The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 08 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 21, 1991 Chai n Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMB RS PRSENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings, eria Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens STAF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Plan er; and Kathy Aanenson, Planner II PUBL C HEARING: REZO lING OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO R RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Publ c Present: lame Add, ess Jane A. Poulos Davi H. Halla Eric Podevels B jot & Jerry hendr ickson Don alla Mar Hal la Mar Danielson Clhar~otte Morrison B ai Bury Sun Chojar Lot 12, Deerbrook 10095 Great Plains Blvd. 200 South Shore Court 900 Homestead Lane 10,000 Great Plains Blvd. 770 Creekwood 11150 Sumter Circle 1051 Homestead Lane 5537 Co. Rd. 4, Minnetonka 55345 7480 Long View Circle Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings cal ~d the public hearing to order. Day Halla: I'm David Halla. I sold part of this property to my brother her~ when I retired. I kept 10 1/4 acres for myself. Now we've been out her~ before this was even a city. When it was still a township. Now of COUl thi.~ Corer litt hav~ com haw thi to wit I k~ tha Emm D~lv you you when it became a city it had all of these people come in and ail bureaucracy to run everything but these people in the Planning ission don't represent the people. They represent their own political le aim. The things that we've been doing with the~e large acreages n't interferred or caused conflicts with other people. But now they're ng in and wanting to change the way we do things and I don't think they a right to do that. But they're going to ram it down our throat and I k this hearing is probably going to turn into a dog and pony show just eQitimize their way of coming in the back door and changing things out allowing the people to have a say. And I don't think that's right. ow the past history of Chanhassen, you people rubber stamp everything the Planning people come in and do and that isn't right. ngs: It isn't true either. d Halla: Well, a lot of it has been in the past. And you know when come out and invest a lot of money in property 30 years ago and then have people come in here and now want to tell you how you can use that erty, then it doesn't become a democracy anymore. I take strong Plan ing Commission Heeting Augu~ t 21, 1991 - Page 2 objections to them coming and doing that. Another thing, you've got this blur' rezoning thing. Now when I built my house out there, I built my hous, right on the edge of the bluff. I would like to know how these peop e in the Planning Commission get the expertise to tell a homeowner or a de' eloper how far to have a setback. They don't know the ground cond tions in each area. I'm sure they're not that smart. I think each loca' ion has it's own uniqueness. Now my house is built approximately 5 feet from the edge of the bluff. I would have never built it that close if I hac thought that I'd have had a problem but it took a D6 dozer 3 days to dig he basement. That's how hard the ground was. I haven't had any prob ems with erosion. I haven't had any problems with runoff. I even bett, red it. I took and planted crown vetch on the hillside which grew a real good ground cover and prevented erosion but now they come in with this rule and say you have to build the houses 30 feet back. Of course I understand mine's grandfathered in but the point of it is, we've got too damn much government. You know a little common sense like the Village Fathc.rs in the township went a long ways. But now it doesn't seem that comm~ n sense prevails. We've got people coming in here with their own litt e ideas and not representing the interest of the people and wanting to ram t down our throat. The same thing with changing this from A2 to Rural Resi. lential. Emmi ~gs: What effect does that change? Davi. Halla: It's going to increase the taxes.. It's going to increase your taxes and already we're being taxed out of house and home. Emmi ;gs: And how will it increase your taxes? Davi Halla: Nell they're going to take away the Green Acres clas ification when they go to Rural Residential. Emmi ~gs: Is that true? Acne ~son: No that's not. I didn't mention that but that is in the memo. I di speak to the Orlin $chafer at the County Recorder's office and he said that the underlying zoning is not the criteria for Sreen Acres. They have a checklist of criteria, one of those being acreage. 5 acres I bell ,ye and the use that they're using has nothing to do with it. It could be R and still quality for Sreen Acres so the underlying zoning is not the iteria that they use. Davi Halla: But years ago I used to run registered Angus cattle out there and had a pretty good sized herd. They change this from A-2 to R Resi ential, that's not going to be allowable anymore. Emmi ~gs: That's right. Is that right? Davi Halla: And that certainly was an agricultural use. Emmi ge: Can he run cattle if he's changed to RR? Acne son: Agricultural says that they can have cattle and if he continues to hlve it, he can. Planling Commission Meeting August 21, 1991 - Page 3 Emmi gs: So that's not right either. Davi Halla: Yeah, but not if they change it from A-2 to RR. Aane son: No, agricultural is still a permitted use and cattle is one of thos~ criteria. Davi( Halla: But it's going to increase the taxes when you go from A-2 to Emmi ,gs: Is his property one of the ones that is being changed from A-2 to Krau :s: It is but there's something that I'm not certain of here. What's confusing me is 3 years ago I believe the Halla's had approved a 5 year vari .nce to the ordinance that changed to 2 1/2 acre lots when the Lake Ann agre ,ment with the Metro Council. We gave a couple of variances for plats. Prel minary plats that were filed and they were given at least 5 years to come in and final plat the property. This is the first time tonight that we'w, heard, well it's in a letter from Don Halla that there's no intention to s~Lbdivide the property I think I read until the turn of the century. That is not the understanding that we had with them 3 years ago. If that in f. ct is the position, then we will assume that this is rural land not sub3~ ct to the subdivision and there won't be any inherent grandfathering for hose 2 1/2 acre lots. We're more than willing to do that. Emmi gs: Okay, so if they don't want that land changed to RR, they could say hey're not planning to develop the property. Get out of the arra ~gement that presently exists and keep it agricultural. Is that what you' e saying? Krau ;s: Sure. Emmi igs: Alright, so they basically have a choice to go one way or the othe ? Okay. So we've addressed two concerns of yours is the tax and usin it for agricultural purposes. Do you have any other specific prob ems with changing it or can you tell us how else you think this might nega ively affect you? The change from Davi Halla: I sold this property to my brother when I retired from the busi ess. Emmi ~s: So it's his problem? Davi Halla: It's his problem with the subdivision. However,,the 10 1/4 that I've got are divided into 3 lots that go with the subdivision. Now don't intend to ~evelop that into 3 lots. Whomever I sell it to, and I e I can sell it and get the hell out of Minnesota as soon as possible but ~homever I sell it to then has the priviledge of developing those other two ots into additional acreage out of this 10 1/4 acres. $o if my br wants to drag this thing out and procrastinate, that's his business but hen I become the victim if he doesn't perform. Emmi ~gs: And how does the change from A-2 to RR affect any of t~at? Plan Augu.; Davi in t thos, when diff, Emmi Davi Olse Davi had this degr were this cal~. Acre. only acre Acre. who. chan than $750 flat your tell look( went He sE doin! we'r that to i enou Emmi info Asse.~ that unde~ the know Davi clas goin.~ If t lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 4 Halla: Well first of all, they may be telling you here, these people e Planning Commission that the taxes won't increase but I've talked to people down there at the Assessor's office and they have told me that you change it from the agricultural to Rural Residential, the tax is rent than what it is on the agricultural rate· Okay, and who'd you talk to there? Halla: I talked to Scott, it starts with a W the last name. : Winter. Halla: Winter? And I also talked to the main Assessor. In fact we real go around here a while back. I went down when my brother did final plot on the subdivision because I am still involved in that to a e and I hand carried the papers in there and saw that all the taxes paid and everything and it went through to the registar and all of and I was about to go out the door and the accounting office, the gal d and said hey Mr. Halla. Come back here. So I came back and she you owe $750.00 for Green Acres change. I said what do you mean Green change? And he said, well he said according to the assessor you have a 2 1/2 acre lot. I said what do you mean I've only got a 2 1/2 lot? I said I've 10 1/4 acres. I said that qualifies me for 'Green · She said no, it's been changed. So I went over to this young fella id the changing in the Assessor's office and I said what did you do ing this back here? I said I was over here talking to you not more 10 minutes ago and I says now, I says I'm telling that I have to pay O0 for the Green Acres classification. I said that's wrong and you out lied to me. I said you were the one who did it. I said this is initials isn't it? He said yeah. I said okay. I said why didn't you me you had done this? And so then the head assessor came along and he d at it and he said, you're right. He said we made an error and he across the street to the accounting office and told her. He said hey. id he's Got 10 1/2 acres here· Not 2 1/2. He said you had no right that. And so they changed it all back but that's the same thing that talking about here. When you change it from A-2 to Rural Residential changes the classification and the tax base. Now if these people want crease the taxes on everybody that has large land, why don't they have h guts to come out and say it instead of coming in the back door? gs: As a matter of fact, in the information they gave us, there's mation here that they talked to Orlin Schafer who's the Carver County sot and he says that the residential zones qualify for Green Acres and lots that qualify or meet the criteria under A-2 would also qualify AR. That's the information we've got from staff that they got from ounty Assessor. Now you're saying something quite different. I don't Halla: They've told me that if you change it from the agricultural ification to rural residential it's a different tax base and they're to assess you at a higher tax rate. I think these people know that. ey don't know it, they're confused. Plan ing Commission Meeting Augut 2J, 1991 - Page 5 Aane :on: The misunderstanding is the lot size. I think what Orlin said is t ere's a minimum 5 acre lot size so if someone's zoned RR and has 5 acre , they can apply for Green Acres. Emmi gs: I thought it was Aane son: Maybe it's 10. So if he has 10 then he's fine. $o whether you' e 2 1/2 and you're A-2, then you couldn't get it. If you're 2 1/2 acre in RSF you couldn't get it. It's the lot size. Not the zoning desi on. The lot size. Davi Halla: Yeah but what you don't understand young lady is that large acre ~es are still Green Acres until it becomes less than 10 acres in tota . So like in my brothers situation where he's got 100 and some acres. Emmi gs: I think she's saying the same thing you are. Davi, Halla: Yeah, he can sell off all of those lots individually until he gets down to less than 10 acres. At that point or it has to be 10 cont guous acres. So after it becomes less than that, then they go into this rural residential rate which is a higher classification. $o if they come in here and want to do this on these large acres and change it from A-2 o rural residential, you're going to increase the tax rate no matter what they are telling you. I mean that's the bottom line. Emmi ~gs: Okay, and I guess you've raised some questions here. Our moti 'ation in doing this. Now this move was motivated by us sitting up here When we were working on the Comprehensive Plan there were some issul,s that came up and it seemed to us to be a good idea to change subd. visions in the A-2 to RR. We thought it was better for the subd. visions. Not motivations about taxes. No motivations about anything else 3ust that it seemed like it fit better than it does in A-2. Now it may ,e that and I guess I'd still like to know if you feel, right now you have control over a parcel that potentially could hold 3 houses where now ther 's one. Is that right? Davi Halla: Correct. Emmi gs: And it's presently A-27 Davi, Halla: Correct. Emmi gs: And I guess my question to you is, will the change from A-2 to RR adve"sely affect you? Not your brother. Not everybody but will it affect you legatively? Davi, Halla: Yes it will because it will increase my taxes going from to RI. Emmi gs: And you think that will happen, once this is passed you think that will happen immediately regardless of what you do with the development of y,~ur land? Plan Augu: Oavi I th uniq~ land, side beca, that just that EmmiT Davi( his sque~ heat call told on t thes to c Resi, uniql You righi EmmiT of ye Davi¢ thin.~ Emmir land'~ becaL Oavi¢ catt scal, ing Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 6 Halla: That's correct. And that's why I am adamantly against it and nk some of these large parcels of land that are set apart that are e like my brother's situation there with a nursery where it's ocked with the golf course on one side. With the canyons on the other That's not going to have a negative effect on the surrounding areas se it's ki;~d of like an island in itself. It has natural boundaries surround it that's separated away from the other residential so. It's like the Graffunder that moved down there. Now he was a city slicker come out of 81oomington. was a city slicker from Minneapolis. Halla: Well okay. When Dave Teich's pigs would squeal up there at Duse, he'd come up there and holler at him that his pigs were ling. When I had my cattle out there and in 3une the cows get in That's when the cycle comes. The bulls beller. Well he was always ng the Sheriff up and saying Halla's bull are bellering. $o finally I the Sheriff, I says tell him if he wants to come down and put a muzzle at 2,000 pound bull, to go ahead and do it. I mean I think some of things are a little bit asinine ~o come in and say hey, we're going tegorically change all of this stuff now from A-2 to Rural ential. Limit the use on everything when some of these areas are e amongst themselves. I think you have to judge each individual area. ust can't categorically go across the board and say hey. This is for everybody. gs: Let's back up. You said limit the use. This won't limit the use ur land or do you feel that it will? Halla: I feel it will. It's already spelled out in here certain s that they wanted it limited to. gs: And what way do you feel that it will limit the use of your Again, let's stick to your land for purposes of your comments se I want to know if it's going to harm you. Halla: Okay. I used to run cattle out there. Now if I go and put e back on that land again and I've got all the squeeze chutes and the s and the corrals and the pins and all of that are in there. If I go and ~Iut cattle on that 1.and again and they say that you can't run it agri~ltural and it's rural residential. Well rural residential won't clas~ Emmir Resi¢ Emmi some' it w¢ Davic to RF nOW . ify for running cattle. Os: Okay, we covered this once. ent: You couldn't build the shed for the cattle though. gs: That's true. You can't build the accessory buildings that Jmes you have associated with farm use. That's true. That is a way ~ld limit your use. Halle: Right. But the main thing is that I know that going from A-2 is going to increase the taxes and we've got enough damn taxes right The only other thing that I'm objecting to is this classification of Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu. t 21, 1991 - Page 7 the luff setback. Now I think that has to be addressed individually. Emmi ;s: Wait a minute. Can you hang around because we're going to addr that individually in just a few minutes. That's the next item on the genda so why don't you hang around and give us your comments on that. Davi Halla: Alright, fine. Thanks. Emmi Os: Is there anybody else that wants to be heard on this? Yes sir. Mark Danielson: My name's Mark Danielson. I have a lot over in Lake Riley ws and my concern is too about the taxes. To me it doesn't make sense that if you're going to go from agricultural zoned area to something that's call d a residential that the taxes are going to stay the same. I think that we as property owners need to have an assurance from somebody that taxe~ may go up but we're not going to be in a classification that's going to 3Lmp us up. The other thing is at Lake Riley Meadows there's only a coup e of lots left and I don't think that anybody's going to come in there and ut a cemetary in it and I would assume that if it's zoned A-2 they can' just go in and put a cemetary in. They've got to come in and talk to the ommission or whoever before that can be done. Some of the things abou buildings or stables or that type of thing, I would think that that woulc have to go before a commission and I think it does say that there's some variance for that and that's keeping with the large lot development. If s~,mebody wants to have horses, that's nice. It would make sense to me, at 14ast from my perspective and where we have a lot, that each one of thes4 areas be looked at to see where there's a potential problem. Obvi usly there must have been.some reason that you decided that maybe thes should be RR versus A-2. Whether it was a specific problem that you had ith fear that somebody was going to come in and want to do something, but :ome of these areas, especially if there would be a change in the taxe are basically developed. I don't know as well the other large lot area: 'but I can speak for our area on that. Thanks. Emmi gs: Thank you. Anybody else? Char .otte Morrison: My name's Charlotte Morrison. I live in the Pioneer Hill area and I just want to tell you that I'm happy that you're changing this and I think in the long run it will be beneficial to us and I know that things can be put on these lots without getting permission for it that migh' be detrimental to neighborhoods and I just wanted you to know I'm happ' Blai Bury: My name is Blair Bury. I have a lot in Timberwood and my conc~ rn also is the possible tax increase. I have to agree we have plenty of t. xes now and I really don't appreciate any more if we don't need it. I thin the limitations are reasonable that are on there now and I think that s everybody's concern is going to be the tax change. I agree. They're going to have to go up but I think the mil rate should stay constant if we can. Suni Chojar: My name is Sunil Chojar. I have a lot in Timberwood Esta es. It's only a lot at this stage. My question is, how is it going to i ~pact the large size that is already existing here? Can they be Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu: t 21, 1991 - Page 8 furtler subdivided or what's going to be the effect of A-2 to RR with our size.~ ? Aane~son: It's the same minimum lot size. Same setbacks. 2 1/2 acres. The ame setback requirements in both zones. Emmi gs: Okay. So on items you're mentioning, there's no difference betw en the A-2 and the Suni Chojar: So the size is going to stay the same? Emmi' gs: The size is going to stay the same. Suni Chojar: Thank you. Don alia' Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'm Don Halla. I'm conc rned about changes that would affect the nursery business. If you read my letter, you incorrectly read or stated what I said in the letter. our ntention was to stay in the nursery business in this area and not to be f, rced to subdivide. But in fact I was forced to go into 2 1/2 acre lots I had just purchased the property from my brother. Taking into ~onsideration the cost and the value of the land with the anticipation that would remain at 2 1/2 acre lot sizes. Then it was determined that it w~s changed to 1 lot per 10 acres. In order to preserve the value of my land and not lose 3/4 of it, I was forced to come in with a subdivision for 2 1/; acres. It was not something I wanted to do. It was something that was orced upon me by economics by a purchase that had just been done and then a change in zoning ordinances had put me in a box. We have tried and I as ed permission to drag my feet as much as possible. I think you know that so I could remain in the nursery business. Ne have met all the rules and egulations. We have given up property for road easements, etc.. We have three lots that have been subdivided and when you talk about Green Acre~ we were back charged in Green Acres prior to the subdivision even goin! in. Prior to the 2 1/2 acre lots happening and that was done because it wis determined that we were going to do it in the future so we would lose our Green Acres advantage of those areas and we were charged at regu ar lot values. Supposedly 3anuary 1 when the subdivision takes place, you' e supposed to be appraised on 3anuary 1. We actually had it signed by the .ity sometime I believe in February or March. It wasn't registered unti that time. Our land values actually were looked at and the Green Acre removed as of 3anuaYy 1 because they anticipated us doing it sometime this year which is incorrect but it was done and nobody's reversed it and we'r paying taxes on the higher rate. So how that preserves Green Acres for ther people and how it would be involving them, I don't know. It did adve sely affect me personally. As far as the intention of subdividing and so f ,rth and continuing with the project, I only want to do so as rapidly as y alon acre chart bull meth plan the .u folks force me to do so. It is my intention, as I have said right , to stay in the nursery business. Maintain probably.at least 10 or 12 acres for my nursery operation in the center core of this. Any lng from A-2 to RR could adversely affect my ability to put up lings and so forth that are needed to operate in the agricultural .d that we have been operating on. We still would continue to grow material. We still have those plans on doing so. I am only doing :ubdivision and I will only do the subdivision in order to preserve the Plan ing Commission Meeting Augu, t 21, 1991 - Page 9 valu of my property. Based upon putting myself in the box of having paid way oo much for the property if all I'm able to get is 1 lot in 10. And that s, I think the letter is self explanatory. Even now we have really growing on almost 2 1/2 of the 3 acres area is still in agriculturaI. It's stil in trees, shurbs and evergreens. We still harvest it. We have lost the teen Acres on those two lots that are still being used for agri ultural purposes, even though they are right attached to the rest of the ursery and are being used for agricultural purposes. I think RR chan ing would probably make this even worse. I don't know. I don't know the xact ramifications of that but if it's already happened under A-2, I cert inly think it would get worse under RR. So I would prefer to keep it the ay it is and of course at this point there's nobody else living there that it affects except one person and that's Mark Halla. Well actually two. Dave Halla would also be in that area. Any questions? Emmi ,gs: Are you going to stay around? They may have questions for you late' . Yes sir. Mark la: My name is Mark Halla and I'm currently the only resident at Greal Plains Golf Estates. I own the one lot that is sold and Don does have a point that it's currently being used for mainly nursery use. The othel two lots that have been subdivided are 100~ nursery use at this time. Of c~,urse as everyone else is concerned about taxes, I am as well. There's no n~,ed to get them any higher than they have been and we're all hoping to keep them as low as possible for as long as possible. I also have concerns that I want to stay in the nursery business as well. It's been a family oper ~tion for a long time. We've been here from the time the City started. Basi :ally a township to a city. We've helped employ quite a few citizens. Ne b,~sically are a sanctuary in ourselves. We've got the natural boun~laries. As has been pointed out, we grow the trees. Basically it seem: to me that we're an ideal thing for a city to have. A working nuts, ry is open space that you didn't have to take from a developer. You didn't have to fight for it. It seems to me you'd want to preserve it as long as possible. I don't personally believe that's going to continue if we c~nvert to RR. We have enough problems as it is under A-2 and forced to subd vide as Don has pointed out. Some of the things don't seem right. It seem like we're growing a method that in a sense doesn't make a lot of sens.. Growth is important but I think it needs to be a little bit better plan led and organized and each individual area needs to be evaluated sepa ately as an individual area. We'd like to maintain our nursery oper .tion We think it's a plus for the city of Chanhassen but obviously we c .n't ~o that if we're not allowed to put up a'truck building if we need to s .ore our equipment and keep it maintain...increase rapidly because out in t ,e weather things age quicker. Certainly you understand that. You woul In't want to park your car outside in the winter if you didn't have to. The :ame thing with us. We need to have the ability to do that. Ne don't need to pay the extra taxes and I guess the change in time is a good one and 'm all for it but it needs to be done at the end of it all. Once ever thins is developed. I don't really think that in this city I think thin Is are watched carefully enough. There isn't going to be a problem wit someone coming in and doing something that you really didn't want to be d,ne that was that big a problem. Little things may come through. I may up a shed on my property that my neighbor doesn't like. It's not a majo deal and in time that can be changed by the City ordinances but I Plant Augu.~ don't tho ~ going. from weli Emmi mayb lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 10 believe to change it ahead of time is the right move. I think once teas are more developed that it might make more sense. Unless you're to point out separate places and areas and say okay, these are exempt these changes and that may be something you want to look into as That's where I stand. gs: Okay, thank you. I'd like to ask the staff if there's a reason to distinquish Great Plains Golf Estates from the rest of'them that are listed here on the basis that we've got an operation going on that property which is the nursery operation going there whereas in the rest of thes~ we've mostly got a lot of houses or just land sitting empty waiting for poin some the Krau for plat Emmi Kr alt: in w It w, were addi okay agen, past som~ and the peop Coun< Erha' Emmi Erha Krau: Erha' Krau: moult~ lots Erha' ouses to come without agricultural use. I think they might have a about being able to erect buildings for their operation. So is there kind of a basis here for distinquishing Great Plains Golf Estates from est of these? s: Well Great Plains Golf Estates is different from the rest in that he most part it doesn't exist yet. It's only been preliminary ed. gs: And it's in active use which this change might affect. s: It could conceiveably. You know it was our intent in putting it th the rest of the subdivisions wasn't any part of a grand conspiracy. s the fact that it was a rural subdivision much as the way the others If there's some desire to keep it out of that designation until ional subdivision occurs or if it occurs in that time period as been d by the Council, that's fine with us. We have no secret or otherwise a. We did go to the point of contacting Orlin and we've done in the I think you're aware we had him testify at the Comprehensive Plan on related, similar types of issues. He confirmed for us that this in ,f itself will not raise taxes. Of course Orlin would always then say .axes are always going to go up as property values... If it would put e's minds at ease, we could have him at your next meeting or the City :il meeting or get something from him in writing. t: Can I ask a question? ~gs: Yeah. t: When's a subdivision a subdivision? Well, that's real difficult to say on the Halla's request. t: I mean at what point in the process does it become a? :s: Well it's been final platted. We accepted the final plat a few ~s ago which platted most of it into outlots and knocked off the three alon9 the road into the golf course. 't: I'm referring to the either 20 or 30 lots. Olse' : They're an outlot. They've been platted as an outlot. Plan ~ugu, Don Erha Emmi a sul you Ahre Emmi dill, dZff~ for Krau deve Hall, full Emmi here Erha' favo Erha' undeI subd Hall Stre I<rau anyt Erha subd well Krau has most best hors Erha and Krau Erha same noti ng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 11 lla: He only platted 3 out of 35. : So really Halla Nursery really isn't a subdivision as yet? os: Hell there's been a plat that's been approved and filed and it is division plat so I think it is a subdivision. That'd be my guess. Do now? s: It is if it's a final plat. gs: That makes sense to me but it's still, it feels like it's rent to me and I just wonder if that, do you think that the factual fence that we've been talking about here would be a reasonable basis istinquishing that one from the rest of these? s: I think so. I mean clearly all the others are either fully oped or becoming so. And it would be probably reasonable to leave the in it's current state until or if they decide to proceed with the subdivision. gs: Okay. Is there anybody else? The public hearing's still open Is there anybody else here that wants to speak on this? t moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. t: I think this is a real good ordinance. I think from what I 'stand the purpose was to protect those people who are in rural .visions. $o I also think it doesn't make really any sense to throw ~'s into this. It doesn't serve the purpose we're setting out to do The only thing I had is I think we missed a couple. Hhat is West 96th ,t? :s: To the best of my knowledge that's a condition that pre-dated ing. t: It's a bunch of I and 2 and 5 acre lots all essentially in a :vision. Hhy wouldn't we throw that in here? Protect those lots as ;s' Conceiveably you could although if the Halla's character argument ~ome validity. Hest 96th Street area is a little bit different than of the rural subdivision that we have. They're larger lots to the of my knowledge. I know there's a number of people that keep a lot of ~s out there. We can include it. t: Some are i acre. One side of the road they're almost all i acre .he other side they're. They're pioneers. t: I just assumed that we would include that since it's basically the average density as all the rest of them. I suppose we haven't 'led them. I guess my point would be, I guess I assumed that they Plan) Augu,¢ wou]. Unle ~ame densi it's my c( COT')T movi out don ' Some in ti no m~ peop the ways Court( when Emmi Grea reco some~ subd. quesl Ells~ to ti thin r igh' it. sit. t peop it's merit mayb, thin~ to d, repo' righ far talk the vets, same this hast anyt it c have And trig Noth lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 12 be included. I would suggest that we table it until we notify them. s we can find if they have some objection because I think it's the character. In fact along the street it's actually much higher ty. The lot width is only 150 feet there. For all the other ones at least 180 or 200 so in a sense it's actually more dense. Those are mments. d: I like the ordinance. It makes sense. It protects people who are g into large lots. I agree with leaving the Great Plains Golf Estates f th~s. It's a different animal altogether at this point in time. I know what triggers bringing it under. Back into this ordinance. ody has to tell me when that'occurs and I guess I'm still interested e tax. Don said he's seen the tax. The implications of this and by ans was this intended to change tax rates. It's intended to protect e. people that are moving in and the people that want to experience ural area and that's why we're doing this. I'm sure there are better to make money. So I guess I'd like to see the Assessor at the City il meeting and talk to the City Council about the implications of this this comes to their table. That's all. ,gs: On Ladd's question when this question might arise. Assuming Plains Golf Estates were left out. The question is then when will we ,sider rezoning it RR? And now whenever they want to develop .hing, they're going to be bringing in an outlot with a plat right to vide it into lots and we'd have an opportunity to consider the .ion at that point. Would that be right? Okay. Annette? ,n: I think it makes sense· I don't know that we communicate enough ,e people what we're motivated behind here. I know that I remember lng if I lived in Timbe~wood I wouldn't want a mobile home moving in next to me and right now it could and I couldn't do anything about ~nd I might have a $250,000.00 house and there's a nice mobile home .ng there. And we were looking at it from the standpoint that a lot of e are out there trying to be spread out and trying to have homes and not set up to protect homeowners. That's why I appreciated Charlotte .oning that. We did a bad job of communicating our intentions I think in that letter so. As far as the qualification for Green Acres and s like that, I agree with Ladd and Tim and everybody that what we need is bring in the County since we're getting two different people's ts and I'm not doubting every person believes what they heard was · You know David heard from one person and we heard from another as s the City so let's get him in here and find out. Like Mark was ng about maybe it's not, it's based on the same, what they're basing ax on is the same. We won't be able to promise that rural residential s A-2 will never rise next year but they should always be based on the thing. So if one rose so would the other anyway but. When we did we thought boy, there's a lot of people out there that could have some things coming right behind their backyard and they wouldn't have ing to say about it and we couldn't stop it. It doesn't matter that >mes forward and we don't like it. The law would allow those people to that and we couldn't do anything about it so we had good intentions. agree with the nursery but I also think that somehow it has to .er going back into it if it's no longer used for that purpose. ng new I guess. Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu~ t 21, 1991 -- Page 13 Emmirgs: Okay. Brian? Batz that mold Coun~ sppal Farm~ pTot( peTS( come p¥op~ righ' they somel prot~ have. that that Ahre~ that' Aane Ahre Aane Ahre Aane Ahre Aane Ahre Aane anyt agri Ahre Aa ne Olse do t Ahre vari i: I agree entirely with Ladd's comments and I also agree with Tim if there are additional areas in the city that fit into this kind of a that we should take a look at them and I would love to be at the il meeting to hear the Assessor tell the Halla's why they were mntly treated somewhat differently. keg: I think it's a good piece of city ordinance. People deserve ction when they move into that type of situation. I think one n's dream may be another person's nightmare. When you exercise or and say that, we've seen this before that if you buy a piece of rty or if you've been here for many years, you should have a special to utilize that property. That goes to a certain point. That's why have grandfathered. But it also stops at a certain point. If ody purchases this property, I think they have the right to some ction under zoning. And the issue of the taxes, I'd agree. I myself problems at the County level getting a straight story sometimes and would be great if they came to the City Council meeting and respond to issue. I don't have any further comments. ~s: What about this letter from Marlin Edwards? Did you get a copy of son: Yes. He sent it to me. s: Is this, where is this? ,son: The subdivision? Is: No, I mean. ~son: It's Sunridge Addition. is: Oh, that's in $unridge? ~son: Yes. He has a 10 acre lot. ts: It says he has an agricultural business? ason: He's using it as agricultural. He doesn't have a home or lng. It's a 10 acre lot. He has 10 acres that he's using ulturally. as: So he has a wholesale nursery going on there? ason: I don't think so. I think he's just growing crops on it. a: I don't think it exists. I think he's saying that he would want to nat. Ts: He calls it his intensive agricultural business of breeding new ties of vegetables and fruit trees. Plan~ ~ugu Aane Ahre: Batz. Ahre~ cate! cornel Emmi diff, ope¥, an i Aane cont ever" ca n Emmi Aane Ahre Emmi it. thor C( to to don Er C( vo Kra lng Commission Meeting t 21, 3.991 - Page 14 son: He works at Green Giant, yes. s: Did you read this? i: Yeah. ,s: I guess if we're going to consider special uses for a special ory for Great Plains Golf Estates, if other subdivisions have active rcial nurseries on their property, maybe we should exempt them too. ge: I think the difference here is, I'm not sure but I think the fence is, Halla's have basically their entire property in a large tion. This guy's got one lot in one subdivision that he says he's got tensive agricultural business. I don't think that... son: He's afl anomaly. He was concerned that he would be able to hue what he's doing to the property because he's different than body else in the subdivision and he was saying, you know if this gets, continue to use this? Are my neighbors going to be concerned? And the answer is yes he can. Correct? ~son: Right. Is: So his concerns are unfounded? ~gs: Well his concerns aren't unfounded but this isn't going to hurt This isn't going to affect him in any negative way. I don't think. ~s: Well, I'm going to recommend approval of this zoning change too tee I think it's a good idea with the exception of, with excepting out Plains Golf Estates for the reasons everybody else has said. I think 's a lot of misinformation about the taxes and I think it would be for everybody to show up if Orlin Schafer does show up at the City il meeting...some answers out of him. Is: Okay· And I don't have anything new. I think it's a good thing · I think the tax question has to be answered and I think that can be at the City Council. The only question that's come up is whether we to table it to be sure we've included all the subdivisions that ought included or should we send it along and amend it later. I guess I know. City Council can open it up for public hearing can't they? They generally do. : Yeah. So we could table it here and bring it back or we could on it and send it along to the City Council with the fact that. : I should add though the official, the legislative public hearing id by you so we could not add another subdivision. Con d: Couldn't? Plan ing Commission Meeting Augu: 21, 1991 - Page 15 Krau~s: We could not. That would have to come back through you. Emmi ps: Z wonder if, do we think it's just one? Olse : Yeah. I don't think you really have much else down there. It's just in the A-2 district and I don't know of any other ones like Tim's. Emmi g~: My only thought would be that if we move it along having a public hear ng for one we're adding is not going to take that long and we won't have to renotify everybody that's here. That's my only thought Tim. Erha' t: So your recommendation would be what? Emmi ps: You can do what you want. Erha"t: I didn't follow you. Emmi ,ps: Will it be quicker for us or will it take less time for us to move it along now and just have a public hearing later on the individual one ~e're considering adding? Otherwise we're going to have to renotify ever'body. Erha't: We could do that? Aane son: Sure. You could always rezone property at any time. Er t: So what do you want the motion to be then? Co rd: That's your choice. Er t: Oh, so you're saying we move to approve it and then that comes bac Emm ~gs: I think those are our choices. Either we table it or we move it a and then later on if we want to add something, we can always. : How long is it going to take to discuss this the next time around? If move that we leave the Great Plains 6elf Estates out, is it going to tak, that much time on another Planning Commission meeting? Co : Shouldn't. & Emm ~s: Don't know. Erh, t: Let me try that one. I'll move to table the ordinance at which t[m~ we can review additional subdivisions and ask that Great Plains Golf Estltes be removed from the proposed ordinance at that time. Bat;li: Second. Emm!ngs: Alright, is there any discussion? Con:ad: Yeah. I just would want to make sure that those that are here tha' are tracking the item, and I'm sure the Halla's will follow it but P1 ng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 16 when W table it and bring it back, it's a way that people lose sight of it is in the process of moving it up to the City Council. So is an official mechanism of making sure that these folks are aware, than the city paper, when it goes to the City Council? Aane COUp n: If you want us to renotify everybody, we can do that? There's a hundred people. Erha' t: Okay, so if we table it tonight we have to notify everybody that we n(tified again? Ahre Aane Ahre Conr out Erha W~'V Emmi Erha KraUl Emmi hear ever s: Do we have to renotify? soT]: 14e's asking us to track it that way. s: Why isn't publication sufficient? d: Yeah, it is but again it's one of those things that keeps people ,f touch. You've got to be kind of diligent. t: If you have a continuation of a public hearing, that's something done. gs: Yeah. t-" Okay, does everyone have to be notified then? :s: Are you moving on? No, he's saying if we table it and just continue the public to the next time it comes up on our agenda, do you have to renotify ,body that was notified for this meeting? Kr : Well we probably would be because the notice that we sent them tol them that it would be at the Council on an appropriate date. That's not he worst thing. We don't object to doing it. No, we're just asking what happens. Cony : So when we reopen the public hearing, we have to recommunicate to eve . Big deal. And then when it goes to the City Council, people wou be aware of it only through our official paper. I guess they're mot ted enough to track it that way. That always bothers me. When we sen. along here to City Council, they know what day it's going but that's ma a minor issue. Er 't: This here doesn't bother me about it too much because a lot of ti~ we'll talk about zoning changes, we generally have two public hca' ings anyway I believe. We commonly have had two public hearings. Got a m, tion. Emm ngs: Alright, any other discussion on the motion? Ell: on: I forgot what it is. Planl~ing Commission Meeting Augul:t 21, 1991 - Page 17 Emmi ~gs: To table. Erha t moved, Batzli seconded to table the Rezoning #91-9 for property zone A-2 to RR for staff to review any additional subdivisions and to remo e Great Plains Golf Estates. All voted in favor except Emmings who ~ed and the motion carried 6 to li Conr d: So it's going to be tabled everybody that's here. Be brought back for ne other subdivision and I guess the message is, you'll get a message abou it but to track, to watch for it in the City paper so you know when it es to the City Council. THE Pub, HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SECTION TO 'Y CODE. Present: Name Addr ess Nan AfL Vet ,]'an Dav B,jo Don Hat Jo cai Ari WeS the afl rea is, of lim you you pro the per the rob Lee/Pat Blood erud [ad Severson A. Poulos H. Halla & Jerry Hendrickson E. Halla Halla 10500 Great Plains Blvd. 730 Vogelsberg Trail 6645 Cherokee Trail, Eden Prairie 675 Lakota Lane Lot #12, Oeerbrook 10095 Great Plains Blvd. 900 Homestead Lane 10,000 Great Plains Blvd. 770 Creekwood nn Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings ed the public hearing to order. Fuad: My name is Ari Fuad. I own a lot in Hesse Farm Addition. The . side. I think it's the last lot on the bluff in that subdivision. All rest have houses on them already so I'm the only one who's really ,cted by this. I think one reason, I bought the lot a year ago and one :on it hasn't been developed yet is because the obvious site by the road though it's on the bluff it doesn't have any view of the valley because .tees immediately between that site and the bluff and I don't know what ted clearing means but there's some substantial trees there. Unless can cut down a lot of big oak trees which I wouldn't want to do anyway, couldn't appreciate or you don't get any benefit from that site. This ,erty is 11 acres and it runs down the whole length of the bluff. All way down to a railroad bed which has just been taken out and )endicular or running the length of the lot is a ridge. When I bought property a year ago I walked down there. This is actually an existing that maybe Hesse may have put in sometime or somebody put in many yea's ago that runs down this ridge. The attraction of the lot to me was anco. her potential site and Jo Ann went and looked at it and said what this ordnance is trying to do was prevent development of such sites within the bl f. The site may not actually be buildable if it's indeed a sandy soil tb 8 though I believe, from the evidence, walking down this roadbed where ,, Plan Augu ther bull, coul hous this circ~ Mayb~ deve] have in a! same be al take That thin be 1 have coul proc Chan} near put eros devic have consl buiI¢ beca~ that exam opin ConT that here Ari meas~ this ridg othe I have esti ordi rela side prop~ o¥ I lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 18 's very little erosion on either side, that I think this site is able. I haven't done any soil testing yet. I didn't buy the lot so I build right between two neighbors. Maybe 50 from each side of the . I wanted to build on this other site down the bluff. I feel that ordinance is discriminatory to me uniquely. There may be others in my mstance just because there aren't any other lots in this subdivision. in some of the other subdivisions that haven't already been oped. I pay a lot of money for this lot. Probably more than I should out I really love the bluff· The basic intent of this ordinance I'm reement. I wouldn't want to see damage done to the bluff. At the time, this is an 11 acre site and I feel that within limits I have to le to put a house on a buildable site on this lot and a house doesn't up that much space. It takes up maybe a quarter acre or half an acre. s the area that's impacted. The rest would be left natural. Now I as an alternative, and I'll keep this same, I like the lot size. To acres or greater but I think this is penalizing those people who 't rushed out there or haven't built in a hurry and I think the intent possibly be achieved for such sites through more normal permitting ss. I'm not familiar with how permits are achieved or gotten in assen but I know if you ask for a required comprehensive soil test the bluff. I think you could probably find some sites where you could house closer than 30 feet. For example your house, he said his house ithin 5 feet and he has no problem. I think also with regards to on you could also have strict requirements to put in erosion control es and stuff that would limit the damage to the surrounding bluff. I built a house before and I know how much ripping and roaring ruction activity does to a lot. But if there is a site that's able, I'd rather see the restrictions be placed just because, not se of adjacency to a bluff or because of a certain soil conditions would make it likely that a house there would fall off the bluff for le. I guess that's all I have to say. I'd like you to take my OhS into consideration when you consider this ordinance. Thank you· ,d: Just a quick question while you're up there. In your mind why is 30 feet setback so detrimental? That's the size of this space right What. does that do? uad: In my particular circumstance, I went out there with a tape ret and because of this road going down one side of the bluff, I mean existing road is in the bluff itself and it is cut into part of this · So do I measure from the edge of the road or do I go down to the side of the road which is some maybe 15 feet below either place. But t out and measured the width that I'd have to build on and I didn't a surveyor go out and say this is your lot line on this side but my ~ate is I might have 100 feet with a loose restriction of the ance. With a really tight restriction I might only have 70 feet of ively flat area on top of the ridge. Now I should mention that one of the ridge slopes off much more gently and that's the side which my ,rty line runs down· So I don't know what the setback, is it 10 feet feet from the property line in Chanhassen? Emmi ga: If it's a side lot, it's 10. Plan ing Commission Meeting Augu t 21, 1991 - Page 19 Ari uad: 10 feet so if I have 70 feet, if I have to be 10 feet from tber , then that leaves me 60 feet which then gives me, if I go 30 back feet I only have 30 feet in which to put a house which is pretty narrow. That s using the narrow interpretation. If I consider the whole, go down to t e edge of the road bed maybe 100 feet, then I'm dealing with 60 feet whic is possibly workable. But when I bought the lot I actually walked it with an engineer and we talked about how we could excavate this area down to t ' roadbed. Have it more flatted the top and I could see where you woul. n't want me to just dump all the dirt off the edge of the bluff and I woul, certainly think it reasonable to haul a lot of that fill away. Then you' have a building site that could be approaching 100 feet in width. Then you take 30 feet off and you've still got 60 feet, 60-70 feet which is plen,y of room to put a house on. But if I have to take. Emmi ~gs: Let me interrupt because I know it's clear in your mind these dist, nces and everything but at least for me I'm real lost for these. But if h: s lot, let's say his lot, the ordinance was in place and we went out ther and everybody determines that there's no place on this lot that he can uild a house. Ari ad: There is a place though. Emmi IS: Okay, so you say there is a place. E1 n: There's a place that would meet it but it's not. Ari uad: It's not the place I want it. It's a place that makes it a very ordi ary lot. Emmi Os: But if there were no place to build, then he could apply for a var nce could he not? Ari uad: 8ut there is a place. Emm ~s: But there is a place, it's just not desireable. 01~ : Right. Ems ~s: I understand. Ari I : And I think the value of the lot is greatly diminished. In fact ld argue that it might be half what I paid for it if you had to put a on that one site. Co : Does everybody understand what the situation is? EmmJ Is: In general terms. When he starts talking about 60 or 75 feet, I don' have any idea what he's talking about. 8ut I think what he's saying is ~ 'e's a place he can put, the important part is there's a place he can put is house. It isn't the best place on the lot or where he wants to put his and this ordinance will prevent him from putting his house where he nts. Plan Ari any that Farm~ Ari Farm part Ari the cat the appl test bull vari have ther Ells with Ari but spea bein! beca, blur' thcs, Emmi Oavi, decr~ him peop inst, app1 agai Why? even edge prob the just you' Nell disp litt we'r. does ing Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 20 uad: And it might reduce the value of the property to both myself and ther purchaser who would be constrained to follow this ordinance and s not a small lot. It's 11 acres. kes: Can I ask a question? uad: Sure. kes: You said you didn't do any soil testing. Are you sure that that of the lot is buildable? uad: No I'm not but this ordinance might even preclude me from doing oil testing because in order to do the soil testing I've got to put a own there to clear out an area for the truck to get down there to do oil testing. And I've a whole big question of how do I even go about 'lng for a variance to put a house there? Because I do the soil ng and then do I have to spend $3,000.00 or $4,000.00 to get a ling plan for the site the way I'd want it and then apply for a .nce and then have it turned down where I'd lose my investment and then to come up with a new plan for the other site if I decided to build n: No, you're talking at the right time. The right time to come forth it. 'uad: And also, I like the intent of the ordinance. I like the bluff .s one of the last lots in this particular Subdivision, and I can't to any of the other ones that's on the bluff, I'm really the only one impacted· I don't think there's anyone else from Hesse Farm there se the rest of the lots that haven't developed there aren't on the · They're up on the flat area and you can put a house anywhere on lots. gs: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Halla: I agree with the gentleman talking about the impact in asing his value on not allowing him to put his home where it affords .he most view of the bluff. That's what he bought it for. I think you .e have to look at some of these things in a little broader perspective ,ad of taking the narrow view and categorically saying this rules es for everybody. Now when I built my house, going back to that , I had a D6 Cat in there and it took them 3 days to dig the basement. Because that was virgin ground. Never been touched. He couldn't push that dirt. It just kind of rolled up in front of the cutting because it was that hard. We knew that we weren't going .to have a hem with erosion but to prevent that we seeded crown vetch on top of rase cover that was on the bank and that has literally taken over and covered that whole bank. There's no way that can erode. Even when e talking about the water runoff, sheets of water running off a roof. I've got a deck on the back but water runs on my deck and is ,reed even before it hits the ground. $o I think you have to use a e common sense on some of these things and can't say categorically accepting one rule that applies for each and every lot because it 't. Now I've got two other lots there, or at least one other that Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu: t 21, 1991 - Page 21 look.~ over the bluff. I would assume that in the future, if whomever buys that wants to subdivide it and let someone build a lot there, they should be a. lowed at least to remove some of the big trees that awe right on the edge so it affords them a view. In the beginning on this ordinance when it firs' came out and I got this letter it said they were restricting the cleaTi.qg of the trees there so they can't have a good view. Well, if you do tta'r., that's again decreasing the value of the lot because why did they buy t in the first place? They bought it to have the view. Now when you say it's got to be back 30 feet, that doesn't apply. They could amend this ~nd say hey, if you want to put it less than 30 feet, you have to meet cert~ in requirements of soil tests. You can't put it on obviously sandy soil because that's not going to support it. However, they can do that too if t ey wanted it hard enough or bad enough, you could pilings down there and upport that house on pilings. There's another way of doing that too. So I don't think you can come in here in a broad sense and say hey, it's got o be 30 feet. That's it. We're drawing the line in the sand. Anybody that walks over it, we're going to blow them out of the water. This gent eman has a very good argument. You know he bought his lot for the view If he's not allowed to take advantage of that view, it decreases the valu, of his lot and he spent good money on it. The same way with the lot that I've got in the future there. Somebody's going to want to take adva t.age of that view of the bluff. If they say it's got to be back 30 feet it decreases the value of the lot. Now if it doesn't meet the requ rements because the soil is sandy or it's not buildable, then the pews, n should come back in and prove that they can put a house closer than 30 f~et without impacting the environment and there are a number of ways of doin.< it. I've got a house in Florida that's built on the intercoastal wate~ way. It has 58 pilings under it. No problem. If somebody wants to put ~ouse closer than that, they've got bad soil, if they want that view bad nough, they can make it work but to come in'and say hey, it's 30 feet. That s it. That's wrong. I think each instance, each lot has to be looked at i dividually and you have to make allowances for people to take adva tage of the view that they paid good money for. By coming across and sayi g hey, it's 30 feet. That's it. Then you're decreasing the value of the ot and that's wrong. That's my opinion. Thank you. Emmi gs: Alright. Thank you. Yes sir. Don alia: I really just have a question that I'd like answered and that is, o~ much problem have you had with this difficulty? How much erosion prob ems have you had on lots? Has it been a severe problem? Krau=s: It's been a very severe problem. We have some major erosion site~. In fact we just had a bus tour where we took members of the Minnesota PCA, the DNR, the Metropolitan Council, both ~atershed Districts that are in there, Soil Conservation Service. In fact all these agencies we g~v,9 copies of this bluff line ordinance and most of them that have resp(nded are encouraging us to be more restrictive then we've proposed to be. I point out too that in Bloomington, the Watershed District just got through with I think it was a $6 million dollar project to repair erosion to a creek bluff system along Nine Mile Creek that was basically caused by deve opment and lack of foresight. ~hat we've learned is that once these prob ems start, there's really hell to pay because they're very difficult to s' op. A couple of the sites that are highly visible and I'd be glad to Plan ing Commission Meeting Augut 21, 1991 - Page 22 take any of you out there. There's the Dypwick property and Bartal tr. There's even been one that involves the City with the road to the if course. That one probably is coming the closest to be resolved at this int. But Dypwick is on the verge of losing some buildings and is concerned that if the erosion continues he'll lose his swimming pool When we took the Bluff Creek tour, the hiking tour that we had earl r this spring, I think walking around the bottom you saw, those of us who 'e there, saw very visibly where these problems were starting to and you don't see them from the top. I know one site we looked at with little bit of care was the new house that's being built by the nd's and it's perched out or.er the bluff. Once these problems start.. Ho lly they won't start. Clearly the desire is to prevent these things from happening in the first place because once they start, they're e 1y difficult to arrest. Emmi gs: And other information we had is that the bluff areas in some plac, are just very fragile and that even the change you get from building a h and just changing, getting runoff even from the roof in some of t fragile areas can cause erosion to begin to occur because you're just gett it more directed. I guess we saw some of those places. Me went for a hi lng tour along Bluff Creek last spring and we saw some examples of it but he people that were along from I think the Soil and Mater Conservation Dist ict? They were aware of many other examples where there's similar land in other cities where they are having problems. That's one of the Teas, ns we felt we had to get on top of this. The other thing is, you're look ng at it from one end only and I think to some extent I'm thinking abou it in terms of looking at it from the other end. Do we want bull ings hanging out over all over the bluff? It's one thing to say setb. k 5 feet. It's another thing when you talk about being out in some of ti ose natural areas and seeing homes hanging out over the bluff and is that something we want. I don't know but that's another issue. Don alia: Okay. I'm familiar with two of the properties that you're refe ring to. One is the one that the City filled against without our permission on our property and running off of our property. Never asked permission and hauled in several thousand yards of soil. Thinking it was ody else's property and never checking it. They didn't properly put in t e drains. They didn't properly put in culverts. They didn't connect them properly. They didn't extend drainfields properly. They didn't put vege ation back on it properly. They did everything wrong that they now t. hro gh their ordinance of anybody filling or anything, they're extremely crit 1 of those people of doing it right and yet during all of this peri d of time the City has not come in and corrected the problem that they crea . What they did wrong even though now they're very restrictive on othe s. Dypwick's property that you're talking about, whether he was allo, to or whatever, he filled that area and built on fill. I mean the guy s crazy to do it in my estimation. It had been there and hadn't been erod ng for years because of the fact that it was a sheer drop off. He want an extra 10-20 feet of property so he filled it with garbage lite lly. Demolition of buildings. Barrels. Everything that he could get auled in. Not clay fill. If he had put clay fill in there, he woul. n't have had a problem. It was dumb on his part in my estimation. He's ot his problems caused by it. Maybe he has to spend like, if you'd like take a look at a couple of the walls in Edina where people have PI lng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 23 spe a fortune to make buildable lots. I live one block from one that I thin the lot's still unbuildable but there's a $2 million dollar house on top it, that they've put in 75 foot of retaining wall. They have no eros n problems. It's pure sand. It was done and engineered properly. They have a driveway that goes up at almost a 40 degree angle to do it and they ye to haue heating coils and everything else but in fact they corr. the problem. What I'm really just pointing these things out is ther 's probably other remedies and necessarily building restrictions that if gets themselves into these problems, they can work themselves back ,ut. Now certainly in the nursery business we deal with them every day. There's many different products that can be put on slopes. Anything from .aining walls to vegetation that will hold almost any slope there is. town vetch that David mentioned is what they use on the coalfields out t. That's where it was originally developed because it's such a stur y plant and takes over and it has a deep root system so it does prey nt erosion on crackly ground that has no food value in it whatsoever. How ou write the ordinance and what you do with it I guess is purely up to you tt what I'm trying to say is that there may be other remedies to some of ttese things and I don't think people should be allowed to put in 15-20 foot of loose fill and then build buildings on them and then come back and complain about them later. I don't think that's right either and yet I thin that the City should be an example. If they go ahead and do these thin!s, they should remedy the problems that they create in their own maki g. Ne have a problem that we have been trying to prevent being a more majo problem. That is we have soil erosion control structure. This is goin~ to come up again so I will bring it up tonight and it will be affected by this ordinance. That is we're back 15 years probably at this poinl through the Soil Conservation to prevent runoff on the nursery and to keep the valleys from eroding further up. We put in a dam and the dam was engi eeved and so forth by the Soil Conservation Division. In that 10 inch rain was weakened substantially. We have water running out of it and then one of these days it's going to go. With the new ordinance on grading and o forth we can't even really correct it. Certainly we were given a choi e of putting in, we put in about 600 yards last year behind it. Fran ly the red tape I had to go through, I was going to do it again but put a $10,000.00 bond in order to correct a problem which could be a majo problem for the people down in the valley later and to fill a valley that ~ been eroding for a million years and try to prevent the problem, it wa~n t worth it to me to go through the fight to correct a problem that I know someday is going to harm somebody else because it's eroding out. We'v4 got somebody right now that says hey, we'll give you 30,000 to 50,000 yard: of soil to fill this behind this dam to prevent it. He wants to move it o' f the road out here this coming week. He can't do it because it will take 60 days in the process to be able to do it. And yet it's something that would prevent the type of problems that you're talking about right now beca~.se if the dam structure goes, it would be a major problem. Where do all .hess things work? How does an ordinance handle situations like that That's why I asked about how much of a problem it is because I think ther 's a lot of different ways of controlling erosion besides just having an o dinance which would prevent people from using the property and the view that they bought the property for. That's all I have to say. Emmi ~gs: Thank you. lng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 24 Davi Halla: I have one more comment. I've been sitting here listening to this and I think there's a rather easy solution to this situation. You peop e require a building permit. Okay? In that building permit it could curt. il someono ~oins out there and I think it's already being done, phys cally inspecting the site and making a determination whether it looks leas bls. At that point they can say, okay. If they want to put this hous~ within 10 feet of the bluff or make the variance over the 30 feet, they have to do soil borings to substantiate that the ground is solid enou h and it's not going to erode. You can also make it a requirement that they provide proper vegetation on the slope if the slope is disturbed by t e excavating so that you put it back in as good a condition or better than what you found it. I think most homeowners would be more than willing to s end the extra dollar to preserve their own property. Okay? So that's an e sy way to do it. Instead of coming along and arbitrarily saying hey, it's going to be 30 feet. That's written in blood. That's it. No devi tions. If you want a variance you know, we may or may not go about it and eople coming along from the Water and Conservation or Soil Cons rvation saying hey, it should be 50 feet back you know. I think each site has to be looked at individually. You can do that in your building perm t section when someone says hey. I want to take advantage of my lot. I wa t to put my house closer to the bluff so I can appreciate the view and get he value of my property from doing that. Now my brother's talking abou this dam and he was telling me all the hoops and everything, that they want. him to jump through. I built that dam. The Soil Conservation peop e came out and designed it and then they didn't want to cost share with it because they felt it wasn't enough watershed to protect. Well, the thin the erosion was going back up in the field for about a city block and ~ was my determination at that time that we wanted to preserve that prop. rty and not continue to have it erode back farther up in the field and by tting this dam in, we did that. Okay? Now over the years, I told my brot that he had to keep maintaining that thing you know and he got a litt bit lax in it and he did have some erosion from the big rains and so fort and when he wanted to go back there and repair it, the Planning Comm ion here literally made him jump through hoop~. Wanted him to put in 8 1 kinds of bonds and guarantees and stuff like that and I in plain lan~ , that's asinine. Here again you've got bureaucracy getting in the way common sense. ~ situation like that where the people took it upon lyes, at their expense to prevent the erosion of soil. Protect the envi nment. ~nybody walked out there and looks down in that canyon and can how what we did prevents the further erosion of that canyon down ther . Hey, it's a good deal. But now to come in and say you can't keep that ntained. You've got to have a permit to come in there and put soil on i , I think that's stupid. Now Dypwick on the other hand, that was an the table deal that the city concocted and allowed this Ingram to haul n his demolition materials and I saw those trucks go by and I called up e and complained about it. I said hey, you can't be dumping des, tion in there and building on top of that so that's why Dypwick did. He c ated his own problem and the city then should, if you want to do ng like this, put some teeth into it and say hey. If people screw up a do stuff like this, they've got to be responsible. It's the same way th the Pollution Control has on underground storage tanks. If they leak you pay for it. Okay? If these people do stuff like that, they can come n and be held responsible for it and you know, if you make a person resp~ ible for building closer to a bluff when they have an erosion Planling Commission Meeting August 21, 1991 - Page 25 contlol problem and they take care of it on their own, they're going to do Jt ¥ ght because they don't want to spend that money to clean up if they scr up and do it wrong. But people like Dypwick that did that where the City allowed them to haul in that debris for years and years and years and nevel scrutinized it and as far as I know, they are still hauling that stuft in there. It's a good cheap way for Ingram to haul in his demolition matelial ar, d his stumps and stuff like that and that's not good fill but it wa~ llowed to go on. You know that stuff is wrong but you could writ this ordinance in a way that you make people that build closer to the 30 f<ot that you're talking about be responsible for the erosion and be fina cially responsible for the clean up if something happens. Emmi gs: Okay. Anybody else that wants to be heard on this? Marl< Halla: I just wanted to add a little bit on the dam that we have and that we built since I've been working on it myself mainly trying to get City approval as recently as 10 or 20 phone calls today to the City Mana. er. Ne have had this dam for years. I believe it was built in 1972. It's maintaining a rough estimate of 300,000 to 400,000 gallons of water. It d' ains approximately 35 acres. The torrence from the rains that we had just this spring moved boulders that probably weighed 400-500 pounds each. Movec them into the middle of the pound so there's quite a bit of drainage comi g into this area. What I don't understand is if you're going to adopt a bl, ff preservation item like this to protect it, then why is not the City help ng protect it on it's own. It has an area that is right across the road from my site where I built my home that they filled without perm ssion. Dumped lousy fill in there. Chunks of concrete. Chunks of tree stumps. All sorts of things. They did it exactly dead wrong yet now we m :ntion that to them and said you didn't even have permission. Can you at 1 ast push the piles down so I don't sit here and look at these piles from my new house. So they did that but ever since then now we have a prob em in reverse on trying to maintain our own dam. If the City really want. to adopt an ordinance and help the bluff, then they really should real y feel that way rather than allowing something. If our dam goes to pot .nd that water runs through, I personally have seen it 3 to 4 feet deep and ike I said, it's rushing so quickly that all the rip rap we put in, prob ~bly 40-50 tons of it, washes into the-pond and we need to dredge that out ~ith a backhoe. Mhen you have that much water running, maybe you want to s ,metimes help the citizens that are trying to work on I guess pres~,rving that bluff. As far as I'm concerned, if we don't get help, mayb, we're best off to let it go to pot and we maybe will lose some field but can afford to lose that if in the return the City realizes that it was big mistake not to allow us to fill and maintain it. It can be quite cost y if you have that many acres of ground letting the water through. The ,ig damage was done in that 10 inch rain. We got it maintained last year by putting in some fill and restored it a bit but even this spring we didn t have a problem with the washout simply because we restored it. Me prob~:bly would have but like I said, if we're moving boulders that big, it seem: to me we should consider allowing people that are trying to repair thin~ s to keep the bluff looking good, we should consider allowing them to do s, and flor restricting them. Less they get the attitude of really not givi g a damn about the bluff and letting it erode simply because they ~ere not llowed to maintain it themselves. So I would hope in your planning that you would consider trying to work with the concerned citizens as well Plant lng Commission Meeting AugLt.~ t 21, 1991 - Page 26 and tryi simply adopting something that does shut out those people that are to do good by the bluff. Thank you. Jim ulerud: My name is Jim Sulerud. I live within the area. Emmi gs: What is your address? 3im ulerud: 730 Vogelsberg Trail. I think one thing that would be help ul and probably worthwhile because the area has a diversity of prob ems, every parcel of lot is not experiencing the same problem. Some' hing that might be helpful is to develop a specific plan like you do simi ar to a land use plan in minature but as to what specific actions you' e looking for on each parcel of land because I think you've got some situ tions where you truly want to maintain the status quo. That is leave tree~ . Leave the current bluff line. Maintain the slope at what it is and othe] situations you have erosion that has occurred that you want to actu4 lly bring about some repairs. Maybe some filling is appropriate. Othe places there may be situations where you've had fill that is inapl r6priate that ought to be removed or may take some special action to repa r. So I think you have a variety of circumstances existing that you' e trying to solve with a non-specific ordinance. I would think that J.t w ,uld be very helpful. The area is not that extensive and I know ther 's miles and miles of line that you've identified but I think it's well worth your while looking at all the headaches over the years, to go thro .gh each parcel and identify which of the areas that you intend to maJn'.ain the specific bluff line. That would help this gentleman. It woul help the Halla's. Are you trying to restore? Is filling appropriate in t at ravine by the Halla's or is it not? Certainly there's a natural eros on that occurs, has occurred over hundreds, thousands of years that has ,meated what you're calling the bluff line right now. It wasn't the blur' line 500 years ago. So you're picking a point in time and saying well this is what's appropriate. Maybe in my neighborhood I've looked for the ity to develop a fill plan to just keep TH 101 from falling in and we have 't reached accommodation there. It doesn't either add or detract from my p' operty. It's just something that ought to be done because the erosio~ has ,,ccurred over recent history but I think that would be a way of addr,~ssing each of the people on each of their sites in a way that's very help:ul to them and to the future owners to let them know what your inte tions are. ~hat that may mean is you have to define a more specific purp .se for the ordinance in the first place. That is what is it you're tryi g to do. Are you trying to maintain the status quo? ~re you trying to g ,t to a position of holding a certain bluff line or I don't think that s real clear. I think in general people appreciate what you're trying to d but the questions that are raised seem to indicate that there are prob ems with that. I know there's some very obvious problems that you're addr ~ssing. In the business fringe area a pole bard was erected. A metal shed that has tremendous erosion behind it. Through the bluff creek area ther 's various sites of some places where there's extensive erosion. Other placs where there's garbage filling and all of this would address all of that I think one big problem that the Plannin~ Commission faces all the time and is again raised here tonight is the question of variances. I don'. know if you can get at it. Probably not through this ordinance but if t ,ere's always an avenue for someone to come to you to say well my situation is a little bit different. It's really the out that hopefully Plan lng Commission Meeting ~ugu t 21, 1991 - Page 27 woul n't support the ordinance but if for instance the example that this gent n has. He would like to have a certain view. Well what is the inte t of the ordinance in that regard? I don't think it's been very clear to g e him guidance or to Mr. Halla's other lots. Are those 2 trees or 3 tree critical to the ordinance? I don't think yom'ye said whether that's crit al or not to maintain those trees or is that a violation of their own riQh s of property owners to prevent them from cutting down those trees. I thin you need that guidance. However, when someone asks to build within the 0 foot line and have a variance, what guides you on that? 3ust if it's ldable? Mr. Halla again pointed out and I think you've seen in the past. a goc)d engineer can build on any site and can project over the bluff or wtatever. They can put a swimming pool anywhere. They can float themin the ir. You can do anything so I think to raise the question is something bull able is not helpful to use. Not helpful to the City. I think the City to develop some firm guideline as to what the outcomes they want are n the different properties. Because someone can always come in with a bull able plan and if that's all that's necessary then you for all practical purposes have no ordinance. I'd like to see that approach with rega d to properties throughout the city because I think the city is on leos, footing when people come to the Planning Commission to appeal because they say they can accommodate, can prevent erosion. In this particular case and I thif]k they can make a plan for that but in the long run it may not. ,e in the best interest. Because I live within the buildable area or in t ~e defined area and I'd like to maybe go from a 1 car garage to a 2 car gara~le someday, I'd like to see something specific on saying that homes with. n that area could maybe have a 25~ or 50~ square footage footprint adde, on. Something specific so that we know what we have' to deal with. I th nk the perspective that you have to take in this particular case, beta.[se these bluff lines are established over thousands of years, is a long term perspective. As a Planning Commission hopefully you take that, all .... time and all your deliberations. Although you're the Planning Comm.ssion for 1991' I think that the decisions you make certainly put hous,,s in place. Put roads in place that last for 100 years or hopefully 300 ,ears to at least establish those patterns that people see in the east coas and while I probably don't intend to be offensive, I think the Hall. 's are here for a few years and they'll be here for a few years more but t's offensive to me that their approach where they intend to or give the laver of them being here before the city and will be here after the city I think you have to hear words of encouragement to stand up and make decisions that are here for the long haul. And the Halla's are acting in t ,eir self interest as probably I'm appearing here in my self interest. I th nk you and the rest of the city would be well to think of the, you know they weren't here 200 years ago. They won't be here 200 years from now ,ut your decisions will be. Thank you. Nanc Lee: My name is Nancy Lee. I own the property at 10500 Great Plai s. Most everything I wanted to say tonight has already been said by all other concerned people. I agree that rather than being totally rest ictived, we should probably look at each site individually and I think thro gh the building process the City already has the control that they need and that that building will come through with all of your permits, bull lng permits, plans that the City has the power to make sure that you hav~ proper engineering plans. That you have proper plans that are not gel to be destructive to the bluff. I guess I see that if they continue P1 ing Commission Heeting 21, 1991 - Page 28 usin~ those proper measures, we shouldn't have a problem rather than being tota 1y restrictive. Then I have another question as far as how many times can his bluff setback affect a property? I guess I'm thinking in my case, poss ly they're going to consider that it's the entire property or close to i What do I do in a case like that? Emmi Is: I don't understand your question. Nanc' Lee: I guess as far as the setbacks and everything according to the degr, and everything that was laid down, say my property happens to go like hat sc, that I have multiple bluffs on my property instead of 3ust one blu Emmi Os: Is that in fact what happens? I don't want to, if we get into hypo heticals here, we could be here all night. Is that 'what actually happ on your property? Nanc Lee: I haven't sat and looked at the degrees and things like that. I'm ] the parcel on 212 that goes straight down. Is the railroad tracks that have just been pulled, is that considered the start of a bluff? That. s another one of my concerns. That happens to be a business fringe dist' ict and I guess already we've gone through some very restrictive moti ns on it to the point that I'm trying to sell it because the City won' allow me to build my business there or anything of the likes so my step is to sell it and if I continue to get more restrictions on it, I can' sell it and it does me no good to sit there. I guess one other thing I 3u t wanted to say, it has nothing to do with that last comment is this gent eman made a comment that he "loves the bluff". I think most the peop e that buy property on the bluff and plan on building on the bluff it is b. cause they love the bluff and they're not about to do something that's goin~ to ruin the bluff. I guess that's all I had to say. Emmi gs: Thank you. Vern, Severson: I'm Verne Severson at 675 Lakota Lane. We live on the bluf~ . Ne have a beautiful piece of property and I guess what I have to say s pretty much the same as what everybody else has been saying but I want to reinforce a few points. That is that we like the intent of the ordi ance. Ne want to be good stewards of the land. As property owners we'r= not going to do anything that's going to damage our property and when we g~.t this ordinance it looked more like, it looked like it was something conf~ ontational. It didn't look like it was something there to help us. It's some kind of an ordinance that's being put out by an emergency State comm ttee or something. We feel that the people of the City work for us. Ne'r the taxpayers so we would welcome any kind of guidance that would help us protect our property and as has been mentioned before using bull ling permits I think could be a good method. You do it with buildings now. You do it with installing sewer systems and I look at that as a way of t ~e City's helping me to protect my land and to protect the investment I pu into it. I think that something like that would be more appropriate in t is situation and again as somebody else mentioned, each piece of prop~,rty is different. Each piece of property has it's own problems and I thin they each have to be looked at individually. I guess what it boils down to is that as a property owner I resent having the City tell me Plant Augus exact I car Emmir hearJ Batz favo' ing Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 29 ly how I can use my property. I would welcome the City telling me how improve on it or protect it from being damaged. Thank you. gs: Anybody else? If not, is there a motion to close the public ng? moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearinG. All voted in and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Emmi ~s: In response, I guess just as a general response to some of the comm,~ts or a lot of the comments that have been made here. I think that a lot ~f people that spoke are looking at this a lot differently than I am. I th nk that I'm sure each individual property is very unique but to even sugg. t. that. we could develop some kind of ordinance that would be a se t.e plan for each individual piece of property is just, it's unth nkable. We can't operate that way. I think what we're trying to do here is establish some kind of minimal standards so that we don't wind up with roblems with the bluff. Looking at the bluff as a very valuable natu~ 1 feature of our community. A really unique feature of our community and hake sure that there's some minimum standards in place that everybody will ye to observe. I don't think we want to see engineering solutions to b[ [lding over the edge. I think that's exactly what we don't want to see. Are there such things? Sure. I'm sure there are. You know Call ornia, they build on the sides of hills all the time and ~hen they cont nually have natural disasters that put these houses down at the bottom of tie hill. But we don't even want to see them hanging over the hill. I thin what. we're saying is, sure the bluff's been eroding for, you know sine, I don't know how long but since the glaciers went through and cut thos~ valleys or the water coming from the glaciers cut those valleys or ~hat~ver and they've been eroding ever since. And we're not trying to stop that That's not, I guess that's not our concern. I guess the concern here is for the impact that development brings. The increase in erosion. All f the impacts associated with development on the bluff. Eooking at the luff as a unique natural resource. ~e don't want to see engineering solu ions. ~e want to just kind of try and preserve them as they are. You say hat property owners won't do anything to hurt their properties and then you talk about 3elf Dypwick. You can't say both those things at the same time. Some people even when they're well intentioned hurt themselves and urt their property and the problem is, again as we've been told is that these areas are so fragile that once a bad erosion problem develops, it's very difficult to do anything about it. At least in places. Depe'~din9 probably on what the soils...and that's why having financial guar .ntees to have those people be financially responsible won't even solve the ,roblem. Anyway, with those comments we'll start down here. Ahre ~s: I agree with everything Steve has said. I happen to think that this is a very well written ordinance. I also didn't get a chance to 9o thro, Lgh all the comments on the Soil and ~ater Conservation District and Nate"shed District but I can see that there are some things in here that I thin should be included in our ordinance and I think we should table this unti we can incorporate some of those chan~es. Farm, kes: I would also agree with most of the things that you said. I thin there is a difference between self interest and community interest. Plant lng Commission Meeting Augu~. t. 21, ~991 - Page 30 I be love that there's a difference also between definition of development and reservation. What I see here is, an.d I respect your individual right to 1 ok at this from your personal piece of property but the community also has n interest in preservation of natural resources in this area. I think that this is good legislation to do that. It's easy for me to sit here beca[se I don't own property on the bluff and I'm sure that's what you're t. hin lng but the intent of this is to preserve some of that and obviously in a y type of zoned community or any type of preservation situation, you' e going to have to give up some right to do that. There's a Give and a ta e there. If you're going to preserve, you're Going to have to curtail some development and that's a given. Getting back to the actual legi.~ lation itself, the comments that were made by the Soil and Water Dist ict and from the Attorney here, I think that those are valid comments made and I think that also we should table this until those are inco porated in there. Batz. i: Nicely put 3elf. I'm not going to repeat what's been said but I woul like a chance at some point to talk about some of these changes and whet er they're actually improvements or not. I think it would be helpful to m~ ye the intent section to the start of the ordinance. Emmi ~gs: I think it's at the start. Babz i: Okay, these other things go in the definition? Emmi gs: Yeah. Batz i: Okay, good. And I think the intent is in the ordinance and I agra, If we don't preserve the bluff and we allow other people, no matter how ell meaning they may be, we're not all going to justice to the bluff. Ther 's going to be erosion. There's going to be things hanging over it and 'd like to see the bluff preserved so as not to ruin it because I don' want to wait around for the next Ice Age to get it back. Emmi i~s: It's coming. Batz i: It'~ . = gettin~ warmer I thought Emmi ~gs: Oh yeah. Annette. Ells)n: I think we still have variance procedures there but I don't think the )uilding permit area would be a very good location to try to handle each individual situation. I can just see everyone saying well you let this guy do this and he had what have you. It doesn't work in the building .t so I think that's why we have setbacks for everybody and things like that I have trouble believing that you lose so much of your view at 30 f I don't know how many people on the bluff right now that meet this. Ac lly there's probably quite a few. I don't like the idea of the nat al bluff having houses sticking out on it just like you said in Call ornia or right now that a property owner can go and clear cut it if t wanted to because literally they could and we'd like to hope that they had ntentions not to do that but I'm not going to be able to stop that rig now and I don't like the look of a house sticking out. I don't think 30 f et im that big a deal. I'm a little confused about, is it Ari? His Plan ing Commission Meeting Augu: 21, 1991 -- Page 31 is a hopi bou inch. That you're not positive that your preferential building place i].dabla lot even without it so you went ahead and purchased it you could get that second. That wasn't confirmed even when you it initially. Ari : No it's buildable without this ordinance because. Ells<n: You hadn't done the soil information stuff though. ~ri and : I didn't, feel I needed it because the road went through there... was actually not even on the bluff... Ells, n: I think everybody would like this ordinance to be next door to them rioht around them it would all be protected. They don't want it on the property. I think all the people that have it right now that don't meet it are certainly grandfathered in except, if they want to keep adding addit ions to it. Then right now they have more rights than somebody coming in blt that's where it stops. They can't tomorrow have additional ones when them want to build and the property next to them wants to build. I thin that's fair. I don't think it's fair to say by the way, you're gran athered in and you're grandfathered in to anything that you add also beca, e where they stand right now. I'm for it and I think that there is possibly a special circumstance. Maybe for this gentleman and maybe that you be the variance. If he bought it with that in mind and was given assu ances that that's buildable for him and we take that away, that seems to b the only situation that's in the middle. You said you had quite a fey ]e calls and he was one of them I'm sure but all the rest were tryi to support it so I think there's a lot of people out there that are sayi g this sounds great that aren't here today so that's it. Emmi gs: Okay, Ladd. Conr d: What's the process that somebody has to go through if they're bull inn on a bluff? I saw some words, the permit shall not be granted. Is ther a bluff permit that goes along? Olse : Yeah, we're going to like add that in with a grading permit. That if trey're within that bluff zone and if they are to be extensive grading over the 50 cubic yards I think. 107 10. That that pulls you to a permit process. Then also if you're going to be doing any stairways or the lifts with n the bluff but the setbacks. Conr d: So the building inspector would trigger that? Olse : The building inspector? Conr d: What would trigger that for a homeowner? Pulling a building per t? Olse : They would have to get a building permit for that. Conr, d: ~nd that would trigger looking at this zone? Plan O1se perm COnY Olse If t perm alt. e Emmi subd cubd set i You ~ ( Olse~ Cony in t Olsel catc} Conrl Olse~ grad vege' grad the grad of t Cony and cutt Some[ Olse' somel of tl that wou1, Conr~ Olse' Cony what hear a lo in a in9 Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 32 : Yeah. Then once this zone is on the map, then when those building ts come through, trigger that that's in the bluff zone. d: We wouldn't automatically ask for a permit. What would we? : Well if they're just building the home and that's the 30 feet back. ey meet that setback. Then they don't require any other additional ts. It's once they get into that impact zone that there's going to be ation within that. 9s: Or wouldn't it be true too that if we're looking at a new vision, that would be for an existing subdivision. But on a new vision we'd have to look at that and be able to set those just like we he buffer zone along the lake up in the new Lundgren Bros. thing. wind up setting those in a subdivision I suppose. : Right. And it's going to be treated kind of like a wetland. d: So they are going to...this hypothetical property's going to build at impact zone so they have to fill out a permit? The grading permit, if it's part of the building permit then we can some of it. d: SO it's a grading permit? : Yeah, there's two different ones. If it's just going to be the n9 within and like the stairway and removing the alteration and ation, that's what we're talking about kicking those in with like the n9 permit or grading out a site within that bluff impact zone. That's fading. That's when we're going to try to put that underneath the n9 permit. Then you also have a building permit just for the building e structure. d: Okay. This alteration of vegetation is probably where I'm going t says it's not permitted within that impact zone but limited clear ng. Limited clearing. Not clear cutting. How is that determined? .ody who goes out, the building inspector? It's pretty loose. I think one of the things that we're going to add is that if ody calls and we daily get calls about people who want to clear some .sir vegetation. What we usually do is we'll go out to the site and what we were going to put. I think I've got it in here where we 9o out to the site... d: And what's the guideline? : There really isn't. d: $o it's staff saying that this is probably appropriate? You know I find interesting on this ordinance and I think all the comments I tonight were really 9ood comments. And some of the requests say take k at th~ sits individually. I think philosophically I agree with that lot of cases. This 9overnment can do that. It's a case where we look Plant lng Commission Meeting Augu~ t 21, 1991 - Page 33 at. w~tlands inclividually and we could look at bluffs individually and dete mine if we had the resources what's right but as Steve said, prac ically speaking we just really don't. This is an example, at least the ay I read it of a simple ordinance. We're dealing with just a couple numb ,rs and a couple pieces of philosophy. Sometimes those simple things are guess I'd rather have something simple than a complex, the complex t. hin ,s in government don't work too well. They get too ensnarled. Ne have an o dinanc~ on two pages and after hearing the comments and I keep chal enging the simplicity versus something that technically has merit. Taki g the soil. Ne could develop an ordinance that really has technical foun lation in it so we literally go out to every site and we literally, we s~y .kay. What are we trying to protect? We're trying to protect the view We're trying t.o protect erosion. Ne could set up standards and I 9u ss the question is, that we and the City Council has to answer is, this is a real simple way that might accomplish a lot of that. Could pena ize a person here or there. It might have a bad deal out of it but it migh be a simple approach because it reflects back to what we've done with tryi ~ to addin~ in our landscaping ordinance. You can have some real technical things or you could just simple require 3 trees for a lot and that s a simple approach to making, to getting to an end. Rather than a lot .f complex mumbo jumbo that everybody gets confused with in our ordi ~ances. $o anyway I'm struggling with some of the comments that I hear saying do we need a more sophisticated ordinance or does this acco lish it in concept? The other things, and I'm just going to give you opin on. We have a wetland alteration permit process. Do we need a vari nce process here? Yeah, bluff alteration. Do we need that? ~gain, that s mumbo jumbo. That's more stuff to do. I've never been, I think it puts us, it allows flexibility. Puts the City on the defensive. Hard to pr . Hard to substantiate. Hard to analyze all that stuff that comes in her We don't have the resources as maybe an individual who can hire a ltant can and we just don't have the energy to review it as well as et people. The last thing is penalty. Are there any penalties for alt. ation? Ols : Well the whole City Code always has the penalty section and if the 's a violation of the Code you can go the 70 days. Emm ~s: Misdemeanor. Ols : Misdemeanor. So that applies to anything in the Code so. Co : They're pretty small right? 8asically. Ols : Yes. Con d: They're really not penalties of significance. Emm ;s: $700.00 and 90 days. Erh. t.' Force them to face the Planning Commission. Co : That Would be threatening all by itself. Emm ngs: But it isn't enforced that way typically. Or maybe never. Plan ng Commission Meeting Augu 21, 1991 - Page 34 Olse: But the permit, the reason I kind of hush on the permits is that we stil haven't gotten all the, where we do allow removal of vegetation or the hic alteration. We haven't really fine lined exactly what perm t that's going to be and what's required in that. We're talking the grad ng permit now but that will allow you to kind of look at it site by site I don't know that it helps Ari's position but that's where the vari nce application, he can go through that. Conr. d: He could but there's no, right now there's no standards for a var ii nce. Olse: It would be a Board of Adjustments. Conr. d: But there aren't any standards. There aren't any guidelines for a vari nce. Didn't somebody say that if we were ever going to allow a vari. nce, you should have something to tell you when you would grant a var ince? Krau: s: There are standard conditions that apply to all variances. It's the lardship criteria or we've added a neighborhood standard whenever it devi tee. From what 30 Ann is telling me I'm not certain whether or not this would meet the hardship criteria. On the face of it, if there's a legi imate building pad that doesn't have a problem but the one you prefer does the answer is build where there's no problem. Conr d: Right. Olse: But the neighborhood standards might help. Emmi ge: No because, well. Ells .n: The other hOUSeS in the same neighborhood. Ari d'- There are houses that are down the bluff .... possibility of doit it site specific. I know I'm the last lot in Hesse Farm that there's a qu stion on and there's a question on my lot because it isn't a sheer blur all the way down. It's just a ridge that runs up. I think I'm more the xception than the rule and I think in this, I don't know the other nei.c ,borhoods but you buy a 10 acre subdivision sized say in new areas and have a rule that says cut out the ambiguity about was it a sheer dropoff or was e some kind ambiguity... Emmings: How about if we put a comma after the ordinance and say, except for ~ri? That's a real problem. We get in a lot of trouble zoning one site. If we do something it's got to be across the board. EmmJ exi lot wha =uad: But could it say existing lots have some grandfathering? ngs: We've done that. We're doing that for existing dwellings but not ting. =uad: Well this is an existing lot in an existing subdivision. The s been there 10 years and I can see in other subdivisions...would know the restrictions are. I bought the lot a year ago with full intent to 'Pianf Augu buil, there infe~ ordi like Emmi Conr, ter m.~ guide We'r, the, guid, Olse that you So ti in c betw, easy Conr a ho Olse stuf Nate look if w grow you ordi Krau us t achi if lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 35 on the site. The way it sounds there is process for a variance 's an existing pad which there unquestionably is. It's just a very ior pad. But I don't have a choice. I have to build... If this ance had existed at the time I wouldn't have bought the lot because, I say... gs: Right, we understand. Okay. Ladd, are you through yet? d: oh boy. $o we're still pretty loose on that permit process in of our standards. Going back to vegetation alteration. Tell me the lines again. How do you say you can cut that tree down? You can't. trying to visually keep the bluff looking the way we want it yet on ther hand people buy that lot so they can build on it. $o how are you d Jo Ann? : A lot of times there's a lot of underbrush there that if you clear that gives you a pretty good view. There's also trees that have been now diseased or dying and those are the ones that you go for first. ose are things you look at. There's usually some large ones like maybe umps like one here and one there but there's usually some spacing ,eh where you can clear it so, you go out to the site add it is kind of to determine. Ld: SO yOU feel pretty confident that you're going to be able to give ~eowner a view? : Yeah. In the cases that we've worked with like in Deerbrook and , yes we've been able to and a lot of times we will bring the Soil and Conservation District people out because the bluff exists and.we do at what the undergrowth is. And if you need other vegetation there so do let them take the underbrush out, then they have to do like a low ng grass or something to replace that. So that's one of the things .ook at. Ne don't have specific standards, although in the landscaping lance I don't know if that would apply. Ds: I think from an administrative standpoint though it would help for be able to clarify exactly what we're working with the homeowner to :ve. Is some sort of a view corridor is to be created. I don't know define that by the size of the thing or the maximum number of trees d allow to be cut but we need to clarify that here's the goal and her are some guidelines on how to establish it so it's not coming down to us 'ng out there and if we're having a bad day saying no, you can't do tha C d: It wouldn't hurt to do that. I think that would be a helpful gu' line. At least the homeowners, the residents know what we're shooting for ather than just willy hilly as sort of a gut feel. You know the hot m line for me is, on this ordinance is, I do like it because it 't have a lot of stipulations. It seems pretty simple. And I guess you now I'm coming down on the simplicity and sometimes I could be wrong. But do like it from, it seems like one number and some intents here lish quite a bit. And that's my comments. i: Could you summarize? Planr Augus Conr8 Erhar comm8 Olser Erhar somek the ~ discc the $ Olse Erha' Olse Erha' it? Olsef the [ a gr Erha Olsel flat usin~ Erha' ordil Olse more thin Erha' Ari Olse foot Ari I Ther, Olse' Ari ing Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 36 J: I don't think I could. t: I think the comments made by ASCS. Who was that who made the nts? Paul Newman. Not the blue eyes. : Actually clarified that, I think the reading quite a bit and ow I think we ought to get most of that in there. I wouldn't change ~tback though to 50 feet which leads us then to the theme of the ;sion tonight of whether this affects your lot there. Is someone on taff familiar with this... : Which part? t: I forget what your name was. : Ari. I visited it with one of the engineers. t: Okay. Does the area that he wants to build, does that apply to : It's within the bluff impact zone. He does have a level area above luff and then there is, he calls it a road but it's more like kind of vel or just kind of a path that's been used. t: Why can't you build on a flat spot in the impact zone? : What his is, it's not really a real flat spot but there's not much there but it's the setbacks and all of that would prohibit him from the house there. t: If he had a big enough spot, flat on the bluff, does this ance allow you to build? : The definition allows you, if you have a distance of 50 feet or with slope less than 18~, that's not. part of the bluff. I don't his applies. It's not 50 feet. t: Do you agree with that? 'uad: I guess I didn't understand. : The definition of bluff, if you have less than 18% slope for 50 distance, that's technology not within the bluff. 'uad: Yeah, I think I've got that. Oh, it's 50 feet under 18~9 'S a crown . : That's something we can look at. uad: It's a crown. It's not a ridge, it's a crown. Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu: 21, 1991 - Page 37 Erha~ : Yeah, I mean that's the thing with the bluff is it's not like they draw in the picture but there is a lot of flat spots and in fact there's litt e mounds that come back up. I'm assuming that there's a lot of spots on t. 9 bluff even with this ordinance that you could build on. Olse : Oh sure but it's the setbacks. Ari uad: This ridge or whatever which is actually a crown is maybe 100 feet across. Maybe more. It's just if you think of bluff all the way arou d it...you're turning a 100 foot circle into a 40 foot circle. It's the etbacks. Erha t: 100 feet's not very much area to build on. Ari uad: To build a house, lot widths are 80 feet wide. Then they have 10 fot setbacks which give you 60 feet which is plenty of room for a hous, . Houses are only 40 feet deep so a house fits on a pad roughly 60 x 40. That's a fairly large house. That's 2,400 square feet. Erha"t: Are you going to have any kind of a yard or driveway? Ari ~uad: You've got 100 feet square. Erha't: Are there other houses that are there existing that are similiar? Olse : I think there's one that kind of goes down a couple feet to the west I haven't really looked but there's also septic sites on each lot. Thes are unsewered so there's a lot of impact so the setbacks is what's hurt ng him. Ari uad: See this ridge is 500 feet long and so it's not, there's lots of room laterally to put in septic systems and wells and yard. It's just the 30 f setback makes, it could potentially make the site too narrow to put the nropriate sized house on it. Er 't: This house, does it sit out in the view of the other people that live out there? Ari ad: There's one house. t: I wonder what the other two houses do? Ols~ : There's a row of homes. I couldn't tell you. Erh~ hay : No but I mean you're talking about having the homes up and then one down and ou.t further or he had one or two or three out and down. Olse we c Erh~ obj~ : Out and down further? He'd be the fur'thest down. I don't know if n show you. t: That's okay. Do you think if the house was there, is that :tionable? You're one of the existing homeowners. Ols~ : If the house were to be located there? Plan' ng Commission Meeting Augu 21, 1991 -- Page 38 Ari .ad: It would be substantially below them so it wouldn't really block thei view and their trees, there'd actually be trees between, that would grow lp actually on my property that would basically block. Er the : Why wouldn't you just start building the house right now? Before dinance. Emmi s: Because he's got to get a building permit. Ari That's a good point. Vet bui I s Severson: We're talking about individual rights tonight. I want to a workshop on my property but with this ordinance I can't do that. ld have brought a map. Emmi ;s: I'm going to cut out the talking here. If you want to ask some] ody a specific question go ahead but we can't have. It's getting too logs, . We're going to be here until midnight. Erha~t: Have you talked about performance standards as opposed to a genel al ordinance? Krau~s: We really haven't and I think it's been for a number of reasons. Ther, 's no good model for us to work off of that's based on performance. Sole y performance approach. We're not dealing with commercial/industrial deve opers here who can bring in consultants at $120.00 an hour to give us what we need to react to to effectively deal with specific standards. You also become fairly erratic and inconsistent which is kind of a basic thing to a' cid in enforcing ordinances. Erha' t: What's in here to prevent somebody from going in and doing a lot of b, lldozil~g and stuff over the edge of the bluff? Olse : They'd have to have a permit. Krau: s: They're be in violation of the ordinance. Erha't: If you look at that site and you basically lay out where they can move dirt. Pretty much people do follow that. Olse : The grading permit? Erha t: Yeah. I guess what I was trying to get to there was, you know we pick ,d some numbers and things. I'm not sure, I know where we got the numb,rs. We got the numbers from the State program that's putting this out but ~here I was going was I thought maybe this would be an example to kind of t.~st our numbers. I guess if I had the opportunity to go out and look at tlat lot I think would be real useful. On the other hand I really think it' a needed, I think we definitely need protection and if you can't get it t ~rough performance standards, then this is our only choice. Again I ~ld have liked to have seen that lot. I don't know if it's worth wait ng. I don't know if that's the only reason why you'd want to table it. I think we can get the wording in without tabling it. Pl ng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 39 Emmi ~s: Okay. Is that it? I've got a couple of specific things. I th nk Ladd's comments about this being a simple ordinance. I think those are comments and I think that's a good way to approach this situation. I th nk it does a good job of protecting the people who are already there with homes. How it affects him I don't know but I think if we wind up tabl ng it, we might use his property as a test case to see how it affects and aybe we can get the City Engineer between now and then to go out and look at it. Or if he already has. Olse : He has. Emmi gs: Alright. Or maybe you could tell us how we get there to look at it o' something so we could see. But on the other hand, I don't think how it a 'fects one person out of everybody on the bluff makes a difference to the rdinance but still I think it's a useful test case. The comments that peop e buy these lots for the specific purpose of having the view. You know there's restrictions on every kind of lot that you buy. That's not a Teas n to have restrictions on the lot. I live on Lake Minnewashta. 8oug t an empty lot and had all kinds of restrictions. I couldn't build with .n 75 feet of the lake. Maybe I could have said, gee if I'm going to live on the lake I want a house right down there so I can step off my deck righ. into my boat and go but I can't do that. So again that argument does 't persuade me very much. But on the other hand, I think we've got to have if the view is the ma3or thing that people are interested in, we've got o have a way to accommodate that. It's only fair and I think we do that through the further removal or alteration of vegetation. And in most case that ought to be good enough I think. In some cases it might not be. In s me specific cases it might not be. And that's where you get down to the desire of these people I think to have a site specific plan because ¥ou'/e got the general regulation but you can get the staff to go out and look at your individual piece and develop a plan along with the city to accc ~modate the desire to have a good view. I think maybe that's tbs best of a~l possible worlds. In the statement of intent section, in the third line from the bottom. It says alteration. The sentence starts out, to presgrve the character of the bluff impact zone within the City, alteration to t~e bluff impact zone and I wonder if it should say, rather than alteration to the zone. It should say alteration to the land or vegetation within the bluff impact zone. That was one thought I had. On structure seth 5 fE don Ols~ wit~ Emm tha' Kra~ The) or cas vest acks number 2. It talks about the setback from the top of the bluff is 9t on parcels on which a building has already been constructed. I ~ know why it's 5 feet. n: That's what we were trying to accommodate homes that are already in the 30 foot setback, that they wanted to make an addition· ngs: Why would we let them build closer than they are if they're less 3O? ss: Because we already let them build their home within that area. may have not added a deck. They may have planned their house for it lanned thei~~ house for an addition and we believe that we, the die is · The home is already where it should be. They've already got some ed rights. Plan~ing Commission Meeting Augu t 21, 1991 - Page 40 Emmi gs: To me I would say there should be 5 feet or the existing setback, whic is more. That would be my approach to that situation. I think it's fine that we approve all of the houses that exist. I don't think there's any eason to allow them to build closer just because they're already ther . The other thing, somehow in there we ought to make it clear that that s for the existing building and not any new buildings. So that's somelhing that should be added in about that I think. Then the only other thin! under the official map section, 1406 it says, the Arcticle applies only ~o the bluff impact zone located on the official bluff impact zone map date, June 1, 1991. I just think after that it should say, as amended from time to time. It does say in the next sentence that it can be amended but it slill says that it only applies to what's on the map so that could be a prob em. And I guess I agree with the people who've talked about tabling this one so we can have another look at all of these. The comments that have been made by these other bodies and also maybe get a chance to look at this roperty if he'll let us go out and walk around. Ari ~ad: I'd be glad to meet you out there. Batz i: Some of the comments made by these people I don't think make sense eith,r. I don't want us to just add the comments because some of them aren t right. Erha' t: Yeah right. Olse' : You've got to pick out which ones you think are right. Batz i: Like for example when the comment, one or more of the following char, cteristics is incorrect given how we're defining what the bluff is. That shouldn't be added. Things that don't make sense and I don't know if we w. nt to go through them now or if we just want to let 3o Ann go through them and take a look at them. Emmi lgs: I would suggest we take another run at this thing. Erha t: I would like to see us set up a time. I'd like to get the tour. Go o .t and look at that. Olse : Okay. Some afternoon? Morning? Night? Emmi gs: If it's a weekend it could be an afternoon. Erha t: Or 6:00 in the evening. Olse: Okay. Emmi g: Yeah, something like that. Is there a motion to do something here like table it. 0 : Maybe we can try to get Orlin Schafer here. The other one was tabl d also right? Emmi Is: Yeah. Plan .rig Commission Meeting 21, 199'] -. Page 41 O1 $o we'll try to get Orlin here for both of them. Emmi is: Is there a tax question on this one? Olse' of That's right. Nobody brought it up. Never mind. There were a lot e who called. B~ : I move that the Planning Commission table this matter in order to all staff time to review the amendments proposed by the various other enti ies and so that we can go out and take a peak at some of these sites. Emmi ;s: I'll second it. Is there any discussion? Batz i moved, Emmings seconded to table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to e a bluff line preservation section to the City Code for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmi get. next at ti (Joa vote PUBL ZONI LAND Publ Don Mark Kath call Erha faro Erha Attc and Aan~ that Erha Emm~ trar eXCL gs: People who made comments tonight should know that your comments yped up and will be part of the packet we have when we review this time. Not to discourage you from coming again but we will'be looking em again. Ahrens left the meeting at thi$ point and was not present in the on any further items.) HEARING: AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS REGARDING iCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. ,c Present: ame Address · Halla Halla 10,000 Great Plains Blvd. 770 Creekwood Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings d the public hearing to order· t moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. t: First page, page 2. I would very much like to see the City ney, someone work on limiting the power companies ability to clear cut pray. What's the next step on that? ~son: You would like him to direct him to come back with something would prohibit that? -t: Yeah, that's what I'd like. ~gs: And then we'll send it to all the power companies that have smission lines in this city. Put them on notice so they've got no Plan lng Commission Heeting Augu', t 21, 1991_ -- Page 42 Erhalt: Well we're going to have to have a public hearing I assume. They re going to have to come and give us their comments. Aane son: I'll see what his directive is. Emmi gs: I think it's important once it's passed to send it to them. Erha t: Well whatever. I really think we ought to do this. Number 2, were we going to look at street widths? Was that something that we all agrel,d that we wanted to look at? Krau::s: I thought we had a directive from you to have the City Council ask the :ity Engineer to do that along with the Lundgren proposal. Aane son: You did want that forwarded to City Council? Erha' t: I think it's a good idea. Emmi'~gs: Are you talking about doing this as a part of this or just doing it? Erha"t: No, just in general. It happens to be the first page. Krau..~s: It's not part of the landscaping ordinance. It's part of the subd .vision but it affects landscaping through preservation issues. Emmi igs: Yeah, if you're interested in getting a canopy. Erha t: Alright now I'll get into the ordinance. On the first page of the ordi ~ance, Division I. Is that supposed to say generally or general there? Krau ;s: Generally. Erha t: That's the term you're using huh? On the bottom of page 1 there, we s .y where buffering is required by the Comprehensive Plan. Can we use the ;omprehensive Plan as a document to refer to in ordinances...with spec fics? Well I know but there's a standard then. Aane ~son: That's the guide. Erha't: Okay. I'm just checking. Emmi ~s: We specifically tied those together. Er t: Item G, at the very top of the next page. We hay a general sta ment and maybe, I don't understand it but it says boulevard s tscape plan shall be pursued by the City. Is that a general statement or ,w is that. Why is that there? Ols : Intent. Erh t: That's in the intent section. Plan Krau~ is wb i dow lng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 43 s: It's a general statement. I think the way we'd bring that about en the City looks at public improvement projects we would ask that it ate the boulevard planting effort much the same as you've done Er : Okay, so that whole section there is general? There's no real act n required. Okay. Item (a) in the middle of the page there. I think we' seem a lot of plans that they draw these trees that they show the mat size of them. Ell n: You guys would never do that would you? Erha t: We're all in agreement that we're going to show the installation size I just wanted to verify that. Emmi gs: Why wouldn't you want to show the mature size? Erha t: That's why I"m asking. Krau :s: It depends on what they give you. If they get the kind with the tree stamp, then it's up to imagination. If you get a rendering or elev .tion where the artists takes some licenses and shows this 2 1/2 inch mapl becoming a 50 foot high tree. You're going to have to use some judg, ent on there. What we ask for though is we get a key that tells you exac ly what plant material is going to be planted and exactly what size it is a installation. Erha t: I think the drawings that we mostly see are the mature size. Just so w understand this is a change. Krau s: I'm not so sure it is a change. It's a clarification. Don alia: Frankly the size on landscape drawings...relative size of tree ... It is the landscape artist or designers view of what it looks prop rtionate. That's the bottom line. If you want something to be diff ~rent, then you have to call it out. It's proportioned to what's going to b appealing to you folks... th la repl can avo t: Well I don't know what the answer is. I just bring it up because is an issue that's kind of bothered me as we look at these, all these cape issues. Page 4, item C(3). It says the city may require the nt of removed trees on a, it actually starts in number 2. You remove any 6 inch caliper trees unless you can show there's no way to it. I couldn't agree with that more. 8ut then we go on to say the Cit' may require the replacement of those trees if they're removed and I ~ss I've always felt, and I know that's in the ordinance today. I've al felt it's punitive and it doesn't need to be there. If they show you ;hat there's no way to avoid removing them, that's it. We've done a job then. You know this is their property. Their trees and I ue to think that that's punitive. Ell n: How's that different from asking the bluff people to not continue t~ sort of thing? Plan~ Augu,~ Erha~ in a them that Batz, they have on ti Erha~ We'r~ Ellsl way · Erha~ 5 th~ is ¢~ does Emmi Krau Emmi pres as p~ Erha~ l<rau.~ to d~ Emmi Krau Erha~ by Df Olse~ Don I~ eval~ Emmi~ Ells~ Krau.~ lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 44 t: Why are you doing that? If you're going to develop something, put street, you've got to remove trees· Then to go back in and replace adds more expense ultimately to someone and I guess it bothers me more that same wording is in the subdivision ordinance· i: So if for some reason they have a wetland where the only place can put the driveway is between the lot line and the wetland and they to take out every tree, you wouldn't make them plant more than 3 trees e lot if they had to remove 50 trees to get the driveway in? t: No I wouldn't. If that's the only place you could put the. Well not talking about a driveway. We're talking about a street here. n: We're hoping they're looking for alternatives than the clear cut t: I'm just giving my opinion. I just don't think it's. Page number re right after where it says $4,000,000.00. It says tree preservation couraged and may be applied to existing vegetation on the site. What that sentence mean? gs: Nothing. s: I know what it's supposed to mean. gs: Here's what I think it means. I wrote a new one. It says tree rvation is encouraged and the value of existing trees may be included rt of the "minimum landscape value". t: Okay, that makes sense. s: Or the value is determined by the City· I don't know who's going termine what the value is. gs: I don't either but that's what you're trying to say. s: That's exactly what the inference was, yes. t.: That little wording in it would help there. Value as determi, ned n Hal la. Got a job forever and ever. : I've used him for that before. alla: ...there is a National Shade Tree Conference method of ating existing trees. gs: Oh that's interesting. n: So that's impartial to the City. s: can we get a hold of a copy? Don alia: Yeah it's available. Plan Augu: ErhaY this when~ sing Aanef Erha~ resic in t} Ells( sayi Erha right KT au', impl coul that Erhal aboui subd Ells, Erha When leas real time, from Krau~ abou' sod whic ].eni, Erha' Chas okay Krau~ will Erha' it s, lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 45 t: On item (a) there, if I can read this. It says, I hope you got too Steve. It says drive thru uses shall be screened or buffered vet located in any residential, commercial, industrial zone except e family residences in the A-l, A-2, RR and RSF. Does that read funny I just don't understand? son: I'm sorry, I'm not sure exactly where you are. t.: Page 5, item (a). About 5 or 6 lines down. It says any ential, commercial or industrial zone except single family residences e A-l, A--2 and so on and so on. I guess I just couldn't. n: You can have a drive thru in your residence, is that what you're g? t: Just the wording seems odd. Maybe I just don't catch it. Is it ? s: Actually I think it's worded kind of clunkily but it's meant to that those things wouldn't exist in a single family district. You have those kinds of things in a multi-family district. We can clean up. t: Yeah, maybe. I don't know. See what the professional writers say it down the line here. tet's see. Okay, then let's go to the vision ordinance. n: What page are you on? t: I'm now on page 10. We just got off the site plan ordinance. we get down to the required landscaping/residential subdivisions, item require the trees to be installed and I'm okay with the trees. At we're not telling people they have to put in their back yard, which I objected to that concept previously. Now they have their choice but requiring one to go in the front yard. I think that's good. When down to guarantees acceptable to the City must be provided to insure installation. Can one of those guarantees be a tree certificate Halla Nursery? :s: We've, accepted that. This is a process we've been going with for . a year and a half now and some of the larger builders regularly give :ertificates or presumably they could also give a tree certificate is a cash redeemable value. That's fine with us. We've been fairly nt on that. t: Okay. Chaska's ordinance, from what I understand, that is ',a's ordinance. Apparently according to Rick Murray it seems to work If it's okay, do we want to mention that as an alternative? .~.,=: We've been doing that administratively. It's a surety we're ng to accept basically. t: Okay, well I just question if we maybe want to mention it because ,ems simpler than all the rest of this. Okay, the next one here is you Plan~ can alre~ ratlc deflr to u. the Ells Batz Erha kind that valu~ use Conr~ Erha 2 1_./' say seem: The 6 that to m~, a lit page don't anyb( as mL Don wlth tree: have Emmi Doll Ells Don F EmrniT somet off. Erha~ cond ing Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 46 aive the requirement for two of the three trees if you have trees dy on the lot which makes sense. What I can't understand the hale is, why those trees don't have to meet the same specs that we're lng in the ordinance. Instead, all of a sudden now, if you're going e an existing tree, it has to be 6 inches caliper. I don't understand ationale behind that. Why are you saying 6 inches? i: He'd be great to take along fishing. t: You know then you go back and it goes against the one here that's of, what did you say, clunky? The concept in the clunky one says if you've got existing material, okay we'll give you reasonable fair on that. It just seems to me it ought to be just simple, if I can add's concepts. d: We're using those entirely too much. t: The guy's got a coniferous tree that's 6 feet and 2 trees that are inch caliper and one of them is in the front yard, why do we have to hat in order to apply that he has to have a 6 inch tree? It just like we're getting punitive on people. So I guess that's my thought. ther thing is, if we are really hung up on forcing these guys to have h trees, I think we ought to add in there if the developer can show essentially the lot is wooded with smaller trees. It's crazy for us ke the guy put in some more trees. So I just ask that we look at that tle bit and apply a little more sensitivity. Again the same thing on 11 there. The City may require replacement of removed trees. I just understand that. And you know you guys I love trees more than dy around here and think we ought to be, well not anybody but almost ch as Don here. alia: Quick question for yOUi Something which you might consider your ordinance and that is, when they're doing construction near oak or with oak trees on it and they're trying to prevent damage, they to keep equipment off of it. From underneath the canopy. gs: We've done that. alia: I don't know, I didn't spot that in my quick... n: There's something about the drip line or something. alla: Oh, it is in there? os: In the past we've required sometimes, not all the times but imes we've required them to put snow fence around and keep equipment t: That's in the subdivision process we require it usually in the tions. Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu: 21, 1991 -- Page 47 Don F lla: ~nd you can't even bury trees. You can put 2 foot of fill on top the tree, you can do it right and not damage the tree but it has to be ne in the proper method. So some of those things are, I don't know how deal with those but definitely as far as driving over the roots of a taJn variety of trees, it's definitely harmful. Also some of the , and I don't know what you have as species but some of the varieties you ay not want to be left and count as your 6 inch plus trees. Swamp Rose or 8ox Elders or some of those types of trees... Erha t: We haven't got the list yet so that's to come from what I un stand. Lastly item (e) on page 11. Right on the bottom it says, tree removal not permitted under subdivision shall not be permitted without the pproval. Who does that apply to? Just sub-developer? Aane son: Which one are you on? I 'm sorry. Erha~ t: Item (e). Page 11. I just want to make sure that only applies to the erson that's doing a subdivision. It doesn't apply to anybody else. Krau s: I think what we're trying to get at there is that nobody should be able to 9o out and cut down a grove of oak trees just because they had a hankering to do it. It's not meant to apply to an individual homeowner. Erha~ t: Yeah, I just want to make sure. Ifrau.~ s: ¢~nd we should clarify it. Erha t: I just want to make sure this doesn't apply to Don Halla. So it says he cannot remove trees. Emmi igs: Or me. Erha t: Or Steve. It just applies to someone that's doing a subdivision right? Olse': Right. I think that's a result of the one north of City Hall here. Erha' t: These ordinances only apply to someone who comes in and is doing a subd vision? Olse': Yes. He just can't go and clear cut. Erha' t: Alright. Those are my comments. You've got it. Next. Conr.~d: Good comments. I don't know, he may want to skip around. $ome~ jmes he does that. Emmi gs: Annette? Ells, n: Oh thank you Steve. This is an example of not simple Ladd and beca~ se of that look, how long it took them to put this together. I didn't 9o t irough it nearly as detailed but I love it. I'm wondering has anyone ever done an analysis as to what this is going to change the cost of the deve.opment or anything like that? Developers taking a look to say I think ! Plan ing Commission Meeting Augu: 21, 1991 - Page 48 it's )oing to cost us more to build in Chanhassen and therefore we can't. And f so, by how much. I like to make these requirements but are people sawJ that this is going to make low income housing impossible in Chan ;sell or something like that. Krau : Most of the standards that are involved in this ordinance either exis today in the ordinance or are taken from other ordinances that I've work d with for years in other communities and have been fairly reasonable. For xample the sliding minimum expenditure for the landscaping material bas on building cost. In several years of working with it over in Minn tonka I can only recall one instance where the developer had not met the inimums and in that case he was lying about the building cost and it was 7 story office building. It really is a pretty minimum requirement and hen you're talking about the magnitude of building, I've got to bell ye in terms of that expenditure, most everything we've seen even to date would exceed it. Ell n: It's doable? I<rau~s: Yeah. Ells(n: I just don't want to feel like we're choking people. Krau~s: The one impact that is a direct impact though and we've talked to, you Councilman Wing's been a big advocate of the 3 trees per lot. He's spok, ~ to you about it. He's spoken to us about it a number of times. That is a direct cost that will be passed along to the homeowner and ther~ 's no question about it, that's going to raise the cost of a home to some extent. Ellscn: What do these size trees mean to the total percentage? One increase? A half of percentage but no one's ever come forth and given you that kind of analysis? Krau:s: No, but if you assume the average home, the inexpensive average home rice in Chanhassen is probably $100,000.00 to $120,000.00 for new home and we're placing a value on a new tree of $250.00, you've increased the rice by $500.00 because you already require one. So what is that, one half' of one percent? Ells~,n: Well, I love it. The sooner we get it in the better. I think it's great. Emmi ,gs: Okay. Brian? Batz i: I wanted to go after Ladd. Emmi igs: What a bunch of... The meeting's out of control. Go ahead. Farm kes: I'm glad this is here and I think that this is really good leGi lation. I'm glad that...will be it. If the DNR said that 95~ of Chan~assen is without forestation, we've got a lot of work ahead of us. This is a good piece. Plan ng Commission Meeting Augu: 21, 1991 -- Page 49 Emmi is: Ladd, ready? Conr : Real quickly. Jumping on Tim's bandwagon. Under the subdivision ordi I agree with his comments on trees that are there. If they meet requirements, I don't know that we should upgrade those r ements all of a sudden. So I agree in that section (a)(1), or waht~ I think we should look at that. My other comment on that is, whet it only applies to 2 out of the 3 required trees. Now I don't know if y 're in a wooded area, I don't have a need. If it meets the intent. If have one tree on the roadside and the other trees are on the other back d side, I don't know why we're saying only 2 out of the 3 trees. That sort of, if it meets the intent that we're trying to establish in the sections, then this is sort of arbitrary. This is a different inte t altogether. So I don't like that section. It should be consistent with rest of the ordinance. I think Don brought up a good point about conslruction during a subdivision and we feel we don't need any of those requ!rements in this? Olse~ : We're working on that part. Krau s: We've been requiring that for years. We have standard language but t's reasonable to stick it in here. Conr d: I think it'd really like that. It just is a real logical thing to do a d my other comment is, and we changed it at the last meeting. I'm barf ed at, I don't understand it so I'm sure there's a real simple way to make me under-stand it. On page 5 of the equations. The last time, if the proj .ct value is $3,000,000.00 to $4,000,000.00, we slash the $3,000,000.00 in t: rms of how we calculate what they have to pay and put down 2. So what does that mean? If it's I to 2, we say you've got to spend $20,000.00 exce,~ s of the base plus 1~, past that. Then with the next grade is 2 to 3 and ~.end $30,000.00 plus 0.75~ in excess. Then it gets to 3 to 4 and then allt' a sudden we're back to the 2. In excess of 2 and that seems like we'v compounded it. It doesn't make sense. Krau: s: There is a typo in there. Aane Emmi Conr, Emmi Batz of c kind thou it's guar They C0¥~' ,son: The correction was reversed. igs' Should have crossed out 2 and put in 3. ~d: All that conversation is all that simple. Okay. That's it. igs: Brian? .i: My comments are on page 2 we're going to get an irrevocable letter 'edit from a banking institution and my first thought, said just as of joke was that it must be a solvent banking institution. I really iht about it, I think what we want to do is we want to say in here and in here in a couple of spots that we're looking for financial .ntees that are acceptable to the city. I mean they can post a bond. could do a lot of things. They don't need a letter of credit, ~ct? Planf Augu Krau bond a fo~ maki~ for insp~ Batz] Ever like the dof~ ' ~nyb buy the I un anyt of p' prop~ it's the don't Farm4 8atz this Or i burd Conr Krau Ware' thou of t Batz Krau: Batz bull, tree: I%rau: ease one It's lng Commission Meeting t 21, 199J - Page 50 s: True, although the City Attorney has encouraged us not to accept · That bonds are much harder to collect on if you do have a problem. advised us to use cash or letters of credit but you're right. It's in m acceptable to the City and I understand Don raised a question about g sure the trees are alive after a year. Our letter of credit is good full growing season past the date of installation and that's when we ct the material. i: I think that should somehow be standardized throughout here. time we talk about it, we say it in a littl~ bit different way. I'd to see just proper financial guarantees acceptable to the City or hing like that that the Attorney's comfortable with. I went beyond ntent of this when I was looking at the intent section and that was, I really, I mean I see us being proactive but I don't see us educating dy or trying to get them to see the point or the people who eventually he property to see the point of why we did all this. So we're making evelopers do this and then all the contr~ls are off and everything and erstand we're not going to say to the property owners you can't do lng to any of this stuff necessarily but I would like to see some sort oactive effort by the City to educate the people who are buying these rties as to why the stuff is there. Why it's nice to have trees. Why good not to, I don't know. I'd like to see an intent statement that ity's going to do something. They're going to educate the people. I know. kes: In the newsletter? i: Yeah, Going to do something to tell people you know you've got wonderful stuff. You should keep it. You shouldn't just cut it down. you destroy this you're going to be contributing to the non-point e pollut, in or if you do this, I don't know. I'd like to see some ,n put on the City in here that they're going to do something. .d: It's not a bad idea. There's a lot of Park and Rec stuff. :s: You're going to see more and more things in fact like the Surface District in the newsletter coming up. I think to a certain extent Ih we trust in the, or we have some faith placed in the inherent wisdom ~e homeowner. i: No, No. s: But generally· i: We can't be two faced. We just told people we don't trust you to next to a bluff. We can't now say we trust you not to cut down your s: Well I think there's two different things operating here. In one you're dealing with an environmentally sensitive area and the other is're dealing with something that's not a matter of life and death. a question of good judgment. The homeowner. Patz i: It may or may not be. Plant Augu.~ Krau mean Batz cutt I 3u Don, Asso surv; Batzl proa( that is o don' make clea to d, valu Conr Erha Cony Batz cons Emmi Batz Erha refl Batz char RSF COU]~ On F Emmi Bat~ app¥ cone Erha Ols~ lng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 51 s: But the homeowner's paid for these trees. It's their own value. I they're cutting their own throats by cutting those trees. i: All I want is an education program to get them to realize they're ng their own throat. I don't want the City to say you can't do it. t want the City to educate people. alia: There'~ quite a few pamphlets put out by the American iation of Nurserymen that deal with what you're asking. Green val depends on you and things like that. i: They may never read them but I'd love to have some sort of tive program by the City to do more of this. Rs far as Tim comment I hissed earlier on page 4, C(3). Caliper inch by caliper inch. This ,e of those things where I kind of agree with Tim in principle but I want to take it out. In certain instances it would be punitive to them do that but in other instances they make them go in there and cut it because they come up with some cockimamy excuse why they have it and you don't make them replace anything. You may lose a lot of ble trees, and lose an opportunity to make them reforest something. ~d: You don't like Tim's idea? The one I jumped on the bandwagon. t: No, he's talking about this one. d: Ah! i: I'd like to see it in and Tim wants to see it out. We have no nsus because I don't know how anybody else feels about it. gs: Let's go home. i: Okay we've two leave in and one take out. t: I think the consensus is going to be to leave it in so I'll ct that in a motion. ~i: In 5(a). I read that and I didn't understand it but I didn't le it. That one where it says, it applies everywhere except not in I didn't understand what it was so I didn't change it because I n't figure out how to change it because I didn't know what it meant. age 7, all landscaped areas shall be connected by concrete curbing. ngs: That's interior landscaping in particular uses. Ii: Yeah I know. I was just, for example. I seem to recall us ~ving something in the IOP where we let the guy blacktop and not put in rate curbing. 't: Not me. I voted against it. : It got approved by the Council. P1 lng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 52 : Does that happen more than just like from time to time and how does hat affect this? O1 It's kind of rare when it happens. Usually when that happens you don' get much of a landscaping plan either. Batz : Yeah. I mean would this be something that would be waived in a case ike that? Or is this just one more thing that you throw at them and say , you've got to put in the curbing because our landscape plan says you got to do it? Olse Because they don't have any curbing, they don't have the storm sews or anything so it's where it's... Batz : Small matter on a big ship apparently. On page 10, Section 18-61, (a)( ). The sentence that reads trees must be installed prior to receiving a C ificate of Occupancy or financial guarantees acceptable to the City must e provided. I think that should go at the end of the paragraph. Then t makes sense when you say the next sentence. This requirement may be ed for up to 2 of the required trees because you're talking about the e before that. I would like to see, I think the Halla's were ment ning that maybe we waive it as long as the trees they've got on site are thing that's worth saving. Er :' From what I understand we're going to provide a list. Batz : So we'll provide the list on, okay good. Those are my comments. Er : I thought I read here someplace that a list was forth coming. Krau : Yeah but the list applies to new plantings. Erha : It should also apply to. Kw : I guess I'd be relunctant, I've been relunctant to establish a list f acceptable trees that we want preserved because you can have some pret junky material but en masse it's a valuable thing to have. For exam , as you're coming down TH $ you're entering the city on the south side n front of the DataServ or as you're coming through there. There's a lar~ grove of highly visible trees that separates that area from where the new ing station is. That material's garbage but it's the only green spot n the entire strip of highway and I want to be able to insist that protect that even if it is junk. Batz : But this is just for the purpose of giving a credit for new trees that hey have to install. That's what I'm saying. We' : Well we may want to have that flexibility to do that on that site. going to have to work with whoever develops those properties to save areas. Batz : Yeah, but if they have nothing but junk trees, don't you want to make plant a couple of trees that are worth something? Planting Commission Meeting August 2.1, .1991 - Page 53 Kraus Batz] them junk Krau~ cred Or O, Batz we w, got you pers~ Emmi~ had ( stil; at t} purst Batz Olse refo' we a~ Emmi What Krau~ pursl of p~ and plan Emmi it's for Krau, Emmi Don with cit. i Emmi Krau way. some B: No question. i: But all this will do is, if they have all junk trees, you make ~lant a couple more trees because they wouldn't get any credit for the ;rees. That's all I'm suggesting. s: I guess I'd like to meet it halfway where we do give them some t for those trees. Possibly not as much as you would if it was maple k. i: Well yeah. That's what I meant. If we have a list of trees that uld give them credit for. You know, if they've got maples. If they've omething, then you give them credit. If they've got all junk, then ~ke them plant a couple of trees. Just a thought. I can be ~ded. ~s: I'd like to ask, go back to Tim mentioned as the first one that I own as a question too and even after you talked to him about it I don't understand it. That's item (g) under the intent section. It's e top of page 2. It saws boulevard and streetscape plantings shall be ed by the City. What do you mean that the City's going to pursue it? i: How about encouraged? : As part of the thing that we're working with the DNR, one is the estation. That might have been what that was trying to get at. That e going to look at also the urban reforestation in the downtown areas. ,gs: Okay, but this is under our intent section. What is it saying? is it saying about our intent because I don't understand it. :s: I think what it's implying, and it really shouldn't only be .ed by the City because we require boulevard and streetscape planting irate developers as well. But what we need to do is flush that out :ay that it's a goal of the City to provide boulevard and streetscape .ing. ~gs: Alright, let's say it that way. You know reforestation, it says going to be pursued by the City it sounds like the city's going to pay ,t. Right, and that's the wrong impression. ~gs: We certainly don't want to give them that impression. alia: One other thing that... Some cities do not let Oeople plant n that .13 foot public area in front. Other cities encourage... Some ,s say you have to plant it 14 foot back from the curb... ~gs: Well if it's within the right-of-way... ;s: That's right. We require that it be kept outside the right-of- If the cable company wants to come in and put some TV lines in or ;hing else. Yeah. Plan Augu: Emmi want Subm Comp What find I ha I do that we 'V to h some~ have plan I ca] bull the with The That shal stra prov Tim on p obvi~ I ag~ to ti we t~ here this somet have one tree an o~ like Don woul Emmi to g a whetl Erha' ashe: Don Chan are. lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 54 gs: It's kind of picky item, the heading for 20-1177 doesn't tell you s in 1177 at all and I would change it. Instead of saying Plans ssion and Approval, I'd' say something like Plans Submission; Time of etlon; Financial Guarantees; and Alternatives. Something like that. s up there doesn't really give you any idea of what you're going to in the section. Then over on page 4, item (c)(3) that Tim brought up. n't thought about it but I think what Tim says makes a lot of sense. 't see any reason and I guess I disagree with Jeff and Brian on this, if trees have to be removed and there's no other way to do it, and if already got what we think is a good landscape plan that they're going ye to live up to, then I think you take the trees out. I think it is hat punitive to make them replace them because they're also going to to go the cost of taking them down. If we've got a good landscape it shouldn't matter. Brian, you did an honorable job of raising what i the hypothetical horrible, what if you have to take down 50 trees to well I don't know if you ever will. But I guess that's going to be , nusual case, not the usual case and so it doesn't scare me. I agree Tim on that. Under Division 3, talk about clunkily. Was it clunkily? a) there where it says, there shall be provided landscaping meeting. could be written better and maybe you just want to say, landscaping be provided which meets the minimum. That will be a little more ght forward. Page 4. l179(a). Just say landscaping shall be ded which meets the minimum. And then I told you, that sentence that fought up needs to be changed ~nd that will be in the Minutes... Over ge 10, 18-61(a)(1) has drawn comments from everybody here and usly is a place that we're going to focus when we look at this again. ee with Brian's change for sure to take that sentence out and move it e end. I really think we need to develop these lists and I think when lked about this last time, Tim and I were making some suggestions up and what I thought we were going to do was maybe, and I don't know if makes any sense and it may be that we'll want to talk to Don or hing on this but we should have maybe, one way to do it would be to 3 categories in our list. I remember you specifically said we have ist that had a high valued tree, or what we regard to be a high value I don't know what that means but we could kick it around. Probably k or a maple, as long as it's not a little maple like...or something that. lalla: Hard, medium and soft is really want you want. The hardwood be oak... gs: See we could get some. We may want to talk to you about this but .t your, have one tree be one of those high quality trees and then have :ond list that would be, there's been a lot of disagreement up here er we want to make people put in a conifer. t: What we were trying to avoid was some guy putting in two green or two silver maples or two poplars. alia: It has to be different varieties but you've got heavy clay in assen as such. Frankly softwoods are going to survive. Sugar maple's Emmi gs: $o this isn't too bright huh. P1 ng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 55 Er : You don't think sugar maples will grow here? Don map lla: They will grow but most of them drown...same thing with soft so you can some of those problems... Mark alla: That's 6 inches above the ground... Emmi s: That's exactly the kind of stuff we need to know. Mark alla: You may want to include-too that it has to be, if you Yeco ... Emmi Is: But anyway, I thought we were going to have one list where it woul. be kind of the high valued tree. Whatever that means. Maybe hard woo plan KTaU, deve Emmi ough' want aboui than orna~ what Don Emmi they Mark woul, need Emmi 8atz Don Emmi some Don flow Emmi the want Olse but not hardwoods that aren't going to survive. There's no point in lng trees that are going to have problems. s: We're going to have the DNR Forester. They're working on oping this. ge: Let me get on with this. Let me finish. The second list I think to be, or could be evergreens of whatever kind but I'm not sure we to force people to plant evergreens. We've had an ongoing argument that up here and maybe what you want to do is put evergreens and, you for stiffling that yawn Paul. I appreciate it. Evergreens and ental trees. What if somebody wants to put up a nice, I don't know A plum, apple, I don't know what. alia: The only advantage to your evergreen is you're going to get... ge: I think a lot of people will choose to put them in but what if choose not to put them in or if they don't want them? Halla: I would think you'd have a high percentage that did that you n't have to require it. They want the winter color so maybe you don't to require it. IgS: No. i: Well what's the difference in cost between those two? alia: Evergreens are going to be cheaper than the shade trees. igs: How about an ornamental? How about a hawthorne or a crab or .hing like that? Jalla: You're going to have a 15~ to 20~ variance...price. Hawthorne, ~ring crab, soft maple, green ash, sugar maple. You're going... ~gs: Okay. But I thought maybe we could put ornamental trees in with ;roup of evergreens and let them pick one or the other if they don't evergreens. : We had intended to do that actually. Planl~ing Commission Meeting Augut 2i, 1991 - Page 56 Emmi gs: Then I don't know what the third category would be. Other kinds of d, sireable trees and I'm not sure what that means. There are lots of them There are some trees we don't want to encourage people to plant. Box lders. I personally hate cottonwoods because they make a mess on my scre ns. Maybe we should list some of those things that would be. And then I think we might want to say other things if approved by the City. Give people an out or a way to come back. I think then that I agree with the omments made down here that, by Ladd and I think Tim really said the same thing. That if what exists on the lot meets the minimum that's requ red here under the Statute, it could be for all three. There's got to be o e in the front yard. It's got to meet the same size requirements as the tees requiring to be installed. Me're going to have to match the list that we wind up developing but if existing trees did that, there's no point in. Olse~ : And if they didn't have an evergreen or ornamental, they'd have to add hat? Erha t: Yeah. Batz]i: I'd disagree with that only from the standpoint that you could have a bunch of 60 year old trees and they could die in 5 years. The ob t is to kind of reforest at the same time. I'd require at least one. Emmi gs: I bought a lot and I don't know how many trees I have but prob bly 25 or 30 and they're all old, mature trees and I don't know, I ldn't plant another tree on my lot without taking one down and I don't know if that makes any sense. Erh8 t: ~low long does a tree, if you cut a 60 year old tree, does that die in r lifetime? How old do trees get? Don alla: It depends on the variety of the trees...average life span is.. Erha t' Steve, are you saying that you want to, I agree with everything you id but I like the idea of having one conifer tree. Emmi ;s: But I think that's been a philosophical difference and some peep up here. I initially was for that position too but I heard a lot of peep say, what if I just don't want one of those. Why do I have to plant and thought there was, give that person the choice between the evergreen or a ornamental. Cent. : I like the conifers. Batz i: I like them but that doesn't mean everybody' likes them. I'm more conc, ned with getting some younger trees and making sure they're planted ly rather than forcing them to plant a particular kind. Cent : Yeah, trees have leaves on them for 4 months out of the year. I'm exa! ating but not much. Planr Augu~ Emmi r subdi loo k got c Coor~ Erhar Don k Emmir choic page page page agai Batz thuml do. Emmi Erha' Emmi on i Conr Emmi ConT Batz repl Emmi wait Batzl it's Emmi it. Co ilr Emmi Erha mise~ remo% ing Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 57 gs: I guess the other thing that bothers me, you could go through a ~isior, and every one of them has got one, I don't know. Does that good to have every lot the same as you go down the street? Each one's no, maybe it's going to be. It's okay because the houses look similar too. t: I assume they'll be different varieties of evergreens. alia: I don't think that having a conifer in there is... gs: I think they will too but I'm just saying let's give them a e. For the people who don't like it, let's give them a choice. On 11, number 5. That's the same as what's on page 4 as (c)(5) only on 4 I like the way it's stated better and I would just change the one on 11 to be the same. I think we've got to go around with this one i: But we haven't clarified. Well I mean I think we have to give a s up or thumbs down on a couple of points here so they know what to ge: Okay, go ahead. t: (c)(3) is one of them. gs: No. We don't have to do that now. We can. do that when we vote because we know there's a difference of opinion. d: We're not voting on it now. OS: We're not voting on it now. d: You need a direction. i: I would think we'd want to give them a direction to do a cement on caliper inch or not. Have it in there or not. gs: But we can't. There's not a consensus up here. We'll have to and see when we vote on it. i: Why don't we kind of take at least an informal vote to see how going to, how it may go so we don't surprise them? gs: Well we know you two guys are for it and Tim and I are against $o that leaves you two. d: Which one are we talking about? gs: (c)(3), page 4. t: The one where they're just awful. The City's asking just ably. That one. The one where they may require the replacement of ed trees on a caliper per caliper inch basis. Plan Batz Conr Ells Erha~ requ Emmi talk no ol just choi( back Batz] Conr~ don't Erha~ Conr~ Erha~ allo~ Emmi Bat. z out Talk in.. Conr~ then thinl Ever,, flex: Erha~ inte~ Batzl Emmil right the numb ing Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 58 i: May. The optimum word is may. d: The key word is may. n: I think it forces them to look at the alternate of saving a tree. t= Well we're already doing that. My argument is they're already ring them to do that too. gs: Well wait a minute. Yeah, of course that assumes that we're ng about the situation that's in number 2 right above. That there's her feasible way to develop the site. If they want to take them down on a whim, then replacement might be appropriate but if they have no e but to take the tree out, I don't think we can make them put it i: But then it's just we may require them to do something. d: I was never uncomfortable with that because of the word may and I know the standards that will apply. That's the problem with...using the word may. d: So we're putting the burden on staff to figure it out. t: Yeah, but is that fair? ...do we want to have ordinances that staff discretion like that? gs: Sure. i: Well look at the bluff line. The City Administrator's going to go here and decide whether they can cut down trees so they've got a view. about subjective. That's the most subjective thing we've talked about d: Then we get back to Steve's point. As long as there's an intent, there's a guideline for that and we can feel comfortable with it. I most people like that flexibility because every lot is different. view is different. Every subdivision, whatever. So it's nice to be ble when there's a direcction of intent. t: Okay, I'd be very comfortable with that if it's clear what the t is. i: Well the intent, we've got a whole section of intent. 1176. gs: You know what Tim? I'm looking at this a little differently now. Three might be broader. Does that apply to the City requiring lacement of any removed trees or just trees that are removed as in r 2 where there's no choice but to remove them? Batz i: I think it 'applies to everything. Plan ing Commission Meeting Augu: 21, 1991 - Page 59 Emmi ~s: I do too. I think it's a little, we're maybe reading it a little narr pi : It says evaluate, if you look in (c), it says evaluating site and subdivisions. Emmi ~s: Right. But when it says (3), the City may require...identical to what said in number 2. Trees will be saved unless it's demonstrated ther 's no other feasible way out. Are we talking about that tree that gets emoved because there's no other way to develop this site or are we talk~ more broadly about trees that are removed for other purposes? O1 : More broadly but I think we could clarify it. the We're talking about trees that could be saved but for some reason oper wants to take them out. : And not necessarily those that are 6 inches or more in caliper. Emmi is: Okay. So I guess, my position would be that if they're removing tr because they have no choice, I'm not so interested in replacing them. Zf 're removing trees for their own purposes or other purposes, I am gel to recommend replacing them. Do you agree with that Tim? Okay. So now they can work out some accord. : The other one I think we had disagreement on was on page 10. Emmi ~s: And what do you want clarified? get Whether we're going to have coniferous trees and whether they can with for all three of the required trees. Emmi ~s: When will the, will the list be done by next time we see this? : We're not going with the DNR thing right? We're going with the thr , high value, evergreen/ornamental· OI not with The DNR wouldn't be because we're working with that with a whole ordinance that you're going to be looking at so no. That list will done. But we can get a list· We'll put together a list. Working nurseries around here with those three you were talking about. Emmi ~s: I don't know that three's the magic number. Maybe you only have two Mans. Er : I just don't think it's that much magic. OI The list we've got isn't that old really. Er : But that's too long. Too many. Olse We can arrange it into those two columns. Plan COT'IT coni Emmi lng Commission Meeting t 21, 1991 - Page 60 ~d: So the question is, do we want the flexibility on having a ferous tree or not. rgs: Oh sure· Conrad: Well you said that. That was your idea. Emmir Is: Oh, whether it should be mandatory? Conr~ Erha' Cony ~3 Erhar Emmin Conra yeah maybe a cas Yeah. Thumbs up or thumbs down? I 'ma mandatory· You're mandatory. They've got to have it? One evergreen. is: Here you posed the question and now you can't answer it. I don't have an opinion. I like the coniferous. I'll have to say )ecause I don't mind the exception. You know what you're saying is it doesn't work. Maybe the land is just not right for it. I can see where somebody could persuade me. I just don't have a method of. Batz.~; whoe' discr Ellso deal. it bu like truth Emmin everg Batzl Farma Emmin manda going Aanen Emmin what everg going Should we say we need one coniferous unless the developer, ...didn't need it for some reason? In our sole and arbitrary ~tion. ~: Here's where you get all the... I don't think it's that big a If you don't want one on your property, you shouldn't have to have 3 trees is awfully nice. Maybe they want 3 ornamentals or something hat... I think a lot of people would do it anyway to tell you the Okay. We've got all the opinions down here· Are you a mandatory 'eener? : I 'ma mandatory evergreener. es: Mandatory. Is: Okay, so mandatory 's in. One of those columns is going to be a .ory evergreen. I'm going to vote against it but that's the way it's to go. Don: It's not evergreen/ornamental? It's just strictly evergreen? is: Just evergreen and I guess we want to do some work on defining .hat means. We're not talking about, there are all kinds of eens. Again we'll need a list and they should be trees that are t.o survive. Batzl : We need a list and we need standards. Plan lng Commission Meeting Augu: 21, 1991 - Page 61 Emmi ~s: Okay, now the only other question, wait. Let's get out of here. Ell : Oh now you talk about getting out of here. Batz : You've been hung up with this three list thing for half an hour that obody else likes. Emmi s: Now are we going to let them replace 2 or 3? Batz : I say 2. Farm es: 2. E1 : 3. Conr : 3. Er : 3. Emmi Is: 3. : Can we clarify that though a little bit? Emmi IS: If the 3, if it meets all the other requirements of the ordi nce. : Have at least 1 tree in the front. Emmi IS: Still got to have the same mix and same list. What if a guy's got 500 foot deep lot and it's solid trees for the back 200 feet, are we stil going to make him do that? Cent. : Yep. Emmi Is: I think so too. We're going to table this. Is there a motion? Er moved, Emmings seconded to table Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ~t to amend Sections regarding landscaping and tree preservation requ hts. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmi is: Thanks for your input. Appreciate it. APP 'AL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated Au 7, 1991 were so noted as presented. CITY UPDATE: Emmi is: Any particular items you want to highlight Paul? Kra : No. Emmi is: The bank was a big improvement. Is that picture here so other peopl can see it? P1 lng Commission Meeting 21, 1991 - Page 62 Kr : No, I'm afraid it isn't. 5mmi ~s: I saw it at the City Council meeting and it really was, they took into ~ccount a lot of the thing~ we said. They made the windows bigger. They ~ut some awnings on it which really helped a lot. But they also, they shad in. They put shade on that and that was as nice as anything. I thin we should paint that shade in. Krau: : The building wall was pretty monolithic. They brought depth into it balconies. It looks somewhat like Medican Arts in terms of having hal 'es. Emmi is: It was much better. We've'our ongoing items list. Does anybody have comments on that? 8atz : When is the kundgren Bros. deal going to the Council? Olse September 9th. SIGN AMENDMENT WORK PROGRAM. Emmi ~s: Paul's lookin~ for input on this. Now it's still, are you going to up a separate? Kr : By all ranks I'd like to have the Planning Commission designate i or 2 ple to work with one or two people from the Council and probably go out get some people from the community. We'll meet as infrequently as pose e. Maybe once a month for a few months type of thing. Emmi ~s: 3elf I know is interested in this issue. Is there anybody else who' interested? Batz : Tim is I think. Er : I think Ladd wrote the last sign ordinance so I'm sure he is. Ell : I think Joan is very interested. Cent : Are we going to, this is a round about way. Are we going to have a ttee for the wetland ordinance? Kra : That is also needed. We'll also need someone for that. Emmi .s: Are you interested in that? Cent : See that one I'd like to be on. I wouldn't mind looking at the sign rdinance. Emmi :s: Do you want to be an alternate? Con : Maybe an alternate's not a bad idea. See I would like to see, I don want. to be on both committees really. Pl ng Commission Meeting Augu 21, 199~ -- Page 63 £mmi ;s: Is there going to be, how about a 1995 study area. The TH 5 cor~' r thing. Is there going to be another? I< : The way I'm trying to swing that is to have on your regular meet ~ to have a session that's a joint meeting between you and the HRA to ider that study specifically. 5mmi Is: Okay. So that study will be going on with consultants and so fort and then we'll come in at some point in time? So there won't be a se ~to study group? : I would prefer not to on that one. That one is I think something that should be involved with on a more frequent basis. Emmi Is: Is there somebody else who wants to volunteer for the signs? Do you ~a].ly think 3oan is interested or are you taking a poke because she's not £11 : I thought it'd be fun delegating people who aren't here. Emmi is: Yeah, I think that's only fair. I know I'm a lot more interested in land~ than I am in signs. Personally. How about you? Batz : No interest in signs. Ell : Why do we need two? I think 3elf will do fine. I think that si he can do what needs to be done. Bt : I'm not a big sign person. Emmi is: Can we go with one and an alternate? I<r : That's probably fine because I would guess that the Council will, not big guess but probably appoint Tom to work with it and then maybe get a e of people from the Chamber. That's probably enough. Emmi s: The only other thing is to ask 3oan. Why don't you ask 3oan if she nts to do it. If she wants to do it we'll have two and Ladd as an alter e. Otherwise we'll have Jeff and Ladd as an alternate. Krau : 3oan's going to be out for part of the time I assume we're going to doing this but we'll make the offer. Emmi s: Yeah. Why don't we do that. And the wetlands thing will get under ay? K : I'm asking the Mayor to set up a task force on that as we speak. Emmin s: And who's got interest here? Tim. Ladd. Ellso : For which ones? Emmin s: ~etlands. Plan ~ugu: KYau8 prog¥ plan Er hair Batz] lng Commission Meeting t 21, J991 -- Page 64 s: Well it's not just wetlands. It's the whole surface utility am. It's all the water management issues. Storm water management and the water quality effort. And you're looking for a sub task force to do that? i: If you three guys are on it. Emmi Batz Ellsc Batz make Emmi~ Farm~ me. Emmir the s happy I<raus meeti the w with don't avoid Farma wot ki thsYe be ju Kraus signa Farma you j, it wo, we've that very Conra and ti r gs: No, I just want you to say whether you've got interest. l i: I have interest but I think you guys have more interest. n: Come on, it's 11:15. i: That's why I'm saying it that way. It's 11:15. I don't want to any decisions. Is.' 3elf, do you want to be on two? '.es: I think the sign thing, maybe if I'm a solo, that's enough for rs: I guess if they want two members of the Planning Commission on gn thing, I'll do it with 3elf. If whoever's putting it together is with one, it will be 3elf. : I should also tell you too though, we are going to attempt to have gs for those two task forces at some point either early or late in )rking day or immediately after the close of business. To be honest ~ou, I don't think we can handle another group of night meetings and I think anybody else around here can either. So we're going to try to setting aside a whole evening for these things. (es: I have a question for you on the sign committee. When you're out, there was sort of a general description of who would be on There's going to be a balanced group there I'm assuming. It won't sign drafters and business representatives? : No. Well, we've got to look at people who are interested in e. es: I fully agree with that. It just will be a balance...because if st have business owners downtown and people with businesses downtown, ld be. : It'd be skewed one way or the other. That's one of the reasons asked you to consider it because there's a variety of design image 'gu might have and maybe somebody like Dick Wing now who is getting ,xcited about design. We'll sure try. We'll give names to the Mayor. moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor e motion carried. The meeting Nas adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Submi ted by Paul Krauss, Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim