The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 06 19CHA REGI JUNI Cha MEMI~ Ells HASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION LAR MEETING 19, 1991 rman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m.. PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Jeff Farmakes, Brian Batzli and Annette arrived late. MEI :RS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad and Joan Ahrens STAF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; 3o Ann Olsen, Senior Plan'ler; and Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I Emmi gs: We can't act on any proposal. We're a body that makes, holds publ hearings and then make recommendations to the City Council and they take final action on it. Any action that we take is only a r on to the City Council. As far as maybe all of these things I go with the possible exception of the bed and breakfast item, I don' want to pass those onto the City Council without a recommendation from Planning Commission which means that since we can't take action toni there's no point in meeting. On the other hand, all of you have taken t~me to come here and I guess what we might do is hold a short meeti g. Once we close our meeting, is just hold a short meeting with the Plann ng staff and I'm going to stick around and maybe, whether or not the ther people on the commission want to stick around, and talk to you and ind .ut quickly what your concerns are so that maybe those can be taken ccount the next time it's brought before us. But I still think it's mportant that you come back when these items go back on our agenda to y ur testimony in. Put it on the record because a verbatim transcript and passed along to the City Council. Frankly, this is very lng to me. This is the first time we've ever failed to have a We've got 7 members and there's no excuse for not having 4 here ntly the other 4 people had conflicts tonight. Some of them we · Some of them we didn't and I don't know what else to tell you. r Whitehill: Sounds like a good idea that you're proposing. Okay. Well I would think that maybe on the Bluff Creek Bed and st item we could pass that one along to the City Council without any ,halation from us. Let me just ask. Paul, we'd like to pass along tuber 2 on the Bluff Creek Bed and Breakfast item· The three members here support the staff report. You can let the City Council know mit what they're requesting there. And if there's anything that we have to do with it, you'll have to bring it back but that could go to the City Council. I just spoke with the applicant for t.he Ches Mar Farms proposal e not looking at just a 2 week delay here. We're actually looking ,eek delay because our next meeting falls out 3uly 4th week and was d and the schedule is set up. This is going to put that back into ,ust :ometime which does interfere with his need to get building out on sit . I throw that out for your consideration. Plann. · ~u ne Batzl Olsen Ann commi: that a moat Kraus~ Walte¥ Emmin~ Walte' idea Emmi n.c and th it mi~ furthe tell ~ maybe when ~ want t whate% along bunch Ches P off th then t condit and I for ex impose think I did~ that t withou Krauss can th Emming guess record Farmak to our Batzli more t ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 2 : Can we have a special meeting next week? What we can do is put it onto the July, what I was suggesting with th the Bed and Breakfast is that we can rush. The next Planning sion is 3uly 17th and that we cad get it to the next Council meeting ollowing Monday. Make an exception so it's just a 2 week delay, not h. : Do you think we could do that for Ches Mar Farms as well? Whitehill: Before this goes any further, can I ask a question? Sure. Whitehill: Can we use the mics? I'm hard of hearing and I have non hat is going on. s: Okay, right now they're talking about the Ches Mar Farms proposal my're talking about the fact that if we don't hear it, the fact that ht not be heard tonight may mean that it's pushed a month or even r and that's not good for the developers is what we're hearing. I'll 0u what. Ches Mar, I have so many questions on that proposal 'and we'll have in the informal part of this meeting, after this is over ~ discuss it, maybe I can discuss my concerns with him too. Maybe we D have a meeting on that and a meeting on the bluff ordinance or ~r. Or whoever's here on anything but I'm not willing to pass that without the Planning Commission looking at it because there's a whole Df things going on there that, you know there's a long history on ar. I was here when we took action on that in 1985 and when we split ~= property for the Gross' more recently and there were things done nat I don't see in the packet which really bothers me. We put ions on that property at the time the Gross property was split off Jon't see that discussed in the packet. $o there's history that's, ample all of the rest of that property had one building eligibility ~ on it at that time. It said that's all there would be and I don't ,e're stepping on the toes of what we did before but I'm not sure and t see it discussed in here so there's a whole bunch of things like ,at bother me about that one. So I'm not willing to pass that along ~ us taking a hard look at it. Item number 1, is that also something you'd like brought back or .t go forward? s: Well, I don't have any problem I guess passing that one on but I naybe we can put the comments of the people that are here on the but I don't know. Do you want to look at that one? ~s: I read the request. I thought it was just fine. It conformed other concerns. My comments were technical on the conditions that we put on there an anything else. Planni June Emmin~ this quorun peopl~ Kraus,· could Emmin~ like somet~ ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 3 s: Okay, so maybe we can do that one. Okay. Now let me ask you aul. As a technical matter, can we have a public hearing without a here? Can I open the public hearing? Get the comments from the who came on the record? : I honestly don't know the answer to that. I would think that you but I can't be certain. s: Is the applicant here on the recreational beachlot? Would you s to do that? Here's the risk. If we do it and then we've done lng wrong, we may have to do it again. Joan this ~kallman: We'll have to take that chance because we're trying to get cone before July 4th. s: Okay. We're going to do that one then. I'm going to open the hearing on our first item here tonight. HEARING: IONAL USE PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILET ON AN qG RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT LOCATED ON MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ACROSS FROM CIRCLE, MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Present: Emmin! publi PUBLIC CONDI' EXIST LINDE~ Public Nancy ~elson Jan F~ Jerstein Billi~ Windschitl 3can Ekallman Richard Wing Sharm Address 3891 Linden Circle 3880 Linden Circle 6591 Joshua Circle 6590 3oshua Circle 3481 Shore Drive in A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Emmin~s: Have the applicants had a chance to review the conditions that havebleen imposed by the City? Okay. Is there anything you'd like to on this item? Joan llman: Good evening. My name is Joan Skallman and I am currently co-c lng the Presidency of the Minnewashta Homeowners Association so I am re 'esenting the Association. I was the Secretary 2 years ago when this all lan and I just felt it would be beneficial to recap the concerns that we behind this. Number one being our health concern. We have got many 11 children. In fact, 44 of them under the age of 10 and I stress under he age of 10 because these are the kids that are not allowed to cross innewashta Parkway to go back to their homes to use their facilities wi a parent to help them get across the road. Many children when they get ire down at the beach forget to tell mom and dad and therefore the lake es their alternatives. If you are a parent then you know the fr ons of small children that does not give you a lot of advance warni . Also, again the adults that may not use or leave the outlot to go Plann June home help conce beach many homeou to do putti cross have sides. cate so it of it we wi] Emmin~ addre~ Richa~ there ordina I beli ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 -- Page 4 nd use their own facilities. The only solution that we felt would his is to have the chemical toilet on the outlot itself. Our second n being safety. Ne have to cross Minnewashta Parkway to get to our outlot and again home and although there is a 30 mph speed limit, not otorists abide by that. Ne have had many close calls by the nets that have gone down to the beach and we have felt the best thing was to minimize the crossing on Minnewashta Parkway and we felt by g the chemical toilet on the beach outlot, that would minimize ng. BFI is who we have chosen to go with and they have sent or they axed how they will maintain it. There would be lattice on three You will not be able to see it from the road. Ne will take good f it. Our lake is our pride and joy and we want to keep it that way won't be anything that is an eyesore and we will take very good care and we are trying to get this to go through before 3uly 4th because 1 have many families down there that weekend. Thank you. s: Alright. Is there any other members of the public who want to s this? d Wing: I'm Richard Wing, 3481 Shore Drive. I'm just aware that was one complaint that the lot is not in compliance with the beachlot nce. That question involved the overnight storage of boats and eve thore was a pontoon boat on that lot at this time. I am assuming that non-c( would Emmin~ the pI Joan S Emmin~ belongs to your association. That pontoon and boat lift would be in npliance with the beachlot ordinance and prior to approving this I like to see that issue clarified by staff. Okay. Can someone from the homeowners association tell us about ntoon boat? kallman: It's not our association's... Are you aware that there's one out there? And you don't know who owns it? Is it someone in your homeowner's association? Have you made them a,are that that doesn't fit within your conditional use permit as something that's allowed? 3gan Skallman: I don't know... Emmin~ s: Okay. Is there anybody else that wants to address this item? Batzl moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor ~nd the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed. Farmak~s: This issue about the non-compliance on the boat. Is that enforc itself Krauss It jus about don't ~able by the City or is there a separate issue that governs the lake No, it is a valid concern. It is enforceable by the City. takes me a little bit by surprise. Councilman Wing has told us ~everal of these things and we're trying to follow up on them. I now that this was one that we were aware of previously. PI June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 5 Farma : Is this a long term problem? Has the boat been parked there for quite nme time? Or is it moored on the dock or is it moored on a float? 3nan kallman: It's on a lift. Farma s; On a lift itself? Okay. Emmin! : I think we could just add a condition...a condition that they comp with their conditional use permit. Farma s: Okay. Well I have no problem with the actual facility itself. None all. You've done a good job. Of working that out. It incor rates all the concerns that we had when we worked out the original ame nt to the ordinance. Those are my comments. Batzl Paul? Or Sharmin or who did this one? I was just curious as to the ~ditions that we chose to put in here. It seems to me that these condi OhS are in the ordinance. For example the first one and the second one. there a rationale for why we chose certain conditions to be here? Is th just to emphasize to the applicant? : To make them aware that they have to come back next year. Batzl ordi was items But we didn't include things having to do with other things in the ~ce like screening or any of those other types of things. I guess I curious as to the rationale of why we chose these particular two of the ordinance. K, in w only spec the curre tryi Well the licensing, the annual licensing is a new item that came this ordinance and when we send somebody a confirmation letter, the nditions that are in the confirmation letter are those that are lly called out and it was just a matter of re-emphasis. One of itions, the third condition requires compliance with all past and approvals anyway so it gets back to the ordinance but we're just to put them on notice. Batzl It would seem almost better to send them a copy of the ordinance. An' I was curious as to why we chose those two. It seems to me, well here' the next question. As part of the application process, if they wa to move the portable toilet from one location on their spot to anot , could they do that just under 'the annual process or would they have come back to us? I don't know. We haven't been posed with that issue. I guess we would ~ave to evaluate if it's still consistent with the understanding of the a 1 of the CUP. On this lot I would dare say there is no other locat n that would be acceptable without bringing it back to you. If this lot 'e 300 feet wide, there may be several options that would allow consistent with your approval. I don't think that exists here. Batzl it as I guess I would have chosen to put in here that they would locate ified in the drawing that they provided. Ne really don't have a Planntng Commission Meeting June plan And 1, the p Al-Ja' 9, 1991 - Page 6 tamped such and such but do it in accordance with their application. st and maybe least. I don't remember. What's the footage we require rtable toilet from the ordinary high water mark? f: 75 feet. Batzlj' Okay. So if the lake came up a lot, that would be part of the annual renewal proces~ I suppose. If they were unable to physically locate the pcrtable somewhere in the lot, I don't even know if that's possible on this articular one. : Minnewashta doesn't do that. Batzl hypot Kraus: SU f Well, if we get a rain of 13 inches. I guess I'm thinking of even ically on any lot, what happens in that kind of situation? : Normally you'd measure from the ordinary high water which is to take into account the fluctuations. Minnewashta doesn't as much as all our other lakes do. It's pretty well a fixed elevai ion that we've seen. Batzl : If there's flooding for one reason or another, we can revoke a permi' because of a safety and health hazard. That's what I'm getting at. I'm nc talking about these particular... Kraus~: If we have an extraordinarily wet year and we go out there in the sprin~ me for renewal and the thing's under water, sure. BatzlJ: Emmin~ Eiisor: here Okay. That's all I had. : Alright, Annette. I apologize for getting my days mixed up to everybody who came well. It's not very good of me but moving right along. I think it looks 'ust like what we wanted to put together and just the type of appli on we're trying to do. We made the ordinance in the first place but I 't believe we should reward a beachlot that's not meeting their origi conditions with the chemical toilet if that boat's out there and they' not allowed to have a boat or a dock or a lift or anything so I think it should be tied together with getting that out of there. Kr this i Now that we've been made aware of it. First of all the City doesn't address this item until 3uly 8th so that's the earliest d be and we would not allow that to be erected or a permit to be for that until the lot's in compliance. Emmin! : Anything else? Ellsol that No. I just don't know how you can stick it in there to make sure gets done. K Add a specific condition. Plann 3une Emmin! it wi ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 7 ~: Yeah. I think we should add a specific condition that says that 1 be resolved before it goes to the City Council on 3uly 8th and that boat s ~d lift will be gone. I live on Lake Minnewashta and I think they do a nice job at their beachlot taking care of it. Lots of times we're yellir ~ at people up here but I think you're to be commended for the way you k~p your lot. It's vor¥ heavily used by the neighborhood there and I think they've done a nice job of putting a plan together. I have no reservations in supporting the application. Unless there's any other commerts, is there a motion? Batzli I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Pe mit ~91-5 in accordance with the 3 conditions set forth in the staff report and a fourth condition that indicates that portable chemical toilet shall ~e located in accordance with the application received by the City on 5-20-S 1. Ellsor Do you have that other one? Emmin~ : Do you think it's good enough? Batzl I thought condition 3 already covered that. Do you not feet that way Ar lette? Ellsor I don't know the ruling. That's why I said... Emmin~ : You've made your motion. Ellso~: I'll second it. Emmin~: I think it's fine because we've made it clear I think what we mean it. So I think it's okay. Ellsor Emmin,, Batzl appro~ toilel ( Outl( Alright. : Is there any other discussion? moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend si of Conditional Use Permit #91-5 to allow a portable chemical on Minnewashta Creek Homeowners ~ssociation Recreation Beachlot 8) with the following conditions: 1. Tk~ applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet. 2. Tk~ portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day tc Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of t~ year. 3. Tk~ beachlot shall be maintained in good conditiona in a manner c~ nsistent with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements. Plann June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 8 4. T portable chemical toilet shall be located in accordance with the a lication received by the City on 5-20-91. All in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBL HEARING: USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A 5TH BEDROOM IN A SEPARATE TO THE 8LUFF CREEK 8ED AND BREAKFAST SITE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED AND LOCATED ON BLUFF CREEK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE NORTH OF HWY. ANN KARELS. Jo Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Emmings called the publi hearing to order. Emmin~ : Is the applicant here? Do you wish to add anything to what's air been said or make any kind of a presentation? Now would be the time do it. Ann els: No. I think it's fine. If you have any questions I'd be happy .o answer them. Emmin: : Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here who want be heard on this? If not, is there a motion to close the public heari ? E1 moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor nd the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmin~ : Annette? Ellso I like it. I think that the changes she made, the fact that it's a co .tional use, we wouldn't be able to prevent somebody from coming in and lng to slip in under something else so I'm all for it. Emmin~ : Alright. 8rian? Batzl In regard to the first condition. I may be slightly confused here. Won't be the first time. Basically we're saying that this approval is co ingent on the City coming in and doing this right? Olsen Right. Batzl I would prefer then to word it that this is contingent, not the City ,all process. I mean it almost seems like we're binding ourselves to do th and I guess if we word it such that this approval is contingent on the C processing and approving, then the rest of that sentence and even maybe nother sentence that says something about this condition shall not bind City passing such an ordinance. Olsen: Oh okay. P1 June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 9 Batzl Because I don't know that the City Council will go for it. I mean it .d sail through but I didn't want it to look. Olsen Okay, approving the definition change? Batzl Yeah. Olsen Okay. Batzl throu We're In this particular instance I guess I like it. I haven't thought it enough in a generic sense to know whether I like the way that 'ng to change the ordinance. Farma s: I thought it was a low impact solution to the problem. I thoug it, in spirit, anyway, it's conforming to the ordinance so I would vote approve it. Emmim : Okay. I basically agree with other comments that have been made up he . I think it might be a good idea when you bring us a zoning ordi e amendment to talk about the fact that except in rare circ tances we'd expect all of the units to be in the principle dwelling. Leave s a way to fudge on that in particular circumstances but let ever dy know that's what we expect. Farma : And I think that probably would be useful because a majority of these ouses are probably going to be old type houses that you can probably look creative ways to use them without destroying them. Emmin : Alright, is there a motion? Ell amc the cart I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of an nt to Conditional Use Permit #85-4 allowing a fifth rental unit for ff Creek Bed and Breakfast establishment to be located over the e house garage with the conditions listed in the staff's report. Emmin! : Is there a second? I'll second it. Is there any discussion? 8atzl I would ask that she amends her motion to read, this approval is conti ~ent on the City processing and approving. First sentence and then a sec sentence in the first condition which reads, this condition shall not the City to approving such an amendment. Emmin : You meant to include that in your motion didn't you Annette? Ell Yes. I'd like to amend my motion to include what Brian said. Emmin : Just like you forgot the meeting tonight, you forgot that. And I to include that in my second. So with that change. Any other discu ion? You're going to take a beating. Ellso I'll never hear the end of this will I? Plann ~une Ellsor appro~ rental locate · · · · = ~ lng Commission Meeting 19, 1991 - Page 10 moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend al of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #85-4 allowing a fifth unit for the Bluff Creek Bed and Breakfast establishment to be ~ over the carriage house garage with the following conditions: T~[s approval is contingent on the City processing and approving a zoning ordinance amendment changing the definition of a bed and breakfast establishment from an owner occupied principal dwelling to an o~er occupied establishment· This condition shall not bind the City tc approving such an amendment. Tb~ bed and breakfast establishment shall not contain more than five reltal units· Tb structure shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code rt quirements. T ~ structure shall meet all requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. T~) off street parking spaces plus one additional space per rental room mu~t be provided· There should be no more than one employee in addition to the residents· T~ bed and breakfast establishment must be owner occupied. A ~nit/room shall not be rented for more tha~ 7 consecutive days to the sane person. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLI£ HEARING: CHES P APPRO> A. Pt LC B. Cd RE C. C( D. WE WE Pub 1 i Craig Walte¥ Geri E Ginger ~R TRAILS, PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND RR, LOCATED ON HWY. IMATELY ~/4 MILE NORTH OF WHY S, CRAIG SWAGGERT: ~ AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CHES MAR FARM PUD TO CREAT[ 4 SINGLE FAMILY ~S AND ONE OUTLOT. ~PREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO 5IDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. qDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CREATE A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. TLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL A BOARDWALK THROUGH A CLASS TLANDS. c Present: ame Address ~waggert & Melba Whitehill kaas Gross 2800 Stone Arch Road, Wayzata 7250 Hazeltine Blvd· 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road Pl Commission Meeting June 1 , 1991 - Page 11 30 Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Emmings called the publi hearing to order. Emmin! : This is a public hearing. We usually give the applicant the next shot the floor. Craig don't have much to add to what. Emmin~ : Would you just state your name. Craig Igert: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Craig Swaggert. The applicant. I don't ~e much to add to 3o Ann's presentation except that I would like to clari one thing. I'm not a developer. I plan to live on this piece of and my object was to enhance all the properties in the area rather than ease density. By reducing the density from 7 units to 4 units I feel 1 ke I'm accomplishing that. If there's any questions that you have, I'd glad to answer them. Emmin~ : There may be some as we look at this up here. You've reviewed the c( ition that they're attached to their recommended approval? Craig ~gert: Yes I have. Emmin~s: Are there any of those that you might want...or are they acceptable to you? Craig wide Olsen Craig the u~ Olsen if it use i Emm i n~ i n to~ 5waggert: They're acceptable to me. I didn't know about the 20 foot t Fail and I don't know if that would be in the form of an easement or. Yes. 5waggert: It would be? And what would the use be? Did you say what would be? It's planned for the Year 2000-2010 and he couldn't tell me exactly s going to be paved. If it's just going to be a mowed path but the to pedestrian for access up to the park above you. s: We're trying to link a lot of the major park areas and so forth n and I think the one that goes along there links that park hopefully down to the Arboretum. And it may be a bike path. It may be a hiking path but we're not talking about snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles. Craig 5waogert: That would be my only concern. I'd like a little more infornation about that. Thank you. Emmin~ Geri means Swagg~ plan Are there other members of the public that want to address this? ikaas: I'm Geri Eikaas and I live at 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road which I live in the duplex next to the property. I've met with Mr. rt and I've gone through the plan. I'll have to say it's the fisrt 'ye seen where I feel the proposer is really sincerely interested in Planning Commission Meeting June 1), 1991 - Page 12 prese¥ ~ing Ches Mar Farm and it's very nice to see finally. And if you look a2 what he's proposing, it's definitely not a get rich quick scheme. He's ~)ing to make every thing that he's doing better and they've already starte~ to do that. 5o anyway, I'd like to encourage your approval but I do hav~ information on the roadway that we're talking about. The way it's set up, the actual lease or ownership or whatever you call it of the roadwa z goes with my mortgage and with my ownership of the last piece of land ¢ n the road. And on that it says, no lot owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for his proportionate share by non-use of the roadway or abandonment of such owner's lot. This is the only one I have so you can make a copy. Olsen Okay. Was that an agreement? Geri lkaas: Well this is what I got when I bought the property and it's calleo Declaration of Roadway. Thank you. Emmins~: I'm assuming that whatever we do that affects Lot 4 where the road ~=~'re talking about runs through for her to get to her house from TH 41. 7~e mere fact that we're fooling around with the zoning doesn't change any ur Jerlying agreements between the property owners. I'm operating on that a~sumption. Olsen It was my understanding that that easement still applies on the front~ ie road. We can add something to it but it's already in the title. Emmin.~ : Yeah, I think that's right. 8atzl They can always negotiate between each other. Emmin.~ : Okay. Is there anybody else where who wants to address this? Waltel Whitehill: I am Walter Whitehill and I own the property just south of thi~ proposal. Between Tanadoona and the park and Ches Mar, they've got me rir~ed in there. I still didn't understand, again because I'm hard of hearir.]. What about the roadway on the north side of Lot 4? Is it going to be the responsibility of the applicant to maintain that or not? Emmin.~s: It sounds to me like that's the subject of easements and other priva~ agreements between the parties and it isn't something. It's somet~ take c Walter persor the ap 4, ho~ Emm i n~ we're we're interested to be sure that there are agreements in place to of it but it isn't something that we deal with. Whitehill: Okay. The second question is, the applicant is a single here. Mr. Swaggert and he's not the only owner. I wonder why he is ~licant. He doesn't control Lot 4 and without having control of Lot can the application be granted to just him? ~: Do you have a purchase agreement on all of the property that looking at tonight? Or an option? Planni 3une 1 Walter exerci Emming Craig entere is a c Walter applic invol% heard Olsen Craig Olsen Craig Walte' who sf 01sen Emmin~ 01sen Emmim you h~ Craig belie% Olsen Craig 8atzl Waltel Craig Waltel singl~ Emmin,, Walte' ~g Commission Meeting ), 1991 - Page 13 Whitehill: Well a purchase agreement. Options, you know you can ~ or pass. : Yeah but they may be contingent on our approval which is common. 5waggert: It i~ contingent on your approval and this application was into with Gary Kirt who is the principal who owns it. $o Gary Kirt D-applicant. Whitehill: Okay, then I think this should be amended. And the ~tion to grant the two people. In fact, there's another owner or two ed is there not? You were mentioning a couple other names I'd never Df the other day. Of owners? 5waggert: You mean Gary Kirt? The only people I mentioned involved in this was Gary Kirt and I might have mentioned 8tad 3ohnson from the past? Whitehill: And then there was some lady's name and I have no idea was? Ginger Gross who lives adjacent to it? s: Let me butt in. Who signed the application here? The person that signed the application was Craig Swaggert. s: Alright. Mr. Swaggert do you have, what kind of an interest do ye in the Ches Mar property? What's marked up there as 3 and 4? Swaggert: I own 3. I own 2 and 1 and I have an option on 4. I 3o Ann, Gary Kirt did sign the application. Actually I couldn't read the signature. Swaggert: That's Gary Kirt's. There's two signatures. Whitehill: Okay, so we have a joint applicant? Swagger t: Correct. Whitehill: We do have a joint appl. icant then rather than just a applicant? : Apparently so. Whitehill: Okay. And Gary owns 49 Plann June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 14 Craig eft: Yes he does. Wal be dir says a se Whitehill: Okay. The next question and I guess most of these will to you Sary. I haven't had a chance to, I mean Swaggert. It ~ble septic sites. What do we have in the way of rules that say c site is acceptable? Emmin~ : I don't want to get a conversation going this way so you talk to me an~ I'll try to direct you to the person who knows. Wal aoce Whitehill: Okay, I'll talk to you then. Steve, what is an septic sits? Emmin~ : I have no idea. No, I don't know the exact specifics but I can tell this because I was here when we put these rules in. We require them designate two septic sites and they do all their tests on those sites nd submit all the data to the City and it must be done by a lice , a person who's licensed to do these thin~s. Someone who's inde nt. We get that information and two septic sites are preserved on each ire and the one that isn't used has to be roped off during co tion so there's no, so that it's not ruined as a septic site and the n it's done is so that if the one septic site fails, we've got an alter tire. We also have very strict rules on how often these things have to be out now. They have to be pumped every 3 years. We've really toug up our ordinance on this because we were having problems with syst failing so we had consultants come in from the University of Min who told us how to properly maintain septic sites and I think we've ~ot an outstanding ordinance on this. If it's followed and if it's en Id, it ought to work. Walt Whitehill: Okay. So according to your best information and advice from is consultant, the site will be in such a way and a manner that it won't ome down on my property? The effluent from that septic? Emmin~ : I hope not. Walte Whitehill: That's been my concern over the whole thing. When the first ime they applied to build a number of houses up there. Emmin! : Yes. The answer is yes because the information we had from the Unive ity of Minnesota, the people who came here and talked to us told us that, hey really turned our heads around. Good septic systems are out ding and they say here's ~ood ones and here's bad ones. So we put in a ~t of rules that we think will make any septic sites that are put in in ou city from the date that went into affect on, very good ones. Walt Whitehill: That's good because that's my main concern. There is a pr L1 that there's going to be a culvert under this new road. Is that going increase the amount of water that comes down in that existin~ ditch rea in any manner because I'm wet enough already? Plann June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 15 Emmim : No, I think the culvert is to keep the ditch open to preserve the same ainage that exists there now because he's putting a road down. The cul 's going to go underneath the road so I can't imagine how it's going to i ease anything. It's just preserving the drainage as is. Wal WhitehJll: Okay. Then all conditions that have been ~tated in hers, ,hat the Planning Commission has recommended, are being accepted as I under .and it? Emmin~ : Okay, let me clear that up. He doesn't have any problems with the o that are written in here. You haven't heard us talk about them yet. he staff has written these recommendations for our consideration and I don know what other people plan to do but there are several that I'm inter~ lng in looking at. But so, whether we'll agree with all of them in the they come out of the Planning Commission I don't know. But he's at le agreed that as far as the conditions that exist in the staff repot are, he's agreed with those. Walte Whitehill: Okay. Then I've got no problem. I think it's a great idea. Thank you. Emmin~ : Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who wants to addre: this? Ginger? Gin~ Gross: Ginger Gross. I live at 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road. I agree with i Eikaas where we're really very pleased with the proposal that is befor you and though I don't have all of the information having talked with Ann. We feel that the integrity of the property will be preserved and is really exceeds our expectations. It sounds as though we will have peopl we can work with and will enjoy having there. One question that I would like clarified is last time this issue came before you, of course it was a lengthy issue and very detailed. At that time our first suggestion was t there be a private road accessing the 21 acres. Why is that avail, le now and was not at that time? Has there been a change? Olsen Right. The ordinance has since been amended to allow up to 4 lots on a irate drive. Gin~ Gross: 4 lots on a private drive? That was my second question was how ny. Do you happen to know when that was amended? When that was chan~ d? Olsen Ginge you k Olsen Last year. Gross: Okay. What's the reasoning behind that? Why the change, do ow? Me had had, before it was always felt that you had to have the publi street to still preserve the safety access and what happened last year hen Paul came to the City, in Minnetonka they had allowed private drive up to 4 lots. But what we did was have specifics on the design and the c truction of that private drive so now we feel comfortable that what Plann June is be paved Ginge~ way ba of acc Emmins Olsen Emmim Olsen Gingel Emmin~ Plann lng Commission Meeting 19, 1991 - Page 16 ing provided still will provide safe access. It still has to be It has to be a certain width and so it's kind of like a small road. Gross: Okay. Thank you. Another question. Do I get my right-of- Dk? Now my road is, I now have what was a private road with 35 foot ~ss on my property for the City. Now do I get that back? s: Is that an easement in favor of the City? Correct. On her north property line. s: Could she ask the City to vacate it? Yeah, that's something that we could look at. Gross: That could be done? s: It would be a separate issue. You'd have to come and talk to the ng staff about vacating the easement that we took at that time. Maybe it's that Ginger Emmin~ at di Olsen Ginge: Emmin! Ginge r Jt needed anymore. I don't know. We wouldn't be prepared to look at ith this. Gross: Alright, thank you. But I can address the City on that? s: Yeah. I think that's something that the City Council would look sctly. Not us. You don't see it. Gross: Who do I contact then, 3o Ann? s: Jo Ann. Gross: Okay, 3o Ann. Thank you very much. Emmin~s: You get. Is there anybody else? Mr. Swaggert? Craig 5waggert: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to request one other thing. In working with the architects, I would like to request the ability to move the scJtherly line of Lot 3 along with this request here because of the sitin~ of our proposed house is getting very close to the lot line. $o can I requ Emmin! Craig Emmin! Craig Emmin ;st that at this time? : Well tell me, what is it that you're proposing to do? Bwa~gert: To move, on Lot 3? ~: Yeah. Swaggert: To move the southerly line to the south a little further. ~: How far? Plann June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 17 Craig ~gert: No more than probably 30 or 40 feet. Just to accommodate site for the house. Emmin~ : $o let me just check. That would be something, he's only incre~ lng the size of tbs lot and that would be something he could put. He alre needs to do another site plan for the septic and that could be somet ng he could include on there. We could talk about it tonight but that' no problem with you in doing that tonight is it? Craig aggert: Okay, thank you. Emmin! : If you're the guy who's responsible for burning down the house that out there, you're already, I'm already a friend of yours. I loo across the lake at that thing and the fire was spectacular. I enj it and the site, the view is a hell of a lot better. Okay, anybody else nt to talk about this? If not, is there a motion to Close the publi l~earing? Batzl favor Farma stora.. shows wetla Olsen Farma feet boats moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in nd the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed. : I tried to access this property. I found it difficult to Four wheel drive. Boat. I wish, I would keep questions with to the proposed beachlot. The dock, it talks about overnight for 3 boats and on the schematic here it kind of shows, it actually shorelines. I'm assuming some of that is wetlands. Edge of · It shows about 90~ of the actual proposed permanent dock. It's through a wetland. : Would that be proportionately correct? It shows about maybe 10 xtending beyond the wetland. Is that where they propose storing 3 Olsen No, I don't know if that's actually portraying where the dock and the w~ ter is going to be. What we asked for him to portray here, it shows the s}oreline and that's the ordinary high water mark but actually the rest is cattails and wetlands. Farina that Emmin Olsen Emmin: water Olsen Emmin es: But as I understand it, Minnewashta does not traditionally vary uch? s: Well it does. But the ordinary high water mark is established. s: And what is that? What's the elevation of the ordinary high mark for Lak~ Minnewashta? It's 944.75. s: No. Planning Commission Meeting 3uno 1 9, 1991 - Page 18 Olsen Emmim high Olsen water and i Craig Emmins Craig 95 fee above file Emmin~ prima~ Olsen Emmin~ Olsen wetla what But m~ stake The water elevation. 2: That's the water elevation on May 24, 1991 and the lake is as r higher, real high right now. Right. Actually for Lake Minnetonka there isn't an ordinary high Mark. Nhat they do is use the outlet from up in the northwest corner 's 945. It's not showing up here. Swaggert: Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that issue? ~: Sure. Swaggert: The 100 year high from the Corps of Engineers is whatever t. It's 3 inches below that right now. The 100 year high. It's the, what's the term you use? Ordinary high and I do have that in my f you'd like to know that exact number. s: Alright. But we in looking at, in evaluating these we go ily by the vegetation that's there. Is that right? Yes. s: Even more so than just the elevations. Yeah, like with Lotus Lake. Ne didn't use the OHW because our d was actually way beyond that. It just so happens that the, well gu're showing as the shoreline, I was assuming that that was the OHN. ybe I assumed wrong. But anyway, the wetland, we had them actually out the edge of the wetland and that is shown. Farma wetla Olsen Farma wetla Olsen board Farma 3 boa propo es: But that's the inner circle? That's the beginning of the The wetland goes all the way out and then to the open water. : Okay, so basically that's just showing the walkway over the ds? Yes. That's where the boardwalk will be. It will be a permanent alk. es: It's not channeled or anything. That's solid wetland and these s then would go on some extension outside of that that is tionat, ely correct then? Olsen water Usually what it is is a temporary dock that's out into the actual Farma es: Okay. That brings me to my second question. It really isn't descr bed as a temporary dock. It's described in here as a permanent dock. So my question would be where they would store that? It's sort of natural. P1 3une Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 19 Olsen: What is being shown here as the permanent dock is the permanent dock ,cause that's going through the cattails and the wetland and that is perma nt. That's put in once and that stays there. Where the storage of the ~r dock, I don't know. I know you're going through DNR to get. Farma : Having taken out a dock every year, I'm kind of trying to figure out you're going to get that up and out and where you're going to put it. also, why 3 boats? Is there something in the ordinance that cover the 3 boats issue? Olsen F'arma Emmim Farma Emm i n~ F'arma Emmin~ dock Other, have That's the limit. : Because there potentially could be more requests than 3. : That's in the recreational beachlot ordinance. : Yeah, but it doesn't stop them from asking for that right? : For asking for? es: Asking for additional dockage. s: Yes it does. They can have, with one beachlot you can have one ith 3 boats if you meet all the requirements of the beachlot. ise you can't have it. And then you need an additional shoreline to er dock and more boats. Olsen And additional square footage. Farma ~s: There's another item in here that's listed as deposed HO pad. Can y, u describe to me what that's supposed to be? Olsen On Lot 17 Farma es: Yes. It's on the end of Lot 1. Olsen That's trying to show you where the location of the house would appro imately be that's being created for Gary Kirt to construct his home. Farma :es: Okay. Is that in the process of being built? Olsen No. No, no. They still have to get approval for the plat. They still have to provide the septic systems and show the sites out there. $o no, bl.t I think that's the only place you're going to build the house. It's beaut, ful up there. Farma':es: These easements that are for this proposed trail that goes throu~lh there. It looks like a lot of road there or a lot of. It's talki',g about grades in regards to that and it looked like visually, from as fa' as I could get in there in a suit anyway, it looked like there was a lot o' rolling country there. These grades, if this road is privately maint~ ined, are these roads going to be accessible to emergency vehicles? Planni June i ~g Commission Meeting ), 1991 - Page 20 Olsen: ordin~ that t accessible. And again, I don't know if I caught your, was that what your quest, ns was whether or not they'd still be accessible? FarmabSes: Well it's left up to a private individual to maintain these or pti covenant agreement among themselves. If the City doesn't find those e to access emergency vehicles to a recreational beachlot when need to. How do they? Well they have to be at least the 7A. Again, that's what the ice requires. Actually the private drives we don't, they're showing ~ey'll be up to iOA and we usually recommend around 7A. 10~ is still Olsen Well one of the problems that we have with the lot, as far as the priva' drive that goes, as long as it's servicing the two lots. When it's just individual lots then it really becomes just kind of an individual drive . We don't have specific regulations on that. We have considered doing where it would have to be paved and it couldn't be over a certain slope. Currently we don't have that but just looking at this, it looks like it's going to still be, the most would be a 10~ grade which is still like I said accessible. It still has to be maintained. You can't have snowdrift across it but you have that anywhere where there's someb dy with their individual driveways. They have to maintain it. Farmales: Those are the extent of the questions that I had. Batzl : Jo Ann, can you explain for me again why Lot 2 has to be an outlot right now? Is that because they haven't shown an appropriate septic site? Olsen Well also because, with the Ginger Gross subdivision that piece of prope~ ty which is now being split into the Lot I and Lot 2, there was a condi .ion against that they'd only have one building eligibility. That's one ting that holds it. Then also, that's the primary purpose. And then just ,ecauase there was no intent to develop it we said either combine it or do it as a, combine it into Lot 3 or as an outlot. Batzll : Okay. So we're really going back to the approvals on the other subdi1 sion if you will? / Olsenl Yeah. So we do not want it be maintained as a buildable lot. Batzl that Olsen build Batzl probl Olsen outlo : Okay. And if we did make it a lot right now, would that imply t was buildable? Yes. Yeah, we would have no way to prevent somebody from getting a ng permit on there. : Okay. You had indicated earlier that the applicant might have a m with that. Something about a mortgage. That's not a problem? To combine the two into one lot. No, he agrees with it being an Plann 3une Batzli apartm whole Olsen duple demol Batzli can mc Olsen becom, ~g Commission Meeting 17, 1991 - Page 21 Outlot's okay? Okay. In condition 3, we indicated that the nt units must be vacated prior to final plat approval. Is this Lhing really sort of contingent on that unit also being demolished? Well I think that he's still looking at renovating that into a or a single family. I don't know that it's necessarily going to be i~hed. Why is it key that it's vacated? So then once we approve it he e the 6 back in? What's the point? I guess maybe that's not, our intent was to make sure that it does either a single family or duplex and that the 6 unit apartment, that they to be BatzlJ number other Kraus~ guarar enter prett) Olsen: can it can s~ time u actual vacat Craig units appro% Olsen: Craig 8atzl~ be again~ norma somet Olsen each Batzl eventL provi< ~re vacated. That the leases are cancelled. That it cannot continue ~sed as a 6 unit building. Do we have something in here? Okay, so with 3 combined with 7, you feel comfortable that what I just suggested can't occur? In Jords, it has to be downgraded. The density has to be downgraded. : We were just discussing that too. The possibility of financial tees. We concluded that since it's a PUD, Craig's going to have to into a PUD agreement which is contractual and yeah. We've got it well iron clad. And there's a difficulty in do we make the people move out now or be, so we just finally decided that they have to be, it no longer rye as a 6 unit apartment building at time of final plat and at the e do record the new PUD agreement. Whether or not this condition ly, but it is my'understanding that you are in the process of ng the leases and whatever term. Swaggert: I'd like to clarify that one bit. We can still have two in there? Two people. Two families in there at the time of plat al, is that correct? Yes. Swaggert: Yes, we fully intend to comply with that. : Okay. On condition number 5 Jo Ann. The driveway easement shall vided. Do we normally not word it that they have to be recorded t one another or is that part of the PUD contract or don't we ly require cross easements be recorded against the property or ing? Right. They would be, it was the intent here to record it against f the lots but yeah, the cross easements. : Okay. Then in number 7, we'll have an amendment by the Chairman .ally I think. On the wetland alteration permit. Do we normally 'e that the boardwalk would go in during winter or some other time as Plann 3une Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 22 to mi ize disruption of the wetland or have we been letting them do this at an' old time of year lately? Olsen water Batzl Yeah, actually they have to be, they cannot be installed during the 1 breeding season is how it's termed. But we've been letting them do this during the summer? Olsen: Emmin~ 8atzl~: we Yeah. : You can't do it in the winter. I thought on a couple of them we made them go in in the winter or a condition. Olsen Well it's easier. I don't know if it was in winter. Batzl Ellso Emmin: posts Olsen Emmin! had tl : Well I thought it was, we limited it to some time I thought. : I remember that too. · s: We did something but it wasn't docks because you couldn't put the n. It was the dredging. When you go in and dredge. s: Yeah, I think all those involved some dredging projects when they cross a wetland so we said you can only do it in the winter when it's rozen. Olsen Yeah, then we do prefer it. Emmim s: Oh, it was removing the gravel from Lotus and they had to cross the w, tlands so we did that in the winter. And we've done other ones. Batzl : I guess I'd prefer to see some sort of condition or talking about minim zing the impact to the wetland and avoiding that season that they have o avoid anyway it sounds like. Is that part of a DNR permit process? Olsen No, that was us. We have that in our ordinance. 8atzl : And I had another question but I can't find it here. I'll find it soone' or later. Emmin! Ellsol looke~ I do like $omew .s: Okay. We'll come back to you. : I like this. I agree with the other residents that boy we've at this stuff before. We've seen all kinds of weird configurations. ave a couple of questions. I'm getting mixed up with redesignating et 2 to be an outlet. Doesn't that mean we have to find a 2 ere? Or do we just take out 2? Planni June Olsen: switc~ this lots ~g Commission Meeting ), 1991 - Page 23 Right. Everything will be switched and at that time then I will all the conditions. It just got to that point where how do I do ~rough this report and do it consistently so yeah, it will just be 3 tlot A and B. Ell Okay. And like you said, then you'd go through and when you refer d to it as Lot 4, it becomes 3, etc.? Olsen Yes. Ellsol to i it engi That was one thing. Let's see, number 6. They are being required .all by a professional engineer. That seems kind of vague. I mean ld be a mechanical engineer or a water engineer or don't we have our s involved in something like this? Olsen But they don't design it. They'll review it. It has to be by a licem ened, professional engineer that they sign off on. Ellso~: That does this kind of stuff. Olsen Yes. Ellso : And then our approval needs to be done. Is that an assumption or ghoul, that be stuck in there? Emmin!s: Put it in. Olsen That we have to approve it? Okay. Batzl : I'm sorry to interrupt but was this talking about the improvements and f nancial guarantees and stuff, we're not going to get any financial guara ,tees on anything like that or anything else? We're just going to let the a ~plicant go in and build? Olsen Right. This is not public improvements and again though with the PUD c~ ntract we can, if we find that there's areas that we do want some finan, ial guarantees, we can require it. We didn't see, the engineering depar' ment didn't feel that that was necessary with any of the improvements here. But it is possible. We can do it though. Batzl : And require boulevard trees? Ellso : The only other thing that I noticed was you discussed that you were oing to ask for a tree removal plan but I didn't see it in here eit . Olse Right. I forgot to add that as a condition and yeah, on Lot 1, Block 1 you do want to have that. E1 : I wondered why that Park and Rec thing wasn't ready when this was all ady and it just seems like it's a little half baked or whatever. I also hink that we can't make assurance to the applicant that it might not Plann June Commission Meeting , ~991 - Page 24 be a think but y< Snowm( that trail it pr that think thing~ don't about Emmi requi when lots 15,00 Batzl Emmin B her that right le trail at this time because it's so far out there. What I had planned is a lot of greenways to connect these sorts of things know, in 20 years how that evolves and how strong the Chanhassen le Club is or who knows what that it wouldn't be possible to tie n. It just basically says a trail and that would be whatever the is being designated later on so I know that was a concern of his and ¥ should be because it has a potential of being something like I didn't want him to think it never would be. It might. 8ut I it looks good. I'll believe it when I see it I guess is one of the I'm saying because we've seen so many of these kinds of things but I a problem if we add those few items that I had discussed. How Steve? : The 185 foot width here, in addition to it being narrower than we e under our subdivision ordinance, for people looking ahead to utlot B, that big piece would eventually be developed perhaps into s small as, well we've got a PUD but perhaps into lots as small as square feet. : If there was sewer maybe. Is that what you mean? s: Yeah. And you clearly understand that what we're calling Outlot or what was down here as Lot 2, there will never be any houses on ntil there's sewer servicing that area? You clearly understand that But not only is that only 185 feet here but you've got to have a road on and at that time the road will have to be brought up to city .rds so we're going to shave more off again. Is there enough room now for , Olsen both Emmin Olsen Emmin Olsen Emmin numbe with conce discu Craig have point contr it on the g n that long column there for lots? You might not be able to have the street in the middle and lots on .ides but you'd be able to have. ~s: There's plenty otherwise if you keep it over on one side? Right. s: To have a city street in there? Yeah. s: I agree with Annette that it's very confusing reading the lot s and the outlot B's and all that. That's going to have to be done teat care because we flip back and forth in the conditions. I'm real ned about the access from the highway. Have you had any preliminary sions with MnDot on the access? How you doing on that? Swaggert: Yes I have. We do have access to the highway. We do not .t, it's a controlled access highway and we do not have access at the where we show the driveway. We're requesting that MnDot move the lled access point to where we show the driveway. We currently have the 40 most southerly feet of that, where Jo Ann is showing it but ade is so steep there that as you can see on the topographical lines, Planni g Commission Meeting June 1 , 1991 - Page 25 it's ry steep and there's a guardrail there. And so we're requesting that ley allow us to move that access. Close that access and move it to the 'therly 40 feet of it. Emmin~ : When you say close that access, there's not an access existing there there? Craig err: There's an access existing. Emmin~ : Oh, there is? Like a field approach kind of thing? Craig eft: No, when I say an access, they have given the right to acces~ the highway at that point. Emmin: : Okay. But that does push it up close to the, because the road that immed those very sewer it's plans appro, to ad( permi are. exist Ellso~ Emmi n: a$I~ strad, being Olsen if th~ Emmi n! Olsen time Emm i n line requi Kraus posse Olsen into Ches Mar Farms is right next. There's another road ly north of it and I'm a little surprised that they'd allow all 'oads in that small a space. It really is, there aren't going to be ny people using this road right now but if that ever develops with lng in there, golly. Okay. If they'll give it to you, I guess ours to worry about. On number 6 I agree with Annette that the for the culvert, we should add language to say that the plan shall be by the City Engineer prior to construction. On number 7 I'd like the following. It says no more than 4 dwelling units will be ted as part of the PUD and then put in a colon and specify what they It should say one on Lot 1, one on Lot 3 and one on Lot 4 unless the ng building is converted to a duplex. : You're saying they couldn't... s: Right. Number 8, we're talking about the demolition permits and nderstand it, the long, low building on Lot 4 and then the one that les Lot 3 and 4 are the ones we're talking about those buildings demolished. Is that right? Correct. And then we're also including the apartment building too t's planned to be demolished. IS: Alright. Now, when does the demolition have to be done? I don't know that there's any set time that we're determining a set 'or those to be demolished. Is: You know we've got lots here. We got a building straddling a lot ~nd I don't like that. I think that would there be any reason not to 'e that the demolition be done before final plat approval? : Well that may be problematic because Mr. SwagQert wouldn't have sion of all the lots in question until then. Maybe we should do 6 months after final plat approval. I Ill Planning Commission Meeting June l), 1991 - Page 26 Krauss Yeah, if you want to do a date, 3 months. 6 months after the plat is fil ,d, I think that would be. Emmin! s: This is something new. Do you want to. I'd like to bare some kind F a date in there when that stuff gets demolished. I don't like a build Craig and w doing probl uncom Emmin! have Craig Emmin~ 8. Batzl until Emmin: 8atzl Emmin 8atzl Emmin colon after the c, words paved Olsen Emmin Olsen could PUD. Emmin house about lng sitting on a lot line. 5waggert: I believe with the PUD I'll have a contract with the City could stipulate it in the contract. I'd feel real uncomfortable that kind of work out there without a final plat approval. I have no ens putting timelines on it after that date but I would feel real fDrtable. ~: What if we put in 6 months after final plat approval? Do you problem with that? Swaggert.: That'd be very acceptable to me. Very acceptable. Then I think we should do that. I think we should add to number : I was going to suggest that we wouldn't issue any building permits it was demolished. s: But he may never need one for 4 if he converts it to a duplex. : But he'll need it for 1. s: Oh, you wouldn't issue any? : Any. On the whole thing. Well, if he agrees to 6 months. s: Okay. Let's put in language in after number 8. Just put a semi- Demolition of all buildings to be razed shall be completed 6 months final plat approval. Now on the driveway, it's my understanding that mmon, the part of the driveway that will be used in common. In other up to the Y and around that circle, that will all be 20 feet wide and right? Correct. s: From that point on they can do what? Whatever they want? We don't have anything that requires it to be paved. Again, it be, well I believe you could probably do it as a condition of the The ordinance doesn't specify that it has to be paved. is: Are there any concerns from the City about liability? If Lot is on fire and we can't get a fire truck down to it, are we concerned making sure we can? Planni Commission Meeting June 1 , 1991 - Page 27 Olsen: Sure, yeah. We're always more comfortable if we have a condition in e that it has to be maintained and a passable condition. We do that with ke any fire lane or emergency access. Emmin~ : To make this safer should there be some kind of a turn around at the e Batzl Yeah. Emmim. : So vehicles can get back out once they get in? Kraus~ : There is a turn around provided. The ordinance provides that a turn 'ound be provided at the point where you go from 2 units using a driv~ to 1 and there is that provision in there. Emmin~ : Where is that Paul? The Y we're talking about way up at the front Olsen Yeah. Emmin~ s: I'm talking about down by the beachlot. Olsen Well you could. Kraus,~ : The ordinance works in most situations. This one is about the longe~, t private driveway I've ever seen. It's an unusual lot. Emmin~ think Kraus: upgra, Emmin: incre, Batzl Olsen just too. them Emmin road that arOUrl Olse~ and p We also have to think about it ultimately being a public street I That's not impossible. : No, but we certainly have a lot of means to require that it be ed suitably at that time. ~s: Okay. I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with that. That's an ibly long driveway. What is it? Is it almost 1,500 feet? : At least. More like 1,700. We could maybe work out some sort of, I mean it's not necessarily n the outlot too. You probably want some way to turn around on Lot 1 Maybe we could just do T or make sure that there is something for :o back up into. ~s: Well I think we ought to have some condition in there that that .s built to a standard that will accommodate emergency vehicles and :here's something down there at or near Lot 1 where they can turn and get back out. Do you want to also add something that it must always be maintained ssable? Emmi~ Is: Fine. Plann June Olsen Emmin9 reside setbac down? Olsen Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 28 : We always, when we do those kind of conditions we always add. Okay. Sure. And then number lOi In number 10 it says if a new is constructed on Lot 4, Block 1 it must meet all required Is it real obvious that that means that that sixplex gets torn Well it wasn't clear whether or not they were actually going to tear make to me6 Emmin! new Olsen: Emminc. dwel 1 J that c Olsen: Emmin~ 4, Blt Olsen: Emmin<. have l don' Batzli Emmin~ broug} revis~ 30 Park is, o reall~ dumps1 but I think the rd I don Olsen water Emminl when t down. What I'm saying is if they do, if they do tear that down and it into just a single family residence, then at that time it does have t the setbacks. Right now it does not. Yeah but this says a new residence. This is only referring to a sidence. Okay. All structures. Well that's. s: It would only have one eligibility. You could only have one ng on it if he doesn't use the old one but I want it real clear that ne gets torn down if they build a new house on 4 is all I'm saying. Okay. s: So I guess I would say if a new residence is constructed on Lot ck 1. Or a new residence replaces the existing? s: No, is constructed because it's new. Then all other buildings o be torn down. All other existing structures have to be torn down. t want to see the sixplex stay there and a new house come on. : All other existing buildings on Lot 4. s: On Lot 4. Then we'd add a tree removal plan as a 12th item. You t that up. I think then we should have a 13th one that says that the d preliminary plat should show the southerly lot line of Lot 3 moved t to the south and should also show the trail easement required by nd Rec. Now that's all I've got. I was up there today and the place ce you get past the first two houses it's very poorly kept and it is a mess up there. There are vehicles sitting around and old trash ers and it was a mess and I was going to put something in about that think after seeing the proposal and talking to Mr. Swaggert, I don't he'd do anything else. I guess I'm not as worried about it. But on creational beachlot, our ordinance requires 200 feet of lakeshore and t see it. Well what I was doing, I measured the shoreline where the open is. is: Not just wait a minute. You've got two shorelines on here so 'ou say that I don't know what you mean. Plann June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 29 Olsen:l Well, one is where the ordinary high water mark is and where is the wetl The other one is the shoreline where it's actual open water. Emmin! : It's the lake side of the wetland? Olsen Right. Emmin! : Which one are you looking at? Olsen I was looking at lakeside of the wetland. Where the actual activ, would be taking place. Emmin! : Okay, now if you do that, what result do you get? Olsen I came up with 200. If you go with the meandering line it's like just t 200. Emmin s: Is that what we should be doing or should we be measuring it at the o~ dinary high water mark? Olsen My feeling is yes, we should do it where the open water is since that' where the actual activity is going to be taking place. That's where you w nt to, again this is an unusual one because it has the wetland. 5mmin!ls: And you came up with exactly 200 feet? I don't know how you measu ed it. Olsen I used the scale and I kind of went eft, eft and yeah. Emmin ~s: It's 200? Olsen Real close to it. 8atzl : Sounds like a precise measurement to me. O1 It was really, it was definitely a little bit over so I felt comfo table that you do have it. I didn't use a string. Dental floss. Emmi is: Under the approval of wetland alteration permit for the boardwalk do have, I know we've required these boardwalks from time to time. Do we any specifications for, we got in a little trouble with somebody abou what it meant or whether it could be on the ground or had to be el . Do we have any specifications now? Olse It has to be elevated. Emmi s: But is that in our ordinance now? Olse We amended it to say that it had to be a boardwalk and then I be eve we defined. K : We fixed it after that. Plann June Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 30 Emmin~ : I thought so but I couldn't remember for sure. If you remember that, t's good enough for me. And then number 1 it says there be no filli or grading permitted in the wetlands. I put down dredging. There shoul 't be dredging either. Now I don't know if in everybody's mind if gradi and dredging are the same thing but I would add that word to make sure. The proposed driveway has to be 10 feet away from the wetland I just how we came up with that number. We're talking I take it about the littl wetland in the corner of Outlot A? Olsen Right. Emmin~ : Why not 20? Olsen Well, why not. Emmin~s: Huh? Olsen Yeah. The more the better. I just picked, the minimal, at the least 10 feet would give us some sort of buffer. I mean right now actually the r lad can go right on top of it and have no buffer. Batzl : That was my question. Olsen Actually you could swing it around so yeah. Emmin s: Do we allow parking of vehicles on a recreational beachlot? Olsen Well you can't have the access across it but it happens all over. Emmin is: I don't think we do. Olsen You can't launch boats and you can't drive, where is it? Emmin Is: Yeah, number 3. No boat, trailer or motor vehicle, including but not 1 mited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, s~ ,biles, minibikes shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational bes ot. Okay. $o what's the road for? Why do we need a road at all? O1 Well, I'm sure they're going to use it to. Emmi ~s: What? Do something improper. Farml es: I would think it'd be an emergency access if somebody needed it. Ell : Injury or something. Farm es: If somebody got injured. Emmi ~s: Yeah but you know what's going to happen? There's going to be cars ked down there. That's true. That should be removed and just have it as a trail. Plann 3une Commission Meeting , 1991 -- Page 31 Emmim : I think there should be a trail from Lot 1 unless the Public $afet' Department tells us we have to have a road down there. That elimi any impact on the wetland. That's why I like it primarily. Secon, , when you're on the lake you don't like to see a bunch of cars par by the lake. It looks bad. We've got some beacblots on Minnewashta now have roads down onto them and people park down there all the time and doesn't look good. So I think we take the road away and give them a trail g trail that stays, well I don't care if it's 10 feet. And if Publi( Safety says they want a road down there, then it ought to have a barrit r to prevent vehicles from going on there except it can be removed for el ergency vehicles. The other concern I have about this beachlot is right now it's a rural recreational beachlot. You can have up to 50 dwell ng units with access. Now nobody outside the PUD can have access or use o' a beachlot. Is that correct? Olsen That's correct. Actually we were going to have a condition that just ot 1 and 3 would have access to it. Emmin Is: Why not Lot 4? Ellso : So you're saying if 2 is developed they wouldn't? Olsen He was just saying that's the only one, again you were telling me those were the only two lots that were going to get service. He wasn't goi to have Lot 4 to have access to it. Emmi Is: Let's get some input from you on this. Crai Swaggert: I guess that is what I told 30 Ann. I would prefer not to have t restricted from Lot 4 in case that's a possibility of them using it too it that would be the limit of it is the 3 lots. Emmi ~s: Okay, then we don't have to say anything because there won't be any on Outlot 8 or A and people can use it from 1, 3 and 4. Okay. But lain when, and this I think you should be interested in because when this if sewer comes in here and this becomes an urban rather than a rural beacl lot, now 80~ of the dwelling units which have right of access have to be w n 1,000 feet of the recreational beachlot. Olse' : But that would be new lots. Emmi gs: Yeah but do you know what? He might not have the right to use the ecreational beachlot because he's back a couple thousand feet. Olse : He meets the existing. Emmi1 Ells] 01 sel righ gs: So what? ,n: He's grandfathered. : Yeah, I would think that he'd be ~randfathered in. That be has the to continue. Plann 3'une Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 32 Emmin~ : Okay. I don't know but it's something I think he ought to be aware . It could be that anybody who developed that long neck of props' is going to want to give everybody access to the lake because that' where the value's going to be but it's only going to go up. Once you g to the 1,000 feet, you can only have a few more lots on it because you'r you know another 20~ and I don't even know if that will get up to his h . He may be excluded from the area. I don't care. Batzl part Olsen Batzl Olsen Emmin Batzl that Emmin got. Batzl appro varia Block with inc co in seco : As a PUD, can we grant variances in that regard for beachlots as f a PUD? You mean if they would come in again? : I don't know. You mean in the future? s: The question is whether you would want to. If we decided not to. : But that issue would be crossed when they came back in to develop [utlot B as part of an amendment to the PUD. is: Right. It's a future issue for sure. I guess that's all I've That's all I have. Has anybody got anything else? : I've got a motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommends al of the PUD amendment ~91-1 shown on plans dated May 28, 1991, ce to the lot width requirement for lot width requirement for Lot 1, 1 with the following conditions. The 11 listed in the staff report he following changes. In condition 5, at the end of the sentence e, and recorded against such properties. The driveway must be 'ucted so as to accommodate emergency vehicles and must be maintained passable condition. In condition 6, after the word engineer in the line insert, and approved by City Engineers prior to construction. Is t t where you wanted that to go Steve? Emmi ~s: Yeah. Batz : Okay. Number 7. Add a parenthetical at the end of the sentence, (one n Lot 1, one on Lot 3, and one on Lot 4 unless the existing building is to a duplex). Number 8 add, demolition of all the buildings to razed shall be completed within 6 months of final plat approval. At the of condition 10, all other existing buildings on Lot 4 must be fa: . Add a new number 12. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted by t applicant for city approval. Emmi Is: She said a tree removal instead of tree preservation. Batz KTau: i: Well is it called a tree removal or tree preservation? s: We'd like to access the positive. P1 June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 33 Batzl app1 easem shall A to New one 13. Revised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the nt shall reflect revised southerly lot line of Lot 3, the trail across Lot 1, Block I in accordance with Park and Recreation ndations, and elimination of the driveway onto Outlot A. A barrier erected over the driveway at the lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot ep vehicles from driving or parking on the Outlot A. Emmin : I'll second the motion. Is there any discussion? Batzl. moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend appro, al of the PUD Amendment #91-1 shown on plans dated May 29, 1991 with a var. ance to the lot width requirement for Lot 1, Block I and with the follo~ lng conditions: 1. T ,e PUD agreement will be drafted and recorded against the property. T ~e PUD agreement will contain all conditions of approval for the PUD. 2. A revised preliminary plat must be submitted redesignating Lot 2, Block 1 as Outlot B. 3. T ,e residence on Lot 4, Block i shall either be a duplex or single f mily unit· The 6 apartment units must be vacated prior to final plat a..proval. 4. T~e applicant shall receive an access permit from MnDot for the p'oposed access servicing Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 and Outlot A and B. · driveway easement shall be provided across Lot 2 (Outlot B), Lot 1 ,d Outlot ~ and recorded against such properties. The driveway must constructed so as to accommodate emergency vehicles and must be ned in good passable condition. · applicant shall be required to install a culvert sized by a ofessional engineer, and approved by City Engineers prior to uction, to accommodate anticipated flows through the existing tch on Lot 1, Block 1. · more than 4 dwelling units will be permitted as part of the PUD: on Lot l, one on Lot 3, and one on Lot 4 unless the existing g is converted to a duplex). , · 10. lition permits are required for all demolition; demolition of all he buildings to be razed shall be completed within 6 months of final lat approval. revised preliminary plat shall be submitted showing all existing and roposed on-site sewage treatment sites and proposed house pads and levations. f a new residence is constructed on Lot 4, Block 1, it must meet all equired setbacks. All other existing buildings on Lot 4 must be 'azed. June 11. T 12. A 13. R~ L~ k~ All v, Emm i n~ Ellso' Emmin~ Ellso Condi shown Batzl Emmi n Batzl Ell Chan ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 34 applicant shall meet any and all conditions of Conditional Use rmit ~91-4 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1. tree preservation plan shall be submitted by the applicant for city aroval. ~ised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the applicant shall =lect revised southerly lot line of Lot 3, the trail easement across 1, Block 1 in accordance with Park and Recreation recommendations, ~d elimination of the driveway onto Outlot A. A barrier shall be ected over the driveway at the lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A to ~ep vehicles from driving or parking on the Outlot ~. ,ted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. s: Next we need a motion on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. : We didn't have any changes in this one did we? s: No. : Okay, I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of ional Use Permit ~91-4 for a recreational beachlot on Outlot A as on the plans dated May 28, 1991. : That's okay. We can do it out of order. s: You said 91-4. : That's because she was doing. : Oh, you're right. I would woul~ to change that and say 91-1. ng the Land Use Designation from residential medium density to ntial low density. Is that what you want me to do? Emmi is: Just hold on. Ours are different here. Oh, okay. I see where I scr ,d up. Batz : You screwed up? Emmi is: Yeah. I was looking at this one. Ell : Do we have it right now or don't we? Emmi Is: Which one did you read? Olse' : She was doing recreational beachlot. Ell n: I started with that one and then you got me confused. Emmi Is: Alright, make your motion over and I will not interfere this time Planni ,g Commission Heeting 3une 1 , 1991 - Page 35 Ell Which one do you want me to work on right now? Emmin! : Whichever one you like. This is next in line. Ellso' Okay· I'll move the Planning Commission approval Comprehensive Plan lendment ~91-1 changing the Land Use Designation from Residential Mediu Density to Residential Low Density. Batzl : Second. Ellso moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend appro, al of Comprehensive Plan Amendment #91-1 changing the Land Use Desig' ation from Residential Medium Density to Residential Low Density. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Emmin is: Next we're on a conditional use permit for recreational beachlot. Is th ,re a motion? Batzl.: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use ~rmit ~91-4 for recreational beachlot on Outlot A as shown on plans May 28, 1991 with the four conditions set forth in the staff report and I guess I don't need to do that with the driveway. Emmi is: It does reference the PUD amendment and I think you've got it up ther That's okay isn't it? He's talking about the changes to the road. O1 Yeah. Emmi s: They're included by cross reference. 8atz i: Okay. With the four conditions set forth in the staff report. Ells n: Second. Batz, appr~ Outl~ cond I · = moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ~val of Conditional Use Permit ~91-4 for a recreational beachlot on A as shown on plans dated May 28, 1991 with the following ,tions: he recreational beachlot will be permitted only one dock with vernight storage of up to 3 watercraft. aunching of boats from the recreational beachlot is prohibited. he conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot is only for he proposed dock improvements. Any additional improvements to the ecreational beachlot shall require another conditional use permit and 4etland alteration permit. Pla June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 36 4. T ~ applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD Amendment ~' 1-1 and Wetland Alteration Permit All v ,ted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Emmin~ s: Is there a motion on the Wetland Alteration Permit? Batzl : I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alter tion Permit ~91-1, construction of a permanent boardwalk through a c 28, 1 fol inser and the A wetland as set forth on the plans received by the City dated May 1 with the 6 conditions set forth in the staff report with the lng amendments· Before tbs word grading in the first one we'll a dredging/grading. In number 5 I would add at the end of that , further, all approved alterations shall be undertaken at a time a manner so as to minimize disruption to the wetland. And number 3, rd drive shall be amended to read trail. Emmi Is: I'll second the motion. Is there any discussion? Batz i moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #91-1 for construction of a permanent boardwalk through a Class A wetland as shown on plans dated May 28, 1991 with the following conditions: here shall be no filling or dredging/grading permitted within the etlands. . he applicant shall receive a permit from the Department of Natural esources for the permanent boardwalk· · he proposed trail shall be constructed at least 10 feet away from the etland located in the southwest corner of Outlot A. · he wetland shall be permitted to return to its natural state after nstallatin of the boardwalk. · other alteration to the wetlands are permitted without receiving wetland alteration permit. Further, all approved alterations 11 be undertaken at a time and in a manner so as to minimize to the wetland. · applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD Amendment :91-1 and Conditional Use Permit ~91-4. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Plann~ June 1 PUBLIC Commission Meeting 1991 - Page 37 HEARING; ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A BLUFF PROTECTION ORDINANCE SECTION CITY CODE. Present: ZONING TO THE Public A1 & Dick Mayna¥ Roman Mike Lee F Jo calle¢ Lee At I didr allow,! Olsen Emm i n~ Olsen which from Lee A Olsen that Lee A addit Olsen Lee A Olsen ~me rty Lebens Jane Niemi Happe ~oos 3rensen Anderson 460 Flying Cloud Drive 10460 Bluff Circle 495 Lakota Lane 1450 Park Court 7600 Erie Avenue 10441 Bluff Circle Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings the public hearing to order. derson; My name is Lee Anderson. I live on 10441 Bluff Circle. 't see and I just got this copy and I didn't see the part that it d additions to the house. Well it's on page 2 of the ordinance. It says. s: 1401(2)? Right. Number 2 under there on page 2. On parcels of land on a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback he top of the bluff is 5 feet. derson: I didn't see the word additions in there. Well if your house is say 15 feet away, you can still, that says our setback isn't 30 feet but it's 4 feet. derson: What if it's currently 5 feet now but you wanted to put an on onto the house was my question? We're not permitting that. derson: That's my question. The 5 feet is as much as we're giving for that. Lee A~derson: I guess I have a concern about that. I have a 2 bedroom home ~here. There's a lot of land and where it is, I can't tell you where it's ~et back. It was built about 5 years ago but I think that's really basically taking something away but I'm not sure. Olsen We do still have the variance procedure which is what you'd have to go th' ough that to get an exception to the rules. It kicks you into having Plann June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 38 to pr up to hardship. We did want to accommodate it but still not allow right edge. Lee erson: I guess I feel that's really confiscating some right that I ha and I'm not convinced that that's totally right for this thing. The other uestion I bad was tbs ability to subdivide. I don't quite know bow I'm ressins that one but I don't see anything on this right now.- Olsen It doesn't really, you know if your lot is say 5 acres. Lee A n: 6.3. Olsen 6.3 and say 6 of the acres is within that bluff impact zone. Lee A n: About 5 would be. Olsen Nell that would be. Lee A n: So you're basically saying that, I'm not against the philo: ophy but you're also saying, hey you. Ne just cut you out because. Olsen Well, we also have in another section of the ordinance and you're in th~ area that doesn't have the sewer and water. Lee A Olsen I act have that subdi Lee A Olsen Lee A' other card , consi docum I'm s' way. and s tonig Emmi n Roman down Commi don't derson: Right, Hesse Farm. And under the existing regulations, you have to have I believe it's . I'll have to check but you already are controlled that you have to t least a certain amount of buildable area that's below the slope ould be in the bluff area. So already you'd be restricted on how you ids and whether or not you could. derson: It all has to be the 1 acre totally has to be buildable. Maybe I can check on that. derson: I don't want to get into my problems specifically but the comment I have is that I'm not sure that all the people that got that and I respect the need to get this out. I'm not sure more people lering the property that's covered here, shouldn't get a copy of this ,nt so they really know what's going on. I applaud your intent but .ill not sure that part of this isn't basically confiscating in some Some land that people may want to develop under an appropriate manner , I think it needs more study really than an approval or disproval ~t. Thank you. is: Thank you. Yes sir. Roos: I'm Roman Roos. I'm at 10431Heidi Lane which would be just .he road from Lee. I guess my concerns addressed to the Planning ;sion are very much the same. I also have about a 6 acre parcel. I see it in the foreseeable future that I'd be subdividing or trying to P1 June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 39 do th, but in paying the kind of money and paying the kind of taxes we pay for t t area for "the view", if the City's going to try to constrain or reft or stop even an addition to an existing dwelling, for example maybe a ga o or something of this nature, that's really destroying some rights that bought and paid for and are paying for every year with very high taxes It has no bearing on it being not sewered. I too believe there's got t be a lot more study and it's not just the Hesse Farm area alone. All the es on the bluff. Those lots are all sold and all developed but if you to the other side of the bluff going along towards the Hesse Farm East nd then move across south to the 8luff Creek Course. That area. They ave the same problems. Now their bluff area is a little more steep than hat the Hesse Farm area is with the exception on the east side. I just hink that the philosophy, the intent is beautiful. I think it's perle, t but I think we have to really do some studying with the individuals that re in existence there for what they have, what they've paid for and what hey're going to continue to pay for. One other question I have also has t do with the land in the business fringe area and of course the resid, ntial land that we're talking about on Hesse Farm East and West and that and that would be to the right. I guess it would be to the east of the b, siness fringe area. How far does the business fringe area run up TH 169 J Ann? Emmin s: You're talking about the area now where TH 101 comes down to 212. Roman Roos: Right. From the motel there if you will, moving up TH 169 with ;he junkyard on one side. Kraus:: Jeff, if you could possibly slide over. Batzl : 4,000 feet. Roman Roos: That's very good. I guess, that's fine Jeff. I guess my conce n would be that again one of the areas of study that I think has to be lo ked at very, very clearly is the business fringe area. I was on the Plann ng Commission when that was put in existence back in the late 70's. Emmi s: So you're the guy. Roma Roos: I'm innocent, believe me. Emmi Is: You shouldn't have admitted that. Roma Roos: At the time gentlemen and ladies, it seemed like a very good idea nd I believe it still is a good idea. It has to be controlled. s no question about it. I think what I'm trying to say is the study that ~as to be, I think has to be accomplished yet is if you're going to a zoning change. If I understand it, you're going to try to change the ning of that business fringe? pr that I think we have to separate out issues. This is a bluff line ion ordinance. It has nothing to do with the BF district except t of the BF district backs up to the bluff line. The BF district Planni 3une I discu.~ plan. everyb of val but I have ~ away ~ rain ~ bluff sugar messe¢ result start.~ tryin.( them .~ with ~ or COL ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 40 sion is something that started a year ago with the comprehensive It's something that has to be picked up again. We need to notify ody down there and work with that. You know, I think there's a lot id concerns being raised in terms of study of the bluff line itself ;hink it's only fair to say that we have studied it quite a bit. We ked it. We've seen instances where construction even 50 and 60 feet ave changed the drainage going over this thing where the first heavy e get, this stuff collapses. What we have is an extremely sensitive line that's covered by a few inches of clay and the rest of it is sand. We frankly have some horrendous examples of where people have with it and they're on the verge of losing some buildings as a of it and I don't know that there's a good answer once that thing · $o we're trying to balance the rights of the individual. We're to recognize the rights of people who are already there and treating omewhat differently because we don't want to come in after the fact n onerous ordinance. But 5 feet from a bluff that is that unstable, ld be that unstable, is pretty close· It's frankly closer than I wouldmBrefer to be but if that's where some of the homes are, we're saying we'll~'live with that. But closer than 5 feet, I can't, I probably be hard pressed to find an engineer I think who would tell you that it's safe to build that close to the bluff line· Roman ~oos: I guess I have to somewhat differ with you. I came from Calif¢ mia and believe me. Believe me, the engineering they can do marveJous things on the bluff. I mean your paying tremendous dollars for the vew just as you're buying lakeshore for example. I guess what I'm tryin~ to say, I think we need more study on this. There's a lot of issues that a;e dovetailed together Paul. Like I say the business fringe is not partI this issue but it is married to it because you're talking about visib lity. Views. Okay? I don't have the clean answers. I'm just sayin~ that I don't know if we're ready, at least the average citizen who's going to be affected by this. I don't think he has enough knowledge to reall' make some valid comments tonight and to give guidance to the Plann ng Commission that they may make a recommendation to the Council at this oint. Thank you. Emmin ,s: Thank you Roman. Yes sir. Mayna d Happe: I'm Maynard Happe. I live on Lakota Lane. I already have a pie :e of property there that the road will make your setback so far. If you hi.ye 30 feet, I couldn't have a building on the lot and it's already been .pproved as such. What would you do? Olsen Again, that's one of those cases where you'd go through the ordin~Lnce but since this is an existing lot of record, essentially what we're saying is that is most likely a buildable site and that's where you would De able to prove a hardship for a setback. A variance to that setba, k. Mayna' d Happe: Anything that had been approved wouldn't be affected by it? Plann 3une Olsen a hom~ posit! anythi setba( that Mayna Olsen Mayna' 1, 2, Olsen remov Emmin my un of re Olsen miss Emmin close ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 41 Well you'd have to go through a process to have approval to locate on that site but that's where the City would have a difficult on saying that there isn't a hardship when you can't even use it for ng. If we deny that variance to that 30 foot setback or from the k from the street perhaps, then we would be denying you a home on ct and your use of it. d Happe: All of the homes that are there are close to. Right and we use that. We look at that too in the variance. d Happe: They're all within, well I don't know, 30 feet but there's 3, 4, 6, 7, there's 7 homes along there. And that goes into consideration too with that. I don't see that ng your right to develop that lot. ~s: Thank you. Does anybody else want to be heard on this? And it's ;erstanding that notice of this public hearing went to every lot owner :ord that's affected by this proposal. Is that right? Yeah. I went through ail of it. I can't guarantee that we didn't ,ne but we went through the whole list and it was a substantial list. s: Is there any other comments? Alright. Is there a motion to the public hearing? moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed. Ells : I sound like a broken record but I've liked everything we've had toda so. Emmi s: You're just afraid to. E1 : To stir things up and drag it out any longer, right. No, I think that e're on the leading edge of a city doing something like this. I thin it's really important and I commend the people who brought it to our atte ion. Who knows how much more would have happened if we hadn't so I app iate the citizens who brought it to our attention and it really wash something that was on the priority until we did take a look at it and lized that it is in accordance with our city goals of maintaining natu 1 greenway and open spaces and the preservation of the natural envi' nment. I like it and I believe we have done the research that's ry too. I can see forwarding it to the City Council without further 'ch. Emmi ;s: Okay. Brian? Batz i: Jo Ann? In Section 1, number 2 under Bluff. We keep on having this toe of the slope. I've always been confused as to what the toe of the slop, is because that's the one thing that isn't defined. Plann June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 42 Olsen Sorry Right. That was supposed to be changed to toe of the bluff. Batzl. : Yeah, I asked you last time and I guess since you didn't change it I tho~ iht they really meant toe of the slope. olsen It's supposed to be toe of the bluff. Sorry, we forgot to have that hanged. It started from the bottom up so it's supposed to be bluff. Toe o bluff. Batzl : Okay. In Section 20-1403, Removal or Alteration of Vegetation. I would really prefer that we talk about the removal or alteration is prohi ired except subject to the following limited. I didn't really even write this out so much as I kind of wanted to bounce it off the fellow commi :signers here. It looks like we're permitting it except and I think the i ,tent was originally to prohibit it except. I don't know how we'd word t. I haven't really looked at it that carefully. And then in Secti ,n 12-1406 in the official map section. Do we really mean that we're talki ~g about bluff impact zones located on and/or within the official bluff impact zone map? Olsen I think what we're saying is yeah. It has to be on the map but it also ,as to meet the definition of bluff so if something is shown on the map t~at actually isn't a bluff, then they can get out of it that way but at th, same time it had to be officially mapped. Batzl : I was just curious about whether we have this line and the quest on is whether it means you're on the line or you're anywhere within that .'one bounded by the line. K wot k engi the and 936 an : Well, you have a line. For the sake of drafting purposes, we off the 200 scale aerials which show the property lines. We had ring staff figure out where that bluff began given the criteria that dinance establishes. There's an elevation that follows through there picked it up and it might be the 942 elevation in one spot and the another. What we'll do on the official city maps is then you have below that and above the toe and it will be shaded in. We couldn't do t t on this map just for the sake of drafting but we want to make it clea too that we realize that while our information is the best we have, we d n't go out with a survey crew and run the whole 6 miles of bluff line If somebody comes in with better information than we have off our off 1 maps, we want to correct our official maps. We'll accept the information. Batz : So if somebody came in and said I'm covered by the ordinance. I'm on y' official map but I don't think I should be, what would be sat y information? E1 n: Based on the definitions. Krau~s: Based upon a survey, a registered survey that shows more accurate info' ation. In fact, if I might suggest, there's language that I can lift PIann~ June from outli where City Counc Batzl hurry Kraus happe this We wa Ne wa we'd meet relat Batzl there they it re Coun¢ Krau~ ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 43 nother ordinance that I can't recall exactly right now but it es an administrative procedure. I've done this in wetland ordinances y if you get more accurate information by registered survey or the ngineer can just change the map. We don't even have to ask the City 1 to do that. How big of a hurry are we in to do this? Are we in any kind of Other than we want to protect the bluff as soon as possible. I don't think there's imminent danger that something's going to There's some ongoing situations there. We've been talking about vet a series of probably 4 meetings over a period of 3 or 4 months. ited to get it on the table. We wanted to notify all the residents. ired to get their feedback. If there are other directions to go in, happy to do t.hat. If the homeowners would like some opportunity to :ith us so they can figure out where the bluff is as we think it is to their specific property, we'd be happy to do that too. : I was just kind of following up on Roman's comment that he thought should be some kind of cooling off period to the residents. Now that 3ave their hands on a copy of the ordinance, they can figure out what l ly does to them and what it means before we pass it on to City 1. That would be reasonable. We had intended to send copies of the ordi This tomo, Batz a of m~ bett~ litt Krau: do ti we t show 8atz done thin but Emmi 3ane had the r~nce out with the notice but we didn't have them in time to do that. is not something where there's something horrendous going to happen row if we don't pass this today. i: I think if I was a homeowner I would like the opportunity to take k at this and meet with staff now that I've got a copy of it in front and I've got a chance to look at my own property. They may have r comments or their concerns may be satisfied if we allow them a e bit more time. s: I might add too that we'd like to prepare a video. We intended to at for tonight but we wanted to bring in some graphic evidence of why ink that this is a concern. We have at least 4 sites we'd like to you. i: I'm all for this and I'm a huge proponent. I think 30 Ann has a good job. I love the concept but I'm just thinking as a homeowner I Roman has a good idea to kind of. Nisei: Can I? You're being kind of loose and I know I'm out of turn ;eeing as you've etablished looseness here in not following rules. [gs: We can clamp down. Niemi: We got a notification that says we're amending something. We idea what you were amending from the notice so we didn't know what )riginal statement said and what you're changing it to. I think that Plann 3une Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 44 these uff lot people should have a copy of the original and what you're propo ng. Dick iemi: I don't think they understood the ramifications. Jane iemi: It says something's going to be amended. Well what is going to be mended? That's what we're here to find out, what are you amending and w at is this amendment Going to be so I think that the original needs to be sent out, brought forth to the people that this is effective along with our proposed change. Batzl : So I guess what I'd propose is that we table this once we talk about it here and we instruct staff to send out a copy to the affected peopl Kraus. : If I could add one thing. That's fine with us. We'd be happy to do it but the thing that we're amending is the zoning ordinance. It's this black binder here and everything that's in it but there is no specific bluff protection regulation at all right now. Ellso : It's like bringing something out that was never there. Dick iemi: ...this is a drastic change. Kraus : Well no. It's the same terminology. We're amending the zoning ordin nce by adding Section. Dick iemi: If you live there on that bluff line, you think of it as a drast c change. I don't think anyone here or on the City Council lives on the bLuff line. Emminls: No, and we pass things about various things. I don't own any comme ial property and we pass things on commercial property all the time. You ~ I guess this is a real small turnout which bothers me. It either , means that people aren't interested, which I can't believe, or that they reall were not informed and that scares me. Jane giemi: It was a very cryptic letter. It said hey, this is what... It reslly said nothing. Emmir IS: So it may be but on the other side of this I Guess is the prop( conf¢ Dick Emm i r doubt thin long or w 'ty, the existing property's are exempted so I didn't think people be too excited about that because we're not even making them non- rming uses. We're totally exempting them so that's going a long way. qiemi: But we've got 10 1/2 acres which...subdivided... gs: Right, and you just don't know now. It creates an element of and that's always horrible but I guess that the, I have a hard time lng that your planning to build over the edge of the slope. And as as we allow you to go up to 5 feet from it with your existing dwelling thin 30 with anything new, those don't seem like real'onerous Plann Commission Meeting 3une 9, 1991 - Page 45 provi ions to me but maybe they are. $o maybe Brian's suggestion is a good one. Go ahead. Mayna d Happe: The notice that I got was very vague. I had been to a meeti' g about the sand pit and everything going on there. I thought it was some ore to do with along there but I decided I best come and see just what r who was affected and who they were talking about. % didn't have any iea what was going on. Olsen We wanted to send out the ordinance and Paul was going to do that but b the time we had it in final form, it wouldn't have gotten out in time. Before this meeting anyway so it was kind of like we're just going to ha e to go with it. When we sent out the notice, it was one of those where we weren't sure exactly what we could say in there more than we're doing a bluff protection ordinance and call. Emmin ~s: I guess it's small enough so I guess...but we can fix that by just ~ontinuing the hearing and getting more input. And you know, talk to your leighbors. We'll table it. Maybe if everybody agrees with that. Talk ;o your neighbors and read it and let us know what your concerns are. Do i in writing or come in when we look at it again. It sounds like that the way it's going to go. I thought everyone who was here, when I walk~ in the room and saw a lot of people, I thought everybody was here on the uff protection ordinance because I thought that was going to be a big draw .nd I was real surprised when I saw. Jeff, we skipped over you and I t want anybody accusing me of running a loose meeting so we're going to over here right now. Far :es: I wouldn't be against tabling this for a period of time. I think this s an important thing. I realize that it may interfere with property ri . Some of the owners in this area but that happens in many cases in the ning ordinance. For instance on a lakeshore lot. In an effort to pr ve the lakeshore, I am not allowed to build within a certain distance of lakeshore that I want to the lake. The effort there is an attempt to the entire lake looking like a developed lot. It's an effort to off~ the community something and to preserve the lakeshore. The basic phil of this protection on the bluff area is an attempt to preserve the al area itself because it is subject to deterioration. It's a sens tire area. I'm sure since you live there you probably, in heavy rains and on, seen what can happen in that area. The intent is not to destroy your ty investment or to limit your rights for development. I know I wol Ld be sympathetic to grandfathering or issue the people who want to amen their homes or so on. The intent here is to make a community effort to p' otect this area and things are going to change here. With these highl,ays and this development and so on, 10 years from now this is not goin~ to be the Chanhassen that it is now. You yourselves are talking abou. subdividing and so on and the issue here is an attempt to try and pres. rye some sensitive areas of Chanhassen. I realize that with that atte. t there will probably be some infringement on your property rights. It's ~omething I think that hopefully we can work out in the issues of gran,'fathering. But I am not against spending more time notifying property owne' s. If you'll let me finish. I'm not against notifying further the Pi June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 46 pro y owners and having further discussion with this. I fully encourage any a every property owner to come in here and discuss this at length. I'd 1 ke certainly any property owner to be part of this process and hopef~ lly together we can attempt to protect some of the areas of Chanh~ssen that are worth protecting. You're fortunate enough to talk about the view that you want to look at. We need to change some of the ways hat we develop these areas or we're going to wind up with an inner city ook in this community that I don't think a lot of people want here. Hoper lly if it's just a matter of 10 feet away from a bluff line or 5 feet or 30 feet, many of these things, if these developments are taken or slight ly altered, create a lot of giving the overall effect of more open space and protecting certain sensitive areas. So hopefully we can do that. The o her issue, when we were talking about California. There are several homes here that have washed into the bluff area in the rain and I was fortu ate enough to be out in California in the last earthquake. Several of th,,se expensive homes were severely damaged, at least from what I can see. Even ones where a great deal of protection went into trying to keep these, homes up. There's no question in my mind that there are some places where development is forced simply because of the property values. It requi 'es it. The terrain and so on. I would not think it would be a good idea or us sitting here on this side, not owning property there, not to say t at there are some areas there just as a matter of public concern that that ~rea, besides the aesthetic differences, physically should not be bui on. That's of course always up for discussion but that's what we're here =or. Anyway to sum it up, I would like to see perhaps more effort in not ing people fo~ continuing this public hearing and I would not be rem' to vote to table this for the time being. Emmi IS: You're burning to say something. Jane iemi: I guess the whole presentation of this is telling us as news, we're all saying yeah. Let's protect it but this is coming on as a ative rather than a positive. Why not say if you're going to own it, your obligation to maintain, to keep from erosion. To keep from and do i from a positive level than say what you cannot do with what you own and just the obli bit Mike Emmi Mike Emmi are Jane we are paying dearly for .... tax situation is not here but we've n socked with a lovely increase so I think we're all a little on fge and we're kind of don't want something jammed down our throats. t have...presented in a positive that since you own this, it's your tion to keep erosion from happening then I think it might' go a little tter. This is a negative presentation. Sorenson: Can I say something? gs: Yeah. You haven't told us who you are though. Sorenson: I'm Mike Sorenson. ~gs: I don't know if she did either. Why don't you tell us who you ~or the record. Niemi: Jane Niemi. I live in Hesse Farm. Plann, June Mike but I Sadda how t build Emmin Mike these buil have but I bou elf bui aski like ns Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 47 orenson: I know you've already gone through the public discussion am one of the land owners in the business fringe area. I'm the Hussein of Chanhassen. It says it right here. I was just wondering is new bluff protection ordinance. First of all when they were ng this highway out here. Which one? ,orenson: Highway 5. Cutting trees down. Taking up you know and in types of areas, this is what has to be done. If you have to build ngs, you have to remove trees. You have to remove vegetation. You .o remove things. I'm not opposed to not doing it and I'm not opposed did buy some land and Pat Blood here, he's my neighbor down there. He some land based on a zoning that the City of Chanhassen put in -. We didn't buy it to look at. We bought it to develop and to build [ngs and things like this you know. And I was just wondering how, I'm here. I'm not getting up and I'm not ranting and raving or nothing hat. I was just curious to see what the city of Chanhassen has in mind or the fringe area. Emmi s: That's going to be a separate discussion. We don't know. Mike orenson: I got the letters. Emmi .s: That's because your property is affected because you're at the bott m of the slope but we wind up doing with, the business fringe area is some hing we've talked about many times. We've rezoned it. Mike Sorenson: I seen this article in the paper, you know that front page arti ~le in the paper saying how, you know the one I'm referring to? Emmi 'gs: I don't know. What paper? Krau s: That was about a year ago. At least a year. Mike Sorenson: Well it was a big full page article. I have it at home. Mayb 6 months, a year or so ago. Krau s: I think it was the last time we discussed it. Emmi is: Whatever. We've looked at it a number of times. We've rezoned it ,ral times. We've fooled around with it and we've just never found a sari :actory answer. There's a number of people on the Planning Commission who hink there shouldn't be any commercial development on that property at all There's a number here that think yeah, maybe there are some low in sity commercial uses that would be appropriate there so we're having t kinds of discussions and you'll be notified when there's more... Mi Sorenson: Okay. Like I say, our concern is people that own the ty in there is like Pat. He's trying to sell his and me, I'd like to h developing mine. I'm kind of in an area where I don't know where. Plann June Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 48 gmmin : Have you got the storage? Mike enson: Yes. I have the storage. And we just don't know where we can g . I came in with a pla~ and it didn't fly at all. Emmin! s: I remember· Mike orenson: But anyway. Emmin s: The thing is, this is a real dynamic situation. Especially down where you are. But it's dynamic throughout Chanhassen and the reason for that s, we're going from what was once kind of a rural community to what's becom ng very much an urban community. It's just a very dynamic situation and y .u may own a piece of property right here and yesterday it wasn't withi the Metropolitan Urban Services Area but today it is. Yesterday you could 't build. You had to have I house in lO acres and now you can have 15,00' square foot lots but the point is, whenever you decide you're going to de elop, you've got to come in and find out what the rules are in effect at thlLt time because those are the ones that govern what you do. And there s that keeps those rules static. The fact that you bought a piece of prope ty under one set of rules, doesn't mean you get to develop under the rul then in effect. You get to develop under the rules in effect at the time ou ask to develop and it's a risk you take as a landowner. We all do it. t's hard down in that area and it's hard in Chanhassen today but it's just he way it is. I can't offer you any comfort because things are real changing fast. We change ordinances just about every time we sit down nd it's not because we think it's fun or we're preverse. It's just · Well, to get back to the subject at hand. I think a bluff pro tion ordinance is very important. I think that Brian's comment on that ne section, that section on removal or alteration of vegetation to me said hing. I could literally go out and do anything on my property that I wa to do and fit it within the language that's on that page and that real bothered me because I really wonder if we're doing anything at all here ~s far as vegetation is concerned. But it helps a little bit if you do w' tt Brian said but I still think it needs some work. Plus number 2, clea' lng bas become cleaning and we don't really care if they go out and cleal their vegetation. We don't want them to clear it. And I think there shou d be specific language in 1404 that says that there will be no incr, ase of drainage toward the bluff. That no development activity will crea~e any increase drainage. If there's some drainage there now or ther, 's some drainage before you develop, fine. That's what's there but you we ' w or incr, putt. chan they only ~hic want look an't do anything to increase the drainage towards the bluff. See had some people come in and talk to us and I don't know if it's right ong but the information that's in front of us is that bluff's are ,dibly sensitive pieces of land. They're very fragile. That even ng up a building and having the roof collect water and direct it or ,el it or make it heavier toward the bluff can erode the bluff away and ye had examples of this apparently in Eden Prairie. And we're not interested in preventing those situations to protect the bluff, I'm sure essentially everybody here would be in favor of, but we also the bluff to be an amenity as you look towards it. You know not just ng out from it but looking towards it as well so when, we think of 169 Plann! ~une or 21 below valle' if po right the e mud s to ha erodi to be table meeti Olsen Emmi when talk 75 f Dick of ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 49 going. The old 212. That that area will be left very much with ially no development. There will be development on the bluffs but that and out into the area that the U.S. has there in the river , it's going to be kind of left looking the way it does now or better sible. And part of that is making sure we don't have development up to the bluff. Or like some people like to do and build out over [ge of the bluff. You do read about California. You do read about ides and houses sliding down hills and I just don't think it's going pen here but we want make, we don't even want the bluffs to be ~g away. So we think that this is important stuff. Something's going passed. I think enough concern's been raised here so that we should this for tonight and put it on our next, can we put it on our next Sure. ~s: And get copies of this ordinance out to everybody but make sure 'ou talk to your neighbors that you tell them, that you don't just say a lot of money in taxes. I pay a lot of money in taxes so don't o me about that. That doesn't help with me and I can't build within ~t of the lake that I live on. That was a good point. I can't my within 5 feet of the lake or stick it over it. iemi: Hhat if you had 300 feet and someone said you can't sell 100 That's the analogy...5 foot setback. E1 ind think this would give people a chance to take a look at their parcels and see if it would really be affecting them. Fa' kes: The analogy that I actually made was, if you misunderstood it, was the effort of doing that is I am giving up some of my landowner righi in an effort for the community good. I mean that's what's being aske~ of me and the question is, that's the only way we're going to presE rye some of this stuff. I mean that's it. That's the only way you can reserve. Dick Niemi: My question was the feasibility or lack of feasibility of subd riding it if necessary down tbs road and that's why using the analogy of i~ you have 300 feet of shoreline and you want to sell lO0, you've got some regulation that prohibits you from selling that. Farm~ kes: It's how it's developed. Emmi gs: And the other point is, when I hear you say to me I've got land I want to develop on the bluff, all the more important that I want regu ations on how that's done. I don't want it to just happen any way. You have the best intentions of protecting the bluff in the world you know and I concede that to you but you're not everybody and I don't know ,body is going to do it and I think the bluff is a real unique physical feat ire that we have in this city and it's got to be protected somehow. we haven't done it exactly right here. Maybe you'll come up with , II I Plann June Commission Meeting , J991 -- Page 50 some where we can make this better. We're going to give you the chanc to do that by tabling it. Roman Roos: Just a couple of quick comments. Number one...I think 3elf's right on target...analogy of the shoreline...bought land and developed on. We've been real lucky. If you look at the development we've got along the bluff so far, most of it has really turned out quite well. We're really fortu ~ate. Absolutely fortunate but I think every property in designing his h. me on how that sat on that bluff was considering...bluff because that' part of what he bought. Ellso : But if we make that assumption ongoing. Roman Roos: I understand but we need some control now, and Jeff I agree 100~ ~ut what I'm thinking right now, a typical scenario. You buy a lot. As a ontractor, the guy hires me and wants me to place that house on that bluff for the view okay. So what I do is I go in there and I'll take a look t the contours and I'll try to cut that house into the bluff and into the llside to somehow make it fit in. To tuck it in the land so they get the ew. Give it some isolation. What you try to do is plant that house on t t land. We haven't addressed that issue. In other words, I'd come back o the City and say here's my site plan. Here's the grading permit Paul This is what I'd like to do. Now I'm going to change the toe or I'm goi to change the top of that roof a little bit to accomplish this o $o when you talk about the top of the roof, what Paul's driving at but if we modify the top of the roof because the land will permit it to done okay without taking a lot of trees out. There's just some var' les we haven't addressed yet guys that we have to address and that is in t building process, the grading process, how you tuck a house in ther.. To categorically say a 30 foot limit or a 5 foot limit, I don't thin we can say that. Emmi gs: Do you think a 30 foot setback is a lot? Roma Roos: By golly I think Steve that sometimes you might have to have a 60 f. ot. Emmi gs: No, do you think that 30 is too big a number? Roma Roos: No, not necessarily but again the bluff is so unique and the tree , the foliage is so unique, I don't know how you can just cate orically say a number okay. Emmi gs: Well it's a minimum. R, Roos: Yeah. There's got to be some control. There's no question it but I don't think we've addressed that issue because there's so man variables that just a 3 page ordinance I don't think can address it. is: Paul, do you want to address of the things he's raised? Plann 3une Commission Meeting , 1991 -- Page 51 Kraus: : Well, you know there is the potential you could go for a site plan revie~ for an individual house. We've always tried to stay away from that. I mea you want to give the latitude to the homeowner to do what they'd like o do. We know that this is a sensitive bluff. We know where it's been inkered with all hell breaks loose. We know that there's properties that re being threatened. Yes there's probably some sites where you could sculp something out in there, although I've got to say that I think you would be very risky to do it. We know that the tree line comes back a short distance and in some places a long distance but the tree line is usual .y the bluff itself in many areas and as soon as we start tinkering with hat, as soon as we start excavating it. If you plant a house there, you'r certainly going to change the drainage going over the top. But ever' time we've seen that happen, there's been extreme amounts of damage ing. Either it occurs to that property or it occurs to the trees down )elow. They get wiped out as the erosion occurs or it occurs in the crees and the rivers that accept all the sediment and now we're being as to clean that up. We can't get away with Chanhassen washing over the ll anymore. The Federal EPA is suing the Metropolitan Waste Control Comm 'on to reduce the sediment load, the waste load in Minnesota River by 4, by the year 1996. The MWCC is in turn threatening us to sue, and they doing this to every communi.ty in the river valley. We can't get away ith that kind of stuff anymore, even if we wanted to. Romal Roos: I would encourage, I would really encourage the Planning Comm ssion, members of the Planning Commission to take a drive down the road I know what Paul is saying. There are some isolating cases that are goin~ to cause problems. It is not the majority of cases. I can look at ever' home that's been built on the Hesse Farm, east and west and on the far ide of TH 101 and...you will not see that condition that Paul's talk n9 about on almost 95~ of the homes that have been built onto the hill:op. I think we have to have some controls but I don't know the answer. I do 't know the...I don't know how you control a contractor going in and cutt ng and putting a house. I'm just saying there are some remote si tions that we've got a problem with. Paul, I agree iOOX. We've been vet fortunate. Is: You don't want to take, our attempt to control or protect, really to otect the bluff isn't in any way a criticism of any people here or opment that's taken place to date except for a few maybe, but ally speaking the 95~ we agree with you. It isn't a problem but those pro ties probably wouldn't be affected by our ordinance anyway. Maybe the would have fit in the ordinance anyway. Well, and they're going to be exe so I don't know if it's a problem. Rom~ n Roos: I'm just saying there's got to be more study. Emm. ngs: I don't agree with that I guess. The only other thing that I w .nt. I don't want more study. The input from people who live there. If 'gu have specific things you want to say about the ordinance to us, I thi ~k we've got to listen to that before we pass this onto the City Council but. other than that, there's not going to be further study in terms of Plann June con~u lando, Batzl examp essen, Ellso Emmin Batzl say/ Emmi K. cie sit gent ng Commission Meeting 9, 1991 - Page 52 ting people or looking at property. But we do want to hear from nets. I think we've exhausted this. : But I think I would be interested if people came in with real life es as to what we're doing how, whatever I'm trying to say. In e, how is it going to impact their lots? What is this going to do? : A before and after analysis or something. s: Would it have made a difference in the way they developed it? But they may have an undevelopable piece of property and they may s: Yeah, that'd be useful. : We're going to have some, well there's some vacations in the nt coming up and we want to give people enough time to come in and with us and we can go specifically over their property. The n who has 11 acres. He may or may not have an issue. He may not have ny Tight to develop that property because of other ordinances right now we'd like to be able to sit down and explain that to him. What we'd like to do is if you hold this over, if you could hold it over to the first meeting in August and then that will give everybody enough time. Emmilgs: Okay. And in the meantime you'll send a copy of the ordinance to all he owners of property on the bluff. And ask them in a letter to tell us h w it affects their property, particularly undeveloped property. Beca, se it's not really going to affect developed property that much except to t: e extent that you have plans to subdivide. Now we'll need a motion to tabl this.- Batz i: I move that we table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create a blur line protection ordinance. Ells n: And I'll second that motion. mot i moved, Ellson seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance amendment to a bluff line protection ordinance. All voted in favor and the carried. The item was tabled until the first meeting in August. Niemi: August when? ~s: I don't know. Ell : You'll get a notice. Emm ngs: The first Wednesday. Roman Roos: ...miles of bluff line. I mean that's a lot of people. Other tha~ the golf course. I Plann ng Commission Meeting June 9, 1991 - Page 53 Ellso' : And shs said she got 15 calls. Emmin s: They got a lot of calls and people said it sounds great. Lee ~ ~derson: My thing is I got a kick out of when the assessor came out last ,ear and he said...raised the value $125,000.00 on the lot... It's like 'm soing to get you and he did. Now if part of that Goes away, I won if he'll understand that part. Ell : Look into it. Does it go away? Lee ~rson: I didn't like the attitude when he arrived. I'm going to get ... Emmi gs: Well, who likes the assessor? Lee nderson: Yeah but when he says, I soaked your neighbor for just as much it was like. Emmi gs: By the way, the person who said who likes the assessor was Brian Batz i for the record. Krau :s: There is an issue with assessors. We try to get them to talk to us md not assess wetlands, not assess bluffs. EmmJ ~s: They shouldn't assess bluffs. They shouldn't assess the property of s that's on the slope. Roos: ...additional assessments for my land. El ~s: For land that you could never develop? n Roos: On the slope. Kra ss: See in a way, in the worst sort of way having an ordinance on the boo s helps you because then we can maintain that you can't develop it. It' not developable. Don't charge me. Emm ngs: I want to get out of here. Let's get back to order here. APP :OVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning Com, ission meeting dated June 5, 1991 as presented. COUNCIL UPDATE: E ngs: I don't want you to read this to us. Is there anything on here le want to talk to Paul about or that Paul, you especially want to br to our attention? Ba li: We just got it tonight. We haven't had a chance to read it. Em~ ings: Oh no. This was in the packet. Plann June Commission Meeting , 199J. -- Page 54 8atzl : This was? Emmin s: The report was. 8atzl : Was it? Emmin rs: Sure. 8atzl : Well I didn't read it. Are accessory structures grandfathered in if y 'ye already got them close to your lot line? Krau .' On the bluff, yes. Emmi s: Sure. Kra : In fact I can show you one accessory building on the bluff that's pret soon going to be over the bluff. Batz i: What about if it's not on the bluff? Emmi gs: Make sur~ you take pictures of it. Krau :s: Well yeah Brian. If it was erected before the date of the ordi ance, sure it's grandfathered in. Batz i: So my sandbox is okay huh? I don't have to move it? Emmi Ss: This guy wants a 1,240 square foot sandbox? Kr s: That's no joke. Is: That's a hell of a sandbox. He's got a bulldozer. He's got a D6 Emm Cat Kra, : But he didn't want it near his house. He wanted it near his nei~ hbors property. Bat: li: I feel so inadequate. I built my kids a 36 square foot sandbox. Emm ngs: I'm sure it's adequate. Ell on: I'm SOrry I missed your corridor bus trip. Sounded good huh? Emm ngs: That was outstanding. li: The bus tour? Did you guys go on the bus tour? E1 n: No, I was in Red Wing. Ba' li: Tell us about the bus tour briefly. Kr~ : I wrote about it but I gave it to you tonight. Planni g Commission Meeting June , 1991 -* Page 55 Emmin~ : I think let's take this stuff home. Kraus: : 3ust to briefly tell you what I gave you tonight. I mean there's some tems we wanted you to know about in general. Some work items but we did r n up a narrative of what occurred on the bus tour and what we think is go ng to happen from that. It was really kind of fun. It was one of those exercises that I think everybody learned from. It's going to be the start of a process. We're not sure where the process is going yet but we're working on that now and we'll come back to you with that infor lation. There's another memo on the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum that. I attended and Councilman Wing attended. Annette wasn't here at time but I talked to the other 3 members and kidd of outlined what hap at that but wrote that up there as well. There was one other thin~ that I wanted to mention and that's Moon Valley, just as an update. I th. nk you'll recall that last time I told you that they had 6 months to comp] . Instead of complying they sued us over the legality of the ordi ce. The Judge upheld our right to regulate them and ordered them to obta n a permit. May 25th was the 6 month deadline for them. I'm sorry, the eadline was going back before that but the 3udge gave them, originally they had until May 25th to submit a permit. They didn't meet that dead ine. ~4hat they've done is hired 3ohn Voss and his firm to prepare perm t applications for Moon Valley. John Voss is a credible professional in eyes and mind and Roger Knutson's eyes. We've both worked with him e and we're somewhat pleased to see that they're finally moving in the direction. That doesn't mean that they're going to fight us every of the way. You can almost expect that to happen but what we've told the le is fine. As long as they make application. 6ive the application a 1 ;itimate permit in here by 3une 30th so that we can schedule it for the fir meeting in August, we'll be content not to ask for any injunctions or any hing else. So that's the status. We'll keep you posted on that. That is ound to be interesting. Emm ngs: Okay, open discussion on Highway 5 corridor. Arboretum issues. Is .here anything else we can do before we adjourn? Bat .1i: We could chastise the person who was late a little bit more. ngs: Yeah, we could have been done a half hour ago but for. E1 : Considered it chastised. Ba i: Thank you for showing up actually. All of us becuase otherwise we wold have had a room full of really unhappy people. Ba' zli moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor an the motion carried. The meeting mas adjourned at 10:45 p.m.. mitted by Paul Krauss nning Director Pr. pared by Nann Opheim