PC 2000 06 20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
dUNE 20, 2000
Chairman Petnrson called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Peterson, Deb Kind, Matt Burton, and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blaekowiak and LuAnn Sidney
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I;
Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3831
LESLEE CURVE, MINNEWASHTA OVERLOOK, KURT SCHWARZ.
Public Present:
Name Address
Elaine & Harry Dunn
Lee Anderson
Kris & Dawn Knox
Tim Colleran
Kurt Schwarz
Butch Zelinsky
Steffan Madsen
6051 Minnewashta Parkway
6651 Minnewashta Parkway
3801 Leslee Curve
6560 Minnewashta Parkway
925 Ithaca Lane, Plymouth
320 Turnhaven Road, Orono
3830 Leslee Curve
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Cindy, have we averaged frontages before? Do I just not recall that or are we setting precedent
here?
Kirchoff: If you have a comer lot we would average the frontages.
Peterson: So essentially we've done that before.
Aanenson: Or a double frontage street.
Peterson: Other questions of staff'?
Kind: No, not right now.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward
and state your name and address please.
Kurt Schwarz: Good evening. My name is Kurt Schwarz. I live at 925 Ithaca Lane in Plymouth. I am a
custom home builder. I build 2 to 3 homes a year. Very custom. Very in existing neighborhoods and very
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
well aware of the ramifications of working in existing neighborhoods. And plan to build three very nice
homes in this neighborhood. I photographed a couple houses that we had just done in similar situations and
I'd be happy to hand those around, if people would like to see them.
Peterson: Sure. You certainly can do that. Any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. Motion and
a second for a public hearing please.
Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward
and state your name and address please.
Harry Dunn: I have a presentation here. My name is Harry Dunn.
Peterson: Please come forward to the microphone.
Harry Dunn: Sure. On that map that was up there, I'm at the.
Aanenson: Right here.
Harry Dunn: I'm exactly in the center of this whole thing... I'm right in the middle here.
Aanenson: Across the street on Leslee Curve?
Harry Dunn: Across the street, 3920 Leslee Curve.
Kirchoff`: Here's another map that might work out better.
Harry Dunn: What I'm saying is, I'm facing all of these three new houses. Right in the middle. Now I
face one, the big one that's going to be destroyed. We have already submitted to the council there that we
would agree to a two house situation, but.
Peterson: Why don't you stay by the microphone sir so more people can hear you.
Harry Dunn: I'm really prepared for this. Get hit in the head with a microphone. I'm trying to get a little
sympathy here. You'll have to forgive me, okay. I'm 76 now and I've lived in Leslee Curve now for 30
years. My wife, Elaine and I. Elaine's from Illinois originally and I'm from Iowa. We finally got
accepted in the State of Minnesota because we've lived here longer in Minnesota than Iowa. I had one
question to start off`with. I've got your council. No where on here I see anything that would indicate the
legal end. Do we have, does Chanhassen have a City Solicitor or an Attomey or what do you have? It's
not listed on here. What is your legal situation?
Peterson: We have a City Attomey, yes.
Harry Dunn: And this works strictly for Chanhassen?
Peterson: He's with a private finn that.
Harry Dunn: Oh, you contract.
2
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Peterson: Yes.
Harry Dunn: All the business. So nothing's been said about, did you receive some kind of a report from
him stating that all of the things on this thing are legal? Everything on there is legal? And you received a
letter informing you of this?
Peterson: We did not formally receive a letter. I think what we have in front of us tonight is something
that, this is a normal and customary subdivision that does meet all of our city statutes and ordinances.
Kate.
Harry Dunn: Every one is identical? I mean that's it?
Peterson: Yes.
Harry Dunn: Everything on there has been approved and we have no problem as a taxpayer?
Peterson: That would be my understanding, yes.
Harry Dunn: Well is that true?
Peterson: That's my understanding.
Harry Dunn: Is that everybody's understanding?
Sacchet: We'll discuss it. We're getting your input here and we haven't started discussing it.
Harry Dunn: Oh, you're not at that stage yet?
Sacchet: If you were asking us, that's what our purpose is.
Aanenson: Let me answer the question real quickly because I don't want to confuse him further, if that's
okay. Let me just explain the process. The city staff`reviews it to make sure it meets city ordinance. We
have prepared a staff`report. Our recommendation is that it does meet city ordinances.
Harry Dunn: But you're not a lawyer?
Aanenson: No. The City Attomey gets a copy of the staff`report. If there is any question of whether or not
it meets the city ordinance, we consult the City Attomey.
Harry Dunn: And we have a contract with the city.
Aanenson: The City Attomey does not review every subdivision, every plat. It's impossible. So the City
Attomey, that's what the staff`is hired to do is to review these subdivisions to see if they're consistent with
the city ordinance. The stafl~s opinion is that it is consistent and again the City Attomey receives a copy
of every staff` report that goes to the Planning Commission. So he's received this entire packet.
Harry Dunn: Now this City Attomey, does he have a background in all this business?
Aanenson: Yes. He's been with the city probably 15 years, correct.
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Harry Dunn: So he's been through all this before.
Aanenson: That's correct. This is again.
Harry Dunn: You're confident.
Aanenson: Correct. This is very, as the Chairman has said, this is pretty consistent with other subdivisions
we've done in the city.
Harry Dunn: Okay. I just had a couple things and then I'll move on. I can eliminate all my notes here.
Just picture me and Elaine here in this little pie shaped thing. We're down at this end. And all of these
garages is going to be built, will be facing us. All three of them. I have one now. And I made a list of all
of the things that I've seen in the neighborhood that's happened. We'll have 3 three car garages. And that
takes care of 3, 6, 9 automobiles. If they can get then in the garage. Usually the third one is a junk yard
and we all face that so we have to, we can two in there for sure and then one more that might be used for
storage. Or cars. Listen to all this stuff. You've got snowmobiles out there. You've got water mobiles.
You've got large motorboats. You've got fishing boats. Small and large. You've got pontoon boats.
There are not a lot of these. I can, we've got 3 right in front of me in our neighborhood. And they're all
outside. Sailboat. I think I only see one. Trailers are a problem. You know the kind that you pull behind
your car. You've got big ones and small ones. Motor homes. Now is it my judgment that you're all
allowed only one motor home on your property? Is that correct?
Aanenson: Yes.
Harry Dunn: So if you have two you can't do it huh?
Aanenson: What the ordinance says is all outdoor storage has to be in the side or the rear property. In this
case it's actually a double fronted lot so it'd probably be in the side yard. But it wouldn't be inconsistent
with anything else in that neighborhood.
Harry Dunn: Sailboats. I've seen too many of those. Trailers, small and large. There are all kinds of
trailers so, everybody probably has a trailer, right? Motor homes. I talked about that. Car motor homes.
You've got pick-up trucks. Everybody has a pick-up truck. Seen a lot of them. Commercial vans, trucks.
I can't read my own writing here on this one. Okay. My only point is that, we're not only looking at all
these garages. We're going to have all this other stuff`in-between. We all have to have room for
something and it's storage is a big problem. That's why I'm trying to say, take it and put it around the
other way. Put it back down on Minnewashta Parkway. I'm still paying for Minnewashta Parkway. I did
purposely because I wanted to pay once a year in my taxes. I think I'm all through paying now for
Minnewashta Parkway. This is the last day. I think I might have a celebration now once I get through that
one. But if you tum the whole thing around, I wouldn't have any garages. And you have access. You
have two accesses now. Pete Warhol has in and out on two. On down the highway, I'm going east. Let's
see, I'm going north and the next one has two. You know big arch and he has two accesses. So we're only,
we would be only losing now one. Pete has two now so they're gone. So you're putting three back instead
of two. I don't understand the access problem. I can understand it but that's about it. Thank you for
listening.
Peterson: Thank you for your comments.
Harry Dunn: Sorry, I get confused at times.
4
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Peterson: No problem. Any other comments? Please.
Steff`an Madsen: My name is Steff`an Madsen and I live at 3830 Leslee Curve, which is just across the
street. And let's see here. The property that we're talking about is right here and my house is right here. I
made a point at my house of putting it to the side. It's brand new constmction. I spent my life savings to
get this place and I bought in this neighborhood to have the large lots. To have an area where there were
not a lot of houses. Everybody one has large lots and now with three houses going in here, all of a sudden
we've got the mentality of make it the other developments in the city. And I like the older style of
development where you've got room for some of these things that Harry was mentioning. I sympathize
with Harry. He makes a good point that all the stuff. All you can see is garages and that's a real valid
point. A lot of cars. A lot of garages. From our side, we all purchased our homes because of the view of
the lake. At this point in time my house sits right here. I orientated my house to this side of the lot. I am
as close to Harry's house, which is right here, as the city will allow. I did that for the purpose of being able
to have view of the lake at certain points of the year. When the foliage is froze and there's a lot of trees
and stuff in here which will all get wiped out and there will be a house sitting right here. I built my house
around my game room which sits right here at this comer here, and so basically I'll be looking at garages
and houses probably all the way across here. Had I known that the City was going to cram three houses
into this area, I wouldn't have spent, I know I've spent at least $10,000 extra on my home to push my
house all the way over here. I've got about, close to 100 foot long retaining wall between my property and
Harry's property. I also, when I bought my house, Mrs. Anderson was very concemed about my house
being too tall. And that my house needed to fit in with the neighborhood. So I designed my house a
couple times and I got to the point where it blended in. It has modem amenities on the inside, but it fits
with the neighborhood. So I know that was a concem with some of the neighbors that these houses may
not. We haven't seen any plans. We don't know what style of houses these are going to be. The point I'm
making is, I've spent a lot of money on this retaining wall. Pushed my house down as far as I possibly
could to protect the view of the lake, and it does get minimal because as you get further away from the
lake, but I know that was a big concem for Mrs. Anderson and so I met that. And I have all those
restrictions and now as soon as I abide by those, and three houses go up in front of me. The other issue I
have is this frontage space. These ladies here mentioned that at a comer lot they've been known to
average you know the frontage of one side and the frontage of another side. They did not however state
that they could average basically from one street all the way to another one which is probably 194 feet
away. Okay, they didn't get an estimate of that so at this point I assume that they don't do that. I do know
that in building my own house in Chanhassen, being a builder myself, that Chanhassen abides to the
building codes as picky as any city, probably the pickiest. I've built in many cities. Very picky. When I
went to move into my house, I ordered a Maytag washing machine. Top of the line Neptune washing
machine. I could not move into my house until I took the washing machine and placed it on the other side
of the street. Because the City said it didn't meet building code. The only city in the whole United States
that would not allow a Maytag washing machine into their homes. If they're that picky, could not move
into my house because of a washing machine. You don't need a washing machine to have a house. If it
was not on the site they would not have said nothing about it. But because I had it in my house, they said
you can't have it because it doesn't meet some code. The only city in the whole United States. My point
is, all of a sudden the city is real flexible and they're doing some averaging here on something that the city
ordinance. Why aren't they picky on that? I'm really wondering about that. I've built many things in
Chanhassen. I've built in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Victoria. Chanhassen is very strict on their building
codes. Another example that I can cite. When I put, got on my survey, just like what we're looking at
here, and then put my house in there and my surveyor submitted it to the city. The signature on the survey,
do you know of any blueprints. They draw up a plan, put their signature on there and they make all the
blueprints. They send it off`to the city. When it gets to the city, I think it's Dan Remer says I've got to
have original signatures. It's right on there. Got to have original signatures. I said well come on. Nope,
got to have original signatures. So we've got to send it all the way back. Then it comes back in. Oh,
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
there's a little crack in here. So we've got to make another copy. So he sends that in. Original signature.
I'm sure it cost me several hundred dollars...for this guy to fax the city because of signatures. So my point
is, the city is very picky when it comes to abiding by all of the codes and the mles that they have. And
now they're fudging here. They never showed me evidence of fudging. I spent a lot of money, my whole
life savings and for the next 30 years to live at this house and have a neighborhood that has fairly large
lots. Especially in front of me. I spent a lot of money. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Dale Menten: I'm blind as a bat. Let's see. We're here. We're on the north side of this property here.
The Menten household. We've been here since 1972. And my concem is that when we looked at this,
having been here forever. First of all we came in early this moming to look at the plans. And then I asked,
is this survey guaranteed to be accurate? Yes it is. I said so these are all red pine trees? Yes. Well they
aren't. They're olive trees which then calls attention to, is this really the plat? Would you bet $100 that
this survey is absolutely guaranteed to be within inches accurate? Anybody want to take me up on this?
We've been here a long time. I say it's not totally accurate. Some came out with, well Kris did with part
of the road. On an earlier survey that someone else surveyed who guarantees it was accurate, you've got
part of the road you know, so that's the first concern. Second concern is that, we really say at best two
lots. If you push it, 2 and a third or something, but do you then relax all the mles and regulations to make
it 3, setting a new precedent for this whole area where these lots are not that way? Screwing up a lot of
views of the neighbor who just built across the street. It's just a concem that we have. Now I was told, my
wife and I were told, that this was a done deal. I wasn't going to show up because I figured it's a done
deal. It's a slam dunk. A builder comes in. It's all greased and done. I decided to show up. This is
from...that it's a done deal, and maybe it is a done deal because when we checked this moming, this
covers all of the regulations that the city has. The setbacks. The size of the buildings. 60 x 60. Ya de ya
de ya de. And so maybe I'm wasting my time but I thought I'd show up just to voice my concem that our
opinion, it's 2 lots. Or 2 Y2 but that doesn't make it 3. It makes it 2 wonderful lots, which is what I think
our lot is. Ours is a wonderful lot and the lots on all sides of this. Bmce's lot's a wonderful lot. Where we
start making it smaller to accommodate a kind of a squeeze proportion thing, and that's all I have to say.
It's not a big deal. Thank you for listening.
Peterson: Thank you.
Kris Knox: Good evening. My name is Kris Knox. My wife and I, Dawn. We live in the comer of Leslee
Curve and Glendale right here. I've met with the builder. He seemed like a very nice guy. I'm actually,
I'm in real estate myself so I looked up some of his properties and found the Parade of Homes. It sounds
like he builds a very good product and that's good to know. I do have a couple concems though. One
thing that this map doesn't really lay out very clearly.
Aanenson: That's not the survey.
Kris Knox: That's fine. That's an orientation map. This map does show what the survey doesn't show is
the orientation of the lots across the street as to the size, and this one does. Now this is my lot. I have a
comer lot and it's large and it's going to stay that way. And I don't know if the camera can zero in on
this...
Aanenson: ...square footage...
6
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Kris Knox: Well I'm not interested in square footage. I'm interested in aesthetics. I'm interested in the
real world. The way it looks. IfI were to draw 3 lines right here and divide this into 3, you can very
easily see, and I don't want to do this on your plan.
Aanenson: Go ahead.
Kris Knox: Well, we'll just eye ball this into 3 equal pieces here. It looks like 3 equal pieces doesn't it?
And all of a sudden you can see that this, you know look at the frontages of every, literally every single
house. The difference is makes down on the lake area. You know I don't know this messes up Kurt's
economics or the fact that he needs 3 lots to make...but from the neighbors perspectives, mine especially
as well as all of us here, the 3 tiny little lots that tum out from this deal are quite inconsistent with the rest
of the lots. The neighbors are just irrefutable. That is a concem of us. This lot would make a very
beautiful 2 lots. Now I don't know if the economics of Kurt Schwartz' deal but certainly help fit with the
neighborhood and how.., affect people like Steffan's very legitimate concems on his views, is a big
concem of ours. I don't know how slam dunkish it is. I also called the city and they said yeah, it seems to
fit with all the mles. I wasn't aware that they did some averaging on the frontage versus the back because
obviously there's more on the Minnewashta Parkway side. I certainly wouldn't want to see any fudging
averages along, especially if there's other real strictness that the city expresses on other parties. And in
general I guess the fact that you can see there's 3 little, skinny lots. There's going to be a big one next to
us. There's going to be Dale's over here and every single other one in the neighborhood is like that.
Steffan bought the last lot in this neighborhood. He spent a lot of money. It's taken a lot to...for sale for a
long, long time. He made it fit. He made the orientation just like he said... I just don't think that that's, I
don't think that's the way it should go. The other idea is too, we've heard little about, I did meet with
Kurt. We talked the property. And you know this whole thing about us neighbors being notified was also
quite fmstrating. The fact that we can get a 2 week notice for this hearing and in fact that's all the notice
most of us had. It's also quite fmstrating because if that's part of the process that we would have such a
little notice on something so major to all of us. We all have very valuable homes. We've all spent lots of
money and continue to do so with home mortgages as you all know. And so it seems fmstrating about not
what's going on. The style of house he's going to build, and I talked with Kurt. When I first heard the
news, and I heard it through the grape vine and it's like oh my god, what's going on. They were supposed
to be cottages. Now when I hear cottage, and then it was supposed to be half a million dollar cottages.
Well to me that's almost..., in this neighborhood we have a house. On one hand that's great. On the other
hand, well I don't know how much of my property got reassessed, which by the way the assessor came by
last week. So I don't know if that's...things go up or back but the point is that I know what a cottage is.
And I don't know what the economics whether it's 2 lots or 3 lots, of what a cottage would be to make a
deal. When I talked with Kurt, it tums out that they may be 2 story walkouts. Well, you know I'm in real
estate. I know that there's all sorts of variations of definitions but I don't think a cottage is a 2 story
walkout. I don't know ofa 2 story walkout that's going to fit on these little, skinny lots is...this was
originally her development. She, and I don't know what the arrangement...and in fact this house does fit
in the neighborhood. The house that's next to them is a rambler. I have a walkout rambler. The house
that's being tom down is a rambler. In fact I think all the houses in this neighborhood, across the street
here are ramblers until you get back over here to some of these which are splits which still aren't very high.
So to have a 2 story walkout on a skinny little lot is just a double whammy to me as a neighbor. That
would be my concems here because we really haven't seen what's...really going to squeeze 3 lots in here,
and I hope that you don't. And I don't know whether this slam dunk part of the thing really is a slam dunk,
but if it were a consideration and Mr. Schwarz were able to make more on his end with only 2, that would
be great and a different kind of house can go on 2 big lots certainly a lot differently than a cottage that's
really a 2 story walkout that's going to sell for halfa million dollars and fit on 3 lots. I think you guys all
know where I'm going with that so my final comment would be that I heard that the, that part of the
proposal is that the 2 curb cuts on Minnewashta Parkway be eliminated, and I guess I have a problem with
7
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
one of that because as it tums out, the survey that was paid for by Mr. Schwarz, his surveyors did find the
iron markers which do establish, from my experience, a definitive boundary and it tums out the definitive
boundary includes one of the southem most curb cut which happens to now actually be my property. So I
don't want that curb cut removed because I have use for it. So that was the only other comment about that.
The... established. The iron markers are there and what, for the 3 Y2 years I've been living there.., other
end of this loop into Minnewashta Parkway, it tums out from the survey is actually our property and I do
not want that curb cut removed. So that's my comments. Thank you very much.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Motion for a close?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, any comments on this one?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I have a question of stafl~ The average lot size is 17, let's see. 18,266 which
appears to be similar to the average lot size of the neighborhood. What makes these 3 proposed lots unique
is that they're long and skinny rather than short and fat.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Something I didn't do earlier today. I just did it right now up here is add up those numbers. They
total 54,800 which is 1,300 more than what the lot size is as one lot.
Kirchoff`: Don't tell me my math's wrong.
Kind: Sorry. Sorry to do it now too Cindy. I just thought you'd love that. I didn't even think of it until
we were just kind of talking about this and I just added them up. Granted, even an adjustment of 1,300
would not reduce any of then to below the 15,000 minimum by the city but I just thought that was odd.
And wondered if you knew about it or had an explanation for it. In situations like this, have we ever done
averaging of building height on neighborhood building height to put a restriction on the infilling lots so
that the character of the neighborhood.
Aanenson: We've done it through the good will effort of the person subdividing. We don't have a
requirement to do that. In the past we've gotten that just through cooperation with the developer. With the
home styles. When it's a straight subdivision, we don't look at home styles. The only thing that we'd
decide is the elevation based on grade that we've looked at. Dave maybe gave a comment. There's an
elevation for sewer and water. Storm water.
Hempel: Lots are relatively level in relationship to the neighborhood. They do slope off`to the east
towards the lake slightly but it would take a little bit of filling to raise the lots to make them a walkout in
the front yard areas. Another way to do it would be to change the house style to more of a, ah how would
you call them.
Kind: Multi-level.
Hempel: Multi-level, right. Where you walk up more into the first level. That would reduce filling in the
front yards.
Kind: And what are the mles on filling? Boy, I sure would hate to see any house built there, whether it's 3
or 2, be built up so they can walk out off`the back. Are there restrictions the city has on that?
8
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Hempel: We want to just really maintain the drainage through the property as it exists today. We don't
want to burden the adjacent properties by altering the neighborhood drainage pattem in the area. Other
than that they can pretty much alter the property enough to get the type of dwellings they desire. Tree
removal would be another issue. With grading and the mass grading on the site. I believe there's a tree
ordinance. They need to maintain certain tree canopy coverage on the site so that would prohibit mass
clear cutting and grading of the property.
Kind: Thank you. Cindy, could you? I know Craig asked you this at the beginning of the meeting and I
obviously wasn't listening very well. The averaging of the front and the back lots, is that something that
we've done before?
Aanenson: Let me answer it? Did they meet the frontage requirement? We could put the driveways on
Minnewashta Parkway. There is 2 access points there.
Kind: And do we allow that on a collector street?
Aanenson: Our preference is not to put them on a collector. There's 2 curb cuts there right now. We
could put it, and Mr. Dunn's question about storage. Even if the garage were on the front, more than likely
the storage, if there is a boat, may still end up on that side or that rear yard. You know it may solve the
problem architecturally of what you're looking at. Whether you drive down Minnewashta Parkway and
it's the garage there. Our preference would be, while there are 2 curb cuts there, to try to eliminate those
and not have conflicting traffic. There are curb cuts along Minnewashta Parkway when that street was
redone. That was something that we looked at but these plats that are off of Kings Road, we limited the
access points there.
Kind: My recollection though is that we don't allow new curb cuts on collector roads.
Hempel: We limit curb cuts.
Kind: Got it.
Hempel: Enough to provide access to the property if there's no other feasible means to provide access.
Kind: But in this case there is another feasible means?
Hempel: There is another feasible means, correct.
Kind: And speaking of curb cuts, Mr. Knox spoke about a curb cut that he sees that's on his property. Is
that one of the two we're talking about? Because according to this plat that I've got in front of me, it looks
like it's ofl~
Aanenson: Right. But it's being used for the other property or both it sounds like.
Kind: So since it's being used for both, it's reasonable that that one could stay?
Burton: Excuse me Kate, it's not part of the subdivision because it's not part of the plat, we really can't
remove it can we?
Aanenson: That we may need a legal opinion on.
9
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Hempel: There may be some rights through adverse possession use that make take some of that driveway
but it probably is a legal question.
Aanenson: Or if it solves, I mean that's an opportunity to leave that driveway there for one of the other
homes. I don't know. To keep that driveway in place with one orientation of the garage.
Peterson: And then you've got potentially 3 houses, one of them.
Aanenson: Facing the other way?
Peterson: Yeah. Which would be.
Aanenson: But the other ones are oriented that way already so.
Kind: I'm trying to listen this time. So what was the answer to, do we typically average? Is that common?
Aanenson: Most of the, where we had double fronted lots in some of the older areas of the community.
Right.
Kind: Right.
Aanenson: So in this circumstance you could put them on Minnewashta Parkway. He could put the lots
facing that way. Our preference is to put them the other way.
Kind: Yeah, that part I heard but have we done the averaging to determine what the lot width is before?
Aanenson: Sure. Sure.
Kind: Okay, thank you. Goll. That's it. That's all.
Peterson: So what are your thoughts on it?
Kind: I'm concemed about the lot frontage on Leslee Curve. I agree that the lot sizes meet our ordinances
and the building pads meets the 60 x 60 and all that. I am concemed about having 83 feet for lot width on
Leslee Curve because that does not meet ordinance. And I probably will vote no because of that.
Peterson: Okay. Any comments Matt?
Burton: Well I think it does comply and all you'd have to do is put the driveways on Minnewashta and
you can get it through. If he did that, he'd comply with all the subdivision regulations and the zoning
ordinance. And in the courts we couldn't stop him from going ahead and doing this and at the city's
request he's moving the driveways up to the other street and that's the only reason, in my opinion, they're
up there so I think he's accommodating the city and I think if this is going to happen like this, this is the
best place for the driveways to be and it makes sense so. If we're going to be voting it down, he would go
to court and have to have the driveways on Minnewashta Parkway and he'd win.
Peterson: Other comments?
10
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Sacchet: Yeah. I have some comments. So you're basically saying that even if we insist on that 83 not
being enough frontage, we could not make it 2 lots. It would still be 3 lots but the only difference would
be that there would be, have the driveway to Minnewashta which would be less side. Personally I agree
with the neighbors in that 2 V2 lots does not make 3 lots and I disagree with the staff`report in that this is
consistent with the neighborhood. I think it's not consistent. And at first it looked consistent but then
when I looked at the lot layout where you have the different lot sizes. Well if you look at lots that are
80,000 square feet, that's consistent with the lots on the other side of Leslee Curve. If you look at the lots
that are on the north and east of Leslee Curve, we have lots that are over 20,000. Each of them. And what
I'm personally concemed about is the precedent we're setting. We have 2 lots in that neighborhood that
are over 50,000 square feet. The one we're looking at subdividing and the other one across the street who
butts the lake. If we allow those 50,000 square foot lots to be subdivided into 3 lots, we will have to allow
the lots that are over 30,000 to be divided into 2 lots potentially. And that's a precedent I don't want to
set. Because in that context to me subdividing this into 3 lots is not consistent with the neighborhood. But
what you're telling me is, even if we insist that the 83 is not enough frontage, we can't prevent it from
subdividing into 3?
Peterson: I wouldn't say, and Kate reflect on this. We're not really setting precedent by making this
decision.
Aanenson: Correct. We're talking about the lot sizes of the neighborhood. We're also talking about does
it meet city ordinance of 15. There are lots in that neighborhood with 15. A lakeshore lots have different
standards as far as square footage. I mean looking at the circumstances that go into each lot split, in this
circumstance the lot has to be removed in order to accommodate that. I would assume on the other lot
that's 35,000, a home may have to be removed in order to split that lot. You have to be able to meet the
setback and all that in order to get another home on there. This is going to be a consistent issue as the city
evolves. People are going to try to subdivide. Unless there's an active homeowners association that has a
different standard, that's the lot standard requirement of 15,000 square feet. Some neighborhoods have
association widths or PUD's that cannot be further subdivided. But it happens up on Lotus Lake
consistently. It's going to happen where there's a possibility. But again each lot is unique and based on
whether or not you remove a home, but to say that all those lots that are oversized can be subdivided is not
a true statement. You have to look at what the circumstances are.
Peterson: The other tact we'd have to take is somehow being creative and putting a new ordinance in there
that existing lots over a certain size have a different square footage requirement. I mean that's the tone
we've consistently heard over the years and it's something I think we need to consider as one of our
discussion points.., go forward basis.
Sacchet: If we look at lot sizes on that side of Leslee Curve, they are between 21,000 and 29,000, which
to me if we split the 53,000 or whatever the exact figure is, if we split it in 2, it would actually be
consistent with those lots. But that's not the city ordinance thing so that's the problem here.
Peterson: Other comments?
Conrad: I would just make sure that the City Attomey believes we're, I'd like to have the attomey review
it, not from the city standpoint. From the neighborhood standpoint. Not that we, I think we can grant this
and it's very logical, but I'd like to see if the neighborhood has anything to stand on in terms of saying it
doesn't meet the footage requirement. I'm not convinced it does or doesn't. It's obviously a place for 2,
it's 2 houses, but it legally the ordinance says it can be 3. So somebody said it's a slam dunk. Obviously.
If the ordinance says it, it is and that's what you'd want to govem your community. We're govemed by
the ordinance so. What we've got to make sure of is in this case with a double frontage, if there's anything
11
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
that might protect you from the 3 lot deal, I'd sure like to have our city attomey take a look at that. But
the ordinance govems. It's not us. It really isn't. That's why we have the ordinance. If we don't, if we
think we should average properties in this city, you've got a real big problem coming. My neighborhood is
being cut up and I won't cut my property up but my neighborhood is being cut up every day and come in 2
weeks from now and listen to what people are doing. So it is happening and it's not just happening in your
neighborhood. It is legal and that's what we have ordinances to govem what can be done without taking
rights of people away. So I'm not preaching but I'm just saying, if you feel that we don't have the right
ordinances you should come back and tell us to do something. Or if the Planning Commission feels that
we've got a lot of this stuff`coming up, we should do something about it and start looking at average lot
sizes where we should because you don't have any leverage. You really don't. You have an ordinance
and we have to interpret the ordinance and that's what we're doing tonight. I think staff`has interpreted it
properly, but I want to make sure and so we'll make sure the attorney says it's, not that we can do it but
that, you know I really want it interpreted from the neighborhood side. Can we stop it from happening?
Can we say that because the access is on, not on the, can we say because it is going in on an 83 foot
frontage, that they can't have 3? I need to know that. Other than that I think it looks legal to me.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. My comments are not dissimilar to Ladd's. I guess, I feel the passion of the
residents around and as the same passion that I would feel, but unfortunately I think that we have to abide
by the zoning ordinances that are in front of us tonight. I think if we've accomplished nothing else, I think
being here and sharing your respective voices is incredibly important for us to hear and as I've already said
earlier, that we need to start looking at alternatives and whether or not that is lot size or averaging as Ladd
said, but what we have in front of us tonight I think is relatively clear and I would vote in favor of that. So
with those discussion points I'll entertain a motion please.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary
Plat Subdivision #00-7 to subdivision a 1.2 acre parcel into 3 single family lots based on the plans
received May 26, 2000 with conditions 1 through 13 and add a condition that the staff`confer with the city
attomey regarding this matter prior to it being presented to City Council.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Conrad: I would second that. But ifI may, again I think my point was, for the City Attomey to see if the
neighborhood has any, the neighborhood and the city. I'm not trying to divorce us from being a part of the
neighborhood but I don't want to know that if we can allow it to happen. I want to know if it can be
prevented from happening. It's a little bit different twist on that but that's real important. I don't need the
attorney to say they can go ahead and do this. I need the attorney to tell me if there's a way to prevent it
from happening.
Peterson: Okay. Any further discussion?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I personally I'm inclined to vote against this on the basis that if there is a
foundation that we can require the access to go to Leslee Curve and therefore it cannot be subdivided into
3 lots and 2 lots, I would prefer that as an option on that basis and I'm inclined to vote against the motion
that's on the table.
Peterson: Okay.
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plat (SUB #00-7) to subdivide a 1.2 acre parcel into 3 single family lots based upon the
plans received May 26, 2000, with the following conditions:
12
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
1. One 2 V2 inch deciduous tree will be required in each front yard.
All transplanted trees shall be guaranteed for one year. Any trees that die will be replaced with
trees that meet minimum ordinance requirements.
Tree presentation fencing shall be placed around any trees near the grading limits prior to
excavation.
The proposed residential development of 1.2 net developable acres is responsible for a water
quality connection charge of $976. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of
$2,415.60. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filling the final plat.
The existing home on Lot 2 will require a demolition permit and/or a moving permit, whichever
applies. The removal of the home shall take place prior to final plat approval.
6. A final soils report and grading plan must be submitted for any filling or soil corrections.
7. Each building must have it's own independent sewer connection.
A detailed grading and tree removal plan, including driveway locations, garage floor elevation,
proposed grades outside the dwellings and existing 2 foot contour elevations a minimum of 100
feet around the property limits shall be submitted for City review and approval prior to final plat
consideration to determine the full impacts of the development. A detailed grading, drainage,
erosion control and tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot at time of building permit
application for city staff to review and approve.
All lots shall maintain the neighborhood drainage pattem. Erosion control measures will be
required on the building permit Certificate of Survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on
the downstream side of the grading limits.
10.
The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and
water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The applicant will need to
provide the city with a financial escrow in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
reimbursement for the service extensions. The escrow amount shall be $5,000.
11.
The typical 5 foot and 10 foot wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility easements shall
be dedicated on the final plat.
12.
The developer shall be responsible for all city attomey fees associated with the review and
recording of the final plat documents, park and trail fees, Surface Water Management fees, and
GIS fees pursuant to the city ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording.
13.
All driveways shall be paved with an all weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Direct
driveway access from any lot onto Minnewashta Parkway shall be prohibited.
14.
Staff shall confer with the City Attorney to address neighborhood concerns prior to going to
the City Council.
All voted in favor, except Kind and Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
13
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Peterson: Two nays. Motion carries and goes on to City Council on the l0th of July. So thank you all for
your comments. They were appreciated and again this goes on to the City Council for their respective
feedback on the l0th and by then the City Council will have received information from the City Attomey.
Audience: .... so this means it's passed?
Aanenson: No. It's a recommendation to the City Council.
Peterson: They make the final decision. We're the preliminary kind of litmus test and we make our
recommendation to the City Council. They make the ultimate decision.
Audience: Thank you.
Kris Knox: I have a question...but I hear comments about that curb cut...with regards to whether the city
can or can't take it out. If the survey establishes that it's my curb cut, is this the place, is this where I can
kind of...say that I can't do something with my curb cut? Pete's been using it for as long as he's lived
there. The fact that I didn't have a survey done when I bought the property I don't precludes me from
owning it now that it's obvious that I own it. And so I just want to...that the long term of use of it that I
may in fact not have that and I want to know more about that ifI could. I don't know if this is the place or
time for that but I'm obviously concemed.
Peterson: If you could take that off`line and do it later on in the week.
Hempel: I will consult the City Attomey on that matter as well and I would recommend the property
owner as well consult an attomey. What his rights may be for that driveway.
Kris Knox: So even though it's mine, I have to pay for an attomey to talk about my own rights on my own
property? Is that what you're suggesting?
Peterson: You don't have to sir.
Kris Knox: But ifI want to know what my rights are with whatever. Who would make the decision and
how would I know about it, hopefully not like the notice about this thing in 2 weeks? How would I know if
someone has made the decisions that.., attomey establish what I can do with my own curb cut?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. The city does regulate curb cut placements along public streets. I
again want to consult the City Attomey. My first impression is the property to the north has been utilizing
this driveway access for their own use. If the other property on the comer has an adequate driveway, it's
been the city's policy to limit driveway access to properties to one driveway curb cut. Although there are
probably many horseshoe type curbs in the city. New policy in the last 10 years anyway has been to
minimize or eliminate or not permit horseshoe type or two access points to one common property so.
Peterson: So would it be appropriate if you talk to Roger and Roger gives you his respected opinion, that
then Mr. Knox is it?
Kris Knox: Yes.
Peterson: Could contact you directly and deal with it that way?
14
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Hempel: Yes, that'd be appropriate.
Conrad: And Mr. Chairman could I? It's just really worth your time, you may want to talk to an attomey
and that may be a cost but ifI were you. IfI were you, before this gets to City Council, I'd want to know.
And if you feel satisfied from the City Attomey, that's okay. If you trust what you're going to hear.
Kris Knox: ...we're not talking about addition and...but I do have a shop with a garage door 100 feet
from that curb cut and I would be using that for access for that so...it would be accessible now which now I
have my own curb to get to my other garage which is part of my house...thank you very much.
Peterson: Okay. Again, thank you all for coming.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK AND 30' FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND A VARIANCE FROM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 3733 HICKORY
ROAD, BRENDA BLAHA.
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of stafl~
Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Cindy I'm sorry, I have another math question for you. I think your math's
okay. The curb is 5 feet away from the front property marker line so you add the 9 feet plus the 5 feet and
then you have a 14 foot driveway.
Kirchoff`: There's no curb there. It's edge of the roadway. That's correct.
Kind: But yeah. Pseudo curb. And you'd like, staff`would like to see 4 feet added so that it is 18 feet.
An 18 foot driveway. What is the shortest driveway we have approved?
Kirchoff`: I can recall one right now, 17 feet.
Kind: Okay. The lengthofa Suburban.
Kirchoff`: Is 18.
Kind: No, you're kidding me. Hence your recommendation for the 19 feet.
Kirchoff`: Well that's the minimum parking stall size. 8 ~2 x 18 so that's where we came with the rationale
for the 18.
Kind: In your table under B it says may, for con, you may lose a silver maple and then further down on
that page is part of the rationale for recommending Option B. It talks about further it will allow for
adequate length of driveway and may save the silver maple tree. Which is it?
Kirchoff`: We went out to the site and looked and it's close whether or not the tree can be saved. The
applicant would like to save the tree. However the tree may have to be removed.
Kind: It's a neat tree. I can understand that. Okay. That's it.
15
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Peterson: Other questions of staff'?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question. As you said you made several options and one of the options
is a single stall garage. Now I understand that the ordinance asks for double garage and however we're
looking at a pretty small house. I mean the garage is almost going to be as wide as the house. And then
also in the request letter from the applicant, the person's really asking not in plural vehicles versus asking
to store her vehicle. Singular. So I'm a little confused. I mean it seems like based on the ordinances we
define reasonable use of the property to have a two stall garage. But in this particular case he has a very
narrow lot. We have a house that is not much wider than the 20 foot. I think the house is what, 24 foot or
somewhat. And the applicant asked for space to store her vehicle, not vehicles.., get a chance to ask the
applicant whether they want, or if they could be happy with a smaller garage because it seems like it would
be much more consistent. In this location.
Aanenson: Well we discussed that intemally and homes are going to change with time. There may be a
different owner and we looked at that. Looking at size of vehicles today. Obviously the garage is almost
as big as the house, if you were to look at what a standard garage would be today. And we're looking at
this homeowner may be gone over time. What happens to that? Would a single garage serve the interim?
Possibly, but more than likely it's going to come back and become something else but that's generally
we've seen the pattem through the history of these is that someone's going to come back and ask for
something different. So we were trying to find, as it is we think it's kind of undersized anyway. I mean
you've got to have a reasonable to swing your car doors open and get in and out and we struggled with that
still have enough back-up space. We looked at taking the front picture and putting it on the side. We
went through every iteration. Sure, a reasonable may be a single car garage but, that may suit her needs
but again we're looking at, it may work. It comes back in 5 years, 10 years. That may happen too. But
it's an option, certainly.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Ah yes Mr. Chairman. Kate. How do we regulate, in this case architect? Because this should be
part of the house, and I don't want a garage that's less than what the house should be. And you know I
don't like to screw around with architecture. In this case I think I need to.
Aanenson: It's a prominent feature.
Conrad: I need to know that it is an improvement and obviously anything added is going to be an
improvement but I think I need to see more than what's here.
Aanenson: There is a drawing.
Conrad: Yeah. I don't know that I can approve this.
Aanenson: You can make it a condition of the variance certainly that's your prerogative to add conditions
to mitigate the impact to the variance and that may be something you want to add as a condition...
additional architectural details. We certainly have to be reasonable whether it be, I don't know if you
want a window or some detailing... And maybe it looks more like part of the home. Sure, that's a good
point.
Peterson: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please
come forward and state your name and address please.
16
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Brenda Blaha: Yeah hi. I'm the homeowner and I guess I was hoping...
Peterson: Why don't you go up to the microphone if you would please.
Brenda Blaha: First of all the findings or the recommendations here for the 6 foot setback, I had requested
a 5 foot and they're requesting a 6 foot. Is that from the front or, my lot goes like this. Do that is the front
here, not from this part?
Kirchoff: Yes.
Brenda Blaha: Okay. Then if the council okays a longer driveway, that'd be great. I mean I'd be happy
to get any kind of structure. And as far as a single car, my comment would be, well what ifI want toys?
My Harley someday maybe... That's it I guess.
Peterson: What are your thoughts on the architecture as far as placing a window or getting something that
gives a more homey feel to it?
Brenda Blaha: There is going to be one window placed... If needed I can do two. And the structure is
small. Very small two stalls. I mean 20 x 20 is pretty much.., new roof. So the structure of the garage
will look and match...
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and
state your name and address please. Motion to close?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this one?
Kind: Mr. Chair, before we get into comments I have a quick question for staflk I'm assuming since it was
not one of the options that a side load garage is just there's not enough swing?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: Swing room. Because that would be the best.
Aanenson: And you'd be adding additional impervious too.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I'm really tom still. I mean I'm inclined to grant the variance with the hope that if
the applicant is really serious about trying to save that tree, that maybe they'd be willing to make the
garage a little smaller. To me it's just difficult to see that garage almost as big as the house.
Brenda Blaha: What about, I'm sorry. What about if we went with the 6 foot this way. If that would
move it probably this way. More. If we went with the 6 foot area back here where now this is probably 8.
Because that gives me a couple more feet of root space for that tree.
17
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Sacchet: So you could move it over further basically is what you're saying?
Brenda Blaha: Yes...
Peterson: Cindy, what are your thoughts on that? Thank you.
Kirchoff: I can't speak for the health of the tree, moving it over 2 feet. If it's going to save the tree or not.
Peterson: Well the odds are it will help. What percentage we don't know but what's the negative impact?
What's the opportunity cost of moving it over?
Kirchoff: You'll have a smaller side yard setback. If you move it over 2 feet, they'll be down to, well.
Yeah, you'll be 2 feet from the property line. Can you measure the setback when you're giving a variance
to the eave and there are one foot eaves on this. The garage.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair, my concem is two fold though. Not just the tree itself. It's also making the garage a
little smaller so that in proportion to the house, you don't have this huge structure that's the garage which
would almost dwarf the house considering the house is only a couple feet wider. And I do believe that's an
architectural concem of it too. If it at a later point the use would change, I would expect the use would
probably change for the house as well as for the garage so I'm inclined to look at the situation the way it is
now because I would believe that if there would be a different use in the future, that the use of the whole
thing would be different.
Aanenson: You mean like tear the house down you mean?
Sacchet: Potentially yeah. Because for me it's hard to envision when you made that calling about that the
use could potentially change in the future.
Aanenson: I meant the owner.
Sacchet: Yeah the owner. I don't know how big that house is, and it's certainly it's nice to have enough
space in the garage. On the other hand, I could envision that in a place like that if the use changes, that
somebody could potentially get several of those adjacent lots and then make a change that way as easily as
the use changing just the one lot.
Peterson: Okay, other comments? Ladd, anything?
Aanenson: I've got shutters.
Conrad: Modification was set up in the list. I keep going through this list.
Aanenson: Well you know what this is characteristic of? This area? This is characteristic of Carver
Beach. It's not an anomaly of that but these come up. They're part of the character of that area.
Conrad: But Kate when I see the list and we sent it, you do have confirmation that.
Kirchoff: Actually I had people stop in and tell me so I know that they were.
Conrad: I don't know. Architecturally I really would have to see it or have somebody review this. It's got
to be upgraded and be like it's part of the house. Not a garage and it's probably not a one window deal.
18
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
It's probably some detailing and I don't know. I hate to do that but I think we need some kind of detailing
that says it's consistent with the building of the house. That's it.
Peterson: Other comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman. When I first looked at this report and I saw what the applicant was asking for I
kind of chuckled because I thought this was, there's no way. But then as I read the report I agree with staff
entirely that not having a garage is a hardship and the applicant is I believe entitled to have a garage and
the size with the variance requirements. And I think a reasonable garage is a 2 car garage and I agree with
staff`that that's what the applicant should have. In fact I went back and looked at the letter and she does
request a 2 car garage in her letter of May 24th. So I don't have any problem with that. The only possible
thing I could see is putting some architectural requirements on there. And even then I would only support
it as long as they were not very onerous. I could see adding a little detail like a window or two, and a little
bit more but it is a garage and I think she's entitled to have a garage and we shouldn't be too onerous in
our requirements.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Deb, anything?
Kind: Sure. The more I think about this, the more I'm kind of coming down to liking the option that puts
the garage in the back and has the driveway going along the property line. How close to the property line
can driveways be? Is there enough room to do that?
Aanenson: When you're in the side yard easement. The thing with that is I guess the people that we had
spoken to we haven't indicated, because now you're really imposing a different characteristic to the
neighbor of having a car going back and forth. That also increases the impervious. We went through that
option too. You are over an active easement which means they'd have to get an encroachment agreement
if we had to get in and get into the easement. That was our first choice but.
Kind: It'd be nice if there's a little alley.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Sacchet: Aren't some of the neighbors having their parking area behind it? Like just a house or two
down?
Aanenson: Yeah, a couple houses down they share a driveway.
Sacchet: They share a driveway and then parking right at the houses. Yeah.
Aanenson: Right. Yeah, I think that is a vacated right-of-way that they share.
Brenda Blaha: What ifI add, I mean.
Peterson: Let's, we need to continue our conversations here. Sorry.
Conrad: Let's Make a Deal.
Kind: I'm the one who keeps straying here. I agree with Matt. I think that it is a hardship. The hardship
has been shown and she deserves to have a 2 car garage. I like the idea of putting some sort of condition in
there to, I don't know what the language would be though. Can we see it again?
19
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Aanenson: Sure.
Kind: You know- see some improvements made to the exterior of the garage so it's not quite so garagey
looking. With some architectural detail and maybe table it for tonight and see another drawing of what the
exterior could look like that makes it more fitting with the house. I guess that's probably the way I'm
going. To table it so we can see it again.
Peterson: When's our next meeting Kate? Not til.
Aanenson: July 18th.
Conrad: Or you can trust staffto look at the details.
Kind: Okay.
Burton: We can put a condition in that they have some type of rendering for council to show-.
Peterson: It's not going to council, it's a variance.
Burton: That's right. I'm sorry.
Peterson: The buck stops here.
Burton: I would trust stafl~
Kind: Yeah. Yeah. I don't want to put it offbecause I think this is a good summer project.
Peterson: That's where I'm at too. I'm comfortable letting staff discern appropriateness of the
architectural enhancement.
Aanenson: IfI could...there are shutters on the front window. I'm looking at something like that. So
shutters on the windows...some sort of treatment on the top with the peak. Pitch of the garage. Over the
garage door.
Conrad: Take a look at windows on the garage door. I'm not sure that that's what you want but.
Aanenson: Yep. Thank you. That's what, I'm looking for some direction.
Kind: I'd like to see windows on the garage door itself.
Peterson: All right. Motion please. This is only our second one tonight folks. Let's get this thing
moving.
Kind: I'm writing a condition.
Peterson: Let's have somebody start the motion and we can add the condition to it.
Burton: I'll start the motion. I move the Planning Commission approves the request for a 18 foot variance
from the 30 foot front yard setback, the 6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback, and a 6%
20
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
variance from the 25% maximum impervious surface requirement for the construction of a detached garage
based upon the plans received May 24, 2000 and subject to condition 1 and perhaps what Deb adds.
Kind: Okay. I'll make a stab at it. Ladd I'm sure, have you got something? Okay. Condition number 2.
That the applicant shall work with staff to add more architectural interest in keeping with the house style.
Good enough?
Conrad: Yeah.
Peterson: Is there a second to that? We haven't seconded it yet so.
Kind: Oh, I said oh. And that's all the motion. I'll second that motion.
Peterson: It's been amended. Any further discussion on the motion?
Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a 18 foot
variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, the 6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback,
and a 6% variance from the 25% maximum impervious surface requirement for the construction of a
detached garage based upon the plans received May 24, 2000 and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a survey completed by a licensed surveyor to the City at the time of
building permit.
2. The applicant shall work with staff to add more architectural interest in keeping with the house
style.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES TO ENCROACH INTO THE
REQUIRED 60 FOOT SETBACK OF A NATURAL WETLAND LOCATED WITHIN THE
WESTERLY PORTION OF LOTS 14, 15 AND 16, BLOCK 1, POINTE LAKE LUCY, CHARLES
CUDD COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Rick Denman
Douglas Beck
Susan Wilson
Bruce Miller
Richard Meyer
Alan Thometz
8747 North Bay
8217 Iris Drive
7630 Prairie Flower Blvd.
7630 Prairie Flower Blvd.
5504 Duncaster Way, Edina
6690 Mulberry Circle
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Thankyou. Questions ofstafl~
21
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Conrad: Sure. So there were no monuments in the ground at the time? Signifying the edge of the
wetland.
Aanenson: That was some of the problem.
Conrad: In the long run you're saying we will put that in.
Aanenson: Oh yes. That's what happens but this problem was, you had one engineer that did the plat.
Another engineer that did the lot survey. The engineer that did the lot survey showed a wetland and
drainage buffer. It didn't call out what kind. We have a separate staff person that reviews these as an
ag/urban wetland. Sort of a natural. That was part of the problem. Part of it was their fault.
Conrad: So the way the staffreport was, when presented. When the plan was presented to stafl; the
delineation was not there from the applicant and therefore it was approved.
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: But it's typically, it's typically something we check.
Aanenson: Correct. We missed it. They missed it. It was partially our fault too.
Conrad: And what is the, from the applicant's standpoint, what is their liability?
Aanenson: Well that's I guess what we're saying is part of the, what's the owner's or what seems
reasonable to mitigate what has happened and that is to increase the buffer. So you're reducing the
usability portion of the lot by increasing the buffer that you can't touch. That's what we believe would be
a fair resolution.
Conrad: I missed that so, okay.
Aanenson: Increasing the buffer.
Conrad: I thought we had a 20 foot typical buffer.
A1-Jaff: That's the average.
Aanenson: It has to average. You can go 10. We're saying this has to 20 through this whole area.
Conrad: And then you need a 40 foot setback.
Aanenson: Right.
Conrad: Okay. So that adds up to 60. So to mitigate the problem, to me it would say we'd go beyond.
What's the mitigate?
Aanenson: No, that's fine. That's fine if that's the approach you want to take. That was our
recommendation. It can be as small as 10 as long as it averages 20. So we're saying 20 but I mean
certainly you can, and that's what Sharmin is saying...but certainly if you feel like what we're trying to do
is preserve the natural, follow the wetland and that is best done by the buffer strip so we're saying we want
to increase the buffer strip. And post it.
22
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Conrad: I get it.
Aanenson: So you're right Ladd. If you want to go over 20, that may be, what was our recommendation
was the 20 but that's certainly 25, 30. You know again, what we're doing is we're restricting the usable
portion of that area.
Conrad: Okay. I understand what you're doing. So let me go back. What is the liability of the engineer
or whoever who submitted the plans to us? And what do we do to that? What do we typically do when
somebody gives us a plan that's not accurate? Catch it.
A1-Jaff: Catch it.
Conrad: And nothing else?
Aanenson: I'm assuming that the developer's resolving that issue too.
Conrad: There's not a big penalty to pay.
Aanenson: If you've restricted the house usability of their back yard. The size of their deck. Future, any
future expandability of that home.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kind: Ah yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, you mentioned that building permits had been issued for a deck
but there presently are no decks built so this isn't really after the fact situation.
Al-Jarl': One of the houses is currently under construction. The building permit has been issued for it. It's
encroaching the required setback and the construction continues. The same is true for a deck. It is part of
the overall structure. The building permit has been issued.
Kind: But there's no deck that needs to be destroyed?
Aanenson: Can we stop a deck, that's her question.
Kind: Yep.
A1-Jaff: But we've issued the permit already.
Aanenson: Right. It's just that the deck wasn't constructed.
Kind: But there's no deck that needs to be destroyed?
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: So that's the after the fact the part aspect. That's it for now.
Peterson: Okay. Anything else? Would the applicant like to address the commission? If so, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
23
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Rick Denman: My name is Rick Denman. I'm with Charles Cudd. Do you have any questions for me I
guess?
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? No.
Rick Denman: Then I really, you know I have nothing to say. I think the staff covered it pretty well in
their report.
Peterson: All right, thank you.
Sacchet: The restrictions don't cause a hardship for you?
Rick Denman: You mean the way they're recommending the buffer strip?
Sacchet: Yes.
Rick Denman: I think we can live with that.
Sacchet: You can work it, okay. Thanks.
Peterson: A motion and a second for public hearing please.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward.
Alan Thometz: My name's Alan Thometz and I live at 6690 Mulberry Circle. It's the Willow Ridge
neighborhood which is the property adjacent to these three properties. My house is the closest one to
where the three come together. I didn't realize when you started this that this was coming after the fact
issue. I thought you said the request for a variance of setback before the construction had actually taken
place. That puts it in a new light. And causes me to wonder how such a thing could occur. I thought the
city was more careful than that. When we bought our house in Willow Ridge 6 years ago, it was sold by
Lundgren Brothers who built the neighborhood in an environmentally sensitive area. And we agreed to the
setback. The wetland setback provisions that was included in the title of our documentation. The
neighbors and I agreed to it. We wanted it in there and we were attracted to the area because it was in
there. I've been a member of many environmental groups for many, many years...Wildemess Society,
Friends of the BWCA. This is why we came to this community and we just expected that all of the other
setbacks would be respected. In the first case tonight, you've got a situation where you can't stop
somebody because the ordinance won't let you stop it even though there's some movement against it. The
second case tonight you've got a hardship situation. Well, encroaching on the wetland isn't a hardship
situation. The ordinance already there is saying don't do it. And yet it's been done I guess after the fact.
Itjust amazes me. Iguesslwouldwonder, isthewetlandreallythejurisdictionoftheDNR? Dothey
have a case against the city? We're not protecting that setback. The builder and the owners knew about
the ordinance, or knew about the requirements when they bought the property and they built it. Again, it
just sort of stuns me that this could be missed. If decks aren't built, and that helps it, I think that should be
something to be considered. There are ducks and geese in that pond. I think if you start building decks
over that, can you assure me that they're going to stay there. That's one of the reasons we moved there.
Because we wanted the ducks and geese there. So I don't know, it's hard for me to say it's a hardship to
have them forego a deck if they've already violated the setback requirements. I guess I have nothing else
to say on it, thank you.
24
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Jerry Paulsen: My name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Good evening. This is more of a
question of clarification since there's the wetland involved. There are two city ordinances that involve,
what do we call the building pad, which you're familiar with now. One calls for a 60 x 40 in the wetland
code, and the general, in the subdivision it calls for a 60 x 60. So they seem to conflict with each other.
You would think the wetland would require a more strict building pad than what the normal pad would be.
Basically city code says that if there's a more restrictive code within the code, that is what takes
precedent. I'm not sure if the 60 x 60 is really a pertinent factor in this but it seems a little ambiguous to
have the two codes in city ordinance. And 60 x 60 seems to be what would take precedent in this case
anyway. So that's just what I wanted to get clarification on. And a follow-up question, ifI don't get an
answer right now...that means you have a certain number of square feet and therefore a 40 x 90 pad would
serve the same purpose I assume. Or would a 20 x 120 pad serve the same purpose? And my point is, is a
60 x 60 pad a 60 x 60 or is it something other than that and I'd like a clarification on that too.
Thank you.
Peterson: Do you want to tackle that Kate?
Aanenson: Sure. Obviously that has relevance to another issue. The 60 x 60 pad is in the tree ordinance
and when we look at that, when it's a heavily wooded lot. We try to look at the 60 x 60 as a tree area.
The standard is a 60 x 40 which these did meet when they went through the criteria. Just for further
background on this. A letter was, is in writing given to the applicant from an officer of the city. He's no
longer here, that gave them this setback so again it was an error on the stafl~s part and so we're trying to
solve the problem.
Jerry Paulsen: ...wooded area?
Aanenson: That's what it's in, is in a wooded area. It's in that.
Jerry Paulsen: It happens to be in the code...
Aanenson: I know we disagree on this Mr. Paulsen but that not our interpretation.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, comments please.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I certainly am very environmentally inclined myself but on the other hand we
have a situation here where something was given approval to go in a particular direction and it seems like
it's somewhat balanced by the fact that they are asking for slightly larger buffer zone, or what you call the
inner?
Aanenson: The buffer zone.
Sacchet: So we're asking for somewhat larger buffer zone to balance out the fact that the setback is
shorter, correct?
25
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: And I would think that balances some of your concems about the environmental impact. It's not
an ideal situation. I don't believe we can disallow something that's already been granted. I believe that's
a pretty good balance as far as all this is in front of us. That's my comment.
Peterson: Good. Appreciate that. Other comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Uli's comment. And then I also would note that, I was looking at the
summary analysis in the staff report about the requirements for the ordinance for setbacks and what we
actually have and if you take the home setback, even if you include the buffer strip. If you take the
minimum buffer strip that could be required, Lots 15 and 16 would still qualify and if you take the deck
setback and take the minimum buffer strip, we're talking a minimum of 1 foot on Lot 15 that it misses by
and 7 feet on Lot 16. And so I think it's really at the minimus issue that we're dealing with. I think that
instead of trying to reinvent the wheel here, that this variance makes sense and I agree with the staff report
and I agree with the staff's proposal.
Peterson: Any additional comments?
Kind: YesMr. Chair. I'mkindofpuzzledbythisbecauseofothervariancerequeststhatwe'veseen
before this commission encroaching into wetlands and staffs position to be very strict about them, and that
not having a deck has never been considered a hardship before. And now in this staff report it's considered
a hardship because the majority of the neighbors have it. This is the first time that I've seen that rationale.
Aanenson: Let me clarify the rationale. The survey showed a deck. Okay. And that was part of the
building permit and that's why we made that interpretation. The survey showed the deck and the deck.
The other ones that have come in, they've exceeded what was shown on the survey because we, as a
general rule, measure the deck from the wetland. So they're given approval. Now if they come in with
something bigger, that's the difference so we're saying when we originally approved this, we approved it
with the deck on there so I want to make sure that's clear. Did you follow what I'm saying?
Kind: Yep.
Aanenson: Because we have this problem consistently and we have pointed it out to a developer in this
community that does do a lot of wetland developments, that they are putting minimal decks on there. As
soon as the homeowner gets in, they recognize that a 7 foot deck is not big enough and we've apprised this
developer of that situation. That they need to do a reasonable deck size. So when these came in they were
checked. Unfortunately, they were given a bad setback information so that's not that went so I wanted to
make sure that's clear. But you're right, the deck's not up yet.
Peterson: Okay. Anything further Ladd?
Conrad: The only way I can, I have to be sure that the intent of the buffer strip and the setback is being
met. Regardless of the footage here. And right now I don't see that we've imposed anything. It's
typically we're trying to average 20 feet. Roughly. That's what we're trying to average and that's what
we're imposing here. So you know, I guess I'm looking for accountability someplace. And I don't see a
penalty. Not that I need a penalty. The point is to preserve what the wetlands, integrity of the wetland.
Aanenson: Let me give you the stafl~s. I know what you're saying exactly. I think you can put 30 foot on
there. I think that would be an adequate buffer but then we went back and said, now we're penalizing the
26
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
homeowner. It's not hurting the applicant because they're out of the deal. So what we're doing is saying
now, gee you bought the house that someone made an error on and so we struggled with that same issue.
Where do you find, our goal is to protect the wetland. That's our goal. If 20's a minimum, yeah. And
maybe it can be larger but again we tried to weigh it against no fault of the homeowner and that's where
we were trying to strike that balance.
Conrad: So what else could be imposed to protect? Is there anything?
Aanenson: You can put a condition on the variance. I guess you might want to ask that to the applicant. If
they can think of something else to.
Conrad: Well now here's a case where I think, I don't want the applicant to tell us. I want us to say.
Aanenson: You can have him do some wetland credit somewhere. You can have him do some additional
trees. Thinking offthe top ofmy head on this one. Some suggestions.
Conrad: Okay, now you're telling me Kate. I kind of like what you're.
Aanenson: That's certainly an option. They can add to a wetland bank. Certainly.
Conrad: And that's not penalizing the homeowner.
Aanenson: No. And I think that may be reasonable. I guess if that's the direction we're going, I don't
know how to put a dollar value to that but that may be something we want to work out with the city
attomey or something.
Peterson: Public hearing's over, sorry.
Aanenson: We may want to look at with the city attomey try to figure out some sort of value or something
on how we can do replacement, but I guess that's what we tried not to penalize the homeowners too much
and get the appropriate balance but we can look into that.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair, ifI can add one aspect. Ultimately what protects a wetland is not our ordinances.
It's the people that end up living there and I appreciate the sensitivity that you put into trying not to burden
the homeowner because if we put restrictions in there that's going to hurt the homeowner, he's going to not
create very well towards the wetland. I think for me, one thing that I want to preserve is, I want to try to
encourage the good will of the homeowners to the wetland. If he sees the wetland as this bad thing that
prevents him from being able to have a deck, I don't think that gives the good attitude that fosters them to
want to preserve and take care of it. But I like the idea of there are other things that he could put in there
where the environment gets improved a little bit. Like additional trees or something like that to balance
the scale. I like that idea a lot.
Conrad: It's something there. I'm not sure what totally it is but, going back in time I think this area, when
this, all this came in and I think all the neighbors were very concemed with those this is treated. And
because there was a mistake, this is hard for me to say okay. And we all make mistakes but I think there
has to be, have we taken care of this wetland and staff`is probably saying yeah. And the homeowners are
probably going to take care of it because we're sensitive to that but I guess I still need to, there's got to be
a, there's some other compensation that we've got to work here, at least from my standpoint.
27
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Burton: Mr. Chair? One concem I've had is any type of penalty or conditions put on Cudd may pass right
through to the homeowners anyway. Gets in their agreement. We may end up going round about way of
penalizing the homeowners anyway.
Peterson: It'd be reasonable to assume that. Again, even though we want somebody to understand the
impact of their decision but is it the developer's decision? It wasn't. It was somebody from the city so
we're looking at the wrong person to penalize.
Aanenson: Well, I think there were some errors made on both parts so, just to be clear. We're taking some
of the blame. Somebody made an inappropriate read and they made an error too.
Peterson: Well, I think we've discussed it enough. At least for entertaining a motion. Ladd, are you
comfortable moving ahead with discussion at least?
Conrad: Yeah, go ahead Mr. Chair. I'm not sure.
Peterson: I'll entertain a motion please.
Sacchet: I'll make a motion. I move that we approve Variance #00-8 VAR to allow structures to encroach
into the required setback of a natural wetland located on Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy
as shown in the plans dated Received June 1, 2000 with the following conditions 1 through 3. I personally
don't think there's a need to change the conditions.
Peterson: Okay, is there a second to that motion?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Conrad: Sure. Kate, so as I look at the plan submitted from Cudd, your report says 20 foot buffer, 40 foot
setback from the outside edge.
Sacchet: So it includes the buffer.
Conrad: Okay. It includes the buffer.
Sacchet: That's the crux. Setback includes the buffer. That's where we heard ideally it should, right?
Sacchet moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Variance
#00-8 VAR to allow structures to encroach into the required setback of a natural wetland
located on Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy as shown in the plans dated
Received June 1, 2000 with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall maintain a 20 foot buffer strip along the edge of the natural wetland.
The applicant shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the outside edge of the drainage and utility
easement surrounding the delineated edge of the natural wetland. The 20 foot wide buffer strip
shall be included within the 40 foot wetland setback.
28
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
3. The 20 foot buffer strip shall be identified by permanent monumentation. The monuments will be
supplied by the city. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of these monuments. The
monuments shall be placed as shown on the attachment entitled "MONUMENT LOCATIONS".
All voted in favor, except Conrad and Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-906 REGARDING NON-CONFORMING
LOTS OFRECORD.
PublicPresent:
Name
Address
Vicki Weber
Representing Mr. Happe
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: And with that, any questions of staff'?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, I'm assuming that the reason that the ordinance stated that these
three lots are to be considered as one was for purpose 2(b), which is to encourage the elimination of non-
conforming uses, lots and structures. Or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Is that the reason why
that was in there in the first place?
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Aanenson: And that still applies.
Kind: It still applies to Lot F that were subdivided when?
Al-Jaff: We haven't permitted any subdivisions.
Kind: Since 1987.
Al-Jaff: No.
Kind: So why, so this wouldn't apply to anything? There's no show 3 adjacent lots.
Aanenson: We found some that it does apply to. That's why we're trying to fix the problem. This was put
in place because we had a situation where, especially for the Halla subdivision, we allowed them to go less
than 2 V2 acres because we said in time, if sewer's extended, they may want to further subdivide. So we
felt like all those lots that were in the 1987 had been built on. Well we found in this very southem area of
the city there are existing lots that are under common ownership that the only hope they have is the 1 per
10. That's the only thing they don't meet and that was a requirement based on the Lake Ann Interceptor
Agreement for those sprawling large lot developments. So there are lots of record that have that in place.
The problem is if it's one owner or family or something they can't subdivide them. Or sell them as
individual lots. And that was never the intent. When Paul Krauss, the former planning director was here,
it was his belief that those lots had probably all been built on. But we found some that hadn't been.
29
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Kind: And they're after 19877
Aanenson: They were platted in 1987 but they're all under one ownership. That's the penalty. If you
have them all in one person's name, even though there's three separate PID's, because they're in one
person's name, that's the penalty. And we believe that was onerous and that's why we're saying we should
put that back in because we found some that that circumstance happens.
Kind: I think I get it.
Peterson: Other questions of staff'?
Sacchet: Yeah, Mr. Chair. I have a question. The condition number 10. Couldn't that be simplified a
little bit? It says applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the comprehensive
plan contain a development density of 1 unit per 2 V2 acres were accepted until January 15th.
Aanenson: That's the magic date of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. That's the critical one we
needed in that we didn't have in.
Sacchet: If all required information was submitted to the planning department. We don't need to list them
because they were required then. It's not like somebody come and still apply for that.
Al-Jarl': The only reason we left them in there was to give it something to go back to. This way we can
pull out the application.., and say okay. Did they meet this and did they meet that?
Sacchet: So there's a purpose to actually...okay. That was my question. Thanks for answering it.
Peterson: Okay, anything else? A motion and a second for public hearing please.
Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward
and state your name and address please.
Vicki Weber: Hi. I'm Vicki Weber and I'm with Coldwell-Banker Bumet and I am representing Mr. and
Mrs. Happe here tonight. They have moved to... To put the human part of this topic, can I put... This
property they had subdivided back in '84. They lived down the street...purchased this property and
decided that for future investment they would divide the property. They divided the 9.34 acres into 3
separate lots and that's what these are right here and... What they want to do is a nest egg for the future.
They had then platted. They had it recorded. Mr. Happe's going into a nursing home and I think you
probably got the letter that she wrote a very emotional letter and we're not here to be emotional but, he is
94 and she's 88. And now we put the house on the market...for $455,000. It was appraised in January for
440. Something like that. It's about $130-$140,000 each parcel. They're being taxed separately on
separate PID's. They have been I think since '92. So what's happening here is people are interested...
they want part of it. They don't want the whole 10 acres. The developers that want the 10 acres want to
know if they can develop it and they can't develop it. I've been getting calls every day and I said, I have
to go to the Planning Commission. I have to give the whole story explaining yes, it was divided but now it
may not be divided so we're got to go back to the city and talk to them about it. Well, will you call me
back. So what the situation is with this, if it can't be divided, it's really tough luck for Mr. and Mrs.
Happe. In 10-15 years when we get water and sewer on that street, you can divide it into townhomes
probably and it would sell for a great deal of money. So what's happened here is they're kind of out of
30
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
luck because they're running out of time. And you know you had mentioned Mr. Chair, you had said
somehow be creative and add an ordinance. It's kind of what's happened for these people. They did it
with good faith they got it divided and now they may not be able to divide it... and someone's going to
come in and catch them at a disadvantage and they're going to buy it from them at less money. Tum
around and it will be okay again or they'll sit on it for 10 years and make a lot of money. They just want
you to give them what they expected to get out of this property.
Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: And again I just want to clarify the glitch is the fact that it's all under Mr. Happe's name.
They are taxed three separate lots and that's how we caught it and the ordinance says if it's under one, now
you have to meet the new rules and that wasn't our intent. And obviously that got left out. The penalty, if
he would have put it in the name of some other heirs or something we wouldn't be here asking for the
amendment but it's in his name.
Peterson: So noted. Anyone else in the public hearing?
Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Any thoughts?
Kind: Quick question for stafl~ This site is guided for?
Aanenson: Low density.
Kind: Thank you. Not townhomes.
Aanenson: Those are on the bluff. They probably couldn't be further subdivided either. We did check
that with the home location and make sure...
Kind: Okay with that I'll make my comments Mr. Chair. I don't think the landowner should be penalized
because he maintained ownership of the three, or they maintained ownership of the three parcels. If they
had just gifted them to their children this wouldn't be, we wouldn't be here today. They shouldn't be
penalized for that. I support staff's recommendation. Ah, but I do have a question about it. Uli, Kate?
Would you object to changing the language to number 10 to be more past tense? It bugs me that we're
passing something that says that application will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987.
Aanenson: That were accepted?
Kind: Yeah. So I'll propose doing it more past tense for a motion.
Sacchet: It really doesn't do us any good any more...is exact enough.
Peterson: Any other comments? I'll entertain a motion.
Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the staff; or the Planning Commission recommends approval of zoning ordinance
amendment to Section 20-906, Alternate Lot Size requirements in A-2 and RR Residential Zoning
Districts by adding the language that appears below in points 8, 9 and 10. And I would like to change the
language on number 10 to be applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the
comprehensive plan to contain a development density of one unit per 2 ~2 acres were accepted on January
31
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
15, 1987, with the following. Provided the following information was submitted to the planning
department.
Peterson: Any second?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Sacchet: I still have an editing question. That were accepted until January 15th or by January 15th.
Kind: Oh before. On or before.
Sacchet: On or before? Okay.
Kind: Good point. I suppose we have to be picky about this.
Sacchet: Might as well be specific.
Peterson: Okay, so moved and seconded. It's been discussed.
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-906. Alternate lot size requirements in A-2 and RR, Residential
Zoning Districts by adding the language that appears in bold:
(8) Existing parcels of record established prior to the effective date of this zoning ordinance shall be
deemed buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by item 10 of this section.
(9) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in Section 20-575 and 20-
595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials, up to two (2) parcels will be
allowed to be accessed by a private easement.
(10) Applications for subdivision in the rural service area as identified in the comprehensive plan to
contain a development density of one unit per 2 V2 acres were accepted on or before January 15,
1987, provided the following information was submitted to the Planning Department:
a. Completion of the Application for Subdivision.
b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners.
c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattem.
d. Submission of required application fees.
Further, these applications must also submit addition data required for preliminary plat approval in a
manner which will achieve preliminary plan approval by July 1, 1987 unless the City Council deems to
table final action on the application after July 1, 1987.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Does this go onto the Council or is this it?
Aanenson: Yes. It's a code amendment.
32
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Peterson: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE ARTICLE XXV, SECTION 20-1176,
LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL TO CHANGE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR
NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff'?
Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. This term landscape density transfer. Is that what we're expressing in the last
paragraph there? It talks about landscape density transfer in the middle paragraph and it says that it needs
to be defined. Did we define that?
Aanenson: Oh! I guess that was one that we felt if you wanted to add some further language on that, then
we would put something in there. So I thank you for pointing that out. That was a question you had. We
didn't have a good response. I don't know, did you have some language?
Kind: It was I think Alison that brought up the density transfer concept for landscaping and I noticed that
you left it off of your recommendations because it might be difficult to quantify.
Aanenson: Right. Right. That was Jill's recommendation. Unless you felt strongly about it, she felt that
that might be hard to administer and quantify, correct.
Kind: I tend to agree.
Burton: It does seem tough.
Kind: I thought it was kind of a clever idea but.
Aanenson: We're managing a lot of individual lots.
Kind: Well it sort of defeats the purpose that we need a buffer for that parcel. If it's adequate buffer for
that parcel, with the number of trees, then maybe we should look at our buffer ordinance.
Aanenson: Right. I guess that was our position.
Kind: Right.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: One Mr. Chair. Under the proposed berm, 3 feet and higher. Do you have the leverage? The
way it's worded, can you say, can staff`say I don't want the berm? I guess I'm looking for total, I don't
want somebody saying I put the berm in, therefore I don't have to do that. I want you to have the leverage
to say the berm counts. The berm doesn't count or cases where the berm doesn't count.
Aanenson: Right. That's a good question. Lots of times it's driven by other factors such as storm water
ponds. For example on that Marsh Glen plat that we looked at that's adjacent to 101. There was a pond
33
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
there. We wanted more of a berm because when 101 gets widened, we think that's a better response to
creating a buffer as opposed to the trees, which may not provide a screen and buffer with the amount of
traffic on that. The developer in that situation, because of the pond, felt like that would be pretty onerous.
We went back and forth on that one. We even talked about a fence so I think you bring up a good point.
You might want to put a little bit of language that would give discretion to the staff to say the
circumstance. Again, collector roads is one I can think of that certainly we want a little bit more leeway to
say what's an appropriate buffer. Whether it's fencing or a berm. That's a good point. If you want to say
based on stafl~s recommendation.
Conrad: Not ours.
Aanenson: Again, then that would be my situation, or if it's a density issue such as the apartment building.
That would be another situation we felt like a berm actually did a little bit better job. When there's
different land uses for fencing. That's a good point.
Peterson: Other comments? Questions? Motion for a public hearing please?
Burton moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward.
Burton moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Thoughts on this one fellow commissioners.
Kind: I think staff did a good job of coming up with language after our work session and I definitely want
to have some language in that berm section that says that staff`needs to approve the use of a berm and
maybe just put, proceed that whole bold face by saying if approved by staff; berms 3 feet and higher in the
buffer yard may be substituted for up to V2 of the required understory trees and shrubs, depending on length
of the berm.
Burton: Since it's an ordinance, would it be more appropriate to say if approved by the city?
Aanenson: Or recommended by stafl~ Yeah, if approved by the city.
Kind: If approved by the City?
Aanenson: Yeah. The other circumstance I was thinking, if you're looking at sight line issues. That's a
good comment.
Peterson: Other comments? Entertain a motion please.
Kind: Mr. Chair. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Buff`er Yard Ordinance
Amendment to Section 20-1176, Buffer Yard Requirements by adding the language that appears in bold
and deleting the language noted by strike through with a change to Section 20-1176(f)(3). At the
beginning of the bold face, change the beginning of that sentence to read, If approved by the City, berms 3
feet and higher in the buffer yard may be substituted for up to one-half of the required understory trees and
shrubs, etc.
Peterson: Is there a second?
34
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Buffer Yard
Ordinance Amendments to Section 20-1176. Buffer Yard Requirements by adding the language that
appears in bold and deleting the language noted by a strike-through:
Section 20-1176 (f) (2) (c) Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard and
the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Each illustration depicts the
minimum buffer yard required between two uses or adjacent to a collector or arterial right-of-way. Tke
responsible for providing 75 percent of the required plantings. If abutting property owner(s) desire to bring
the buffering to 100 percent of the required buff'er yard plantings, then the adjacent property owner(s) may
install the remaining 25 percent of the required plantings on their own property. When the parcel abuts
public property, such as roads or parks, the developer shall be responsible for 100% of the required
plantings.
Section 20-1176 (f) (3) Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buff'er yard planting
requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buff'er yard plant material
requirement. Existing natural features such as slopes, woodlands or wetlands which provide physical
separation between developments or between a development and a collector and arterial road may satisfy
the bufl'ering function ofthe required buff'er yard. ~1~1'~ ~1~' "~:~' ~"I~':~I:~C~'I' ....... :~1 plantings ,,1.~11
By the City, proposed herms 3 feet and higher in the buffer yard may he substituted for up to one-half
(½) of the required nnderstory trees and shrubs, depending on the length of the berm. For instance, if
a berm runs the entire length of the buffer yard, the understory and shrub plantings may be reduced by
one-half. Any boulevard trees or reforestation plantings required in the buffer yard can be counted
towards required overstory buffer yard plantings if there is insufficient room for both types of
plantings.
Section 20-1176 (f) (6) Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary
deciduous trees or conifers in the city's subdivision ordinance. Conifers to be used as overstory trees
shall have a minimum height of 8 feet when planted. Arborvitae shall not be used as an overstory tree.
Section 20-1176 (f) (7) Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as omamental or conifer trees
in the city's subdivision ordinance. Conifers to be used as understory trees shall have a minimum
height of 6 feet when planted.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Peterson: Kate, any new business?
Aanenson: Sure. Tell you what's coming up on July 18th Planning Commission. We did have some things
that, some other subdivisions that were submitted that we didn't accept based on flaws but we do have the
park maintenance building which will be in for site plan approval which is removing the existing park
35
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
maintenance building with the upgrade of Highway 5 so we'll see the site plan for the new one. They're
also looking at putting an ambulance service in there. Waconia will be located in that. Two cell towers.
Peterson: Two?
Aanenson: Yes. An appeal to a requirement that we put for a buffer strip on a variance for a home on a
lakeshore lot. That we made a recommendation, or actually the City Council did for a buffer treatment.
They don't want to put it in anymore. A variance for a deck. And then the Igel subdivision would be on
the 18th since we don't have the 4th meeting. Oh excuse me, then we'll also be seeing one for, we have a
site plan review for Mark Undestad which is...
Hempel: Chan Lakes.
Aanenson: Thank you. Chan Lakes number 8.
A1-Jaff: Chan Lakes Business Park number 7.
Aanenson: 7. 100,000 square foot building. So we continue to do a lot of industrial, so we'll have a big
meeting. I'm anticipating also a full agenda on the first one in August. Just in case anyone wants to know,
Matt's already told me he's going to be gone on the 18th so...
Peterson: Any other new business?
Aanenson: Just, have you been out to the field and looking at what's going on out there? The apartments
have begun construction. They had a ground breaking ceremony yesterday.
Burton: How much? I'm sorry.
Aanenson: The apartments on Lake Susan. We did send out notice to the neighbors. Because we did
walk that site. As a general rule we walk before we give them, we walk the property before we give them
notice to proceed. To make sure the erosion control, tree and all that is installed and in place, which it
was. They were given an order to proceed so just so you know too, the...construction of the trail is
obstructed as part of the construction.
Hempel: Semi-closed.
Aanenson: Semi-closed. Just for safety issues too. I mean they're out there... Highway 5. That will be
going to City Council here shortly as far as the frontage road. That's still set for bid opening next week.
Hempel: June 30th.
th ,
Aanenson: June 30 , so that s still on track. And then that's about it. Ongoing issues.
OLD BUSINESS.
Peterson: Old business? Are we due to elect a chair and vice chair one of these weeks?
Conrad: I don't think so. It's a every 2 year cycle as I recall.
Aanenson: Would you like me to put that on the next agenda?
36
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Peterson: We probably should do something with it, yeah.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Burton moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2000 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Aanenson: I don't. If you have any. I think I shared the one planning...
Kind: In your litany there did you mention anything about Igel status?
Aanenson: Yes. They'll be on for the 18th.
Kind: Okay. That's what I thought it was.
Peterson: Your listening skills tonight are a little bit waning.
Kind: They are. I'm getting distracted.
Sacchet: I have a semi ongoing item. I assume this qualifies as an ongoing item. You put my old phone
numbers in the address.
Peterson: That's why it's old business.
Sacchet: It's old business, there we go.
Aanenson: I think it probably got taken off`an old directory. I'll fix that. Thank you for informing us of
that.
Sacchet: Yeah, I saw that. Point that out.
Peterson: Ongoing items. Private street, flag lots.
Aanenson: Just as a point of order Mr. Chairman, as a general rule when we get to open discussion, we
usually stop taping. If you want to continue to tape, there's people here to listen. It's up to you.
Generally, anybody's welcome to the discussion but...is up to you.
Peterson: Fellow commissioners, any thoughts on this?
Sacchet: I'd like it without taping this.
Peterson: Meeting adjoumed.
Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
37
Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2000
Prepared by Nann Opheim
38