ahrens: You can't include that specific language in here? Krauss: I guess I'd refer that again to Tom? Tom Scott: I believe it's covered by Paragraph 1. They're going to be submitting the Erosion Control Plan and l(b), correct me if I'm wrong Paul, as part of that. Or I'm sorry, l(d), as part of the erosion .control plan, a phased plan for site restoration, establishment of ground cover and vegetation would be part of the things addressed in the erosion control plan. That's basically what we're talking about. Krauss: That's quite true. The context is a little different but the upshot of it is the same. There's severe problems that occur when you leave that much open, bare land open for periods of years. In terms of erosion and. Planning Commission Heeting June 3, 1992 - Page 46 Ahrens: Nell should 13 be cross referenced to l(d) then? Krauss: The last condition, condition 14 is that there be an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of $51,000.00. Honestly $51,000.00 is far from sufficient to put the site back to it's finished situation. Finished grade. But it is a number that we're comfortable with represents the cost of maintaining erosion control measures on the site and remediating some of the. more significant problems. The ultimate end cost to restoration is somethin~ that Hr. Zwiers should be absorbing as his operation goes through. !'m not certain that we have a real good way of getting a handle on that and consequently this was the number that the engineer's office came up with. Ahrens: They should be but that's implying that it's not being done? Krauss: Well we have a site that's been in continuous mining activity. It has not per se been restored yet i.n any way. Now we do have a single owner on the property. Mr. Zwiers has stated that i't 'is his intent to put the site back to rights when he's done with it b4Jt there's I mean North ~.merica is full of mine pits that have been exhausted and then they 'move on. b~e'd rather that not happen to Chanhassen. Erhart: There's also mine pits that have been restored too. the government controls that. Do you have any idea? I wonder how Krauss: I could be wrong but many years ago, almost in another life, I was working for a firm in Wyoming where you bays a lot of open pit Coal mines. I believe they have to pay into a federal fund that insures reclamation. Now you're talkiDg about reclamation on a very big scale and there was always some questions as to whether or not it was effective. On a more local scale, I mean you could look at Byerly's in St. Louis Park. That .was a gravel pit. Or the new Centennial Lakes development was the Hedberg gravel pit. So I mean clearly there's examples of doing it successfully. Erhart: The idea of paying into a fund, that's not realistic? . . Krauss: I guess I'd again refer to our attorney. Tom Scott: The alternative of paying into a fund? There's no legal mechanism that I'm aware of to do that at this point in time. In a sense under this, they have the alternative of making a cash deposit or letter of credit. That's the best. 5rhart: Except that Paul' readily admits that let's say they abandon the land and go bankrupt or whatever. There's not enough money there. Then they should? Tom Scott: Then we have a basis for increasing the amount we... Erhart: They're gone then though. Tom Scott: No, no. At this point in time. Planning Commission Meeting 3une 3, 1992 - Page 47 Ahrens: ! didn't understand the answer. Tim said, he was asking what would happen if they went bankrupt or abandoned the site. Tom Scott: Right, and the ordinance, and as condition 14 is addressing, our ordinance requires them to post a letter of credit-or a cash deposit to ensure that they comply with the conditions in the permit. So if the $51,000.00 is not a sufficient sum to cover that worst case scenario, the city could, we could increase the $51,000.00 that we're requiring. There's also an annual review of this permit. The ordinance sets up. They've got to come back every year and during that annual review process, depending on what course the operation has taken, we can review the amount of the letter of credit and if we think it's appropriate to adjust the amount of the letter of credit, assuming we have a rational basis for doing that, we could increase the letter of credit. So they've got to come back every year for a permit review. This certainl~ is going to establish'a basic framework but if there's changes a year or two or three years from now, we can in what's being contemplated now, we can certainly add additional conditions. Change the conditions and 'one of the things we can look at is the amount of the letter of credit. Ahrens: But if we're so sure that this is an inadequate amount right now, why set it at $51,000.007 I mean between now and the next period of, the next time for renewal they could be, theoretically they could b~ gone. Tom Scott: I agree. Right. Krauss: I guess when I tell you that it's not enough to restore the site to the condition that Mr. Zwiers is committing to, I'm telling you that from a gut feeling. And Dave and I had some conversations about this and to see if there was a rational basis for establishing a fee in a different manner. We had some difficulty thinking of a way to do that. Ahrens: Someone must be able to figure out the costs of restoring the area. I mean it must be done all the time. Hempel: We've got a rule of thumb for restoring a site that is void of vegetation on a rate of $2,000.00 an acre. That's for replacing topsoil, reseeding and erosion control measures essentially. Granted on a site like this, if we're faced with sheer, straight.up and down slopes, it's probably going to exceed that $2,000.00 an acre. It probably takes more engineering calculations or even to get an estimate from a couple of contractors to get a little closer ballpark figure of what it would take to restore that site to 2 172 to 1 slopes. Ahrens: I think the city should do that. Erhart: Yeah, that's assuming that they are left at 2 1/2 to 1 slopes and you could get out there and find out the slopes were higher than that then you'd even have additional expense... Ahrens: What we want to avoid is a.city getting into big trouble on this and standing back and saying we should have done this and this after the fact. Planning Commission Heating June 3, 1992 - Page 48 Krauss: Yeah, I share the concern and if there's a rational basis for it. After spending 2 days on the witness stand explaining all that we've done to date, and don't get me wrong. I'm not ~eluctant to go back and do it again and it's probably inevitable that we will. But the Judge is looking for a rational basis for us to support these conditions and we very clearly made an attempt to do that. I think Dave's suggestion about asking for some estimates is possibly a good one and maybe that would help. Conrad: Well, what's the vision of restoration? You can have all sorts of restoration. When you get an estimate, what's the point of the letter of credit is to restore it to perfect or to restore it to acceptable? I think that has to be a good number and you two came up with something that we haven't seen the rationale behind but I think there should be good rationale. I think the applicant should ask for a good rationale for that. We should know what we want it restored to and then our contractor, we should get some estimates to restore it to that. I think that's real clear in my mind. I think it's clear from the city's standpoint and clear from the applicant's standpoint. £rhart: Yeah, and the point being, I think we can't figure that number our arbitrarily. I guess we'll just leave it as ~e emphasize that we agree you've got to have some rational. I guess maybe what the problem here is, the statement that you made Paul was that in your mind it clearly wasn't enough and maybe you need to go back and re-rationalize what... Krauss: Possibly there's also a resolution to it with something that Tom suggested. That you can vary this from year to year. If Mr. Zwiers complies with the guidelines we've established and restores the site on an incremental basis, then the risk of being left.holding the bag is diminished every year. Erhart: You mean possibly lower? Krauss: Yes. Ledvina: The cost estimates fo~ the restoration should 'be based on the existing condition at that time and then the final end use plan. And as it gets closer to the end use plan, that cost would possibly decrease. I' mean it's not the worst case scenario as to what exists now and what needs to occur for the end use plan. And ! think you should do that on.the basis of the engineering. The number of cubic yards that are required to restore the slope. The number of cubic yards of topsoil and seeding. Of erosion control. I think it can be fairly straight forward in terms of the. estimation technique... Ahrens: Okay. I think you get the picture of where we are on this letter of credit. The $51,000.00. Krauss: Well, that sums up our recommendations and review on this. We are recommending that it be approved with these conditions. Frankly, I wish we had a better prepared package to give you. Fran'kly, I wish we had a little more latitude on it as well. We've elected to go the route of saying, alright. This is what you've done. It's satisfied what the Judge said you had to give us and here's what we feel we need to responsibly make sure Planning Commission Meeting June 3, i992 - Page 49 that the site is properly handled. Based on that, we're recommending that you approve it. Ahrens: Okay. Anything else. This is a public hearing. If the applicant or anyone else would like to address the commission. Please step up to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Jerry Brill: My name is 3.E. Brill, Jr. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Our address is Suite 1350, 100 Washington Square in Minneapolis. Our firm has represented the applicant throughout the proceedings and through the preliminary discussions that preceeded the litigation. Mr. Krauss has indicated to you that he wishes that he could have more latitude in presenting the package to you. He has-. The comments I'm going to make to you are going, the bottom line is going to be that we think he has exceeded the latitude which the Judge has given the city in the recommendations that he's giving you as they are standing before you tonight. I think a little perspective may-at least, it may not change your mind but it will help you understand the position that we're in and the position we've been in as we proceed through these hearings. Mr. Krauss has indicated to you that the city has never really contested the fact that we were a non-conforming use and I think that's correct. There hasn't been a contest on that issue. We went before the court on really two issues'. One related to the upper portion of the property which Paul described briefly to you where we were going to look for a claw mining permit which. is yet to come before you and will be presented in a.separate application. And the Court clearly decided against us and. for the city on that issue. That we were not a non-conforming use as it related to that portion of the property. There wasn't any doubt about that.- I will tell You that the facts that were, to support that conclusion were developed as we proceeded into trial this last time and at the trial. ' There weren't a~arent to either your counsel or to us until we got further into the actual ~acts so that wasn't something that we were talking off the.top of our heads about. I mean we really thought we had a case there and it really depended upon the timing of when we bought'that property or when that property was first purchased and used for mining as that related to when you adopted your ordinance. It happened to be 1972 which required a conditional use permit for any mining. And it wasn't until late in the proceedings that the part of your ordinance that requires that conditional use permit was even discovered by either Tom Scott or myself. So we came at it honestly. We really believed that we had the mining there before you adopted those conditions because we thought those conditions were the ones adopted in 1986 when that recent ordinance was'adopted which required an excavation permit. It turns out there was an earlier ordinance in 1972 that required a conditional use permit that preceeded any mining on that property'which took place just after that. There was a conditional use permit asked for by our precedessor owner, Mr. Griffin Trog. It was never pursued. It was kind of left hanging. Nothing was ever done about'it and the Court decided and I think correctly, and I really don't disagree with that. That we don't have non-conforming use rights for the top portion of the property. So that kind of disposed of that issue. The other issue relates to the non-conforming aspect. Non-conforming use of the southerly parcel. The perspective I want you to get, at least as far as we're concerned is that it's been described to you that the city never contested our. non-conforming use status. They didn't but they did say, even though they couldn't stop Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 50 us from mining, they could regulate us in mining. Your City Attorney, Roger Knutson wrote an extensive memorandum which was-given to the Planning Commission and Council which I think was where the disagreement realiy started. In the memorandum he said, I'lI Just quote from it. The available vehicles for regulation are as Iimitiess aS the lawmaker's creativity. That was a Iot broader than we thought you had the right to do in terms of regulating. He went on to say in conclusion, the enactment of ordinances...related to the good and weIfare of the immediate community will be upheld. We disagreed with that also and I think the Judge found. that it isn't as broad as that. It's a nice phrase and it's something we all kind of thing that we're trying to protect the good and welfare of the community but there are certain things in the long where you're limited and interfering with private property rights and in this case the Judge found that you can impose regulations that are strictly related to safety and health. Now that is only a portion of the description of what your police powers are so there are aspects of your police powers which this 3udge found you can't apply in this case because we're a non-conforming use. $o the description of good and welfare was just too broad. That Mr.-Knutson was giving you at that time and that's kind of how we got into the' litigation. I think his description of where your regulation powers were, were reflected in Paul Krauss' response to the application that we made. He did a very studious critique of our application and it went on for a number of pages and it asked for a lot of information about things. About the mining operation that we resisted. We didn't think we had to do because they indicated you were trying to regulate us-in a way which we thought was beyond what your powers were because we were a non-conforming use. And I think the Court found that you were limited the way we thought you were, to safety and health recommendations. As a matter of fact, Tom Scott's letter which is attached to Paul's presentation to you here. His letter of May 7th says that Judge Kanning in his Order stated that the city must clearly identify health and safety issues if it is going to impose any of the following types of regulations. That is limit the quantity of the material that we mine. Prohibit mining on any part of the propertY. Limit the depth to which we can mine. If you're going to do any of those things, you can only do them if they're related to the safety and health. That's I think what Judge Kanning found. And in looking at what's being recommended to you, we think that frankly your staff is exceeding that latitude, in it's latitude as to what it'can do and what it's recommending to you. And I'll tell you where we think that that's the case so you at least have our point of view. Erhart: Can I ask a question? Do you think that we are within our.rights to be concerned about effects on adjacent property owners? J.E. Brill, Jr: On adjacent property owners? Yeah but I don't really think we had any issues regarding that here. Erhart: You don't? J.E. 8rill, Jr: No. Erhart: I think there is. Grading so close, with slopes that it's going to erode their property and affect on wells. That doesn't have anything to do with neighboring properties? Planning Commission HeeLing June 3, 1992 - Page 51 J.E. Brill, Jr: I don't think there is going to be any undergrading of their property. I think the undergrading that Paul's been talking about is undergrading our own property on the bluff. We have been limited up to now to grading within 50 feet of the adjoining properties.'on either side. One of the property owners happens to be here tonight that you can ask him if there's an issue there. If you want to ask him directly but we have been limited to grading within $0 feet of the Property on either side of us that we don't own and we would observe that and will continue to observe that. As far as limiting how far we can undergrade our own property or mine on the face over there, that's a different issue and I think that as far as that's concerned, we feel we have the right to grade on our own property to the full extent of this southern portion of the property where we have a non-conforming use status. Krauss: Would you like me to clarify that? Erhart: You're asking, change it to 100. Krauss: Yeah. What Hr. 8rill and Hr. Zwiers are theoretically retaining the right to do, as I understand it is to, you know you have a hill with a property line at the top. They want to knock off their half of the hill and then put it back. In the process of doing that, the top of the hill falls down. That top of the hill is owned by the adjoining property owner and it shifts and slumps onto the adjoining property. That was what our condition was trying to attempt. Erhart: Yeah. That's all in this report right? That'S in there. Ahrens: Why don't we let Mr. Brill go on. J.E. Brill, Jr: We don't think we have the right to do that to an adjoining property owner and I don't think it's a matter of the city's regulation. I think we don't have the right to deprive any property owner of his lateral support. We can't do that. I don't think those are the issues here. I think what we're .really addressing but let me go on. The first recommendation that Paul has made relates to erosion control. We don't think that there is an issue here related to health and safety. We don't think that's been strictly related to a health and safety issue and we would resist that condition on a permit. Number 2 relates to the, I'm going by the recommendations now. It's not in your Findings. It's a little bit different but I'm looking at the recommendations in. His Planning staff report. Number 2 has to do with the engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking of mud and debris onto TH 169 and 212. We have worked with MnDot on this. The last we discussed this with MnDot. 8y the way, this is an area which we're very concerned with because it affects our own safety of our own trucks coming in and out of that site so we're very concerned about that. Mr. Zwiers has talked with MnDot and the last we talked with them, they were unwilling to put any deceleration or acceleration lanes on the highway. Now if that's changed because of recent conversations that paul and his staff has had, we'd just as soon get into those discussions and talk to MnDot about that and see if we can't work something out with them that will help that situation. We think it's a problem over there. We attempt to keep the trucks off the highway during the peak hours on the Highway and have them working at night. We've done Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 52 that for a number of years and we know that MnDot, in our last conversations are unwilling to allow, to limit the speed there to something less than 50 mph and they've been unwilling to allow lanes in there that would allow deceleration or acceleration. That's the last of our discussion with them. We'll meet with' them and we'll try to accommodate that situation and do what we can but we don't think that they want to modify the highway out there and they haven't been willing to do that in the past. As far as the debris on the highway is concerned, .we have cleaned that up from time to time. They brought the highway patrol out there and blocked off the highway while we cleaned that up. We don't think there's been a serious problem out there.- We don't think there's been any complaints about it. We attempt to keep that as clean as we can. As far as the brush is concerned, we're willing to eliminate the brush so it makes a clearer, visibility out there. We're certainly willing' to work on that. As far as relocating the access point to tbs northeast, we think that that's a problem. I'll tell you why. One of the problems is for a traffic that's westbound, decelerating before it comes into the site. If you move the access to the site further to the east, you're going to make it more difficult for trucks, or a~ybody entering the site to decelerate before it enters the site. It seems that the point is made here that the purpose of doing that is to improve the acceleration lane as westbound traffic leaves the site. Give them a longer acceleration lane. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Zwiers says that probably 75~ to 80~, maybe 85~ of the traffic is going the other direction. They're not going to the east. They go out of the site and go left and go east back towards Eden Prairie but there is a problem of trucks which come down the hill going on the westerly direction decelerating before they get into the site-and if you move that access point further east, it's going to aggravate that problem. So we want to work with whatever the highway department, the city, whatever we can do to make those conditions safer if possible. 'As far as dust and noise, which is point 3, the operator says the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues. Again, we're not sure what that really entails. We don't think there's been any complaints about that to date that we're aware of. 8ut we're willing to discuss that further with the city. Ahrens: city? Do I understand you to say that you're willing to work with the J.E. Brill, Jr: expressed here. Yeah. It's unclear what that really means the way it's Ahrens: Paul do you want to very 'shortly explain what that means so we can understand what, if that is something... Krauss: Well for example, dust impacts. You know we have sort of a natural bow there that the few times-I've been out there has been reasonably able to contain that but conditions can change. If you get, when we have a project around town that's generating significant amounts of dust, we require that the operator wet the site to minimize dust control or modify their operations during those periods to minimize that. As to whether or not there's been problems with these areas in the past,. I honestly don't know. I have not heard of any but'we have new homes being constructed closer and closer to this all the time and there sno clear end Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 53 date as to when this operation will cease so there's going to be more homes I've got to believe in the future. Ahrens: Okay. It seems clear enough. You would be willing to work with the city on this issue if it became a problem. J.E. Brill, Jr: If it does, wetting down of dust control. Rhrens: As determined by the city. J.E. Brill, Jr: Dust control is something that he would 6ertainly consider. We are on a bowl as Paul says and I think we are kind of screened naturally from the surrounding properties so.I don't think there had been any complaints in the past. Ahrens: I don't think .we're asking you to consider responding. We're asking to respond if there are problems and would he respond. Yes? J.E. Brill, Jr: I don't see that as a problem. Do you Tom? Tom Zwiers: Yeah, that's no problem. J.E. Brill, Jr: Okay. 4 creates a problem for us. This really has to do with the issue that you were raising before about the, coming close to the boundaries of the property and I think what's, first of all this 1 1/2 to 1 grade is steeper than the 2 1/2 to 1 that we're showing our present plan out there. $o that's the end use grade and what we're talking about is in the meantime mining closer to that boundary between the north and south parcel. We feel we have the right to do that. We feel that that 1 1/2 to 1, we ought to be able to mine right up-to the property line on that whether that, we mine up to that line or we mine-lO0 feet from it, we have the same slope remaining and the same-safety issue, if there is one, exists whether you're lO0 feet from that point on the property or whether you're not. As far as safety is concerned, this is private property. We are willing to put snow fences up there. We do know that trespassers do get on the property. I think the snow fences area a reasonable request and- I think that's something that Mr. Zwters will do without any problem. But again, I kind of remind you it is private property and I don't think you require other people on this bluff to put snow fences up to. protect them from where there's steep slopes and there are many areas along here which have existing natural slopes that are that and worst. The railroad property over here in their abandoned area have some extremely steep slopes and they have no requirement to put up snow fences but I'm saying to you that we will do that. I mean we're Saying it's, we don't think it's an issue and it oughtn't to be but on the other hand we're willing to put them up there so. Ahrens: Okay, so on 4 you're saying. You want to cut to the property line but you'll put fences up? J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. it's the 1 1/2 to 1 grade within 100 feet that we're unwilling to do. We think that's limits us to what we can grade on our property and we think we have a right to grade that and mine that. But on the second, the last sentence of 'that number 4, the temporary snow fence Planning Commission Meeting 3une 3, 1992 - Page 54 is when we exceed the 2 1/2 to I slopes,, we will Put temporary snow fences up there. Erhart: Excuse me, but are you saying here that, you accept the 100 feet on other property owners but not your own property to the'north? J.E. erill, Jr: Actually no. Actually it's 50 feet that we have been maintaining and we think has been required of this property up until now and we would continue to maintain that up to the adjacent property owners. As far as our own property's concerned, well on the north end of this particular part of 'our property we don't, we object to that. Yes. Erhart: To any setback?' J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. Erhart: Paul, can you respond to that? Do you want to respond now or wait until the end? Ahrens: No. I'd just as soon have him. J.E. Brill, Jr: I'm almost finished. Number 5 is daylight and ground water resources. We don't believe, in fact I asked Tom about the g~ound water problem. He tells me he has never been below, he's never reached the ground water. He's never exposed the ground water table. He doesn't ever expect to do that. It's quite a ways down below this site as we've mined it to date and we don't ever expect that to'be a problem and that's a condition that we don't have a problem with. The protecting of existing on site wells. There is only one well on the property. That's... I don't know quite what's meant about protecting it. We don't think there is any issue about polluting it. Erhart: Are you using it? J.E. Brill, Jr: I think it's utilizing a home where somebody lives. Tom Zwiers: Wally lives there. J.E. Brill, Jr: The permanent capping I think is required by State law. Ahrens: Yes it is. J.E. Brill, Jr: So that we have to do anyway. So the only issue here has to do with protecting on site wells. I guess I don't know what that means. Erhart: Well you can't cap it if you're usino it. J.E. 8rill, Jr: The protection means they'll cap it when it's completed? When we finish using it? Is that what? Okay. So that's not an issue. Krauss: When you grade the area. 3.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. Number 6. The annual review, I kind of heard some. comments that that really means we've got to apply annually for this permit Planning Commission Meeting June 3, i992 - Page 55 renewal. Ahrens: There is an annual permit renewal, as far as ! understand it right Paul? That section is part of that? Krauss: The earth work permit, well maybe this is something that Tom needs to clarify. The earth work permit does have a requirement for annual review. It's mandated in that. I'm not certain as to whether or not the Judge would deem that as applicable in this instance because of non- conformity. However, we're saying that from the-standpoint of adequately managing the site and adherence to the conditions that are outlined, that that's necessary to insure that these issues are being taken care of. .- J.E. Brill, Jr: It kind of relates to the erosion control mostly doesn't it? Krauss: Well the ongoing operation. Tom Scott: The fact that they're a non-conforming use would not impact their obligation to come in and get an annual permit. There is an annual permit requirement. You look at it annually'and you can modify or you can change the conditions but obviously the initial look and the initial plan is going to set the basic framework. But then it is annually renewed and the fact they're non-conforming use doesn't change that. Ahrens: And the annual review by the City Engineer would be part of that application process I assume? Tom Scott: That's right. Ahrens: Okay. 3.E. Brill, Jr: I guess I would disagree that we think you have the right to change the conditions annually. I don't think you do. I don't think you have a right to impose different conditions than those that you do here that are within the Judge's limitations of relating to health and safety. We do object to paying the fee. We think as a non-conforming use we're not subject to that fee. We did have a discussion with the Judge about, that and he left that question open so if it becomes an issue between us, he'll address it for us but when we were there the last time. Number 7 is the revision of the end use plan. I think that relates to the, it kind Of . relates back to number 4. In other words, changing the plan that's up there now which is B-1 I think so that it relates back to this 100 foot setback. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that's really, what you're asking on that isn't it? Krauss: It also implies to the fact that we have an end use plan that kind of conceptually illustrates where ponding areas are going to be. We're in no way sure that those are appropriately sized or designed and we're asking for details on that be included. J.E. Brill, Jr: Which one are you talking about? The one down below? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, i992 - Page 56 Krauss: Yes. Well actually you're showing two that' kind of intrude onto the property but yeah, the one down below. We don't know if it's in the right place. We don't know if it's the right size. We don't 'know if it's effective. 3.E. brill, Jr: The other point you're talking about is the holding pond up on the northwest corner? Krauss: If that continues to be in the plan, yes. J.E. 8rill, Jr: Well the problem with that one is that that straddles the two properties and we're not permitted to do-any mining on the Upper property. I was always hopeful, we got into a little bit of a discussion about that the last time we were down before the Judge but I.was hopeful that that would be on the agenda tonight so that we could really discuss that because that holding pond is something that really relates to both of these projects, the north and south parcel and it's kind of unfortunate that you have to discuss it in pieces because there was one holding area but that's the way it turns out and we would feel that we would have the right to mine the portion that's on the southerly parcel as it's sbo~n on that plan and not the other until that's approved and if and when it's approved by the city under our second license. Second permit we'd be asking for. We do object to the letter of credit. We don't think that again is related to safety and health and that that is not required of us in this case because of our non-conforming use status. So those are the conditions I've indicated that we object to. We're unwilling to undertake. I think you should know our position. I ~uess I don't expect you tonight to do other than what your staff and'your attorney has recommended to you but you needed to know where we stand on it. We feel that those-conditions are not within the purview of what the Judge has allowed you to regulate here. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Ahrens: There may be some questions later. Thank you very much. 3.E. Brill, Jr: Oh, one other thing. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has sent a letter. You may have it in your packet. It just came today. It's dated June 3rd. It was addressed to Tom Zwiers. He probably will get his in the main tomorrow. That's my guess and we looked at it tonight. It refers to the MPEDS permit. MPEDS permit. I think Paul has indicated that that's pretty much the purview of the MPCA and we agree with that if that's what he's saying and we will take that up with the MPC~ and don't think that's going to be a problem. I'm not so 'sure that we are a point source that requires that. That, if I'm not mistaken Paul, that's a fairly new area of regulation that's being addressed nationally and it's going to require a lot of effort by a lot of people to regulate a lot of storm water discharge from Just about every roof and parking lot in the United States. Ledvina: I had a question about that, if I can just touch on this. It says waste water disposal system. It says that you operate a waste water disposal system. Is that the case? Do you generate waste water'by this process? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 57 J.E. Brill, Jr: Okay, let me tell you what it is. This pond down below down there collects the runoff, natural runoff On the site into that pond. It maintains a sedimentation pond and that has, that flows over to a culvert or it might have been an old cattle pass that goes underneath the highway and then out into the riverbed. That's not something that we're putting water into except for this natural water coming across. Ledvina: Okay, so that's surface water drainage. So there's no waste water? 3.E. Brill, Jr: We're not washing on the site. Ledv ina: 0 kay. 3.E. Brill, Jr: We don't do any gravel washing out'there at all. Ahrens: Okay, do you have anything else Mr. 8rill? J.E. Brill, Jr: I don't. Ahrens: Would anyone else like to address the-Commission? Thank you. Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Tom Scott: Madam Chair, could I make one comment? Ahrens: Sure. Tom Scott: Just to clarify. The Judge's Order, I guess the best way to characterize it is he's going to look by more strict standard and look harder at regulations that are going to prevent them from mining some of the material on the site. That's the stricter standard. Regulations like some of the erosion control techniques or methods we were talking about, the pond and things like that. If they don't preclude, them from mining some of the materials on the site, the stricter standard or this closer look that the Judge is going to take, doesn't apply. $o we've been talking about a more stricter standard but it's only regulations that would prevent them from taking some of the material out of this site. I think that's been a bit unclear. Ahrens: Actually the materials were very clear that were sent tO us. I mean I understand the legal issues and everything else... Erhart: Can we talk just maybe about what this process? Ahrens: I was just going to do that. You mean the process of what we're going to do here tonight? Erhart: Yeah. Ahrens: Yeah I know. I'm a little confused about this too. We're certainly not going to get into any of the legal arguments. Judge Kanning has told us, has told the city what we can do and what we can't.do and Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 58 we're not going to get into the pros and cons of this decision. You want us to just recommend to the City Council whether or not we agree with the health and safety conditions that you set up for their permit right? Krauss: That's essentially the case. ~hrens: Do we have to adopt the Findings of Fact also? Krauss: Yes, that would be our preference. We. have'come back to you from time to time of trying to update you on the Moon Valley and the City Council as well. We've tried to get guidance before. We didn't originally litigate this but before we'd taken action in response, we've consulted with the City Council on it. If you feel the course of action that we're taking is inappropriate, let us know.. Rs I say, I mean clearly if'we had our druthers we might be going about this a little differently but within the confines of the limitations that ! think we're working under, I think' this package is a reasonable one and that therefore we did support it's approval. Recommendation for approval by you tonight. ~hrens: In other words, you know I don't think we're here.to say that or to set further limitations on the Moon Valley operation. I mean we have a very limited role here and that is to, I'm not-sure. Rgree with the city ' that their health and safety issues are adequately addressed and that's difficult for us to do as lay people here. Some of these are pretty complicated health and safety issues. Erhart: I would think that our role here, how to basically define out what's a good plan for this piece of property given that it's excavated for mining. I'm not sure the Planning Commission ought to be dealing with the legal aspects at all, quite frankly. Ahrens: Well no. I don't think that's what we will be doing. Erhart: If we can agree to that then I would say that what Paul's outlined here, whether or not it has anything to do with the Judge's ruling, I think the recommendations are planning points .that are probably good but minimal so I would go along with the recommendation. Simple as that. Anything else from a planning standpoint would be. more restrictive but to get into it would be a waste of time. So that's my comments. Conrad: I'm going to adopt what staff has drafted. It's obviously an adversarial relationship and comments I have would serve no purpose. Ledvina: No additional comments. Emmings: I agree. ~hrens: I agree also. Can we have a motion? Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City council approve the Earth Work Permit subject to the'14 conditions. Emmings: Maybe we should move that we adopt the Findings of Fact and recommendations? Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1992 - Page 59 Erhart: Okay, then I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact document. Is there a date on this document or anything? Emmings: It's dated today. Erhart: Dated today. Emmings: Second. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded'that the Planning Commt~ton recommend adoption of the Findings of Fact dated June 3, 1992 and the Earth Work Permit for the Moon Valley operation subject to the following conditions: i · Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall sub, it drainage and' erosion control plans to the City Engineer for review and approval. Plans should be developed by a professional engineer in'accordance with MICA and BWSR manuals· Plans should include: erosion control practices designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively operate drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. Phased plan for site restoration/establishment of ground cover and vegetation. Ail distrubed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and/or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent erosion. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to keep drainage and e~osion control plans current. When mining operations require relocation of the pond(s) and/or alterations to erosion control measures, these shall not be undertaken without prior written approval by the City Engineer. 2. Within 30 days of approval, provide' an engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212. Work with MnDot to relocate the access point to the northeast to improve the westbound acceleration lane on the highway 'and provide'a deceleration lane for truck movements. During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic hazard. Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve sight distance. Planning Commission Meeting 3uno 3, 1992 - Page 60 3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues. 4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off-site mining/grading that is presently illustrated on plan B1. To avoid under-cutting of off-site slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a property line at any time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to ! slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The operator will protect existing on-site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. . The site will be subject to annual, review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise,, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fee. 7. Provide the city with a revised end-use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. ~ The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or.cash escrow in the amount of $51,000.-to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, should he fail to adhere, to approved conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff's.-The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may no/ be in his best interest to comply-with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end-use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practive to require this sort Of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end-use plan has been satisfactorily.completed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANC~ ~MEDE)MENT TO AHEHD ARTICLE VIII OF TH~ C~TY. COD~[ CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT R~GULATIONS FOR RESIE-NTIAL DISTRICTS.. Ahrens: KT auss: Ahrens: Conrad: Emmings: This is what Brian asked us to table? Yes. Does anyone have a problem with that? No. None at all. I'm just curious about what people think. It's time to move it on. That's 'what I think. Planning Commission Heeting June 3, 1992 - Page 61 Ahrens: Yeah I do too. Emmings: What do you think? Conrad: I'm curious what you thought. Emmings: No, no. You don't give up that easy. What do you think? Ahrens: Do we need a motion to table this? No. Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Acting Chair Ahrens noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated May 20, 1992 as presented. ONGOIN~ ITEMS, Krauss: Ongoing items. Apparently, Tim did ask me to get the tree conservation on the agenda. I did have it in your last packet. It was an . oversight, we didn't put it in this one. Erhart: I won't be at the next meeting. Krauss: Well, let me talk about the next meeting for a moment. We don't have a lot of new items coming up for the June 17th meeting. We have one June 17th and we have July 1st. On behalf, of the.Planning staff, we would not be terribly put off by eliminating the June 17th meeting. Erhart: If it were me, I'd beg you for 4 beachlots on the June 17th meeting because I'm not going to be here. Ahrens: That's fine. There will be'a meeting on June 18th though fo.r any of you interested in attending the meeting having to do with the golf course. Krauss: And the Bluff Creek corridor. Erhart: Why wouldn't we do the PUD and the tree thing then? Krauss: Well you could but would you want to have a meeting solely for that and one beachlot? Emmings: Get something done. I don't know. Krauss: Well a lot of us, I mean I'm going to be here but a lot of you are probably, I know Joan you're going to be here the following night for the golf course, Bluff Creek thing. Emmings: $o we cancel our meeting-because she's got two meetings that week? Ahrens: Yeah. Emmings: Okay. I don't know. Some of this stuff, whatever everybody wants to do. Planning Commission Meeting June 3; 1992 - Page 62 Erhart: You're talking about the 17th? Okay, Z'm not going to be here the 17th so that would be the tree thing. Earnings: Probably this one too. Okay. Erhart: You don't want to deal with the PUD thing tonight? Emmings: Brian has asked to be here when'we do it. I think any time anybody wants something taken off so they can be here, we ought to do it. Krauss: I should ask too. we're moving forward on getting the Highway 5 task force together. There's going to be another add in the paper this week and we've already had some submittals." I'm working with the consultant. We are meeting on that. Emmings: I'm going to have meetings on that so if I have 1 of those meetings the same week, then we cancel the Planning Commission? Ahrens: Let me clarify that meetin~ on the lSth. It's at the Fire Station at 5:30? Krauss: The time has always eluded me on this one. Erhart: What's been happening? Is there some movement on this? Ahrens: We're going to have a meeting with the City Council and with Park and Rec and other interested people and also we're bringing in people from other communities who have developed golf courses and it's going to be dinner, you know open forum. Question and answer type of thing. Erh~rt: Now is this sort of a kick off meetin~ on this activity or has there been ongoing stuff. Ahrens: We've had small meetings. Emmings: Let's get to the important stuff. What's on the menu? Ahrens: I don't know, pizza. Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting Has adjourned at 11=12 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim