The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2001 08 21CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, and Bruce Feik MEMBERS ABSENT: Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE: A. ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR FENS; B. ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR CREEKS. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, questions? Go ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few questions. First of all, in that new part you added to your report you're talking about acquisition being the preferred solution for this type of a situation. And I think you touched on that also in the comment of one of the property owners. It seems there are some negotiations going on that it would be required by the DNR or what's happening in that? Haak: Well currently we're not in the negotiation process per se. We don't have numbers going back and forth and that sort of thing. We're in the preliminary stages of considering negotiations and what that entails right now is the lower Minnesota River Watershed District has volunteered to act as sort of a liaison between any public entities and the private property owner and Kevin Begaulky with the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is present tonight and can speak to that in a little more detail if you'd like. Sacchet: Yeah, that would help. Because I'm under the impression that there have been some talks. I don't know how formal from that tour that we took down there. That we're talking actually about some numbers or what so yeah, it'd be interesting to have maybe, I don't know whether that's just a tie in right now or? Blackowiak: No. Actually we'll have the commissioners ask any questions of staff and then we'll move onto the next step. Sacchet: Do the questions first. Now in terms of the legal issues, I assume you did some analysis as to how these setbacks would impact the current lots of record. Could we get a little bit of a sense of where that's at? Haak: As I indicated at the last meeting, many of the lots of record have a large amount of wetland on the properties already. I've roughly indicated the wetland areas on this. I don't know, you'll have to help me out. Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Aanenson: Can I excuse you for a second? The Planning Commissioners can see this on their TV, but the applicants, anybody else that wants to step up. I'm sorry, our big screen isn't working so if you want to step up so you can see, that's fine. They can see it on their TV's up there. That's what we're focusing but you're welcome to stand. I'm sorry. Slagle: If we can zoom it in a tad that'd be great. Aanenson: Yeah, thank you. Haak: I've roughly identified the wetland in green highlighter here and that's as it appears on the city's surface water management plan. We've not delineated the wetland on the property. The portions of the wetland that are fen complexes are well within those areas. Primarily there's an area in here north of the railroad tracks. There's one south of 212 here and several areas within the confines of the wetland complex. So this is a little bit difficult because it doesn't have the property lines on it. Had some limited success with that earlier today but there's one large piece that runs along Assumption Creek here out to approximately this location. And I believe this is Sam Wetterlin who owns this particular piece, as well as a portion of the piece next to it. As you can see from the green line, a large portion of that is wetland. The pink is the proposed 150 foot setback. As you can see if we increase that to 300 feet, a large portion of this parcel becomes unbuildable without a variance. In addition that occurs on this piece. Both north and south of Assumption Creek. The other properties, there's one property owner here. There is currently at least one structure on this parcel. There is one property here. I'm not certain who owns that but a large portion of that appears to be wetland. There's one other parcel here. It appears there may be some buildable area here but as I indicated before, most of the fen is over in this location. The only portion where I can anticipate without having the fen delineated that the fen setback would be outside of the wetland boundary, would be in this location here on this. And this may or may not be, this appears quite wet on the aerial photo that we have in front of us this evening. On some of the other ones it appears drier so it's really difficult to tell whether or not it is actually jurisdictional wetland. So as I said earlier, many of the parcels already have wetland issues and it's staff's opinion that any increased setback from the fen would not exacerbate these issues terribly because there is already a 100 foot setback requirement with a 50 foot buffer requirement around pristine wetlands like this one. Sacchet: To clarify Lori. You're saying that the fen setback wouldn't really make much difference. Now does that also apply to the creek setback? Haak: Well as I've shown here, the 150 foot creek setback actually have, appear to have a greater impact on the properties and primarily that would be this piece owned by Mr. Wetterlin, and this piece owned by Mr. Wetterlin in conjunction with another party. This parcel I believe you reviewed several weeks ago, the Nystrom property with the condition that I believe was adopted at the time or recommended at the time. It would have very little impact on that property. Sacchet: Okay, thank you Lori. I'm sure we'll hear from the applicants on how they feel about that impact piece. I do have a few more questions if I may. Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: So we've notified property owners. We have some here. We'll hear from them. We've notified the DNR. We got a letter from the DNR which the way I read it, it seems like they're supporting the 150 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 feet setback as well as the 100% of the 100 feet be the buffer. However our proposed ordinance states that for the creek we would only have half of it as the buffer. Can you give me the rationale for that? Haak: Well as I stated in the staff report, it's primarily because most of the rare and special concern species are located within the fen and not adjacent to the creek. That's another thing that Kevin may be able to tell you. He was actually the trout stream coordinator for the DNR for some time. Sacchet: So that'd be a question for him, to give a little bit sense, and also in terms of impacting the property owners. That seems to be more balanced. Is that part of the thought? And we have the Watershed here. One point that came up when we discussed this last time is the question about impervious surface. I don't think your current report went further into that aspect. Haak: No. It wasn't included in the report. Typically the watershed's, if you have areas that are in excess of 10% impervious surface it can have a marked effect. In meetings with Kevin and with some other individuals we've determined that really any massive amount of impervious surface will increase the temperature of the runoff to a point where it could be detrimental to the fen, or the creek. Sacchet: That actually leads to my last question I had is, in this context could it be reasonable idea to restrict the amount of water that we allow to feed into the creek to prevent the temperature change? Because we know that that would have a significant impact. That's something that I don't think was considered. Would that, you seem to be a little shaky about that. Haak: It's really unchartered territory. Sacchet: Be kind of a new thing. Haak: Yes. Sacchet: ... little bit of a challenge from that angle. Haak: Right. Sacchet: That's my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, any questions? Slagle: Yeah, I've got a couple questions. First of all, how many land owners surround the fen and the creek? Haak: I'd have to do some counting. Slagle: As you're doing that let me ask the next question. How many of those who received the notice, and how was the notice, since we use the 500 foot notification area, did it encompass the entire area? 500 feet from all edges? Or was it centered just on one area? Haak: Well the notice was sent out and then the person who sent out the notice went on vacation and I neglected to grab her before she left for the evening. I did work with her to establish that area. It was not using 500 feet surrounding the property. Because these impacts would be primarily on the people who own Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 property that is actually within the creek, or contains the creek or the fen. And we used GIS similar to this map, if you want to put that up. And certainly all the property owners south of the Hennepin County Regional Corridor and north of the Highway 212 were included in that notice as well as. Slagle: So we're talking about all of these and these. And I guess I'm just wondering, since we have 2 residents, I'm a little surprised that there's only 2 to be honest with you. If there's talk of literally taking people's land for albeit a good cause. So hard to answer I know. Haak: Right. Slagle: But just wondering if you had those figures. Okay. Any added thoughts Kate? Aanenson: No. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Feik: Yeah, my questions were along the same lines. Were any meetings with the affected parties, other than planning session meetings. Did you go out and meet with any of the affected land owners? Were there any other communication with the homeowners or the landowners I should say? Haak: Primarily the contact that occurred was initiated. We did send out the letter and initiated by the property owner after that so. It appeared in the paper as well on two separate occasions. The first one, this appeared for the first time on July 17th and then prior to this meeting as well. Feik: Thank you. Blackowiak: Alrighty. I don't have any questions right now I guess. Other than if we're looking at both the fen and creek setbacks, I'm assuming you would be looking for language similar to the native, I'm sorry. A buffer of native vegetation. Similar language through both documents. Is that what you're looking to see? Haak: That's correct. Blackowiak: Okay. That's all I wanted to clarify. Alrighty, this item is not open for a public hearing. However, I would like to give any people that are interested in speaking about this, either of these two items, the fen or creek setbacks, a chance to get up this evening and make a statement. So if you'd like to come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record, we'll get your comments on the record. Kevin Begaulky: My name's Kevin Begaulky. I'm the District Administrator for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. The District at this time isn't in a position to make a recommendation in either support or opposing the setbacks. I presented to my Board of Managers last Wednesday and there wasn't a whole lot of discussion and the discuss that did occur was mainly somewhat of a lot of what your questions are in terms of what would the setbacks, what is the setbacks based on in terms of research and existing ordinances in other communities and similar situations with calcareous fens or trout streams and so in working with Lori I'm sort of gathering that information to present to my board as well at an upcoming meeting. One thing that I have been in discussions with outside of my board on an individual basis as well as with our attorney is what role can the Watershed District play and a potential role as Lori stated earlier Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 is that we could be, act as some sort of a facilitator or mediator type position between the existing landowners of any of these parcels of land. And in the largest case, what we may be familiar with in terms of some of the negotiations with the Wetterlin portions of, pieces of property and whoever a purchasing party may be. Whether that be the City or the Department of Natural Resources directly or an organization similar to like the Conservation Fund or the Trust for Public Land that may be able to come in and expedite the land purchase with additional parties contributing to the acquisition of that property so that is a role that the district is considering. I think it's a very feasible role that the district could play, and if that does become the role, it would be in the district's best interest not to take a position on whether or not we support or oppose a setback because we would be acting, we would want to act as a neutral party between the landowners and any of the purchasing agents so. If we come forward and make a position one way or another in support or against of the setbacks, that would in our, and in my opinion, essentially eliminate us as a facilitator type position. And so that's something that my board and I will be discussing at future meetings. But I do think the interest is there for us to help in any sort of negotiations that would be possible. In terms of the setbacks, I think in both negotiations, or talking negotiations. Talking with Lori and your city staff as well as some of the research that I've done, it is somewhat, it is based partially on scientific research out of Iowa State University where they've done a lot of setback, or information not necessarily on city ordinances or setbacks but on buffer widths for protections of streams and wetlands in general. And the varying widths of those buffers and the types of impacts that, and benefits that they would have vary from simply a water quality standpoint all the way up to a much larger buffer width that would provide and enhance something along the lines of wildlife corridor. And to have that managed that way. And the 150 foot setback is somewhere inbetween. Their two extremes being the minimal and what they would consider minimal for water quality and minimal width which is much wider for wildlife corridor type status. The Center for Watershed Protection also has similar information on setbacks and buffer widths from streams and wetlands but not necessarily on trout streams or calcareous fens specifically. One of the Planning Commission members had a couple of questions, and I'll try to address those to the best of my ability as I noted them. You had asked, one of you had asked the questions about existing or current negotiations for acquisition of the seminary parcel which is currently owned by the Wetterlin family and another party. Those negotiations have been somewhat ongoing and I think the Wetterlin's would probably jump in when they stand to speak as well. Currently there is not any ongoing negotiations. They have occurred in the past but I don't think there's been anything, at least between the City and the Wetterlin's at all, and certainly between the Department of Natural Resources and the Wetterlin's probably within the last year. And I may be mistaken on that. But there is again an enhanced concern and really a concern for what's going to happen with just the, with the Seminary Fen and Assumption Creek regardless of who is owning the property. And so acquisition does seem like the best means for protection because it is such a large contiguous piece. I mean even if you get a buffer, there isn't, it's still largely in private ownership and the resources in really dire need of some sort of management and at least a public agency like the Department of Natural Resources has a difficult time justifying expending dollars for management on private lands if there's not a public benefit. So from that perspective alone you know acquisition is the ideal case unless some sort of an agreement can be worked out with the landowners for ongoing management. But that does become a fairly expensive endeavor to do that. I touched on the watershed district role a little bit and our interest in assisting with whatever negotiations may be. There's also a question raised about impervious surface and the impacts that that may have. Again from the Center of Watershed Protection and a number of other sources, one of which being the Pollution Control Agency's Urban Best Management Practices Manual. It cites anywhere from, when you reach the level of 10 to 15 percent of impervious cover in any watershed, you begin to see degradation impacts and certainly once you reach a threshold of about 25% it's very noticeable in terms of thermal impacts, water temperature, water quality and water quantity. That becomes an even more, a much higher concern, an elevated concern when you have a situation like a calcareous fen and a trout stream, in particular a trout stream that is dependent Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 upon a good cold, clean source of water. Largely it is coming from ground water but there is a level of ground water recharge that takes place that you lose with an increase amount of impervious cover and the storm water management, or the storm water impacts from traditional storm water management and ponding controls have a very significant detrimental impact on the water temperature, if it's being discharged into that stream. So those are obviously some very, very big concerns. And then I think lastly there is a question about the quality of vegetation and the need for the whole setback to be established in native vegetation for the fen, but only 75 feet of the setback in native vegetation for the creek. I think that most, the highest quality vegetation and the rare species of vegetation are going to be found in the calcareous fen. There's a number of rare and endangered or threatened plant species that are found in the fen. And just the quality of the fen vegetation.., within the stream corridor. You're going to have your maple, basswood, cottonwood type species directly on the corridor and the banks of the Assumption Creek, but you're also seeing encroachment of invasive species like buckthorn and a lot of willow and some dogwood that are beneficial species but they do tend to drown out some of the native stuff so, unless there's any other questions, that's all I have. Blackowiak: Quick question, sure. Sacchet: Real quick. So I just want to make sure I understand what you just said of the fen versus the creek in terms of the sensitivity with the threatened species and so forth. That it's more sensitive in the fen so in that sense it would support staff's recommendation to have a smaller buffer with the creek also from that angle. Did I hear that correctly? Kevin Begaulky: I wouldn't go so far as to make that recommendation. I would say that there's a higher number of unique species found in the fen complex itself than what you're going to find, at least to my knowledge, directly along the stream corridor. Sacchet: But on the other hand the creek is very sensitive to the temperatures, so there's a balance. Kevin Begaulky: Exactly. One question that I would have to city staff is there was a question about which landowners and the number of landowners that were contacted. Just something that popped in my mind is if the City of Chaska was contacted, being that this could potentially impact properties within the City of Chaska that are maybe divided by the town borders or being it split or right up against that, I think that that would perhaps merit some discussion and consideration as well. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to get up and make some comments? Please state your name and address for the record. Sam Wetterlin: Sam Wetterlin, 6609 Dakota Trail, Edina. I am a principle in two companies which own the main property that's at issue here. One is Emerald Ventures. Can you still see this? Blackowiak: No, we can zoom in. Matt, excuse me. Could you? Thank you. Sacchet: Yep now we see it. Sam Wetterlin: Basically the property from about the crease here over is about a 120 acre piece and that's owned by Emerald Ventures. From the crease over to the left is a 40 acre piece that's, over to about here. It is a 40 acre piece that's owned by Fenway Limited Partnership. They're two different owners but I'm involved, and my brother Allen is involved in both of them so I was going to make a few statements. Allen Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 isn't going to say anything unless I say something stupid. And I have some written remarks which I'll provide you but I want to cover a few introductory matters first. First of all, the timing of this, I mean we got notice of this a little less than 2 weeks ago. We got the staff report a few days ago. We would like to request that you not take any action on this tonight because first of all it raises a lot of legal issues and we retained an attorney but he hasn't had time to look at it. And second of all, we intend to retain a wetland consultant to also take a look at it and obviously he hasn't had any opportunity to look at it so, I'll make my remarks tonight but I'm not a wetland expert or a legal expert on this issue so we would like the opportunity to have them present some additional remarks in a later meeting. These properties, in evaluating the impact of the setbacks it's important to realize that the main dry ground they call it, the non- wetland portion of it, it's a long skinny piece that runs along Highway 212. So when you think of the effect of the setback, you have to consider the setback from the highway which is not shown on this map. Then you have to consider the setback south of the creek, the setback north of the creek, and the setback from the fen along the north side of the property. Now I'm a little confused about the setback from the fen. That's not shown on here I don't, is the idea that the fen isn't close enough to the property boundary to impact it or I didn't understand why there's no setback shown on these properties from the fen. Blackowiak: Lori would you like to address that? Haak: Yes please. The fen has not been delineated as such. We have a rough idea of where the fen is located, where the components of the fen are located and that is on a separate map that we've shown before the Planning Commission before. Sam Wetterlin: I just noticed on this map there is an area of the fen that's shown there would essentially run right along this green line so you'd be talking about, if that is accurate, you're talking about a setback of 150 feet running south from that green line. Meaning essentially on this parcel over here, the 120 acre parcel there would be nothing north of the creek that would not be covered by the setback. There'd be nothing left. On the south part of the creek, when you take into account the highway setback, which I think is 150 feet from the center of the road or I believe that's what it is. When you draw that in, there's virtually nothing left on the south side of the creek either. Blackowiak: That's given the current setbacks is what you're saying? Sam Wetterlin: No. The highway setback is a current setback. Blackowiak: Right, no. But is the pink, I'm sorry. Lori, the pink setback, is that the current setback or that's the new proposed 1507 Haak: That is the new proposed 150. Blackowiak: So it'd be the 75. So half the distance then? Where is the current? The dashed line halfway between the center of the stream and the pink line. Haak: For the creek? Blackowiak: Yes. Could we effectively draw that in? Haak: Yes. It's 75 feet for anything with a sewage treatment system which would be this because it's not within the MUSA. Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Blackowiak: And Kate or Matt, setback from 212. 150 from the center of the highway, is that correct? Do we have a number for that? Aanenson: It's A2. Haak: 50 feet. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that makes a difference. Alright, thank you. Continue. Sam Wetterlin: Well that would leave some property then running between, I'm not sure how much. Some property south of the creek. Certainly nothing north of the creek. And then this field over on the right, which Lori indicated that maybe there was some issues whether it's wetland. That's actually been a farm field for years. Maybe there's some issue along the edge there or something but the mass bulk of it is dry as can be. And that, again I guess we don't exactly where the fen is but because that's a relatively skinny piece, if the calcareous fen extends around the edge of that, it would easily wipe that out. So I guess my basic point there is, on most of this property you have to consider that you have a strip of property that's subject to 4 setbacks. From the road, south of the creek, north of the creek and then south of the fen. And so whatever setback you impose, the effect on this property is really 4 times whatever you do. Or technically 3 times plus the existing highway setback I guess but the point is it's a major, major impact. I want to say something about the fen itself too. As far as the operation of the fen. What makes it a fen is water from the bluff and areas north on the bluff, who knows how far away, soak in. They seep down below the level of the fen, travel under the fen and bubble back up because of the pressure from soaking in high up. So they create a lot of springs and if you walk around on that property there must be 100 springs on the property. It's just all over the place there's water seeping out of the ground. The land itself is dry and I mean, I shouldn't say dry. It's walkable. It's spongy but it's not swampy. It's, you can walk on it but there's water coming out everywhere and then while it kind of gathers in the streams and the streams come together and form Assumption Creek. Then Assumption Creek itself has some springs within it that feed it directly. So the point there is the water that we're concerned about here comes from the north. The dry ground here on these properties is not part of the recharge area. The water does not soak in here and come up in the fen. Nor does it run off of here into the fen because anything that ran off of here, anything that ran to the north of here would be intercepted by a gully here and end up running down to the creek. So there is possible runoff into the creek but it is not possible for water to run off this property onto the fen. And likewise the water that seeps into this property is not going to bubble up in the fen because the water, actually much of the fen is actually above the elevation of much of this. It's a big pile of peat. And you would think it would be a low, wet marshy area but what it is is a giant pile of peat. And it's actually a relatively high elevation. For example, it's much higher to this field right here is probably 15 to 20 feet below the level of most of the fen. This stuff over here is dry, solid ground. This stuff here is spongy peat. So the point of all that is, if you're concerned about the quality of the creek and the fen, which I agree are important resources and I agree they should be taken care of, and that's one of the reasons we bought this property. We liked the creek and we liked the fen and we don't have any intention of filling them in or ruining them or anything. I mean our purpose is to do something that can make use of the natural amenities of the whole property. But in managing the quality of that water, what comes, what happens on our property is nothing compared to what happens on the bluff. And it's like trying to, if you have a problem with the water quality there, it's like trying to desalinate the ocean by not throwing another grain of sand in it. It's already so salty that another grain of sand doesn't do anything. You know what, ifa grain of sand goes in off of this property, it's nothing compared to what goes in in the actual recharge area. And if something is, if there's a problem with water quality, that's where the problem is. That's what needs to be Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 dealt with. Now the creek, one more issue on the creek. It's important that the creek be cold water because that's what makes it useful for breeding trout. That's why the temperature of the creek is so important. But if you look at the creek, I mean I have been to the creek every month of the year. The flow in the creek is almost constant. It's almost the same in the middle of winter as it is in the middle of the summer. Almost all the flow in that creek comes out of the ground. It comes from the springs in the fen and it comes from springs in the creek itself. Very little of it is runoff from the surrounding property. And I agree with the comment made earlier that if the concern is to deal with runoff, then what would make sense is to have an ordinance dealing with ponding requirements. To pond the water so it doesn't run into the creek. That no additional beyond what would run in there now would run into the creek. I mean that seems like a perfectly manageable kind of a thing. And it deals directly with the issue as opposed to the setback requirement which is very burdensome on the property and is a very indirect way of dealing with runoff. It seems to be if runoff is a problem, then we should deal with runoff. One further issue on the runoff. There were some numbers quoted as to when one should be concerned about the amount of runoff affecting a wetland. Well, you can't simply look at the water, the amount of impervious area here. If this were, if the high ground were 25% impervious, when you look at the property as a whole you still have 50 or so acres of high ground and 150 acres of fen. When you look at the property as a whole, you could pave everything and you still couldn't get to 25% impervious ground. So again that gets back to the point, the amount of runoff from these properties is trivial compared to the water that comes from the recharge area and that's the part that really determines the quality of the fen. I want to say something about the negotiations for the sale of the property also. We have talked to the DNR starting 3 years ago about the selling the property to them. They talked to the Fish and Wildlife Service and a number of people. I thought they talked to the City of Chanhassen at the time. The school district apparently for some reason, trying to put together a group of people to purchase it. We actually got an appraisal a year, May, 2000 in connection with our negotiations with the DNR. These two parcels together were appraised at 2 ½ million dollars of which $500,000 was the wetland value. And we were agreeable to donating the wetland if they would buy the high ground at the appraised value. Basically at that point the DNRjust said well, we used to think we could get some money but we can't get the money so that was kind of the end of it. They never had any problem, as far as I know with the appraised value or the concept of the deal. They just couldn't raise any money. So that ended last summer. Then sometime maybe 6 months ago one of the other people involved in one of these parcels, Scott Burdis, had some conversations with Renee Leon, who I've never met or talked to but she's with an organization I think is called the Conservation Fund. Is that the name of it? Haak: Yes. Sam Wetterlin: Their purpose is to acquire this sort of property and then find government agencies that will participate in taking them out of the property. So I was told anyway that she was talking to the City, the DNR, the Watershed District, the various people. And in fact I understood, I mean I'm surprised that people are saying that they were not aware of the negotiations for the sale of the property because the June 4th, I understand the members of the Planning Commission were out on the property on June 4th. We were told, we were called about that meeting and told that the purpose of the meeting was for the city and the DNR to take a final look at the property to decide on the issue of whether they wanted to buy the property or not. Now maybe that wasn't the case but that's what we were told. At any rate, my point is, we're happy to sell the property. We're not trying to rip anybody off. We even offered to donate the wetland and just sell, our concept was we can give the wetland to the city, or DNR, whoever. Sell the high ground so that we don't get into any issues then of what can you do with the high ground and all that, and then if the government agencies what to resell some of the high ground for some special purpose or something, they can do that so. We've been trying to cooperate with the DNR and everybody we've talked to to come up with a way to protect the fen and the creek and deal with this whole issue. Then the next thing we know we Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 get this notice that there are proposed setbacks and buffer requirements that would effectively destroy the value of our property. I already mentioned the fact that because of the size of the setbacks, there isn't a lot ofbuildable property left. There's a little more than I thought because the setback from the road isn't apparently quite as great as I thought but still there's a tiny amount left. And maybe importantly the buffer requirements. From my point of view the buffer requirements, it seems to me the City saying we're going to take maybe 10 acres of your property. Declare it to be a buffer. We're going to require that you plant the type of vegetation that we like and that you maintain it for that purpose and they just stay off of it. Now I can't think of anything more like a taking of property. I mean you can't do that with a drainage easement and you can't say just go to somebody's house and say look, we're declaring a 100 foot drainage easement across the front of your property. Will you please dig a ditch there and allow the water to get through. I mean no matter what kind of public purpose the city has, and there is a legitimate public purpose in protecting a fen and protecting the creek. The way to do it and the way to deal with it is not to impose these kind oftricodian restrictions which to me look like the City just trying to move on the property without paying for it. We've been dealing in good faith for several years now trying to find a public agency to buy the property and I've talked to Kevin Begaulky recently about a possible way of reducing the dollar amount of the purchase price by putting some residential lots in the small portion of the property so that there'd be a smaller portion that would end up being sold, so the total price would be reduced, which maybe would make it a more manageable deal. So we have been dealing here in good faith and I guess I'd like to, my preference would be to continue to try to work out a sale of the property and not to get diverted into these kinds of issues which really require us to hire a lawyer and deal with inverse condemnation issues and we're just going to get all diverted down the wrong road and we're going to get mad and you're going to get mad because we got mad and it's, you know everything goes all to hell so. I guess with all my talking here I didn't hand this out so maybe I'll hand this out. In here there's a map attached to the back of this which is similar to the map you have. I'm just going to scan through here and see if I missed something here. Well I guess I didn't get to the conclusion here which when I wrote this I was getting pretty mad by the time I got to the end so I'm not trying to offend anybody but I mean here are the conclusions we came to. First of all you know we would like to continue this, if you continue the meeting not having a decision made until we can deal with a wetland consultant and an attorney and maybe more importantly to have, than that is to postpone it so that it doesn't interfere with trying to come up with some kind of sale or anything. Second of all, as far as the merits of the setbacks, both the setback and the buffer requirements, we don't really consider that those have a proper scientific basis and if they were enacted, they would in our view amount to an unlawful taking of the property. Third, we basically look at this as the City's decided by hook or by crook to get control of the property without buying it. And fourth, for that reason, from this point on we don't want any government officials to enter onto the property without having one of us accompanying them because this whole thing I think is kind of getting out of control. And then finally, we are still willing to negotiate a sale. At the time I wrote this I wasn't happy anymore about the idea of donating the wetland to the City. I guess that might still be a possibility but we're rethinking that aspect of it. And on that point I want to mention one final thing which we have seen an article I think in the Chanhassen Villager, and I don't know if it related to a Planning Commission meeting or some government meeting where somebody made the point that the problem that the City had with this property is they can't pay more than appraised for the property. Well, that isn't the problem because we are with the donation of the wetland we would be selling the property for 20% less than the appraised value so you know there is no technical problem with getting a deal done. It's a question of if somebody wants to buy the property, let's do it. Otherwise let's not but I'm, you know we're negotiating with people for the sale of the property and then we find out the people we think are involved don't even know that there's a negotiations going on and it's confusing so thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Blackowiak: Thank you. In a nutshell confusing. Lori, he brought up a couple issues about water quality response and runoff. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time? Haak: At this time I would really recommend that the Planning Commission table this. There are several things that I'd like to address but I'd like to make sure that my comments are accurate and have adequate time to review those so. Blackowiak: Yeah, it sounds like just based on the tone of this letter, as I breeze through it, a neutral third party might be a very good idea because I don't think we're going to get anywhere tonight. So with that I will just, it's not a public hearing. It's not recommendation so I would say we'll just see this when we see it. Aanenson: Yeah, I would make a motion though to table it if that's what you're leaning towards. Blackowiak: Okay. So I'd like a motion from somebody to table this so that we can get a little bit more direction about where the City wants to go with this. Sacchet: Madam Chair, could we make some comments though or is that premature? Blackowiak: I think at this point it's premature. I think we just need to let the City and the property owners talk if they want. But for me personally, it's not even an issue of who owns the property. This is a water quality, water quantity. I mean these are more issues than who owns the property but until we kind of get over that initial stumbling block, and I think we've got some talking to be done, I don't even think we should move forward with this at all and I think we need to just save our comments until it comes back in a form that we can actually speak to a motion or something going forward to council. I don't think we should say anything tonight. Sacchet: How about addressing some of the concerns of the owner? Blackowiak: I think we just need to table this. I really do. Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: So I would like somebody to make a motion. Feik: I'll make a motion that we table both the calcareous fen setback agenda item as well as the Assumption Creek setback. Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is there a second? I can't second so it's up to one of you two. Slagle: I'll second. Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission table considering an amendment to the City Code regarding creating a setback for fens and creeks. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Blackowiak: And comments why you're opposed. Sacchet: I do believe that there are some misunderstandings that we could have addressed tonight. I do agree that it's better to research before and I do agree that we should definitely consider the owners concerns and give them the time to do their research as well. However, I would have been ready to take it another step tonight. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. So this item is tabled and. Slagle: Madam Chair, if I could add something. Blackowiak: Certainly. Slagle: Direction to staff will be? Blackowiak: My direction would be, you need to sit down as a city staff and decide where you want to go with this and keep us informed. I still strongly believe in the concept of the setbacks. However, let's just, some people need to talk and it's not happening tonight and I think we just need to close it up tonight and come back later with clear heads, calm thinking. Everyone get what you need to have and we'll see you in a while. Sam Wetterlin: A question if I may. Blackowiak: Sure. Sam Wetterlin: You made mention that this wasn't a public hearing? Blackowiak: No, it is not a public hearing. This item actually came up, and I was just checking my dates. The current Planning Commission first saw this at the July 17th meeting, which would have meant that approximately 2 weeks before that meeting you would have been notified. So early July you should have received a letter regarding our first meeting. At that time we did have a public hearing. It did not go? Haak: That's why we brought it back this evening. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: So it should have been yeah, but which we did open it up so. Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, I did open it up so. Sam Wetterlin: This notice says it's a public meeting. Not that it matters to me but for reference. Haak: The notice that appeared in the paper didn't have it as a public hearing. Blackowiak: Mine has it under old business and not a public hearing. Aanenson: Correct. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Blackowiak: But it was opened up. People got a chance to speak so I think we're covered there. Okay. Slagle: Wait, wait, wait. Was it issued in the paper as a public hearing? Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING THE PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISIONS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, does anyone have questions of staff'? Sacchet: One question. Has this been reviewed with the City Attorney? Aanenson: Yes. It has reviewed it and he did make recommendations for change and those have been incorporated into it. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? I have a quick question. Kate, how many administrative subdivisions would you have that are not recorded in a timely fashion? And what is the down side of them not being recorded in a timely fashion, aside from mapping and. Aanenson: That's a main thing and because when you have an administrative subdivision where you've combined two lots, which the ordinance requires is there's a vacant lot between two they can administratively split that lot and each add to it to make two bigger lots. They come in for a building permit or the transfer of sale and they get hung up that way. It's very confusing .... under the circumstances where you're leaving it up to the, sometimes it just doesn't follow through and it needs to be. There's implications too as far as... when there's different, with the recorder's office again. Tax parcel notification, that kind of thing. Blackowiak: Taxes. Aanenson: Taxes, all that so it needs to be timely. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well that makes sense to me. This is an item that is open for public hearing so if anybody would like to comment, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I have some copies to give you. I just want to walk through. So I wish to address Section 18-37, Exemptions and walk you through the changes that have occurred this summer and those which are proposed. The front page under the letter is the original code. An existing, I have it underlined in yellow marker is not italicized. On the next page, 18- 37 as sent by the staff to the Planning Commission for the June 17th or 18th meeting. Existing is italicized and private street is added. On the next page is the minutes of the meeting. Alison requests existing to be 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 added to private street. And then 18-37 on the next page as sent to council, existing is removed and private street serving up to 4 lots is added as requested. They did not approve the removal of existing. I don't think council was aware of that and it passed council. And now on the next page they're back to the original code, ignoring the council action but are removing minimum requirements for a buildable lot and existing public streets. The reason given is to require administrative subdivisions recorded in a more timely manner but no word it states this. I think it's baloney. Another reason given is that the city attorney advised that items 1 and 2 are not subdivisions under State Statute, but it's been in our code for years. What does it matter what State Statute says if that's just a minimum. We can put whatever we want on our statutes. This is Chanhassen's prerogative. We can keep this in. If this pass we'd be giving more authority to our local government administrator with really no checks and balances. What advantages there to the citizens of Chanhassen except that developers might have an easier time. No minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance and no existing public or private streets, what would that mean for a developer? What would that mean for existing neighborhoods? Why is this here? I just say to you be vigilant. Be demanding because we're depending on you to defend us. This is our only public hearing and in council we're limited to 5 minutes per subject and as a citizen and taxpayer I resent this time being spent by staff to negate our code which protects our property from being devoured by government and our neighborhoods changed for the worst. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this item? Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I think one of the greatest difficulties of this whole process is the time involved for review, and I've talked about this before. You know you want citizen involvement. You as a Planning Commission I think have a tremendous job to review all this material. Get it Thursday night. You have a weekend. You know really, how much time do you have to dig and look and we've been looking at a lot of facts and things are not flowing perfectly. We don't want to be vigilantes as we've been called. We understand here at the city that's our name. That's not what we're here to do. We just want things to be done right and correctly. It sure would be nice to have an extra week in the process all the way along. It even came up tonight with the landowners of the fen. The Paulsen's mailed some information to you. It didn't reach your homes I don't believe in time for you to review it. Sacchet: I got mine. Slagle: I didn't get one. Debbie Lloyd: I just think there's difficulty in the process. I don't think we're trying to be difficult. We're just trying to watch out for things because it's obvious to us no one else is really watching. Thank you. Blackowiak: Anyone else like to comment? Okay, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. Kate I'll give you a chance to comment if you have anything you'd like to say. Go ahead. Aanenson: I have to go through the comments. I guess I didn't understand. Blackowiak: It's a lot to take in in just a few moments, I certainly understand. Aanenson: If the Planning Commission wants to take more time, there's no rush on this. That's fine. If you want to table it, I have no problem with that and go through that. Try to get back to them with their comments. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Then I will close the public hearing and commissioners, do you have comments and give me some direction. What are you thinking? I'm listening. Slagle: I will, I'll throw out. I mean the first question that I would have, or would desire to have answered is, was there verbiage that you requested to be in, I think that's the way this is represented, or somehow we wanted to have into a motion or something, that didn't get conveyed to the City Council to vote on? And it appears that way so the first question I would have is just how did that happen? I'm assuming, I'm hoping just an incident oversight and so that would answer. Once that's answered I would have a pretty good feel as to what I would then want the direction to be. And obviously that's something we can't find out tonight but that's the thing I would like to ask and that's all. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, comments? Sacchet: Yeah a few comments. I'm a little bit at a loss. I mean I always appreciate your input and I did get your letter by the way from the Paulsen's. And I appreciate getting that. I think it's a tremendous help, but I don't think your viewed in a negative way for all your hard work. I think I appreciate your work. However, the presentation today I had a really hard time correlating with what's in front of us. I mean and maybe it's just because I didn't ponder this enough, which is very possible or I'm missing the point but the way I see what's in front of us here, this first item of public hearing right now is to change the code that we have a solution for administrative subdivision so that staff actually has the leverage to have these boundaries recorded within a useful amount of time. Which to me seems pretty straight forward so what I'm wondering is, am I missing something? And based on Kate's comment, and maybe it does take some time to address all the comments again. I certainly would need some time to adjust the comments that came up to just first of all find out exactly how to correlate to the particular issue in front of us. Blackowiak: Kate, would you like to add anything at this point? Aanenson: We'll respond back in writing. We can wait, that's fine. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, any comments? Feik: I was not at the 6-19 meeting so I'm not sure what my comments would, how they would be productive. Blackowiak: Yes, I did have a chance to take a look at this. I had two letters from the Paulsen's, so thank you. That's right, maybe I got your's. And I believe I'm tracking what your point is. In other words that initial comments Planning Commission made did not get forwarded in their entirety to the City Council. Changes were probably made by the City Council based on less than the full comments that were made by the commission, therefore the changes that we're considering tonight may be based on faulty original material. That's how I'm reading this entire thing. That it kind of goes back to June and things maybe aren't tracking right. And I don't have an answer for that but. Aanenson: I could answer it but we're going to, it's he said, she said. Blackowiak: Exactly. Aanenson: The verbatim minutes are always attached to the staff report. Your comments were conveyed. The city attorney also gives a recommendation and we'll respond in writing to that and I'd be happy to 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 table it and put that in writing, but your vote was conveyed and the verbatim minutes are attached to what your recommendation. Blackowiak: Right, okay. Aanenson: The city attorney also makes a recommendation on what the language should be, so. Blackowiak: So it's very possible then that the city attorney made a recommendation at the council. Aanenson: Very possible. Blackowiak: Used the city, weighed what he said more heavily and used his recommendation as opposed to the Planning Commission's recommendation. A1-Jaff: That's exactly what happened. Slagle: Can I ask just one question? When staff provides us with recommendations, as in this case on the 19th, does the city attorney at that point provide the legal, or his recommendations as to the language that's to be used because I guess I'd feel a little awkward if what we're voting on in any situation is going to be then shown to the attorney and then he re-words it. Why wouldn't he do that before we vote? Aanenson: You're making a recommendation. You can recommend whatever you want to give input to the council. Ultimately the City Council's going to make a decision based on if they have a question, advice of the city attorney. S lagle: I'm with you but since we're going off of your recommendations most of the time of what, you know I mean we put a lot of weight to that, I'm just wondering why, and maybe the answer is yes, he does look at them and does tell you what to put in. Aanenson: Let's back up. We had language in there. You requested a change. Okay the city attorney reviewed your recommendation for a change so we had language in there that he approved. You recommended a change. He reviewed your recommendation. Slagle: Okay. Then I just have a simple question, and this is more just universal again. Could be a dumb question but do cities have in their planning commissions, I mean do they have attorneys present? Is that a usual thing or? Aanenson: No. Slagle: It's non, okay. Okay. Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have anything? Feik: No. Blackowiak: No, okay. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Sacchet: Yeah, as we were discussing this I looked at this a little more carefully and I do have a question. It appears to me at first glance that the issue that was brought up by Ms. Paulsen is only marginally related to actually the motion that's brought in front of us for a recommendation tonight. I do think she does have, she has an issue but my question is, with the change that's being proposed by staff, it's my understanding that we are putting in an extra safeguard to get these administrative subdivisions actually recorded properly, is that correct Kate? Aanenson: That's the intent. Sacchet: And are we giving anything away? It seems to me like we're actually trying to fill a loophole that these subdivisions do not get recorded and staff doesn't have a recourse to get them recorded, which is a good thing. But are we giving anything away by doing this the way it's worded? Aanenson: Well that's their opinion and again I'd like to respond to that in writing. Sacchet: Because I don't quite see how we're giving something away at this point, based on how I'm reading it. But I might be missing something. Based on how I see it right now, I mean I'd be prepared to pass this onto council with this recommendation and I would think that at the same time in parallel I would like to look at what the issues are that can be addressed that were brought up. That's where I stand with this. Blackowiak: Okay, well. I don't know if I've got anything to add but I guess I have a feel from where it is and I'm looking towards you Kate. You say you want to address this in writing. Is it something you'd like to address before we move this forward or what's your feeling? Do we need to button this down a little bit better before it goes on? I feel like we're not getting anything done tonight but that's okay. Some nights are just like that I guess. Aanenson: I don't know how to answer that. Every time you make an amendment it comes back to somehow a public street, a subdivision and I want to address that to say specifically what this is doing and address their questions so if they feel like they're not getting the time at the council. Sacchet: IfI may comment on this? Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead. Sacchet: I think staff is looking to us for guidance with that. I think we have to make this decision. I personally would feel comfortable to pass this on to council with the request to staff to address the concerns that were brought forward in the comments. For this particular one. Blackowiak: Yeah, I'm just wondering if there is indeed something missing from this Section 18-37. I think that's the whole crux of the argument. Is something missing from 18-37 as we see it right now? And I can't track that all date to date to date. That's my whole thing. Because there are certain things that are not, that are struck out and when were they struck out and, I don't know. So I will ask for a motion. Sacchet: I'll be bold. Blackowiak: Be bold Uli. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Sacchet: I do move that, where is it? That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Section 18-37, Exemptions as presented in the staff report with the additional request that staff research the comments that were brought forth in the public hearing so that those things are straight and laid out for the consideration of council. Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I was not here for the long discussion you had in June so I'd feel...making a second. Blackowiak: Well I can't second so it's up to you. You don't want to second this? Sacchet: Motion doesn't fly, alright. Blackowiak: Okay then will you please withdraw your motion. Sacchet: I withdraw my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. I'll entertain another motion. Slagle: Motion to table this. I'll make a motion that we table the proposed Section 18-37, Exemptions until further information from staff. Further, help me out. Feik: That works. Slagle: Okay. Further information from staff. Blackowiak: Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the amendment to City Code Section 18-37, Exemptions until further information is received from staff. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Blackowiak: And comments. Sacchet: I would have liked to pass this through. Blackowiak: Okay. And I would like to make one comment as well. I will direct staff to respond in writing to the comments made by the Paulsen's and to attach that to our next packet when we see this again and also I want that attached to council's packet when it goes to council so they have a written copy of what's been happening this evening so, okay. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE TO PERMIT ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY ACCESS PER LOT. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Feik: I've got a few. How often does this issue come up? Aanenson: Maybe I could address that too. It's been an issue lately. We've had a proliferation of people using accessory structures for other uses and the way they can get those is through an additional driveway. That would curtail some of that. It's caused a lot of problems in some neighborhoods. Some bad feelings. So that was one of the criteria driving this. The other is as Sharmin indicated, the cross access agreement was, is a way to subdivide property. And this would make it a criteria that we have the ability to review so it would give some level of control for the city to review that. Feik: This would be applicable to any size residential lot though, whether it's rural residential or otherwise? Aanenson: Right. We spent a lot of time trying to exempt what would and wouldn't work. And as I indicated to you before we have a variance request for a very, very large accessory structure and having a separate driveway makes it a lot easier. And those sometimes mm into commercial uses. Again those are big rubs for neighborhood uses. We have quite a few of those that we're working on trying to eliminate. So certainly if they want to come to the Planning Commission and say I store my RV or whatever and it seems appropriate, it works well with the neighborhood, if the lot's large enough. We try to develop some criteria that says gosh, if it's this big of a lot, it just became too difficult so we felt we'd leave it up to you as through the process to say, because it's a large enough lot that would work, depending on how the accessory structure, you got access to it. It seemed to make some sense. Feik: Okay. Blackowiak: Any other questions right now? No? Rich. Slagle: Just a quick question. How do we define a utility facility? A1-Jaff: We talked about that earlier. It would be. Aanenson: A cell tower. A1-Jaff: Cell tower. Slagle: Okay. Water tower. A1-Jaff: Correct. Lift station. Aanenson: Sometimes there are large utility boxes. We have some of those too. For example like Sprint or some of those have those accessed to at the tower locations. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Slagle: So it'd the obvious ones that one would think? There's no way to get around that? Aanenson: Yeah. It's intended to be a public utility, yeah. Slagle: Alright. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: Yeah I've got a few questions. In the cover to this, which is a very brief introduction, the background, you're talking about landlocked parcels and then the need that it needs a variance for this second driveway situation. Access, cross access agreement variance. And I understand a little better how the landlocked picture come in, but the proposed language that you put in front of us for this ordinance doesn't really state variance per se. That's implied or? A1-Jaff: I'll give you a different example. Our ordinance says front yard setback is 30 feet. Sacchet: And then if you want more or less. A1-Jaff: If you want less. It doesn't say if you want less you have to go before the Planning Commission to apply for a variance. Sacchet: That's a given, okay. Okay. Okay, that answers that question. I just want to make sure that we have this properly correlated. Another similar thing in the introductory paragraph that you're proposing, it talks about establishing the minimum driveway slope standards. I don't know where I ever looked it but I don't really see it talking about slope standards in the. A1-Jaff: It would be the 10% grade. Sacchet: It doesn't say that .... you sort of touched on it already with the numbers we put in there in terms of how wide can it be, or narrow. To not exceed 36 feet. Where does the 36 come from? A1-Jaff: Three car garage. Sacchet: Three car garage and... Aanenson: And people parking RV's and boas and that's again code enforcement tends to be an increasing problem. Some people want to pave to get that. Sacchet: So if they have a 3 car garage they make it full width, that's basically 36 so that's where that comes from? Aanenson: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. And then we're talking about inside the property, like under clause (e) we're talking about access maximum and then also the inside width. Under clause (f) we don't talk about the inside limit. They can do whatever. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 A1-Jaff: Please keep in mind that you always have to meet the 25% hard surface coverage. Sacchet: So we count that impervious surface clause would keep that in check? A1-Jaff: Absolutely. Sacchet: Okay. That answers that question. Now we're talking about the minimum, or the maximum of how wide these things can be. We don't feel there is a need to define a minimum because we figure that people, if they have a little car and they want a small driveway, I mean we basically trust people have some common sense. Is that where we're at? Which is good. I mean if we don't trust the people we might as well close shop. Alright. Could you define mm around? Is that, that probably is Saam question. Where it says turnaround is required in certain cases. I just want to make sure I understand what we mean by saying turnaround. Saam: Sure. Thank you commissioners. Turnaround, acceptable turnaround area for such things as if you're backing out of your driveway, just an area so you can turn around and pull back out. Similar situation, access for emergency vehicles. We require sufficient turnaround areas and shared driveways, things of that nature where a fire truck or something may need to get to more than one lot. So a turnaround, just an acceptable area where a person doesn't have to back out 100 or 200 foot long driveway if you're, you know abutting a highway in a rural setting. Aanenson: Maybe I could add to that too. If you look at the lots on Lake Lucy, they have turnarounds on the property so they're not backing out onto that collector street. They have shared driveways, they also have a turn area so they can make that turn movement on the property before coming out. That's a different type of turn. Turn about. Saam: That's a good point. It's a traffic concern too. Like Kate said, you don't want to be backing out onto a 50 mph collector roadway. Sacchet: I do understand the rationale. I just wonder how defined we are. Aanenson: Yeah, we have different examples. Saam: I think we do say in there we'll review it deemed necessary by the city engineer so we'll work with that. Sacchet: ... basically you'll work with the resident, okay. Saam: Yep, let them come up with something and we'll review it. Sacchet: Okay. That's the questions I have for right now, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have a couple questions. As I look through these conditions Sharmin or Kate, I see that there are a couple that are addressed elsewhere. 10% slope, I mean isn't that already in the code? I mean aren't there some of these items are in the code? Aanenson: Yes. Yes. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Blackowiak: And why are we addressing them again? A1-Jaff: It's under a private street and not private individual driveway. And these are standards that we already implement but we just wanted to... as part of the ordinance. Blackowiak: So you're saying then in what went before council last month, we talked about private driveways and private streets. A1-Jaff: The 10% grades that we have in our ordinance. Blackowiak: Are only private. A1-Jaff: I've only been able to find them under private streets. Saam: They're for driveways also. Blackowiak: I thought so. Saam: There is one spot in the code where it says maximum driveway grade is 10%, and that's the only requirement which it specifies for driveways. We're trying to get all of the driveway requirements in one spot so you don't have to be flipping through the code, because that's what I have to do. I flag my code for all these different things. Well it'd be nice to just mm to this and see oh, it's got to be this wide. That's the maximum. This is the maximum slope. You know this is the setback from a comer. We're trying to get them all in one spot. We should probably strike that one if this is approved, remove the other one so we don't have redundance. Blackowiak: Okay, great. Thanks. Next question. We have no minimum driveway width and I know you just said that if a car wants a smaller driveway, that would be fine. However this just brought me back to what we said in our work session Kate where there was a house plan that came in without a front sidewalk because they were right at that 25% impervious. What if we have the same problem where we've got a house that's at their 25% impervious and they come and say well we're doing a 3 foot wide driveway to meet our impervious surface. That sounds pretty ridiculous. What can we do to fix that? I mean I think that there should be some sort of minimum. Saam: Sure, sure. That's a good point. We could add a minimum. 12 foot wide, that's our standard lane width. That would be acceptable to me. Blackowiak: That would be like a single car garage? Saam: A single driveway. Blackowiak: Okay, a single driveway, 12. I'm just saying that you know... Aanenson: That's fine, I agree with you. That is a good point. I'm not sure if 12 or 10. Blackowiak: And I don't know what the number is but I'm just saying that. Aanenson: But I think that's a good point, we should put something in. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Blackowiak: And I only thought of it because of what you said before. Aanenson: But to calculate impervious surface, right. Someone said well I'm only going to do 8 foot. Most people don't do single car garages because, but right. Blackowiak: But I think that we should have some sort of minimum in there. Aanenson: Or neck it down at that drive. Blackowiak: Just a reasonable, you know a reasonable width so that cars can drive on it without going off the edge. Okay, and my final question has to do with what happens when you have a big landlocked parcel that you know is going to be subdivided in the future. Okay. We're talking about a single driveway and a second driveway is a variance. Have we thought that through? Are we comfortable doing that? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: And what would happen to that larger parcel that eventually will be subdivided? It would just have to come in through, tell me the process. What would happen? Slagle: Isn't there one over by Westwood perhaps? That's going to be landlocked. Blackowiak: Well I think the parcel you're talking about. Slagle: I thought there was one that was going to. Blackowiak: Not landlocked but. Aanenson: It has access onto a street. Blackowiak: He has access but he wants the church to, right. Saam: Addressing your question Madam Commissioner, if you have one single parcel say in a rural setting right now and your question is alluding to well what happens when this develops? Is that correct? Blackowiak: Correct, yes. Saam: Where you'll need multiple driveways. Well we'll require platting at that point so we'll have separate lots. Multiple lots all with their individual driveway access. We'll have interior streets. Is that getting to your. Feik: Assuming they can get there. You could have wetlands. You could have other issues that you could not access a large lot behind an existing rural residential. Saam: Okay, yeah. I'm following you. So then we wouldn't have a plat, right? So we wouldn't have another lot. So you can't subdivide. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Feik: Well you would have another lot. What you do is there'd be no access potentially other than going up this existing driveway. Aanenson: Right, and that's a variance criteria which we want to control. Feik: Is the minimum length on this private street, driveway... Aanenson: For one home, no. Feik: A minimum length. So could they in your example you show. Aanenson: On length. Your house has to be set 30 feet from the street. Feik: What I'm saying is in your example where you show the private street here, is there a minimum length of that street from the time it leaves the curb to the point where it can break off. Could it break off within 5 feet of the curb there? I mean where does, how long does this private street need to be? Saam: Edge of the right-of-way. We'd want it to the edge of the right-of-way and then they can break it off. Feik: So they could break it off immediately once they get through the right-of-way easement? Saam: Sure. Feik: So it doesn't need to be. Saam: Provided there's sufficient turnaround, again like I spoke of before. That's something we'd look at. Blackowiak: Comfortable? Feik: No. But that's okay. Blackowiak: Alright tell you what, I'll open this up for a public hearing and we'll have time to comment later. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to comment on this issue please step to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. We take turns. I'd like to question item (b). We're talking about a vertical profile of our driveway not exceeding 10%. As Matt brought up, a driveway can't exceed 10%. When I brought a plat up to Teresa here months ago, I said does this driveway now exceed 10% and she took the ruler and measured that much and she said yes. Is a vertical profile 150 feet of driveway and it can have 20% up here and 5% down here? Or is this ambiguous by saying, using the term vertical profile as opposed to just saying the driveway can't exceed that 10%. I guess that's just a question. It seems kind of strange to put this under, this whole thing about driveways under parking and loading. It's kind of a hidden way back. More proper might be addressed under streets and so forth I think. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. As Jerry said, I think it's placed in the wrong spot in code. Private driveways have always been in 18-57 so why in parking and loading? Private driveway easement does provide access but it serves the same purpose as a street and has nothing to do with parking and loading. We're not really talking just about a driveway. We're talking about a driveway easement. It serves the same purpose as a private street. It's a duplication. So why do we need a duplication? It has less rules on it, has less width. That's why you can cram more into a smaller space. It's a danger to my neighborhood and I object. Second amendment proposed makes no mention of a variance. When you talked about private streets, you made sure that the word variance was put in there. It should be put in there. That's the only way we can be sure. There are no stated minimums. When we had the private driveway ordinance before 1990 and it changed again in '94, they had a minimum easement of 30 feet and it had on the common section of it, it had to be 20 feet wide. Nothing's said about that in this. And of course they finally addressed the setback. But again a private driveway allows a street to be going, essentially a street to be going pretty close to a person's house. If it's a 10 foot setback that'd be 20 feet from your bedroom window. So why are we lowering the standards? This issue was almost discussed at the City Council meeting because I brought it up and I just wanted to show you. The planning department really didn't want to address private driveway easements at this meeting, as you can see. But they almost discussed except that Roger interfered. He changed the subject to just talk about a plain driveway. That's not what we're talking about. I think it's really important to make the distinction. Reminds me of a movie video we saw recently called The Practice and it said lawyers never lie, they just use the truth judiciously to totally confuse. Well that's what I think was done. I think you should forbid private driveway easements. You've got private streets to provide an access to a landlocked lot. It has to be in a 30 foot easement and that protects minimally neighbors. They crowd private drive easements would crowd, and in 20 years they deteriorate and who's going to keep them up? It's going to be a big mess in Chanhassen. A bad infrastructure. A private street serves the same purpose, and by the way Lake Minnetonka, or Minnetonka forbids private streets but they do have private driveway easements and they make the stipulation. You have to have 25 feet all around in order to put a home in there. We're ending up with a home 10 feet from our, it will be their back yard. 10 feet from our property line because of what happened with the Igel thing. I object to private driveways. Blackowiak: Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I can't tell if you can still see this. Blackowiak: I see Matt. Oh, yep we can. Debbie Lloyd: When Sharmin pointed this out she pointed out, I mean this is essentially what we've talked about as a flag lot. And she called this the cross access easement. But essentially this driveway, as we're calling it tonight I guess, from the private street to this landlocked parcel, that is also a cross access easement. And that's what I tried so hard to point out at City Council and I think Rich, you might have gotten that. This is a cross access easement. The other thing about a driveway 5 feet from a property line. I just kind of drove around. I thought 5 feet from a property line. Where can I find that? I don't see that anywhere. Most people's driveways come off the street into their garages. Their structure has a setback. It's not 5 feet. I appreciate that we're trying to clarify some of this but again I think more work needs to be done and I ask you to look at this with a fine tooth comb. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Come on up. We're not limiting you to 5 minutes. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Debbie Lloyd: I forgot one thing. 5 feet from a property line. We talk about tree impacts. Well a tree impact zone I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, these numbers are starting to fade. I think the impact zone on a tree is about 20 feet. Aanenson: It depends on the tree. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. But if you put a driveway 5 feet from a property line, you're not affecting just your property. You are affecting the property next to you. You're affecting their tree line, and that was another environmental point I want to make. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Unless there are any more comments, I will close the public hearing. Staff, I'm just going to give you a chance to make any comments or clear up anything you'd like to right now before we commissioners make our comments. Aanenson: No comment. Blackowiak: Okay. Matt? Saam: I've got one. The driveway slope. I think, well Mr. Paulsen spoke to it I believe. Yeah, the way it's worded there in (b), we could change that. The driveway grade maybe shall not exceed 10% maximum slope. We're just talking about the vertical rise. If that was confusing to anybody. Feik: At any point or over the. Saam: No, that's overall. 10% max anywhere. It can't go 20% you know for 5 feet and then. Slagle: From beginning to end. Feik: Right. Saam: 10% max anywhere. I guess we look at the contours between each one and make sure it's not 10%. Sacchet: Basically no portion of the driveway will have more than 10%. Saam: Correct. I guess unless you have any specific questions for me, they spoke about a lot of stuff but the driveway grade was the main one that I wrote down. Setback issue. Sharmin and I talked about it. From an engineering standpoint our only concern was our easement. And the way we looked at it was, well we pave our streets and we have utilities under there so we would allow them to pave over an easement. If we have to go in there it will be ripped up but, so that was, and from an engineer standpoint, that was our issue with the setback. I really don't have any issue with it. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, commissioners. Time for comments. Feik: I've got a few. Blackowiak: Go right ahead. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Feik: As long as you're up, by the way, is there currently a minimum length that a driveway needs to be paved? Saam: A minimum length? Feik: I mean you've got in your item (c) you've got in areas outside the MUSA they must be 100 feet. What is the background of that? Saam: We looked, we got information from a lot of different cities for this. About 10 different cities. Neighboring towns around the Minnesota River Valley. The 100 feet number, that could be decreased. Our point is, we don't want to have gravel driveways that could wash out into a drainage ditch and cause erosion problems. Plug up culverts, that sort of thing. So that's why we're seeing outside of the MUSA where typically that's an agricultural setting, we'd like to see the first 100 feet off the roadway paved to minimize that washing out of the gravel, dirt, that sort of thing. I could go, if we want to minimize that, we could go with the edge of the right-of-way. It's got to be paved to the edge of the right-of-way at least. Feik: Thank you. Continuing my comments. As it relates to locating this in the parking and loading space section. That's up to staff if they can manage it there, that's where it needs to be. I don't have any concern with where this is located. I do have a concern with how this will be enforced in a rural residential area wherein someone might have bought a number of acres years ago. At this point would like to subdivide their 10 acres or whatever they've got left and would like to get some additional access to the areas in the back without giving up their frontage or that may be constrained by wetlands or trees or other things. So I had a concern how this would be construed in the rural residential areas. I'm not sure it's really appropriate. Aanenson: Okay, can I address that? This is going in Chapter 20 because it's the standards for existing lots. This is checked when someone comes in for a building permit, this is where you check to make sure that the driveway's in the right spot. If someone's subdividing, that's Chapter 18. Those are the different standards. Feik: So this wouldn't be applicable to someone with a 10 acre lot that. Aanenson: If they're going to put 1 house on there, yeah. Feik: Well no, he's got 1 house on the front 2 ½ acres. Aanenson: Then he goes through a subdivision, that's a different process. Feik: And he will be able to do a cross easement to get to the back? Aanenson: He would still need a variance if he needs a cross. Feik: But via a variance he could get a cross easement to get to the back. Aanenson: Correct. Correct. That's what this would require, yep. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Feik: Okay. Then in that case, thank you for addressing that. I guess I do agree with one of the commenters that said, in a more urban area 5 foot setback on the side of a lot, considering we I think, the setback of a home is fairly short on the side. Aanenson: The problem with that is, that's where most people park their boats and their RV's. Feik: I understand. Aanenson: And when you have a 10 foot side yard setback, that's where we prefer that they be is on the side. Feik: Could we require screening though? Could we require them to put a fence up? If they're going to put this street in, or driveway or whatever anybody wants to call it, and I am a homeowner and my neighbor wants to do this and I do not have, I'm not benefiting from this at all other than I'm going to have a driveway 5 feet from my shrub line and my swing set in the back yard, could we require them to put a fence up along? Aanenson: You're saying if someone wants to go closer than 5 feet to put their camper. Feik: No, at 5 feet. You've got 5 feet in there, right? Aanenson: No, we took that out. Feik: So what is the? Aanenson: There is none. There is none right now. There are situations where people have side loaded garage that back right close to the property line. Within 3 feet, 5 feet on side loaded garages. Or people that park their campers or. Feik: I guess I'm more interested in addressing it in that if we were doing this to approve, in your example of another dwelling in the back, that I don't think it would be unreasonable to require, to develop some sort of a fencing screen. Aanenson: Right, and that would require a variance. When they come in for a variance you can attach whatever condition you deem reasonable to mitigate that impact. That would be one... Feik: So this really has nothing to do with the flag lots anymore then? Aanenson: No. Feik: Never mind. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say, this is not. This picture back here, I guess refer to the upper left hand comer lot, that is not a flag lot. Feik: It's confusing. Blackowiak: It is a landlocked parcel with a cross access agreement. Flag lot would actually own... 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Feik: But we're splitting hairs here as it relates to the neighbor who's next to this sees no difference between a landlocked lot and a flag lot. Blackowiak: Right. Feik: In their minds it's the same thing. Aanenson: Right, and that's why we're adding the thing that would be require the variance to meet that. So then you could attach, put a condition in. If you wanted landscaping or fencing, whatever. Or greater setback. Feik: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: I have to say this. I'm getting really confused. And it's getting to the point where, how should I say this. I really want to ask for help on this. And let me preface it by saying, you guys do an awesome job. Day in and day out, you know that I feel this way. These folks back here who I don't know other than seeing them here, seem to have good point. Seem to have a passion about this area, and I commend them for that. I get frustrated when I see comments being made by some of us, the staff, other guests and then in the back shaking their head no, like it can't, it's not in there. It can't be, whatever. I'm just wondering is it, you know just an observer sort of, how can two groups have such different ideas about what is being said. So my request is this, can you guys get together and talk about these things? Get Roger involved if there's questions about his interpretations of what you think it should say or you guys think it should say, and I only would ask this in this case because these folks are here all the time. If it was just someone who came off the street and threw out a comment, I wouldn't say it. But I just don't want to be listening to a lot of this anymore, just because I'm getting confused. Every day. Aanenson: In every code amendment I guess we could deliberate with them. Slagle: Well as an example, Roger in the notes throws out well wouldn't you, we wouldn't want everyone to go through the process of getting I hope a variance for every single family driveway in town. It seems to me a very good point. Yeah, I mean but I'm just wondering from your point, does that make sense? I mean is that a laborious, bureaucratic thing. A1-Jaff: That is exactly what we're talking about. Slagle: Okay, then what's wrong with that? You know I want to be like this mediator but what's wrong with that comment which seems to make sense? A1-Jaff: We're talking about individual driveways. One person using that one driveway accessing their home off of the street. Slagle: Correct, and are you asking, if I can interject, you're asking, or suggesting we put a variance clause in there to protect the citizens. Aanenson: So people can't put 2 driveways on 1 lot without a variance. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001 Slagle: Is that okay? Aanenson: That's what we're trying to prevent. Saam: If I could add something Commissioner Slagle. We do have design criteria for private streets or driveways, whatever the. I'm sorry, whatever the correct verbiage is. We already have that. So this is, as Sharmin said, separate. Slagle: Okay. Then I'll just once again reiterate my request. Can there be some convening of a sit down session with the Paulsen's and Ms. Lloyd, just to address these as a courtesy to our citizens who are our clients, and just let's hopefully be done with what I consider to be some gaps in interpretation of what's going on. Is that fair Madam Chair to ask? Blackowiak: You can ask anything you like. Slagle: Okay. I'm done. Blackowiak: Uli, comments? Sacchet: Yeah, I have comments. Well first of all I do want to again thank our permanent guests as we call them for all their support in our work and unlike with the previous item that was before us where I said I had a little hard time correlating it, I do believe that, and I got the letter that relates this item. I didn't get the letter for the previous item from you and I do think your points relate very much to this item. And I think they should be looked at and put into the context. On the other hand, it really, I have to say that too, I sincerely regret to feel like there is some sort of an antagonism a little... (Taping of the Planning Commission meeting ended at this point in the discussion.) Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 30