1990 01 17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 17, 1990
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve E~-~tings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli
and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planning Intern and Dave Hempel, Senior Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 3.9 ACRES INTO ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT OF 1.49
AND AN OUTLOT OF 2.42 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 2150
CRESTVIEW LANE, THOMAS AND JEAN SHIVLEY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Thomas and Jean Shively
Mr./Mrs. Michael Schultz
Don Kelly
Dick Vandenberg
Dick Herrboldt
Mr./Mrs. Sam Mancino
Applicant
Applicant
2081 West 65th Street
6474 Murray Hill Road
6464 Murray Hill Road
6620 Galpin Blvd.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report.
Conrad: Just one general question before we open it up to the public. Why
do you think it's critical to have that access going to the south? We see
the land, the property down there below it. Is it your general feeling
that there's no good way for internal circulation within that parcel itself
to have two accesses? Is that really the bottom line?
Krauss: Pretty much Mr. Chairman. What it boils down to is we've got a
great unknown down here. There's some very large ownership. Our
Comprehensive Plan, it's been in there for a while, shows some sort of an
extension of Lake Lucy Road from that general area but that leaves a
considerable area in the middle to serve. What we found is that we've got
a series of cul-de-sacs that keep coming off of the highways in town.
Ultimately we may prefer to see several of them connected. At this point
we're not making that recommendation. We're just simple trying to provide
an option for serving that property since there is no road in that vicinity
right now.
Conrad: So within this Paul, you're just doing...going to have two
accesses?
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, we may well have another access in there. R~ght now
there's a long private driveway that winds it's way back in here. It
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 2
serves I believe two homes. The driveway itself may not be an ideal
location for a public street because there's quite a bit of property back
in there. At some point we may have something that loops through. If they
ultimately decide that it should terminate on the site...road to the south.
Conrad: ...is it staff's opinion that this is too long a cul-de-sac...
Krauss: We are concerned with that and we're concerned with the quality of
the street, the way it sits right now, yes.
Conrad: With that we'll open it up for public co~Lents. If the applicant
is here and would like to make a comment, we'd sure like the applicant to
start off and give us their perspective.
Jean Shively: Members of the Commission, my name is Jean Shively.
Shively's Addition and I guess I would ask the commission at this point to
keep in mind some of the factors that Mr. Krauss has raised. I would ask
you to consider the fact that the property to the south is currently
outside of the MUSA line. The property to the south is under private
ownership with no i~-~ediate plans for development and I also ask you to
consider the recommendation made from my perspective. The particular piece
of property we're talking about here is 4 acres. The subdivision that's
being requested is at the request of the purchaser's of the propert~ for
financing purposes only. So far in the discussion of this subdivision,
they've been asked to dedicate property for a trail. They've been asked to
dedicate property for a cul-de-sac to serve the potential development of
the outlot and now in addition they're being asked to dedicate property for
some speculative, potential development of property to the south. So what
began as a 4 acre parcel is gradually dwindling down to a parcel of a much
smaller size. I would ask the Commission to keep in mind that at this
point all of the property is being purchased by one purchaser. It is not
being purchased for speculation or for development. I guess my concern is,
most particularly with the second part of the reco~m~endation which is the
extension of the proposed right-of-way dedication to the south. I
recognize that because of the subdivision and regardless of the intent of
the purchasers, there have to be provisions made by the City to serve the
outlet in the event there is development there and it's my understanding,
though I don't intend to speak for the purchasers, that they don't object
to the first pa~t of the road dedication. I would also ask you to keep in
mind that as long as that property is in the ownership of a single family,
that is under their control. However, the concern that I have is with the
extension of the right-of-way to the south which is to serve property that
I don't own and they won't own. The potential is that the City on it's own
and sometime in the future if there is development to the south could
unilaterally have the absolute right under those easement agreements to put
a road through their backyard. I don't know if any of you have visited the
property and what doesn't show on your map there is that out of the 4
acres, appoximately 2 of it is wooded and it is the 2 acres around the
outside of the property so that the extension that they're talking about to
the south is through one of the most attractive portions of the property. I
don't like to basically oppose a request without at least considering some
alternatives. It seems to me even Mr. Krauss has recognized the
possibility of the extension of Lake Lucy Road or I would suggest another
Planning Co~m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 3
alternative and that is, in the event that the outlot is to be developed in
the future, whoever would be making those plans would once again have to
come back to the Planning Commission and it would seem to me much more
appropriate at that time, if the extension to the south is needed either
for the development of the outlot or for development of the property to the
south, that you could deal with a developer and make those arrangements. I
believe that they have acknowledged that they don't know if the document
that you have in front of you is the best location for that extension to
the south. It's impossible to tell and to the best of my knowledge, there
are absolutely no development plans by the current owner of the property.
My serious concern is that I know government can not take private land from
a private citizen without compensation. My concern is that in the event
down the road, if this entire dedication goes through, the City once again
could unilaterally put a road through the landowner's backyard destroying
and diminishing the value of that piece of property substantially and the
landowners would have no control and no recourse and as a lawyer, that
situation makes me extremely uncomfortable. I think we can serve both the
purposes of the City and the purposes of the landowner by allowing the
dedication of the right-of-way to serve the outlot and leaving the
extension to the south when everyone involved has a much better idea of
what they are intending to service. I would also suggest in ~eference to
the cul-de-sacs along CR 117, I believe the reason for a great number of
those is the fact that all of those properties back up to the intermediate
school so unless they want roads going through their football fields, there
is a very logical reason for it. Are there any questions?
Don Kelly: Hi. I'm Don Kelly and I live at 2081 West 65th Street. You've
got the advantage over me because you've got 2 name tags. Are you Mr.
Conrad? Okay. Brian Batzli is not here?
Conrad: Sometimes not.
Ellson: That's Brian.
Don Kelly: Okay, so Jim Wildermuth is not here?
Ellson: Right.
Don Kelly: Alright. I think you were here before when I, you were on the
City Council weren't you when we talked about the path before?
Conrad: I've been here.
Don Kelly: You've been here when we talked about the path before. I came
when curt Ostrom was developing the property just north of the property
we're discussing tonight and requested that a path be included from West
65th Street through that development to the intermediate school. At the
time the school wasn't open but it seemed possible that we would be
interested in having a path. Fortunately the City agreed and included in
the development agreement was a requirement that the developer include a
path. The developer failed to include those easements on the deeds that
were filed. City staff failed to monitor his performance in that regard.
As a result, no path was provided from West 65th Street through to the
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 4
intermediate school. The proposal you're looking at includes an easement
along the north side of that property which goes from the intermediate
school to the east edge of the property and there's a suggestion in there
that this pretty much solves the whole problem because now all we need to
do is chat with the Kelly's or the Boudrie's and get an easement through to
West 65th Street. Okay. The top horizontal part of that red line is on
West 65th Street. The bottom horizontal part of the red line is the
easement that's being discussed in the Shivley Addition. The vertical part
of that red line is an easement that is roughly in the area of the property
line between my property and Lot 5 of the Pleasant Hill subdivision. The
people that own Lot 5 are not going to voluntarily provide that easement.
It frustrates me to think that after spending a lot of time trying to plan
ahead and to make sure that we have appropriate trail easements, that the
City should come back and say well boy, did we ever blow it but boy it's a
good thing you own that property and we can get the easement from you. As
a matter of fact, they didn't even contact me in this regard. This was
something that I learned when I called to find out what was going on. The
corner of my house is 24 feet from that property line. I have a good sized
lot but my house happens to be in that corner. If we put a pedestrian
easement in there, we're looking at having that easement within 14 feet of
the corner of my house. That is the only area in my lot where we have any
privacy. That is not the type of an arrangement that I had hoped we'd have
to provide a trail easement for the people on my street to the school. It
would be satisfactory for my family because we could trot from the corner
of our lot down the easement and get to the school. But I'm not interested
only in providing something for my family. I'm interested in providing
something for our neighbors and the people with younger children that may
be moving into those houses as other people move away. If we're going to
irritate somebody by condemning land for a trail easement, it would seem
more logical to put the easement on the boundary line between Lots 5 and
Lots 6. From West 65th to Murray Hill Road and then go through the water
tower property. So what we're looking at is a request for a trail easement
that goes from the school to nowhere. The other thing that I notice
sitting here this evening is when they talk about the right-of-way easement
the City does have an ordinance restricting cul-de-sac streets to 500 feet.
So Crestview is already a non-conforming street. Extending it further into
a subdivision would lengthen it. The suggestion that the road to the south
is to serve the property to the south is kind of silly because obviously
the only manner in which that road would be extended would be to loop it.
So if they're concerned about serving the property to the south, it makes
more sense to consider a cul-de-sac street coming north from the south from
a street that goes through that subdivision. Thank you.
Conrad: Good comments. Just for clarification. Where would you like to
see a trail put in? Could you go up there? Obviously you're not wild
about where it's slotted for now.
Don Kelly: My wife suggested that the trail would go in here over her dead
body. Our neighbors here would have the same reaction to having it. This
easement taken by condemnation. If the City is going to do that approach,
then the trail through here would be more convenient. The trail that's
marked on there looks kind of convenient because it goes down the end of
the street and then up the property line. In actuality, that street is,
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 5
that again is an old map. That street ends in a cul-de-sac now. Maybe 5
years ago we dedicated property to the cul-de-sac and the street was
vacated to the west of the property so that the street does not in fact go
through to the west property line. There is a utility easement that goes
along to the intersection of my lot and Lot 5 and then there's a utility
easement that goes between Lot 4 and Lot 5. But what would actually
happen, unless we actually went through and took out trees and put in
woodchips and so forth to make the trail follow that, what would actually
happen we would have people walking up our driveway and across the lawn and
back to the back lot. It wouldn't be very practical that way. A trail
going through the other way to the street would tend to have people go down
the street and down the trail the way we would intend to.
Conrad: Okay thanks. Other comments.
Dick Vandenberg: I'm Dick Vandenberg, 6474 Murray Hill Road. My lot is
Lot 4 that abuts the Shively proper, ty on the Murray Hill cul-de-sac so I
would be affected by this proposed trail as well. For some reason I
thought the trail issue was dead back there but it's not. I have the same
problem Mr. Kelly has in that the trail would come within 20 feet of the
back of my house and I have a lot of glass back there and it would really
infringe upon our privacy. I think that type of thing is fairly intrusive,
not to mention being a security risk as long as it's open to the general
public. So I would object to that. I would make one co~,ent. The trail
as it exists now informally goes between 5 and 6. I believe the Kelly's
children cut through there and other kids do. We have children cutting
through the back of our yard too. I don't object to that. What I do
object to though is something in writing and in the law that says that the
public has access to that. I don't mind neighborhood children going to
school through our yard but I do object to a legal right for the public to
go back there. It's highly intrusive and I strongly object to it.
Dick Herrboldt: Councilmembers, my name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at
6464 Murray Hill Road. Right next door to the last speaker.
E~m, ings: Which lot?
Dick Herrboldt: Number 3. And I feel as opposed to the trail as Dick does
for a variety of reasons. The first one being that I think we have an
environmental issue here which nobody has really talked about. That is
that there's a lot of trees in that area which would obviously have to come
down if you're going to put a 6 foot wide trail through that area. At the
present time we have several dead trees in our backyard that we're leaving
there for the purpose of supporting an abundance of birds, including
woodpeckers and various other species of birds and if any of you would like
to come over and look at my t~ees with their 10 foot long trails of
woodpecker bites in them, I'd be glad to show it to you. The security
issue is a major issue for me also. I came from South Minneapolis where my
home was burglarized 4 times. The reason why it was burglarized was
because of it was accessed to the back of the house and I think by opening
up a private trail to this same area, we're going to cause the same sort of
problems. There's also a danger to people walking through that area. It's
very wooded. There's a lot of old trees and like I just stated, there's
Planning Co~m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 6
dead trees in my back yard. I can imagine people wandering off the path in
a windstorm and having branches fall down on their heads. There's a lot of
dead timber back there at the present time and I expect to keep it that
way. The other reason is there's also a water problem back there. All of
the water in that cul-de-sac drains into my backyard. The Minnetonka
Watershed people built a dyke back there with a large culvert so the water,
everytime it rains, collects in my yard and this water often extends over
into the area where you're proposing to put the path. So I think that's a
major problem that we need to look at. So I'm very opposed to the idea of
putting the path through for those reasons. Would like you to consider
them. Thank you.
Michael Sch,lltz: Members of the commission. I'm afraid I'm the guilty
party who started this ball rolling. I'm the purchasers of the Shively lot
and I guess as long as we're on the trail, I wanted to say a few things
about that. I was at the Park Board meeting where that trail was discussed
and the message I was getting is that the trail was something the neighbors
wanted and it's been educational tonight to learn that every neighbor who
felt the need to come out, has opposed the trail. We would oppose it for
many of the same reasons. Some of them selfish. Some of them not. The
privacy issue is a concern of ours. Security is a concern of ours. The
major concern is, the impression I got at the Park Board meeting was that
this trail was used and that we were just simply putting an easement in so
kids would not have to break the law to use the trail. Since that meeting
I've seen what was supposedly the trail and there is no trail there so to
speak. There's no path that is beaten through the woods. It's not
existing and if anything, apparently the kids are using the Shively's back
yard rather than the trees and we don't have any opposition to kids using
the woods or even the back yard to get to school but we would oppose a
formal taking pursuant to the split that we're proposing for this trail and
especially in light of some of the opposition. We would join that.
I wanted to echo some of the things that Jean Shively said about the
proposed roads. I think in terms of the cul-de-sac, the proposal l(a) , we
don't have opposition to that. I think that makes sense. It's true. We
don't have any intention of developing that land but for purposes of the
subdivision I think there needs to be some access if that was ever to be
done and we don't oppose that. The road to the south though is a real
problem for us as purchasers. For one, that kind of an easement detracts
from the value of the property'significantly even if it's never used. It
would be one thing if the City had a plan that this road was going to
access a development or even a conceiveable development that was somehow in
the works. That's not the case. The owners of the property have no
intention of dividing, the current owners of the property to the south have
no intention of dividing. Even if a development did go in there, there's a
great question as to whether the road would be more appropriate at some
other point. Some other part of our property or some other adjoining
property. There is no sense to putting the road in where the Planning
Co~tission has reco~ended. It doesn't go to any calculated development.
It's very speculative and if it didn't hurt the value of the property, we
wouldn't care but it detracts from the property significantly. It can't be
sold. It can't be transferred without a potential buyer knowing of that
easement and having a legitimate concern for it. We would ask that if the
commission is going to approve the division, that they approve the
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 7
cul-de-sac l(a) and that you do reject the road to the south. And if it
becomes appropriate at some time in the future, then at that time it should
be considered. If we have to come back in and subdivide, then the
commission will have it's opportunity to require a road to the south at
that point. Thank you.
Conrad: Other comments?
Sam Mancino: Sari Mancino. Property owner to the south. We have no
intention to develop that at the moment. We bought the property to buffer
ourselves and to lead a private lifestyle back there so we have no pressing
desire to develop it. In fact, anything that really puts a gun to our head
to try to develop it is something that we'd like to discourage. I think
that, as I understand it, the requirement of subdividing right now does not
grant permission to build on that outlot. Is that correct right now? That
to build on it would require another platting and another review? At that
time, I think it is appropriate that if you feel you still need the road
easement, then to address it at that time rather than at this time. I
guess that's about the end of it.
Conrad: Thank you. Other co~,ents? Anything else?
Dick Vandenberg: Dick Vandenberg again from the Lot 4 on Murray Hill. A
month or so ago I believe one of my neighbors granted an easement or
donated land to the City so that Murray Hill Road and some of the back,
maybe perhaps 65th Street. Perhaps that was the intention. Anyhow, he
granted an easement for access to the water tower as well as the school
property for children to walk in. I believe a walkway is going to go
through there so this proposed walkway here may be a redundancy.
E~m~ings: Would you say that again? Where is this walkway that you're
talking about now?
Dick Vandenberg: I'll point it out to you. Right here. It was city
property and I believe Gil Kreidberg bought it and then donated 10 feet of
it or whatever it was. You all know about that better than I do.
E~m, ings: ...through there from the street all the way back to the water
tower itself.
Dick Vandenberg: But it was my understanding that the intention of that
easement along with access to the water tower was to have the neighborhood
children to have access to the schoolyard which would eliminate this
proposed pathway here.
Don Kelly: That provides access from Murray Hill to the school. Is
doesn't provide access from West 65th.
Dick Vandenberg: Neither does the proposed pathway.
Conrad: Okay. Anything else?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 8
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Did all of these people. Park and Recreation took the action to
reco~m~end the trail that we're discussing...is that right?
Krauss: Yes.
Emmings: And were all these people given notice of their consideration of
that? Do they get a chance to hear public input or does that happen at
this stage. Is that designed to happen at this stage?
Olsen: It's supposed to happen at the Park and Rec.
Emmings: And so are there provisions that Park and Rec have that they're
suppose to give people notice before they take an action like this?
Olsen: I believe so.
Resident: We were never notified.
Don Kelly: There was a published notice and mailed notice of this hearing
tonight and so we all just planned to come tonight. We didn't know there
was another meeting.
~mings: I guess the problem here is that, we run into this time and time
again where Park and Rec is making a reco~endation and they, like we, who
recommend to the City Council and we're not supposed to override what they
do. We don't have any jurisdiction over what they do but it seems to me
that this has been very poorly considered by Park and Rec because they
didn't have input from the neighborhood and I don't know what we can do
about it except to put that on the record. I think it ought to go back to
Park and Rec. My understanding when I looked at this design was that they
already had the easement that's vertical on there and all they needed was
something to connect it over to the school and that's, it seems real half
baked to me anyway.
Conrad: And I'm not sure what Park and Rec's role in public. They try to
get public involved but they're not necessarily holding public hearings
like we do. This is really the forum for public hearings.
E~ings: But when we're mapping something across somebody's property, it
seems to me we ought to give them notice. I think that's basically
outrageous.
Conrad: It's one of those cases where nobody wants a trail across their
property.
~m~ings: Right. But you know, if there's a workable system there. For
example, and I don't know if this is the way it should be resolved, but if
this already exists. If it gets from this road into the school property
and if there's already a custom in the neighborhood whereby the kids down
here can cross here and cross here, I don't know why we have to do that.
Planning Co~-m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 9
Maybe you do. Maybe there are good reasons to do it.
Conrad: And we don't know enough.
~mings: Right. But they ought to have their input when it's being
planned. When it's being put on a map I feel. But anyway. Let's see,
with the road to the south off the cul-de-sac, the extension of Crestview
and the road that goes to the south, would all of the areas be buildable
that you're leaving?
Krauss: What we tried to do is locate it so this is a buildable lot. If
you extend it, the center line of Crestview out across that property, you
wind up with an unbuildable piece of ground. It would...so what we did is
we used this very large cul-de-sac and figured that we curve it a little
bit to the north. Get them up that...and have a lot. But that presented a
problem with part of the right-of-way is on Lot 1. This part right here
and the rest of it's on the outlot and since the only time that property is
together is right now before the subdivision. This is the time that that
has to be obtained.
Emmings: Since this is an outlot that's being created, an L shaped piece,
it's been suggested here and it is correct isn't it that before that was
subdivided, before it would be buildable, they'd have to come back in here
again and that road to the south could be required at that time.
Krauss: Yes sir. That's correct, and we discussed that with them. The
concern that we had with that was a matter of timing. If the outlot is
platted first, prior to development being proposed on the property to the
south, that works fine. If it's the other way around, then we have a lot
that we'd have no connection to or we lose an option for when that lot to
the south develops.
Batzli: Except the lot to the south isn't 'in the MUSA line currently.
Krauss: That's correct.
Emmings: One speaker mentioned a 500 foot maximum length on cul-de-sacs.
I'm not familiar with that. Is that accurate?
Krauss: No. The Code is somewhat open ended. It expresses desire to
limit the length of cul-de-sac but is not specific.
Conrad: It used to be. It used to be 500 feet and the City was real
uncomfortable with cul-de-sacs. I think over the last couple years
philosophy has changed a little bit. I think emergency services is still
not real comfortable with long cul-de-sacs and I think they generally are a
hazard. If we feel we are protecting the citizens and providing services
that allow emergency vehicles to access their house and fire, storms, what
have you. There's a valid case for having a second access on a long
street.
~mings: Do we know how long this one is? How long it would be. If that
were all the way in, how far would that c~l-de-sac be?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 10
Don Kelly: It's 800 feet from the beginning so we'd add the length you see
there.
Batzli: Adding at least another what? 200 feet?
Krauss: Dave is scaling it off right now.
Dave Hempel: It's approximately 900 feet to the end of the cul-de-sac
right now and it would be another 250 feet with the new cul-de-sac so a
total of roughly 1,200 feet.
Emmings: Ordinarily and in the past I've always been for, I've always
supported connecting these things or making the connection over when we
have the opportunity to do it. I don't see doing it in this case. I
guess I'm persuaded that, the thing that bothers me about doing it I guess
is that if the owner of that piece wants to keep it all together in private
ownership, I wouldn't like to see a road going through there. I know that
at some point there's, I wouldn't like to see this road. Having this
platted down, obviously makes sense... Having this, I think that could be
a matter that gets arranged in the future between the property to the south
if and when it develops or when they come back in to plat that outlot.
So I don't have real strong feelings about it but I tend to not want to
put, I'd support the plan not to put the road to the south.
Conrad: Arguments will be just as strong when they come back in to plat
the outlot.
~,mings: But then, I guess it seems to me, maybe we'll know something then
that we don't know now. Maybe we'll know better whether we need it or not.
If they were here platting the outlot, then I'd want it there now. If they
were asking now to plat that whole piece into lots, I'd say let's put the
road there. But if everybody's intention in that area, however brief, is
to keep that all in one piece, I don't see any reason to put a road through
the middle of their backyard or even to give the City the opportunity to do
it. Essentially it will allow access for parking to the south.
Conrad: More than likely when the new development goes into the south and
there will be one, they won't want to hook up. They'll probably feel real
comfortable keeping it within their property.
E~-m~,ings: And there may be an adequate way to do that.
Conrad: Therefore, what you're suggesting here, and so if that develops
first, what you're saying is you've kind of closed down the option of
giving a secondary access to this parcel.
E~m~ings: It doesn't bother me on this one as it has in the past. Like I
say, in the past I've always supported the connections. This is a change
for me. On this one it seems reasonable. I think that's all I've got. I
don't have anything else.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 11
Ellson: I love this area over here. It's everything I think people move
into Chanhassen to see. All the wooded lots and the spacious area. I
don't like thinking about future development either and I know that nobody
at this point has a plan to develop either the south or the other one but I
don't think I'd be doing my job if I didn't think more than just at this
point. I think it's up to us to look at planning the future and that might
be 25 years from now but I'm leaning towards leaving that access down
there. I agree with Steve about the trails. I don't know that it's, I can
say that I go on record. I think that was a bad way to handle it. I don't
think I can go and change and take out the trail reco~,endation because
that's not, in my opinion, I don't know. Maybe I've got our charter wrong
but it's not a Planning Co~,ission issue as to where a trail goes although
I share everybody's opinion that if it's a neighborhood trail and the
neighborhood doesn't want it there, then who's it helping. But I think
addressing the outlot with both streets allows us to plan for all the
possibilities. Maybe all the property owners right .here have no plans to
develop and then these will be the property owners and we won't have to
worry about it. It's the next ones and the ones after that that I'm more
worried about so I'd support the south access. At least getting it at this
point and hoping, because I said, I love this area, that it never does
develop. But I think we have to be prepared for what might come.
Batzli: I guess on the trail, I would personally feel comfortable changing
the Park and Rec.
Ellson: I don't know, can we do that?
Batzli: I don't know if we can but I'd feel comfortable doing it.
Conrad: We can make some suggestions.
Batzli: But now knowing what the entire trail system looks like in that
part of the woods, in this case. I don't know that I can say yes or no.
If there's an alternative way to get through the water tower lot that's
reasonable and the kids know about it, I don't know why we're trying to ram
this one through. But I would like to see it go back to Park and Rec and
allow these people a chance to express their views to them. Or if that's
not possible, at least give them plenty of advance notice as to when this
is going to go in front of the City Council and so the City Council will
have a chance to hear them. Paul, if you wanted to make Outlot A buildable
without subdividing further, at that time would you be able to get the
southern portion through there?
Krauss: Yeah. You would still have to go through a subdivision request
basically to change it's status from outlot to buildable.lot and at that
time we could presumably ask for additional right-of-way.
Batzli: Maybe Dave can answer this but is Crestview currently up to a
standard, minimum standard road, up through where we're, up through this
portion that you're adding?
Hempel: No it is not. It's actually narrower than our typically 31 foot
wide street. I believe it's around 20 foot wide.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 12
Batzli: So it's a narrow street but we're taking the full 50 feet there?
Hempel: That's correct.
Batzli: And why on this jog, it seems to jog to the south and then back
and then you want to jog it back north again?
Hempel: A slight alignment change in there, yes to line up.
Batzli: That entire aligrmtent shift is to get enough depth to that first
lot to make it buildable?
Krauss: Yeah. Out in the field, it actually is not as severe as it seems.
The cul-de-sac there is oversized and it appears as though it's an S curve
but it would actually be a fairly mild curve that could take place inside
that cul-de-sac bubble.
Batzli: But it's on a narrower road? It's still on the 20 foot road width
there?
Hempel: Leading into the cul-de-sac, yes.
Krauss: The cul-de-sac is newer. It would be built to a different size.
Batzli: I guess I talked about the trail. As far as extending Crestview,
I guess I would be in favor of extending it to the west but not to the
south for pretty much the same reason Steve had. I just don't see it being
developed and I think as and when it is, I think that will be plenty of
opportunity to extend it southerly at that point.
Ellson: It's when the south is extended that you're in the quandry is what
it comes down to.
Batzli: Well, I don't see the MUSA line changing in this area. Is this
part of our request? This portion?
Krauss: Yes . '
Conrad: A whole bunch of pressure.
Batzli: What's the status of that right now? Have we submitted that?
Krauss: Oh no. No.
Batzli: Do you think it's going to go through?
Conrad: It will go through.
Krauss: We're going to give you a schedule at our next meeting next week
that anticipates hopefully submitting it to the Metro Council by July.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 13
Conrad: I think just for those of you who are here. For 2 years we've
been trying to figure out how the City grows and where it grows and right
now the City's run out of land for a lot of things. Residential being one.
A lot of pressure. A lot' of people wanting to sell. A lot of developers
wanting to come in. There's a real great case that can be made, whether
you like development or not but there's a real great case that there's not
enough land in Chanhassen for new residential. This is one area that by
chance will be possibly sewered. We're close to the MUSA line which is
where you can sewer and there's a real good chance that that area will be
extended so there will be additional sewer possibilities which means
additional residential. Anything else?
Batzli: No.
Ahrens: I agree with Annette about her reasons for approving the southerly
extension of Crestview, or the right-of-way to the south. I think that
there will be future development on there, I guess especially if the MUSA
line is moved. I think that, and I don't have a problem with extending
Crestview into the cul-de-sac area either. I'm in favor of that. The
trail easement, I have some questions about that. First of all, I realize
the neighbors say they don't have a problem with the kids walking through
their back yards or wherever they want to walk right now but there may in
the future be a homeowner that says I don't want kids walking through my
yard. I'm going to put up a fence and they're not going to be able to even
get to school. My question is, how do the kids who live on Crestview Lane
get up to the school?
Dick Vandenberg: Through my back yard. There's a fence that runs between
my yard and Boudrie's. The access to our cul-de-sac is through out of my
yard. That's the way they come... They take bikes through there. There's
a boy on our cul-de-sac that's the same age as a couple of boys on
Crestview and that's how they get between there and I don't object to that.
But if the trail goes through there, I'm going to put a fence up and they
won't have access because the back of my property is 20 feet from that
trail.
Ahrens: Paul, do you know if there's any plans for connecting a trail for
the kids who live further south up to the trail that...
Krauss: Not to the best of my knowledge, no.
Ahrens: So how do those kids get to school? I can't figure that out.
Conrad: Take the bus probably.
Ellson: I wouldn't doubt it.
Dick Herrboldt: This trail does not go, that's it. Nothing leads to it
and when you're on the trail.
Dick Vandenberg: Here's the way they typically come from Crestview. Right
up through Shively's driveway here and then across this fence right into
here.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 14
Ahrens: To me the trail would make more sense if it connected to the south
for all the kids that lived on Crestview also.
Krauss: I really don't believe we're equipped to talk about the trail.
There's a lot of history to it and it took place outside of the Planning
Commission context and it was through the Park Board. There was originally
supposed to be a trail platted with I believe the Murray Hill subdivision
and it was a requirement of approval and for some reason it was never
obtained. Consequently the land was so old and the owners who purchased it
weren't aware of it and had a different feeling about it. I don't want to
say it's a Park Board issue, that the Planning Co~ission doesn't have the
right to comment on it, but it's one that's difficult for us to present to
you. There is a lot of history attached to it.
Ahrens: That's what I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to understand
the reason why there's such a short trail there. It doesn't seem to
connect anywhere or help any of the other homeowners who live so far away
and I think we don't have the power to change the Park and Rec's decision.
I agree but I'm still trying to understand if there's any other reason for
that...especially when there's a trail this close.
Krauss: Again, I don't know the history on it. I've been at several City
Council meetings concerning the sale of the land up by the water tower
where this was discussed. The City's aware that if this trail system went
through, would have to obtain the land from Mr. Kelly. Right now the only
aspect of the trail that's being considered is that portion of it that's on
the Shively property. It won't go anywhere unless the City manages to
obtain the rest of it.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. One question Paul. In your mind the 900 or 1,000
foot cul-de-sac that we potentially could create, I didn't see a comment in
here from the Fire Marshall or somebody. In many cases in new developments
we've gotten from co~'~ents saying dangerous situation. If tree falls,
whatever and I didn't see that in here and I'm trying to, my biggest
concern is for the neighborhood period. Are we creating even a greater,
are we creating a fish by having a 900 foot cul-de-sac? Especially for the
people at the end. I haven't been sold one way or another on it. I think
staff has looked at it from a future standpoint for connecting to the south
and that's obviously what your job is. That's why you're the City Planner
but right now it does appear to me, the south could develop independently.
But a case could be made that a 900 or a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac is
unacceptable. Especially when we had a standard of 500 feet in the past
and even that we were totally comfortable with. But I can't react. I
don't know if we've got an unacceptable situation. My decision on
cul-de-sacs or on the road to the south or not at this point in time is do
we have an unacceptably long cul-de-sac and we do have to find a solution
based on city standards and good planning.
Krauss: Well the logic on cul-de-sac decisions doesn't change from issue
to issue. Public Safety staff would generally prefer to have another means
of ingress and egress so they can insure that they can get in there in
times of emergency. Planning departments, planning staff typically
Planning Co~-~,ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 15
recommends to connect streets if it's at all possible. Ultimately you
could have a scenario where you had county roads and cul-de-sacs if every
developer did what they wanted to do. On the other hand, we don't diminish
the value of cul-de-sacs. They're very attractive places to live and they
certainly have their place and occasionally a particularly long cul-de-sac
makes sense if there are no alternatives. In this instance we believe
there may be an alternative. We're not really sure at this point but we
didn't want to foreclose on that.
Batzli: Ladd, let me ask you a philosophical question. Currently the
cul-de-sac is 950 feet long. By extending it to the south, you aren't
remedying the problem.
Conrad: Not today we're not, no.
Batzli: You're not going to remedy the problem until, really there's not
an additional problem until the L shaped lot subdivides further. You're
not adding further capacity to that road until that time.
Conrad: Right. If you have that there however and a new developer comes
into the property of the south, we'll have a real easy time in making sure
that access issues are solved simply because we have that access to the
north.
Batzli: What's the distinquishing, I mean you can always have that person
stub a road northerly at that time and wait until the L shaped property
subdivides as well. In the meantime you can, it might almost be a third
access issue. You may require the person to the south to provide their own
adequate access. But you're not comfortable with that? I can sense.
Conrad: No. My preference is to not do it because I like cul-de-sacs in
the neighborhood concept. I get real uncomfortable with safety issues
however and just general problems with a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac. I don't
know that that's smart. I think 500 foot cul-de-sacs where you only have
8-9 houses, I think that's different but here we have more. I'm kind of
uncomfortable from a safety standpoint and don't know that we're going to
solve it in the long term. The easiest time to solve it Brian, at least
not exclude something, is right now. Generally I'm going to sum up my
co~,ents. I don't like the trail where it is, and we don't have enough
information in front of us. It seems like the property to the south, we
haven't thought about the property that's going to be developed to the
south and how they access the school grounds. To me that's more important
than the 8 houses that we're talking about right now. It seems like
there's a better solution of having a casual trail, and maybe there's no
such thing but between some lots that people are already using. Bottom
line, I'm not privy or I haven't seen all the information on the trail
discussion. It seems like a very old issue. It seems like something
happened that really got us into this situation that I don't understand the
way that we check on some of these things but just in general, it doesn't
seem to be the right way to do it so my recommendation to the City Council
is really to review critically where they're putting the trail. If we need
a trail, and if that's the only place to put it, then I go along with it
but right now I don't think that's the wise way. And I still do see some
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 16
trail access to the south. Whatever we're calling the Slocum Tree Farm
property. Where's the trail serving, they have to get to the school too
and I don't see that taken care of right now. I think in general,
because I haven't been sold on the danger need right now, all I want is,
I'll vote for an extended cul-de-sac. No access to the south but I think
that's simply because I don't know the danger issues of a 1,000 foot
cul-de-sac. Any other comments? Is there a motion?
E~-~ings: I'll move that the Planning Co~m~ission reco~,end approval of
Subdivision #89-16 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 subject to
the following conditions. Condition l(a). That's the one that provides
the right-of-way for an extension of Crestview Lane and no extension to the
south and with the rest of the conditions in the staff report, 2 thru 5.
Also with the comment that I'm opposed to the pedestrian trail without some
further review by Park and Rec and/or the City Council. That's my motion
and just to explain. I don't feel like I can delete the second one and I
don't want to vote against this thing. I think that the Council will have
our verbatim Minutes of the comments of the people who have spoken tonight
and also ours and I'd like to pass it with a positive vote.
Batzli: Second.
Conrad: So your co~m, ents on item (b).
Ellson: You skipped (b). 2.
Conrad: Okay, 2. Basically says you're opposed to the trail as located.
E~m, ings: Without further review by Park and Rec and/or the City Council.
I suppose what's going to happen is it's going to go to the City Council
and they're going to have to decide whether they want to decide this issue
themselves or send it back to Park and Rec I guess is what I'm saying. But
with the rest of the subdivision is fine and I don't think it ought to be
held up on this issue.
Batzli: I assume your motion crossed off the patens that say, (and Outlot
B) in numbers 3 and 5? Because Outlot B would have been that additional.
E~m~ings: Of course Brian. Everybody knew that except you.
Batzli: I just wanted to make sure for the record what I was seconding.
Conrad: Any other discussion?
E~,ings: I think Brian made a good sound argument why there is no need to
put that road in to the south. We're not foreclosing anything by leaving
it out at this time. Even if the property to the south develops first. If
that access to the north out of that property, there could be an easement
at that time to the north just waiting for the time when that outlot
develops and if that outlot never develops, there isn't any real reason. If
the owner wants to keep that parcel, whatever size it is. I don't know
what size right now but whatever. 4 acres? If they want to keep a 4 acre
parcel just under single ownership, I don't think there's any reason for a
Planning Co~m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 17
road to go through there. They're the one at risk at the end of a long
cul-de-sac and if they want to take that risk, that's their business. I
wouldn't say that about 5 lots. I wouldn't say it's their business if it's
5 lots but if it's one.
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission reco~,end
approval of Subdivision #89-16 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall be amended to provide right-of-way for the
extension of Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B.
2. A 10 foot wide pedestrian trail shall be provided along the northerly
border of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A.
3. Outlot A shall not be replatted or developed until the surrounding area
is included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as conditioned by
the recent inclusion of this property into the MUSA line.
4. Future subdivision of the property and extension of the watermain to
the property will result in the requirement of an additional fire
hydrant as recommended by the Fire Inspector.
5. A cross easement shall be granted over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1.
6. The trail easement shall be reviewed further by the City Council and/or
the Park and Recreation Co~m~ission.
Ail voted in favor except Ellson and Ahrens who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Conrad: This will go to the City Council February 12th. The folks that
are here, that are interested in this issue should stay in touch with the
issue. You saw our vote really divided and I think that's really going to
be representative of how the City Council sees it. You really do have to
stay in touch with it. I think there are several issues that are not
clear. I think the safety on a long cul-de-sac is really a real issue. I
think the overall plan of trails going into that whole area is an issue to
us where we don't have that right now so I encourage you to stay involved
for the next couple of weeks as it goes to the City Council. Thank you.
Jean Shively: The first thing we heard about tonight was the MUSA line
which is real important which we didn't know about.
Conrad: As I say, we've been working on it for 2 years. It's not that, it
just hasn't been made available to the public yet in terms of do we know
what we're doing.
Jean Shively: In a couple months?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 18
Ellson: We're hoping like you said, to propose it in July so that would
probably make it spring or something.
Conrad: One thing I failed to do as we made that motion and Joan, what I
always do is I make sure that the negative, those that don't vote for it,
highlight their key reasons for not voting. So Annette, can you summarize
briefly?
Ellson: I agreed with staff recommendation for the access to the south
because of future development. That I think we should have it ready in
case.
Ahrens: I agree. I think that we should get access when we can. It's
very hard to go back and try and get access when you need it...
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF
10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR AND LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD, EAST
OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA, JUST NORTH OF CRIMSON BAY, PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kurt Laughinghouse
Peter and Deanna Brandt
John Getsch
Ed Getsch
Ken Daniels
Represenative for the Applicant
Applicant
7510 Dogwood Road
Dogwood Road
Owner of Proposed Lot 1
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Jo Ann, could you su~,arize for me your reco~,endation? What, in
terms of the clearing.
Olsen: What we pointed out was that if the road was to be a full rural
standard street must be provided in here, that actually if you drive out
here you just kind of go -> real easily and that's where it's already
cleared. We're just pointing out that rather than clearing additional land
and leveling the topography, it would be less expensive to install the
street there. You wouldn't have as wide of an area.
Conrad: Yeah. And that is your reco~-~,endation?
Olsen: Well our actual reco~,endation is that they provide the 60 foot.
We don't require conditioning 100 foot right-of-way to be dedicated...
We're just pointing it out that that's probably the best location for a
road.
Conrad: Okay, we'll open it up for public comments. Is the applicant here
or a representative? Mr. Laughinghouse. I've seen you here before on this
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 19
issue.
Kurt Laughinghouse: Yes sir. Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I sure have.
And the issues haven't changed an awful lot. I'm representing Mr. and Mrs.
Brandt who are here. They are the purchasers of what is proposed Lot 2.
The south lot. Subsequent to their application the northerly lot was
purchased by Mx. Ken Daniels and he is here this evening. I know that some
of the other neighbors of this property are here and they probably have
something to say. To set the stage a little bit for those co~issioners
who weren't here a year ago. The owner of this entire 100 acre property,
Tim Foster who does live here in Chanhassen and has for some 10 years,
applied to divide the 100 acres into 4 lots. It was one 80 acre lot and
this 20 was divided then, or proposed to be divided into the 10 that you
see on the south and two 5 acre lots. Ultimately the Planning Co~ission
recommended and it did not go to Council, a lot of road development and in
effect Foster withdrew the application. He then subsequently sold the 80
acre parcel to another party and a home is being built on that property.
Now with this 20 acres we propose to simply divide it into two 10 acre
lots. I think the fact that it's being platted is almost a quirk in the
law in the sense that these 10 acre lots are hardly, it's hardly an
urbanization of this property. It's really only a matter of getting to the
zoning but because it is a plat, then the City has a review and that is why
we're discussing all these roads and streets. I guess the short series is
that it's an awful lot like, if you've read all this transcript from a year
ago, the story is the same. This land is not being subdivided. It's not
being developed. Foster bought 100 acres of property. Ultimately he now
proposes that 3 homes be built on a 100 acres of property. It is not as
though it's urbanized and we don't know whether urban services, sewer and
water will be delivered in 5 years or 50 years to this area. Probably a
lot less than 50. Probably a lot more than 5 years. It's when the urban
services are delivered, sewer and water, is when we should deal with paving
streets and things of that nature. I feel. Sewer and water are going to
come in from the east along TH 41. Along Tanadoona. And that 80 acre
property will develop before these 10 acre properties are reached. I think
that's the reason that I propose that you not require the 30 foot easement
on the north side of what is Lot 1 here. When the 80 acre property is
developed, and we all agree that someday somebody, if not the current
owner. Their heirs or somebody that they sell the land to, will develop
that property. When that happens, all of the terrain, that whole 80 acres
will be considered. Having that 30 acre easement there might even be a
distraction as to what the best development of that 80 acres is or what the
best development of the whole 100 acres is. If this subdivision is
approved, each of these owners can only put 1 house on the 10 acres. This
is rural zoning, and that's all they hope to do. Someday in the future
either they, and they'll deny it, with they and their heirs will subdivide
the land. We know that. But that is when all of us should get together
again and decide the best way to lay out streets and lots in this
neighborhood. We understand fully and we agree with increasing that
right-of-way on the west side of the property to the full 60 feet and that
means that these owners will dedicate 40 feet. We do not agree that that
should be paved. In fact we feel very strongly that the road will not be
developed in the future in that area. The lake lots are long lots. Sewer
and water service will probably go on the other side, on the lake side of
Planning Co~m, ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 20
all those homes, if that ever happens because that's the only way that you
can put gravity sewer in there. Be on the lake side of all those lake
homes. And so I think it would be murderous to take the 60 foot right-of-
way where we propose to grant it just for a matter of for the record let's
us say and then pave that. Now there is, as was described by Ms. Olsen, a
40 or 50 foot wide power line easement that is utterly devastated as we all
know and that only happened about a year~ and a half or two ago. There's no
reason in the world to believe that that is where a street will go in the
future. Just because there are no trees there now, by the time sewer and
water arrives, at this point in the world, that might be 20 years from now.
There could be 20 year old trees on that property. The owner of the 80
acre parcel intends to bury the power line through his property. I think
that the owners that are purchasing this property may well do it. I know
that the neighbors to the east would like to see that power line buried
and I inquired a couple days ago with Minnesota Valley and it's about $3.00
a running foot to bury that power line so that may be what will happen
there. Then that land may grow up and we may have an oak woods there
instead of this power line easement. So I think, and that just underscores
the point that this is not a development. It is a plat and technically
therefore it's subject to all requirements, a street and all this and so
forth but it really is just two 10 acre lots on a 20 acre lot and
ultimately is 3 lots on a 100 acre parcel. It is a very modest request of
the city so. We agree with all the staff reco~.endations except for two
points. One is that the Lake Drive should be paved. We think it should
not be paved. Secondly, that the 30 foot easement across the north line of
the property, we feel that that should not be required mostly because we
simply do not know where roads are going to be needed in the future. So I
probably said more than I need to. If there's any questions, I'd be glad
to answer them but some others may want to speak to this. Thank you.
Conrad: Thank you. Other comments?
John Getsch: I'm John Getsch. I'm at 7510 Dogwood Road. Just own the
property there. The proposed subdivision as it's laid out there, as
brought our earlier, is at the end of a mile long cul-de-sac. It really
just, as Mr. Laughinghouse said, they're just dividing that lot if half
which is not a major problem but planning for the future is the big problem
here. Whenever this has been brought up before and the subdividing, it
seems like whoever wants to subdivide it, does not want to have an easement
on their property. The problem's never going to get taken care of until
some easements are put in there. As we just saw in the earlier problem,
when there's no provision put in there, they don't get an easement now out
of there, there's going to be a fight and they're going to come back and
say, well it's got to come when the 80 acres is developed. It's got to
come all out of the 80 acres because the easement was granted earlier. I
think there needs to be plans now, somehow of getting a road out and it has
to be started now. 20 feet along the properties that are along the lake,
there really isn't any other easement other than that coming all the way in
there. The other issue is the easement for the power lines. How is that
going to be handled and put back in there. The problem with the trees and
moving the road over where it's proposed there is acceptable. That's what
we have talked with Kurt when he was trying to develop this before and said
it's got to be put on. It doesn't make any sense to go in there and rip
Planning Co~m, ission Meeting
Janua~y 17, 1990 - Page 21
out 150 year old trees when the power company already did it for you. And
nothing's going to grow there as long as the power company sprays it every
year to keep it from anything coming back. The other issue that was
brought up, I think it was last fall. I can't remember, was a trail coming
through from the south. Some type of trail and there was talk about
something easement. I know it's not in here that there is nothing showing
for any plan of that. It just deadends coming off of Crimson Bay there.
You'll see there was an easement granted up to the edge of the property
through Crimson Bay and nothing has been done to follow that and that was
brought up in the last meeting when this was looked at and they were
talking about running all the way around the 80 acres. Running I think it
was around to the east. Running along the south edge of the property and
then up along the east, cutting through to the Campfire camp property and
then through up to the park.
Olsen: The trail easement, I forgot to point that out. They're proposing
a trail easement along in here.
John Getsch: Okay. So that is part of the...
Olsen: Yeah. I forgot to mention it.
John Getsch: Those are the only real concerns I have right now. For
future planning, to get the easement because there is no other way of
improving that road right now unless the people along the lake want to have
their garages and homes ripped out. It's the only way. There's no place
to move towards the lake. Thank you.
Ed Getsch: My name is Ed Getsch. I'm at the very end of a 5,000 foot
cul-de-sac which doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the
potential of widening what the power company did to the property about 2 .
yea~s ago. The way it was proposed earlier that they develop the road in
purple but not take any trees down and that's a little difficult to do.
They either have to put the road where it's cleared or they're going to
have to clear 100 foot wide swath through the woods west of the present
power line. I don't think there's even an easement there at this point. I
think it's only there because it was run 50 years ago so I don't think
there's any defined easement there. I ran into a problem about 6 months
ago I wanted to run underground electric up to the power pole and the
Electric Coop said well that's fine. You can run it up to the property but
you'~e going to have to get an easement from the neighboring property to go
over to the power line which is another 80 feet. Well, I think if they're
going to develop this. He doesn't want to call it a development but it's
turning into a development, is that they either get their act together and
do it all or don't do anything. Clean the ~oad out. Put it in or do
nothing because we don't have access to the power lines. Maybe we'll have
access someday. Maybe we won't. If it's cleared up in easements now,
where the road is actually going to go. Where it's going to be cleared and
where the power lines are going to go so we know where we can get our
access if we want another access to those other lots. Right now all of the
last 7 lots are under one ownership so it's not really a problem right now
but it could be in 10 years where if we want access to the road that's now
in blue up there, we're going to have to cross somebody elses property to
Planning Co~m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 22
get to it. So I think they need to define where the road's going to go and
say what. They're saying we want to have it where the clearing is now. Jo
Ann says let's put it where the purple is. Well, the two aren't the same.
They're about 80 feet apart. So that's all the complaints I have.
Kurt Laughinghouse: It was something that wasn't described. Because of
the topo on here, there's an awful lot of things that are hard to read.
But if I may, this is the same... These are the 7 lots that Mr. Getsch has
described that are under one ownership. The power line, and let me start
again. There's a 20 foot easement that runs from here, in fact it runs all
the way back down to TH 41 but then runs along the back edge of these lots
and there's a little small partial cul-de-sac in here. That is currently
owned by the City. The 20 feet. This proposal is to dedicate 40 feet or
use easement, whichever it is, 40 more feet so there is a 60 foot ownership
by the City here. Now, this land is in 150 year old oak trees and it's not
our intention at all to have that paved. The power line runs approximately
because Ed said, 80 feet from this point parallel to the road. And it runs
down here along the Arboretum fence. It is that that was cleared at least
40 or 50 feet wide. What we didn't describe but it is hard to see in this
topo so you didn't realize it but there is an easement in favor of Lot 2
over Lot 1. It will be for ingress and egress purposes and we already have
a description of it and will run from this point across a long power line
and will terminate as Jo Ann Olsen described a 40 foot cul-de-sac. To city
standards. I think permanent...
Hempel: All weather.
Kurt Laughinghouse: Ail weather. Be an all weather driveway. These
purchasers, and they're both here to speak fo~ themselves, want to live in
this rural situation. We all know that someday it will be developed. In
the meantime, they do propose to ,]se the power line with an all weather
driveway as do all these 17 homeowners along here. They have a 20 foot
actual city owned road. So just to clarify. We agree completely with the
Getsch's. This land under this right-of-way should not be developed into a
road. Should not be paved. It is old oak trees. Then as a practical
matter, a driveway will be an easement and we agreed to that. Put in a
development agree in yesterday. Will go over the power line in this
fashion to lead to access to this property. I hope that eases the concern.
Ken Daniels: I got Lot 1. I just bought it. I don't know, I do know the
owner of the 80 acres. Only because he plays golf at my golf club and he
called me today and found out that I had bought that. Now the Lot 2, I
don't know that person. I just met him tonight. My intent was not to put
a number of houses or ever subdivide Lot 1. My only purpose in agreeing to
allowing that easement across was to allow Lot 2 to have ingress and egress
off his property. I don't like carving up easements over Lot 1 on the
north or on the west side of that property. I understand the guy in Lot 2
needs to get in and out of his property and that's why I agreed to that. I
don't think that I should be stuck paying for all these things however and
I just don't see number one, the easement on the north side of the road.
It doesn't make sense. To use easement you'd have to get the guy with the
80 acres to give you another 30 acres back and he's going to have to come
in and plat that property if he wants to develop it. As far as a power
Planning Co~,ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 23
line going across that property, I would like to see it buried too. If
there's reasonable cost for doing that, I'd be happy to pay for it. I
don't mind giving this other party an easement but I don't want to build
him a highway through that property either. Okay? Thank you.
Ed Getsch: My main concern is preserving what's there rather than
destroying any more. Also, how do we get to the power lines when they're
buried? Now if they bury them along the easement for the road, weave in
and out of the trees, the easement that's on that drawing. But if the
power lines are buried over where it's now cleared or anywhere in that
clearing, we have to cross at least your land to get to it and that needs
to be addressed somewhere along the line. Otherwise I believe in property
rights for the owner. So that's all I'm concerned about.
Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt and I'm the purchaser of Lot 2. I just
want to voice sort of my objection to putting a paved road in. If you've
been out there before you'll realize that there are no paved roads. The
road that goes out there right now is a dirt road. Putting in a 60 foot
paved road at this point is going to look, first of all it's going to be
ridiculous becaue neither of us can subdivide and have no intention of
doing so. Secondly, all we're asking for is a driveway and putting a 60
foot driveway in doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Especially
when you go back to some of Kurt's comments in terms of if the whole area
is going to be developed, you really have to look at the whole 100 acres.
You can't just look at the two 10 acre parcels that are being subdivided
today.
~mings: Why? I mean I think that's exactly what we're doing is looking
at the two. I don't understand that at all. Maybe you could tell me why.
Peter Brandt: Well first of all, the two 10 acre parcels are landlocked at
this point. There's property owners on all sides of us. There's 80 acres
on the north side and the west side and then on the south side, the
Minnesote Arboretum has an apple orchard on the south side and then the
Crimson Bay development is also on the south side.
E~m~ings: We've all looked at this, this is the third time in the last
couple years so we're pretty familiar with it. But this is, the thing
that's in front of us is the division of 20 acres into two 10 acre lots.
It's not the division of 100 acres into three lots.
Peter Brandt: Sure. And for that reason, I don't personally see a need
for a 60 foot paved road pretty much in the middle of nowhere. It's going
to connect up to a dirt road. The other thing, in terms of the easement
through the trees, we object very strongly to taking any trees out. One of
the reasons we're interested in the land is because it's wooded. Although
a very small portion of our property would actually be affected by it, as
far as we're concerned, any trees taken out are too many. Especially given
the fact of the power company has already gone through and taken trees out
for us.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify the city standard road width
for a rural. It is a 24 foot bituminous mat with 6 foot gravel shoulders.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 24
Not 60 foot pavement.
Conrad: Thanks. Other comments.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Joan. What are your questions? Comments? You don't have the
background the rest of us do so you're...
Ahrens: Yeah, why don't we start with Steve. I pass the buck.
Conrad: That's fair. Any questions at all?
Ahrens: I don't understand some of this. First of all, there's a 20 foot
roadway that the City owns on the west side of Lake Drive. Right? There's
going to be, the road that is proposed to be put in is on the east side of
Lake Drive. Right? So there'd be Lake Drive but it'd just be, so there'd
be no access for...Lake Minnewashta.
Conrad: Yeah, that's a good question. What would be the process, would
there ever be a way to connect?
Olsen: To connect?
Conrad: Those lots that are currently serviced by the current road. By
Dogwood. Let's say in 20 years, what would be a process to hook them into
the new right-of-way?
Olsen: The right-of-way right now is being proposed where they wouldn't
have it. They would be adjacent to it. If the right-of-way went up to
where the clearing is right now.
Batzli: They'd be on a long cul-de-sac there. The people currently on
Dogwood.
Conrad: So there's really no benefit to those people for this particular
road. The right-of-way that we're talking about right now. Even in the
future, there is no long term benefit for them. They're still going to
have a separate access to their own property.
Batzli: Ladd is talking about if we go the power line route, you're going
to get a Y shape and the people currently on Dogwood.
E~-m, ings: I didn't know you were talking about the power line.
Conrad: Oh, I'm sorry. I knew that.
Ahrens: That's what I was asking about. The power lines. Wouldn't there
be a piece of land on Lot 1 that would go between the power line route and
the access?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 25
Conrad: Yeah. Still under the ownership of those owning Lot 1 and 2.
Ahrens: So there would be no access.
Conrad: Not unless they sold it.
Olsen: Or if it was all acquired as an easement now but that would mean
that Lot 1 would be giving up about 100 feet. It's never been done.
Ahrens: I'm going to go with that for a second. I do have a problem with
this provision, one of the conditions provided by staff. That Lots 1 and
2, Block 1 waive any rights to contest future assessments...Dogwood. I
don't understand why they can do that. I don't know if that's possible.
Olsen: It's been done before like in development contracts and such where.
Ellson: That's if you don't reco~m~end the street.
Olsen: Right. They're saying that at this point that they do not want to
have a street but at some point that the street does need to be improved to
provide the safety, the standards. Then at that point we want it to be
made clear that...
Ellson: You could have got it now but we chose not to so we can get it
later.
Olsen: They always can still contest it but we kind of let them know that
at some point it will happen.
Batzli: It's certainly making it of record as to those lots so that people
purchasing it will have noticed that the street was deferred to a later
time.
Ahrens: They have notice of the objection.
Batzli: Yes. Whether they object or not, you can always object.
Conrad: You don't have anything else or do you want to think?
Ahrens: I'm going to think about this.
Batzli: Just an easy question first. Have they ever decided where the
septic sites would be? I have a tough time deciphering these. It already
currently shows them?
Olsen: On these plans, it should.
Batzli: Oh. Okay. Those little dotted guys are septic sites?
Olsen: Yes. The soil borings were performed years ago. '87 or so but
they were all approved.
Batzli: Things like that don't change over time?
Planning Co~-~,ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 26
Olsen: No.
Batzli: You wouldn't have a requirement to go out there and do it again?
Olsen: No, you wouldn't.
Batzli: Okay. Why aren't we, I remember hearing in past conversations why
we're not going to connect to Crimson Bay Road but explain to me why we're
not going to do that.
Olsen: In looking at the options we were thinking that the access onto
like TH 5, ...Dave input too but that that was going to be difficulty. It's
already a bad intersection. When we went through this process before, in
front of the Planning Co~ission, at that time it wasn't felt that this
should be the connection to the south. We agreed to have, that's still an
option and we have looked at the cross sections and it can be accomplished.
Still meet the City standards.
Batzli: It seems to me that we just got done talking about long
cul-de-sacs and here we have an even longer one. I don't know. It's
obviously a very narrow dirt road at this point.
Olsen: It was sort of a compromise between the staff and the applicant.
They did not agree to having it go to the south...options for future
connections and that's why we were going back to the east because in the
all the feasibility studies, a lot of them showed roads going back through
that section. It's still a possibility. It wouldn't be able to
accomplish...unless the property from the Arboretum would come down.
Essentially that splits Lot 2 into 2 lots also. If you do improve the
street.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I think the major factor why we're not considering
the southern connection is because of TH 5. The intersection there, if you
add traffic to it, it's going to get worst. We're looking at future
upgrading of TH 5, the State is I should say, and at that time they're
really requesting limited access. They might have only right turn, right
out in that intersection also.
Emmings: Does the upgrading go west, that the State is looking at, go west
of TH 417
Hempel: Some day it will.
E~,ings: But it's not now?
Hempel: But not in the immediate future, no.
Conrad: So it's not topography? It's traffic you're telling me which is
kind of new information.
Hempel: Topography is difficult also but it could be managed.
Planning Co~,ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 27
Emmings: They told us that topography was the thing, the reason we
shouldn't do it the last time it was here is my recollection.
Conrad: Yeah. That's where I was at. Steep grade and some other stuff.
Obviously engineering wise we can do anything but I guess I'm not swayed by
traffic on TH 5 there. It seems, and I've always thought this, it seems
like a nice solution for an access to that site but I was swayed by
topography. It couldn't be done reasonably well and I guess I need
confirmation that that's still the case.
Olsen: Part of the reason is we do have new topo for out there and it
showed that it's not as steep as what the original topo showed. Even on
the plan, if you actually go out there, it doesn't look as steep and that's
why, we did pursue the south access again and did show that it could be
done.
Hempel: The grades are more gentle up here the power lines are though.
Actually where the right-of-way is proposed, the slope is much steeper.
Conrad: On the Crimson Bay development we have an access or we have an
easement going to the property line don't we?
Olsen: It's 25 feet past.
Conrad: Is the grade more than 7% going up?
Hempel: I believe it was in the 7% to 10% range, yes.
Conrad: What's the vegetation like? I haven't visited that.
Hempel: It's heavily wooded going up the hill.
Conrad: Okay. Brian?
Batzli: Is this area within the MUSA line expansion as well?
Krauss: No.
Batzli: Why isn't it? Just out of curiousity. Why did we jog it up right
there? Did we cut it at TH 417 Was that our line?
Krauss: It actually cuts off before you get to TH 41. That area on the
north side of TH 41 was designated as a study area. Then it picks up north
on TH 41 a ways.
Batzli: That corner on TH 41 and TH 5 was the study area? Okay.
Krauss: It was felt that that was more area for residential development
than we could justify based upon our expectations of growth at this time.
Batzli: I guess I look at this being a little bit different than the last
one in that I think in order for Lot 2 to develop, which at some day it
probably has to, I think we do need to have some sort of improved street
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 28
and I think now's the time to get it. An interesting question raised
though is if in fact they do bury the power line and then you're looking at
a long delay over a period of time, I don't know that it makes sense to put
it where the power line is now, although that seems like the best option
right now. But in a matter of years, if they do go through with it and buy
the line and they quite cutting the trees, if you're looking down the road,
that's a heck of a question as to where you're going to put it.
Conrad: Well, you go back to the current road. And you'll take 40 feet of
the trees that are there.
Ellson: And they'll be older than the other ones that are 20 years old.
Batzli: Well, they might all be dying by that time. If you put a road in
next to the power line, would it fit in the right-of-way? You'd be taking
out more trees vet wouldn't vou~
Hempel: Some additional trees would have to be removed. I think the
slopes extended out approximately 80 feet wide through there.
Batzli: If we took right-of-way now, you wouldn't necessarily have to
include. It could be a private drive at this point couldn't it across Lot
17 Okay, I don't have anything else right now.
Ellson: This one, I mean I only saw this one time. I don't have all the
history of the other people but it's always been confusing to me so I'll be
the first to say that. But the different street choices really threw me
for a loop and I guess I had almost the same questions as his at the end. I
mean you're looking at Miss I want to save every tree I possibly can. I
hate the thought of going in and taking them just for the sake of right now
two more lots. I like the idea of getting the easement so that we could
build it and bring it up to the standard as the density increases or
something but I really didn't want to do that right now and I wondered if
what we're proposing here in the motion is to bring it up to a standard
like right now. It shall be built to City standards. In other words, as
soon as they get it, we're going to have this long dirt road and then just
this great looking little piece down there for one person and I'd rather
not do something like that but I'd like the capability later on to say
okay, now we want it. We've got that easement, we'd like to do it about
now. If we have that with maybe just changing that number 1, that's the
way I'd like to see it going.
Conrad: Can you react?
Ellson: They're shaking their heads.
Olsen: The way it's written right now is that it would have to improved at
this time.
Ellson: But we could like...
Emmings: We could propose that as an alternative, l(a) ...like they said
but not require improvement.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 29
Ellson: Okay. You're right. And that's what I'm looking to do.
E~mtings: Just a couple of things. On page 6 of the staff report, under
lot frontage, it says Lot 2 has 100 feet in that the ordinance requires
200. And then it says that no variances are required and can you
rationalize that for me.
Olsen: That's one...
E~'~Lings: SO it would need a variance. Is that a variance that they have
to go to the Board of Adjustments for or is that something that we give
them by passing this?
Olsen: We've done it before...
E~m~ings: Well, what's required?
Olsen: Technically we take it back in front of the Board of Adjustments.
E~m'Lings: So this needs a variance for lot frontage, at least for Lot 2.
As far as the road thing goes, to me I believe what should be done is that
we should get the 40 feet off the west side of 1 and continue to Lot 2 as
it's drawn on the big map that we have and not have them develop it until,
for the present. I don't see any reason of bringing that end of things up
to a standard that the rest of that long, long road doesn't meet right now.
Temporarily they'll have their own system of private driveway which seems
very reasonable to me and seems to fit the character of what they're doing
and everything else so I'm fine with that. I do think, it wasn't in our
report this business of them putting a cul-de-sac on the end of the private
driveway that would be up to city standards but that is commonplace?
Olsen: Yes. It's going to be...
Emmings: It's not there as a condition.
It might have been mentioned.
Olsen: We're showing it on the plan...
Emmings: No, they're talking about doing it at the end of the private
drive. Is that right?
Hempel: On the co~m;on lot line between 1 and 2.
E~ings: But that's on their own private system of road that they're
doing.
Hempel: That's correct.
Emmings: Alright. I think that should be in there as a condition that
they will provide plans and specs for a cul-de-sac at the end of the
private drive that will satisfy the City Engineer because that gives us
finally a place for things to turn around down there even if it isn't in
the best place but I think that's an important thing to have now. I don't
Planning Co~Lission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 30
like the provision where they waive rights to contest future assessments.
I think that's awful. I think if they dedicated the, if we're forcing them
to give us that easement across there to build a road in the future, when
it comes time to build that road, they're going to get assessed and they
should have the right to come in and complain all they want before they get
assessed. It's good to let off steam. I think that the road needs to be
where it is. I think we've got to add the 40 to the 20 so we don't cut off
the properties along the lake and I think what ultimately ought to happen
out there is that that damn power line ought to buried and it ought to be
buried in the road right-of-way. That solves everybody's problem. I don't
think the power company would have any problem with that. If there was an
easement out there, they'd be happy to use it. Would that be right do you
think?
Hempel: I would say so, yes.
~m, ings: So I think that's a good solution. It will fit everybody's
problems. I have a question about, I wonder Mr. Brandt, is he still here?
You understand that you can't put in a dock or a boardwalk or move any
vegetation or do any dredging or anything to that shoreline without coming
back here for a wetland alteration permit?
Peter Brandt: Yes.
Emmings: Has that been explained to you?
Peter Brandt: Yes.
Emmings: Okay. And I wondered, as far as Mr. Daniels is concerned. Do
you have any, has anybody said you'd have any lake access from your lot?
Ken Daniels: No. I'm looking for somebody. I was just talking...
E~ings: Well, forget it because I'm watching you. I'd advise you, if
you're planning on that, to read our regulations. There can't be boats on
docks. If you're not an owner of the property, you can't put a boat on the
dock and things like that. There are a lot of rules regarding that and I
don't know. You're buying a real nice big lot real close to a real nice
lake that I live on and I just want to make sure your eyes are open when
you' re going in.
Ken Daniels: I'm buying the wooded lot.
E~m~ings: That's good. This is just a question out of pure ignorance. On
Lot 2, the septic sites are a long ways from the house. Is that co~m~on?
I've never seen septic sites so far away from a house before.
Olsen: That's not where they have to be. What usually happens is that
they'll bring in new soil borings once they have the location of the house.
Emmings: If for any reason those happen to the be the only sites, is that
any problem? I don't know. Is it uphill or anything so they'd have to
have a pump station?
Planning Co~m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 31
Conrad: You can always pump it.
Batzli: That's a long ways up the hill though.
E~-m~ings: It's just a matter of cost though. It's their problem I know
but.
Hempel: I guess I'm not that familiar with septic systems.
E~-m~ings: My only co~m, ents then would be, I would change condition 1 such
that it was essentially like the alternative l(a) so that we require
dedication of the 40 feet at this time but don't require any upgrading
until the whole road, something is done with the entire road or something
else happens out there with development such that it makes more sense. I
think that condition 6 should be expanded because it says any access to
Lake Minnewashta would require a wetland alteration permit and I know what
that means but I think that that condition ought to be expanded to say
there'd be no dock or boardwalk or dredging or removal of vegetation or any
activity in the area of the shoreline without a wetland alteration permit
so it's very, very clear what we're talking about there. I think that
there should be a condition on the cul-de-sac at the end of the private
drive that one will be done that will be designed that meets the approval
of the City Engineer and I think that we should strike this business about
them not contesting future assessments. That's all I have.
Conrad: You said you only had a couple of comments. Jo Ann and Paul, tell
me about, I'm vacillating. I really like the power line as a potential
access to that site simply because it's been stripped and it looks like the
right place to do it but then I go back and say when we do that then we've
got some acreage that we've separated from this lot and that doesn't seem
right. So then I go back and say well let's add 40 to what we've got. To
what's currently there. When we do that and we do upgrade this part of the
road someday and I should have gone back. I thought I was real clear what
I was going to vote on tonight and I should have driven back there and
taken a look but what do we need to cut down? If we expand it to 60 feet,
what's going down in terms of woods?
Krauss: We haven't done a study of that. Dave hasn't looked at that in
detail yet but you can see that where that cul-de-sac occurs, it's quite
steep. The steeper the grade, the wider the cut is to kind of pinch a
cul-de-sac into the hill there. It would be a significant cut.
Olsen: It would all be cleared. The full 60 feet.
Conrad: I have another major problem and I'm still not convinced that that
access to the south. I guess I haven't seen enough information on that or
been brought back up to speed on a potential connection to Crimson Bay
development. Boy, it seems 6 months ago, a year ago, whenever we saw this
last time, it sure seemed like that would be a nice way to access this area
and we're losing some potential here and that bothers me a little bit but I
don't have enough information to react to that. Are you two, and I guess
I've got to just put, ask you the question, you're both convinced that we
Planning Co~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 32
don't need it and it's not smart to do? I just have to say that.
Krauss: A real definitive answer, I don't think it's as definitive as
that. We think that it's possible to put through a connection to the south
and it would not be a bad thing if we were in a position to do that. What
we think made it possible was that power line cut. You see the problem
with that cul-de-sac, where the cul-de-sac would be located off the
existing street is what you're doing is you're rolling off down a hill into
a fairly steep area. What the power line easement does is it stays up nice
and high where it's relatively flat and it allows a much more gentle grade
back down to the existing street in Crimson Bay. One of the things we
looked at though in doing this was when this was looked at before, the
direction we received was that we should not proceed with that connection
to the south. That it was looked at and was dismissed. So then we looked
for some alternatives to that.
Conrad: Was that us that did that? Do you recall.
Olsen: No, there were other comments somewhere along the line with TH 5
being added and with the other. The last time it was up, I think there
were more comments made that not to have the street improved at this time.
Take the easement but not to have it improved.
Conrad: It could be done you're telling me but right now you're not
convinced of it. You're convinced we've solved some access problems some
other ways. Maybe on the north of this will help a little bit but you're
convinced that we really don't need the access to the south. There are
more detrimental things that could occur?
Olsen: No.
Krauss: We would still prefer the access to the south if it were feasible
to do that. The problems with that are that if you're going to do the
access to the south, you have to look at relocating the street onto where
the power line easement is.
Conrad: Which is what you recommended. Basically in the staff report you
reco~m~ended that.
Krauss: Which is what we would prefer but there's really a problem with it
in that we'd be stranding property or the dedication be wider than we're
normally entitled to.
Conrad: What's a normal dedication?
Krauss: 60 feet.
Conrad: Isn't that what you asked for the power line?
Olsen: ...power line but to keep it all within right-of-way and not to
split another piece, you'd be taking almost 100 feet of right-of-way.
Batzli: Otherwise you'd be leaving that Y cul-de-sac.
Planning Co~m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 33
Olsen: You'd be splitting from other land.
Conrad: I now what you mean. Who cares? Do we care?
Olsen: Who cares?
Conrad: We might. I might not. This is a real problem area. I think
you've got to make some hard decisions on solving the problem here. What's
the negative of running the road through to the south? We've got to cut a
lot of trees down? We've got some elevation problems possibly?
Krauss: Running the road through to the south on the power line easement,
if that were to be done, would result in considerably less tree loss than
putting the cul-de-sac in where it's illustrated with the right-of-way.
E~m, ings: You're going to have to condemn property out of the Arboretum.
Krauss: Yes.
Olsen: And there's traffic. And then if that road is improved, you're
splitting Lot 2 into two lots.
Emmings: Can we condemn State property? I never even thought about that.
Can you take State property?
Krauss: No.
Emmings: I wouldn't think so. I don't know really.
Conrad: So the Arboretum has the land between the Crimson Bay.
E~ings: To the east of Crimson Bay.
Conrad: I don't want to go through there.
Olsen: You have to. To connect to Crimson Bay, you would need to
improve...
Hempel: You'd have to improve a portion of it from the end of the
cul-de-sac to the subdivision.
Olsen: Right now you have an easement.
Conrad: That's what I'm trying to connect to.
Emmings: But you need another 25 feet on this side. Then you'd wind up
condemning it out on that side.
Conrad: Can't do that.
Emmings: You know Ladd, on that connection south, I remember my own
feelings that it was real important to do it and I remember stall telling
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 34
us that it could not be done. That's what I remember. And I feel like
that decision back then, staff has turned around on this and it may or may
not be the same staff. I don't know. I don't even care to think about it
but they've done a 180 on us here. I feel like. But now I think the die
is cast and I do think TH 5...
Conrad: Just to support, they probably heard us react the last time and
said well there's~ not support. There are other alternatives to provide the
access so in their defense, I think they're negotiating with developers or
buyers. I don't know that they've done a 180.
Emmings: Well to me they have and I'll tell you, TH 5 is an incredibly
dangerous road in the area where Crimson Bay dumps out. I think we can
turn something around inside that 80 back out to TH 41 that will wind up
being better probably. It's a big enough tract so I think that will okay
at that time.
Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that for a moment?
Conrad: Well you're at the podium. We'll listen to you.
Kurt Laughinghouse: In the staff report. Part of the staff report is the
report from the engineer's last year. No. Yeah, last year's, I'm going to
come to the name of the engineering company.
EFm~ings: Feasibility study.
Kurt Laughinghouse: Anyway, it's your consulting engineering. They have 5
alternative road systems here.
Conrad: Yeah, we've read it.
Kurt Laughinghouse: Yeah, I know you've read it, but none of them include
going south down through Crimson Bay. Believe me, despite what people are
saying on the side here, a person cannot, I've drawn where the power line
destruction is. You'll notice that it is off where the dedication would
be. That blue line indicates roughly, or very close, where there are no
trees. That's where there are no trees. Everything else east and west of
that is wooded. Okay? When one gets to the end of that blue line, and that
leads directly into the Crimson Bay easement that you have. That's 25 feet
wide and you can see it there on that plat. A person cannot walk off the
end of that blue line and walk down to Crimson Bay without, almost without
turning around and grabbing onto weeds or grabbing onto branches or
grabbing onto the fence. It is very, very steep. Now, that doesn't mean a
road can't be built there. It does mean though if we're going to build, if
one were to build a road there, there would h~ave to be a cut much wider
than 60 feet. In order to make this, to get down this slope, or up, you
would have to cut the soil back on both sides and fill here and cut here 70
or 80 feet and I think Dave will back me up. Maybe he can...it is not
level. It's very, very steep. Set aside the fact that you're not going to
get the University land anyway. It would not be easy at all. Always
doable but it's not easy. There's several things that have been said. It
would devastate Lot 2 and I think it would just destroy the purpose that
Planning Co~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 35
we're here for. I think the applicants would withdraw the plat. It just
simply is not a feasible thing to do and it bears out what I tried to
suggest earlier is that this leads into an 80 acre parcel to the east that
ultimately there's 100 feet or so of frontage. Several hundred feet of
frontage on TH 41. One or 2 or 3 road accesses can be drawn into this
property and there will be plenty of safe development and publicly safe
development of this property in the future. When it's really on the table.
What's on the table now is two rural lots.
Conrad: I'll just, you know what you're doing. We also have been here a
while too. As you divide things smaller and smaller you lose perspective
of the big picture. We're trying to keep our eye on the big picture along
with staff and you know that's our job. You can't do it when you divide 80
acres. We know what just happened to make this happen. We know that we've
solved some of the economic restrictions we put on Tim when he was trying
to get in here. This I think is a good way to reduce some of those
restrictions but just your point, it doesn't make sense. It potentially
does make a lot of sense. I'm not saying this is a right thing to do.
It's just an issue that I forgot about and it's a major problem back there
Mr. Laughinghouse and we're trying to deal with that. It's real tough when
you start dividing down into 10 acre parcels. It's a lot easier when you're
dealing with a 100 acre parcel because then you've got roadway structures
and you can move it but now we're trying to plan for the future and that's
why we're taking a look at a few different things and I don't have all the
information that maybe I should have looked at beforehand because I've kind
of precluded this because of the last time we looked at it. I don't know
the safety on TH 5 issue. I do know that Lundgren Bros. is making the same
cuts that you'd have to make there, Lundgren Bros. is doing it in
Chanhassen very nicely with the same type of stuff. It can be done. It
can be done pretty easily. It can be done very attractively. I'm not
reco~-~ending that we do it here but it's just one of those options that
given a lot of lousy solutions that we're looking at, I'm just bringing in
one other possibility here which will help me make up my mind. And you're
going to )~un into the same diverse opinions as you get to City Council so I
don't want to bog this down at our level because we're just a reco~m;ending
body.
Batzli: Can I ask a question of Dave?
Conrad: Yeah.
Batzli: How close can you make the access points on a trunk highway?
Hempel: They are restricted by MnDot. I don't have. It's limited to
sight distances on the terrain and so forth. MnDot is the one that has the
right-of-way documentation where they have certain...
Batzli: And there's also I suppose intersection limitations. In looking
at how the road to the north here comes out onto TH 41, we don't know from
looking at that if there would be a problem of putting in additional
accesses to the south of that?
Planning Commission Meeting
Jan~l
ry 17, 1990 - Page 36
Hempel: There was talk of the possibility of another access point out onto
TH 41 but that would take MnDot approval also. I guess we feel that is a
possibility.
Conrad: Yeah, I think I saw that once upon a time. One more.
Batzli: One more south of Tanadoona.
Conrad: Yeah. I don't mind the balance of the, I know Steve you're
concerned with some of the other issues in the staff report. I guess
things are foggy enough in my mind that I don't mind some of those. Some
of the staff co~'~,ents in there. Any other co~ents? Joan, anything that
you want to jump back in after you've heard us mish mash the thing up?
Ahrens: I just wanted to say one thing. That the southern access to
Crimson Bay Road, I think the biggest issue there is getting the land.
Even if we could get the land, I'm not sure it's good public policy to take
State land.
Conrad: Can't do it. Ail you can do is not preclude that option right now
and require an easement up to it. It doesn't say it's going to, it's just
like our previous one. It doesn't say we're going to do it but you could
require an easement and therefore the purchaser right now knows that in the
fut~re we may want to run a road through. It may p~event his decision to
buy that property. In my mind, that's the last thing I want to do is
divide his parcel up as he comes out here and wants to live on 20 acres. I
would love to live on 20 acres and I'd never want to exclude anybody from
wanting to buy that and use it that way. On the other hand, our job is to
say well, downstream what's going to happen and that access might be the
right one.
Ahrens: I'm not sure, I think maybe my point was missed on that about
acquiring the land from the State... I'm not sure that that's the best
public policy.
Conrad: To buy State land?
Ahrens: Well, that's Arboretum land right? And the Arboretum land would
have to be acquired in order to have access to Crimson Road.
Conrad: Right.
Batzli: But it would benefit all the people in there.
Ellson: When it turns into a development but it's the same principle.
Batzli: But you wouldn't be purchasing the land until you needed it. You
wouldn't even ask the Arboretum unless you needed that access when it
developed.
·
Ellson: But are we saying that we want to take State land to help people
develop this? The bottom line is, is that a good way?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 37
Ahrens: I don't think you can anyway but even if we could, I don't think
it's...
Conrad: It could be less costly in the long run.
there a motion?
Anything el se? Is
Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989 with the
following conditions. Number 1 would be basically what's down as option
l(a). That it would require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line
of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way
for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that
right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive
is improved or until development in that area would require improvement.
Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 would stay as written by staff. Condition 6 would
be expanded. Essentially stay the same but just be expanded a little bit
to say that any access including a dock or boardwalk to Lake Minnewashta
from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging,
or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. Then I'd add the
condition 7 that would say that, there will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a
system of private driveways that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans
and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
approval. If the parties decide not to use the system of private driveways
but rather use Lake Drive somehow, then they'll still be responsible for
providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City
Engineer. The end.
Conrad: Good. Is there a second?
Ellson: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
Olsen: Since the street won't be improved, then we should also have a
condition that there shall be easements across Lot 1 for access to Lot 2.
I know that they said that they're providing that but.
E~m~ings: Well, but Jo Ann if they don't give an easement, they always have
the right to use Lake Drive so let them wor~-y about it. That's what I
think.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, condition 2 should maybe be deleted if you're not
p~oposing to improve the street to city standards because it will not be a
public street. Public improvement.
Batzli: What would they have to do for the cul-de-sac?
Hempel: We could make it conditioned upon building permit approval.
E~-~ings: So that's probably not really a public improvement?
Hempel: That's co~rect.
Planning Co~m, ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 38
Emmings: Yeah, that makes sense to me. There aren't any other
improvements? Okay. Then number 2 could be striken. It doesn't mean
anything.
Conrad: And that's going to be a condition of what? If it's not here, the
improvement of the cul-de-sac.
~,mings: It's still a condition because that's my condition number 7.
That there will be a cul-de-sac that meets his approval but we don't need a
development contract for a public improvement because we're not grading or
paving a street or building the shoulders or whatever.
Conrad: Okay, do you agree with eliminating number 2 then?
E~m, ings: Yeah I do.
Ellson: I'll change my second also.
E~m~ings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Co~.ission reco~m~end
approval of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989
with the following conditions:
1. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2
to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full
60 foot r~uk~al street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way
would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is
improved or until development in that area would require improvement.
2. The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from
the Watershed District.
3. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east
boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zi~erman Farm and along the south
boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zi~m~erman Farm fro~ the southeast corner of
Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision.
4. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zi~m~erman Farm
shall be staked and preserved.
5. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot
2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging, or
removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline.
6. There will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a system of private driveways
that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that
cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. If
the parties decide not to use the system of private driveways but
rather ,]se Lake Drive somehow, they will still be responsible for
providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City
Engineer.
Ail voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 39
Conrad: Brian, the reason for your negative vote?
Batzli: I would prefer to see further study on the route taken by the
power line with potential connection to Crimson Bay Road at a future time.
Other than that, I think it's fine. Maybe access along Lake Drive is the
way to go but I don't think that was studied because I think staff had the
impression that we weren't interested in that and I think that we might be
if there was further thought given it.
Conrad: I second that opinion.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO
CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS.
Conrad: Jo Ann, just as a point. This is a public hearing. Were notices
sent out?
Olsen: We sent out to all the people who have been interested in it.
Conrad: To associations with beachlots by chance?
O1 sen: No.
Emmings: Was there published notice?
Olsen: It was published in the paper and then we sent it to those who have
been involved.
Ellson: Who have come to these before.
Batzli: Does this apply retroactively to any of them? Would they be
g~andfathered in?
Conrad: They will exceed this standard.
Olsen: There's a condition in here that says we can go back.
Conrad: So they weren't invited. Do we care?
Ellson: So what, do you want to table it?
Conr ad: No.
Ellson: Just be sure they're notified for the Council.
Conrad: No, that's not fair either. I don't think they'd have any issues
with this. They typically have what they want. They've met the standards.
They have a beach, their own lot and we're not taking any of their rights
away.
Emmings: Right. That's true.
Planning Co~m, ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 40
Ellson: Convince yourself?
Conrad: So the question right now is, do we all believe that. You don't
believe that?
Terry Forbord: When you open the public hearing.
Conrad: Right. We haven't. Or at least I don't think I have opened it.
Let me know if I have and I'll stop talking. I think we haven't affected
anybody but we probably should, it's after the fact. To send them a notice
for the City Council. I think that's real negative because it's the last
second and what have you.
Olsen: We've notified everyone that's ever been interested or has come to
public hearings concerning recreational beachlots.
Conrad: Over what period of time Jo Ann? Forever? 2 years?
Olsen: You know like Georgette Sosin and...
Conrad: So how many do you think you sent out?
Olsen: Probably about 6...there's more focus than just on the Robert
Pierce beachlot.
Conrad: Everybody comfortable going ahead?
Ellson: I can sleep tonight going ahead.
Emmings: I guess what I want to know is, we've got an ordinance and it
tells us what we've got to do from notice and have we done it.
Olsen: We have, yes.
E,-m~i ngs: Okay.
Ahrens: You've notified everyone who was required to be notified?
E,-m~ings: Publication I think is all that's actually required and that's
been done.
Ellson: It's not like for property owners and all these other sorts of
things.
Conrad: Sometimes we like to go the extra mile.
Ellson: And we did. We went not only the paper, which is all we had but
we also contacted anyone who's been following this before. I'm comfortable
with it Ladd. Let's move it.
Conrad: The paper doesn't count. It legally co~]nts but it really doesn't
count.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 41
Ellson: But we've also been going after people who were following this.
It's not like we hand picked them.
Conrad: 6 people.
Ahrens: I'm comfortable.
Conrad: Okay, we'll proceed Jo Ann.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order.
Terry Forbord: Good evening. My name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President
of Lundgren Bros.. In reading this document that staff sent me, which was
very gracious of them to do so, this is really the first opportunity that
we had being that we weren't developing any properties similar to what
we're considering at this time that really was applicable to this so in
reading it and trying to get up to speed with it, I was really impressed on
how much effort everybody's put into this and reading all this and I could
certainly tell that as being stewards of the City and it's waters and it's
many fine lakes, that you had certainly agonized through a lot of this.
Being a past public official myself, I've been in exactly the same
situation on the same issue. In talking to some of the people that I see
who's names are listed in the Minutes here, I'm not sure if everybody did
know this meeting was happening tonight because nobody mentioned it to me
and I'm quite surprised just to see myself here because even in reading
this and talking to some of these many people over the last 30 to 60 to 90
days. These people seemed real interested in it so I kept kind of looking
at the doors all night so something, I don't know what exactly took place
but I saw it in the newspaper but the reason I saw it in the newspaper is
because I make that a habit because this is what I do for a living. But
I'm here primarily because Lundgren Bros. currently or recently has secured
the opportunity to develop a piece of land on one of the significant lakes
within your city. I can't at this time share with you where that is or
whom the seller is because I have not submitted by application to staff,
which I will be doing so shortly, and it wouldn't be fair for me to violate
that trust that I have with the seller at this time. We also are talking
to many of the other landowners within the City who own lakeshore property
or they have contacted us within the last 12 months. I'll give you a
little background of where we're going as far as real estate developers in
the 90's and how that will probably, to what degree that will probably
impact the City of Chanhassen. Lundgren Bros. has been fortunate in that
many of the things that we have done have worked out quite well from us in
our land planning and the amenities that we have included in our
subdivisions, some of which are in your community. We've certainly made
some mistakes but luckily we're doing a few things right and it's working
well for us. We do not think that we will be able to continue doing what
we have been doing and be as successful. In other words, what we're going
to have to do is we're going to have to get better at what we're doing and
it's ~eally quite s~mple why that is true. I'm sure you all read all the
same stuff that I read on just the social and economic trends that are
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 42
happening right before us. The demographic trends. There's going to be
fewer buyers. A majority of them are going to be in certain age groups.
They're going to have less time. They're going to have more discretionary
income and a whole slew of other things that are going to change their
housing habits in the 90's and years to come. We have, and not just us but
certainly the experts and we try to listen to them and also make our own
decisions based on their analysis, is that we axe going to have to provide
a far greater amenity value in neighborhood communities than we have been
able to in the past and precisely recreational amenities. Because people
want to recreate as close as they possibly can to home. Now we're
fortunate in the Twin Cities area that we have such a strong park system.
Hennepin Parks Preserves, etc. and the numerous public accesses that have
been put on city lakes. We are fortunate that we have those but they also
create a problem in their own right, as you probably have had to deal with
in your own city and that's congestion in areas where those public accesses
have been developed. The trends by I guess I would say the people on the
cutting edge of real estate development in looking into the future and
trying to say, well how do we provide people with these types of things and
still stay environmentally sensitive with what we have is to try to spread
the use of recreational areas out over possibly greater areas and keep them
more controlled rather than putting them in densely small areas. The urban
land institute has done numerous studies on that just within the last 5
years and recreational development throughout the United States. Certainly
the National Association of Home Build.ers has been directly involved in
conjunction with that former body in trying to find out how we can best do
this well. And we have gone to numerous seminars all around the country
sponsored by them and and planning institute on how to provide the things
that we feel people are going to want in the 1990's. That precisely some
of those things are directly related to recreational beachlots. I mean
they're not always called recreational beachlots. Every city has a
different name for it it seems like but for what we're talking about here
tonight, that certainly is the issue. My only concern in reading this, and
I'm not exactly sure if I totally understand every aspect of what is
Proposed here and what went into it but I know as stewards of the city and
planning co~m~issioners what you try to do is you try to put something
together that accomplishes a whole lot of things. It's real tough to come
up with a perfect system and oftentimes some of it is subjective because
you really don't know and numbers are pulled out of hats and say, well this
sounds like a good number and why is it a 100 feet versus 95 feet or 105
feet. You have to pick something so you pick something. My concern in
reading this, was that sometimes by picking numbers or putting in certain
phrases, you somewhat handcuff your own abilities and you certainly
handcuff the potential for maybe nicer development. Now I know what you're
more afraid of is the negative development and you end up trying to put
some rules in to control that but if in the meantime of what that does is
that it makes it very difficult for a developer to bring in a proposal that
you may really want to see. It may make it difficult. I wasn't sure, I
didn't get a chance to read far enough into this to see if what is proposed
here would also apply to PUD's. That was a question I had tonight for
staff. If it does apply to PUD's, it would still stymie some of the
creativity that PUD's exist for.
Conrad: It would.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 43
Terry Forbord: Okay. I'll get precisely to an item in here that I see.
There's actually 2 or 3 sites. I'm currently working on 4 proposed
developments on significant water bodies in the western suburbs and I'm
going through these very same issues with the staffs in those co~,unities.
Because it's as important to us as a developer who's going to have millions
of dollars invested in a recreational co~,unity, it's as important to us or
maybe even more so that we don't screw it up. Because if it turns sour or
it's an environmental problem or it becomes a negative marketing scenario
or whatever, we have a tremendous amount to lose. And so what we're really
trying to do is to work closely with cities and I support recreational
beachlot ordinances. Don't misunderstand me. We are all for that. We
think they need to be, you have to have some kind of constraints of what
can be done. My only fear is, will this make it impossible for me to bring
you a development that I think you may be happy with. Now there's always
the variance that one can come in and apply for to the ordinance but in
going through this.
Conrad: Let me just really quickly get in, what you see in front of you
tonight really was a response to one particular change. The ordinance
previously had a 100 foot minimum lot depth. The words that you see here
tonight are to solve that so there is some flexibility in the 100 feet. So
we haven't reviewed other basically. We haven't really, this ordinance has
been on the books for multi years and really what's in front of us tonight.
You're addressing a whole lot of other things that weren't issues as we
reviewed this. We took what we had before and basically the wording is to
provide some intent for this ordinance but also to provide some flexibility
so that we can follow up the intent more than the absolute numbers. What
is in here has been elimination of a couple numbers which is what concerned
you for flexibility purposes. Basically the draft tonight in front of us
gives a developer of a beachlot a little bit more flexibility so if one end
of the beachlot is only 90 feet, that doesn't preclude that from becoming a
beachlot. So I just wanted you to know what we're reviewing tonight. I
think you're addressing a much broader scale. We'll listen but it's not in
our, it wasn't in the scope of this change.
Terry Forbord: Okay, just to make sure I understand then one of the
primary concerns that I did have in here. This 100 foot number, is an
issue in here and it's the depth I believe from the ordinary high water
mark to the lot line which could be...
E~m, ings: That's been taken out.
Terry Forbord: Okay. I must be misunderstanding what I'm reading here and
I apologize if I am.
Emmings: That's alright.
Conrad: 100 feet was a standard before. It no longer is there. That
doesn't mean that it's not going to be there.
Ellson: After it goes to Council right?
Planning Co~m, ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 44
Conrad: Well even after I talk about it. It is the elimination of that
number. Instead we replaced it with the intent of a buffering from the
surrounding area. If you developed a property as a Lundgren Bros.
development, I think you would be concerned with buffering and distance
from the neighbors.
Terry Forbord: Absolutely.
Conrad: Because it's part of your parcel. But this also talks about
buffering it from one development to the next, the neighbor on either side
so that's what we're trying to get across here.
Terry Forbord: So the 100 foot number has been removed?
Conrad: It's been removed.
~mings: Well, in this proposal. I think Ladd's understating the case a
little bit. I think that what's written down here as proposed as the
change to the ordinance adds not a little flexibility but a lot of
flexibilty.
Ellson: As long as it meets our intent.
E~ings: And would provide you with broad guidelines that would allow you
to come in with, the old statute was very rigid. This one is very
flexible.
Terry Forbord: It was rigid. It was a little easier to understand what
I had to deal with and here it's kind of ambiguous but that's okay.
Conrad: And that's a problem because we haven't set a mark for you for a
developer and that's a problem that I have with the way it's worded right
now.
Terry For~bord: But there's some benefit to that because you still have the
final say anyway. But I do have a couple just reco~endations under
Section 20-263 undek' intent. I would just reco~,end a couple that are just
word changes because I picked them out, I just took words out of your own
paragraph and placed them in other areas but based upon experience, it
says, it is recognized by the City that the use of lakeshore by multiple
parties. Rather than say is, I would say may be because that's an awful
assumptive to say that they are an intensive use because they necessarily
aren't. They may be. They could be. And I would just recommend that you,
it was just a thought. Furthermore, an intensive use of lakeshore that may
be present conflicts with the neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of
other lakeshore on the same lake. Further, beachlots generate complaints
and it says because. Basically that should say, I mean in our opinion,
further, beachlots may generate complaints because if they are not
maintained the same standards. Because what you're assuming that if you
have a beachlot, it's going to generate a complaint and that's not
necessarily true either. Just in the tours of some of the finest
developments anywhere in the United States and southern California and
Florida and Arizona that I've gone to, there's not very many beaches in
Planning Co~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 45
Arizona other than man made ones but you'll find that it can be just the
converse of that.
Conrad: The good beachlots are maintained and the bad ones aren't.
Terry Forbord: And there are some single family home lots on the lake that
are absolute the pits so in just reading your own here, I'm not sure, I
don't think that's what you really meant. So I would just suggest, it's
very well written and I think Commissioner E~,ings is the one that kind of
led the charge in this and he's done really a good job, If I could just
suggest those few changes to that because I think it continues with what
you were really trying to say there. But if that 100 foot number has been
eliminated, I guess I was reading it out of another part of the staff
report from a previous meeting, that we wouldn't have a problem with it.
The reason we would, if you want me to get into that, there's a whole bunch
of planning reasons why that 100 foot number could become a problem.
Because you may end up in an area, let's say that from just an ecological
reason, environmental reason, that this ended up being the best place to
put the dock but it was only 75 feet from the lot line. Well, then what do
you do? What if you had to cut down an acre of beautiful 100 year tree
stand to put the dock there because that was the only 100 foot spot so
there's a number of reasons why that number can become a, could become a
problem. That's all I have to say right now but if you have any questions
regarding anything, I'd do my best to answer them for you.
Conrad: Thank you. I think basically this ordinance, the way it's written
sounds like it's solving the key issues that you have. Other public input.
Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Joan, what do you think?
Ahrens: I don't have any questions and I don't have really any remarks. I
can see that has gone on forever without me so I think that it's, I'm in
favor of the ordinance as Steve's written it now.
Batzli: I think this gentleman's comments regarding the intent statement
are accurate and I would prefer to tone down the intent statement to may be
an intensive use and his other suggestions. I had one question as to why
7(c) was eliminated and my last question is, in the proposed ordinance,
attachment 7, it doesn't appear to me that the intent statement got in
there. Is that correct?
Olsen: What's on the back of the report is what the City Attorney came
back with, his rewording. We took that ever further to make an intent
statement.
Batzli: This isn't the final one? Okay. Could you address why 7(c) was
eliminated?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 46
Olsen: I think the reason that that was removed was because it was placed
elsewhere. It just wasn't, it got into Section 13. It's just saying that
it does have to have the buffer. We felt that it didn't need to be
repeated. I think it's referring to paragraph 13. 13 was actually saying
that you need the buffer. Saying the whole thing. I think it was just
repeating that.
Batzli: I guess I'd have to go back and look at the original ordinance
again but that's all I had to co~Lent. I think it's actually a good
improvement to the ordinance.
Conrad: Annette?
Ellson: I like it. I agree that we could make it a little more gentle
with the term may. I especially liked having an intent statement. I think
it's worth thinking about when we write some other sticky ones because it
will make interpretation by anybody years to come a lot easier.
Conrad: Oh biased Mr. E~'~,ings.
Emmings: Please understand, I didn't take a lot of time because I opened
up my dictater and basically threw up and sent you what I did but. I agree
with the changes that the staff has made. All of the changes they made,
made it better. I further, I think that in that first sentence in the
intent statement it should be changed that it may be an intensive use and
the second sentence, that because could simply be changed to when. That
they generate complaints when they're not maintained and that would solve
and I think those are appropriate changes to make. The only other thing I
thought of. I thought of two things since. One would be in the very end
where it says to the extent feasible, the City may impose these conditions
even after approval of the beachlot. I question whether we could really
get away with that. I think it's important to try to. If the City finds
it necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property, I think
I'd add there, or ,]pon failure to maintain property and beachlot equipment
or something like that just to make it clear that failure. A conflict in
use o~ a failure to maintain can set off a process whereby we can go back
and try and make them adhere to some kind of a standard. The other thing I
thought of was, I know for a fact that the beachlots on the lake I live on
have expanded noticeably since I've been there. There is no baseline. I
don't know, particularly for ones that were grandfathered in, which are
probably all of them on Minnewashta, we don't know what they started with
because they shouldn't be able to expand the use of them without coming in
and getting under our ordinance. And there's no baseline there and I just
wondered if there should be in the ordinance and this is maybe a separate
issue to be taken up later. Some kind of a reporting requirement in 1990
or 1991 where they have to tell us what they have for equipment. Fill out
a form. What do you have for equipment on your beachlot. Who has boats on
your beachlot. How many boats and what kind are parked at your docks.
What sizes you've got so that we have, finally, a baseline for all of these
beachlots for the future if one looks like it's expanding. I thought maybe
instead of, I've always thought in the past that we should go around and
photograph them. If you go out real early on a Sunday morning, everything
is just sitting there and you could just photograph them and you'd have for
Planning Co~,ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 47
a record but even better than would probably be to just have a recording
requirement. A one time reporting requirement because they're all run by
associations. We could have them report so that we have a database. The
other thing I'm waiting to hear is your con,tents on the 100 foot. I
thought that was very provocative.
Conrad: I just want to react to your recording deal. How many beachlots
do we have in town? 10 or 157 Jo Ann, do you recall?
Olsen: More than that.
Conrad: We're talking about an adminstrative function. Nothing that's
worked in here.
Emmings: Yeah. I guess so.
Olsen: We've done that. I mean we've done what, just like drive out in
the.., but to get them to fill out something and sign it...
Ellson: I mean they come and go.
Olsen: It's not that much, that many that we couldn't do it.
Conrad: It might be interesting to photograph and to compare to what their
permitted to be doing or to set a standard.
E~-m~ings: But you see the ones that are grandfathered in, when you say what
they're permitted to do doesn't mean anything because they were never
approved as beachlots anyway. They're just there.
Batzli: But at least you'd have a baseline photograph for. the future.
Emmings: Exactly. Same idea. But you can't compare it back. You could
only use it as your baseline for the future.
Conrad: The intent. I think there are a couple words and I think our
friend from Lundgren made some good co~m~ents. The only thing that I'd like
in there, where it talks about the intense use of lakeshore. I also want
to say the intense use of the lake. It says lakeshore but really the best
safety valve, the best safety a lake has is a standard for how many houses
can go on the lake. When you allow multi units to use a small piece of
lake, it does intensify. Not only the land use but the lake use so I think
there are a couple places where that could be stuck in and I'll let staff
figure that out but I really do believe that the original intent of the
beachlot was to protect the lake and the surrounding property owners. It
was a 50/50 deal and I would like that in there. And then I think some of
these other words, the may's or might's or whatever, might soften up that
but I still like the intent statement. I think it's pretty good. Speaking
of the 100 foot. As we take the 100 foot standard out of this ordinance
and Jo Ann I'm going to pick on you because you know this better than Steve
and you've been around with this one for a while. The thing that we fall
back on as we take that 100 foot out are the intent to buffer statements
but we don't have a standard so we don't have any buffering standard. So
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 48
what do we use when Lundgren Bros. comes in and says well, how do we review
this? Before we said 100 foot was a buffer or it did something. What can
we fall back on in terms of a distance. We can fall back on bushes and
things like that to buffer but what do we set for a standard now? The
standard is gone.
Olsen: Right. For the depth. You still have the area and the frontage.
Conrad: Does that do it?
Emmings: Sure. I think so. You've got 200 feet and you've got to have
30,000 square feet. You've got 150 feet of depth.
Conrad: See, I think you're right. Is Steve right on that?
Batzli: That's an average depth. We had this conversation in detail
numerous times. You can have, my example was a million foot deep piece
that's 1 foot wide. You could have a flag in essence and not have a deep
lot.
Emmings: But there we can resort to our intent statement and the rest of
it to prevent the weird anamoly. You're never going to find anybody who's
going to want to devote, having 200 feet on a lake dedicated to a beachlot
in this town in these times is saying something. They're not going to want
to stretch it to 800 so they don't have much depth.
Batzli: That's true. They'd have to have it be extremely...
Conrad: Let's talk about a situation, one end of the beachlot could be 10
feet. The other end could be 200 feet. Is that a problem?
Ellson: Not if you buffer.
Conrad: So as long as we buffer that 10 foot we're okay. Does that make
sense?
Ellson: Right they're probably put everything down at the long end.
Conrad: Well, we'd force them to do that.
E~m~ings: Exactly.
Conrad: We're taken out the 4 foot standard. The arbitrary 4 foot
standard which was always arbitrary but tell me now, at least that gave me
a clue or gave me an indication that we weren't going to, let's talk about
the property that we saw tonight on Minnewashta next to Crimson Bay. They
potentially, well no longer could but let's say there was 100 acre there.
Let's say and it used to be 100 acres with, and that is a beachlot
potential right there on the site that we saw tonight. Okay. Now we have
100 acres. Well, no longer do we have. We have 20 acres but let's pretend
it was 100 acres. Now they potentially could get, so on 100 acres we could
probably 3 units per acre out there. I don't know, whatever the number
might be so there could be 250 homes accessing that beachlot. And it's all
Planning Co~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 49
contiguous and that was another, I think whether contiguous is in here.
Still in the ordinance, that was key but it could have been. In this
property, if they didn't do what they did tonight, they could have had 250
houses contiguous to a beachlot and what would our ordinance do in that
situation?
Emmings: A certain number have to be within 1,000 feet also don't forget.
Olsen: Right.
Emmings: But I don't know how that affects your hpothetical but that's
another requirement.
Olsen: For urban recreational beachlot, 80% of the dwelling units which
have the rights have to be within 1,000 feet and then for rural
recreational beachlots, a maximum of 50 dwelling units. So you still have
that.
Ellson: So if you had your 100 acres, you would not find 80% of the people
within 1,000 feet.
Olsen: That'd be 250.
Ellson: No way, yeah.
Conrad: I'm sorry. Explain that to me one more time Jo Ann. I'm looking
at that but make me understand.
Olsen: What that's saying is that 80% of the dwelling units which have the
right to access, shall be located within 1,000 feet. What that used to
mean is that you could only have the area right to the recreational
beachlot could only go a certain. It couldn't go across the street and down
the block. Then for rural, we just amended that so that would limit where
they were going to be outside of that 1,000 so we said we need to limit the
number some other way...
~mings: And to put that in perspective Ladd, if you look at what's being
done out there, this 20 acres. This line right from here to here is 1,259
feet. So that other 80 acres that's out here isn't going to be within the
area that can be served by the beachlot under that standard.
Conrad: So only those houses that would appear in Lots 1 and 2.
E~m~ings: Or if sewer was out there so they could subdivide those.
Basically it would be that area or something like it. Not too far off.
Conrad: Is that a proper interpretation Jo Ann or Paul?
Olsen: Right. These 80% need...
Conrad: So if 20 houses were in those two parcels, another 20% of that 20
o~ another 4 houses could have beachlot access rights so we're talking
about 24? Not the other 200 that could have been wrapped into it.
Planning Co~'~ission Meeting
Janua~y 17, 1990 - Page 50
~mings: But there's another thing that operates here too though Ladd.
And maybe this gentleman would speak to us about it but you've got a great
big parcel of land. When you're building on lakeshore, you want to put
your houses on the lakeshore. There's a lot of value in selling a house on
lakeshore. I don't know that you want to be chewing up all your frontage
in beachlots.
Conrad: No. What you want to do is shrink the amount of beachlot but you
tell all the property owners that they do have lake access. That's what
has been done. So the smaller, you're right.
E~-m, ings: There's some kind of a trade-off.
Conrad: There absolutely is. You don't want to give away a lot of your
lakeshore because that's really sellable and very profitable but you do
like, 90% of the development's going to be off the lake and what's the
sales tool you use to sell the property or sell the house? Hey, you can
go, we've got a beachlot for you. It's a great sales tool and it's a great
amenity but the problem is the intensity of use. I don't like the 4 feet
because that was, I remember when we got that. That was, we've never
applied it. You've reported it but it's never made a difference so I don't
think that's a fair standard but I don't want to lose the standard of, you
know again the intensity on that property, I don't want to lose that.
Olsen: Maybe under the section 13 that's saying to insure appropriate
buffering, the City may impose conditions. Maybe you could add something
like a (g) just saying that we could limit the number of households.
Conrad: I don't have a magic number and I don't want to do that. I want
to feel assured that we haven't through this really opened up a vastly
expanded use of that small beachlot. That's what would happen.
Olsen: We haven't changed.
Conrad: Other than the 4 feet. We haven't changed anything Jo Ann other
than the 4 feet and we're probably okay. I just want somebody to tell me
we're okay.
E~m~ings: You're okay.
Conrad: You've had your hand up. Go ahead.
Terry Forbord: Thank you. Two things came up that reminded me that I
didn't address a couple issues that I thought I should point out for your
benefit. Conversely to what you were just discussing, the exact opposite
is happening. We no longer will be developing lakeshore lots. All four of
our major projects in the Twin Cities, three of them being on significant
Twin Cities lakes, there will be no lots platted on the lake. The
lakeshore will become common area for the entire neighborhood community.
The DNR supports this because all of a sudden what you're doing is the
public beaches, the public accesses are so intensified that they're
polluted and it creates a problem with traffic and so the DNR supports the
Planning CoFmtission Meeting
Janua~y 17, 1990 - Page 51
recreational beachlot concept as I'm discussing it because now what you're
doing is taking a private area through private development and creating a
nice neighborhood community. You're making it so a person who never could
afford to have water at their doorstep so to speak because they can't
afford a half million dollar home. $150,000.00-$175,000.00-$185,000.00
home now, those people can go take their children right down to their beach
and they can fish off thei~ pier. Maybe they have a boat landing where
they can use it during the daytime hours. I mean these are the kind of
things you're going to be seeing in the 90's in the more successful
developments. One of the things that I didn't point out.
Conrad: Let me jump on that. You've got some property up on Silver Lake
that you're now building on in the Near Mountain area and there was a
potential for a great passive access there for all of your new residences
and Peter was in here and he put, he did not want to and this was within
the last 4 months or 6. He did not want to provide access to Silver Lake.
Contrast that to what you just said.
Terry Forbord: The reason is economics and on the front end you have to
plan from the beginning. You can't be down into the final amendment of a
PUD and try to make that all work from an economic standpoint. You have to
start it in the beginning. It can't kind of change. It'd be nice if you
could and we actually have two projects it would be nice if we could do
that in but economically it's got to work or there's no sense even doing
it. That's a good point and those are points that planning commissioners
should ask so they understand what the developers are doing. It's not a
game of mirrors or a smoke contest or anything. It's pure economics. We
feel that and what I'm describing to you for our future developments, if we
plan it right from the front end, we can make it work economically for the
long run. But I did want to point out one other thing while I had an
opportunity to speak is that we felt also that the 30,000 and 20,000 square
foot requirements were possibly a little too strict. I can't remember how
the ordinance was w~itten. I think it had a number of units off the lake
or some formula for figuring out the number of docks and it was somewhat
restrictive as well but this makes it a little even more restrictive.
E~m~ings: This is not a change. That's always been there.
Terry Forbord: This has always been there? I apologize.
E~-~tings: No, that's fine.
Conrad: Let me jump in on that one because you brought it up. If you put
1 house on the lake you need about that milch lakeshore or square footage
for a house. A single family residences. You need 20,000 feet. What's
the difference and that's one family of 3 ~or 4 people using that 20,000
feet. Now what you're suggesting, by saying that's too much, you're
suggesting having multi families coming into the same lot. See that
doesn't make sense.
Terr~y Forbord: Correct. See but you're assuming that single family
dwellings are less intense than multi family and is not necessarily true. I
mean because I have lived on Lake Minnetonka and the people next door to
Planning Co~Lission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 52
me, I've had 50 people over every day of the week in the su~-~etime and you
can go down to one of the nicer townhomes co~unities on the lake and
there'd be nobody on their beach all week long. So what you'd think normal
situations that's the way it would be but it doesn't mean that it always
holds true.
Conrad: Not always but primarily if we allow, what do we allow for a
beachlot Jo Ann? How many motorboats?
Olsen: Overnight storage is 3.
Conrad: So on a typical summer weekend, you are going to have 3 motorboats
going most of the time. Single family, you will have one because there's
only, there's typically only one major motorboat so I really challenge the
less intense. I don't buy that argument. I think the numbers are there
generally. Not always but the numbers really indicate if you've got 20
families ,]sing a lot and you can have 3 overnight boats, there are going to
be 3 boats moving on Saturday and Sunday.
Terry Fo~bord: That's possible. The other thing they can do is go down to
the public access in the public beach and intensify that smaller area as
well rather than dispersing it around the lake so there is a couple of
things to look at. Jo Ann raised another question that's going to probable
come before you and that's the 1,000 foot distance or the 80%. In areas
where there is this type of development where the lakeshore, the complete
lakeshore is co~m~on area, you can see how that may pose a problem for you
in the future on some of the development of your other lakes.
Emmings: The test to me on beachlots is this. There's one within 3 or 4
houses of me and it really impacts me very little. By God, it impacts the
poeple next door to it.
Terry Forbord: It could. That's possible.
Emmings: No, it does. Not could. It does.
Ellson: That particular one?
Emmings: Yeah, and I don't mind having one four lots away but if somebody
was proposing to put one in right next to me, I'd be really violently
opposed to it and I wonder if you wouldn't feel the same way.
Terry Forbord: Well to me the way I would look at it is what is the
proposed use. How is it going to be regulated and how are they going to
buffer it. Many of the same things you b~ought up tonight.
Emmings: So you think that our approach then isn't a bad one?
Terry Forbord: Oh no. I think your approach, I co~,end you highly for it.
I think all cities should do this but what they need to realize is that
recreational beachlots are going to become more commonplace. One of the
problems is that when you start talking that, what you usually do is look
back and see what you've got. You look at, this is a recreational beachlot
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 53
because this is one we've had here for 20 years and here's one for 10
years.
~,mings: And it's 25 feet wide and you've got 150 houses.
Terry Forbord: We're talking about 1,000 or 1,500 feet of recreational
beachlot and you will see more of that. As much as can be provided and
make economic sense because then the average person can have a piece of
the...
Conrad: There's a lot of logic in what you're saying. If you came in, I
really like those concepts. I don't think we'd close down figuring out how
to make that happen.
Terry Forbord: Okay, well thank you very much for letting me talk.
Conrad: That's okay. Okay, I was talking wasn't I? I think I finished.
We're all satisfied that we haven't intensified or allowed more folks, a
vastly intense use of that. I think that makes sense to me. 4 feet is
out. That's it. Is there a motion?
·
Ellson: I'll move the Planning CoF~ission reco~m~end amending Section
20-263 of the Chanhassen Code by adding what's in our packet. Changing the
intent statement to add, use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be an
intensive use of the lake that may present conflicts. And the line that
says, further, beachlots may generate complaints because if they are not
maintained. Also, the last paragraph, to the extent feasible, the City may
impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot if the City
finds it necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property or
failure to maintain property. With those changes. Were there any other
changes that you wanted? Oh, maintain property and equipment?
E~m. ing s: Oh yeah.
Ellson: Okay. We'll add equipment.
Emmings: I'll second it. The only discussion I have is you changed, it
should intensive use, in the intent statement, intensive use of lakeshore
and lakes. Is that what you meant? You just wiped out lakeshore and just
put in lakes?
Conrad: I wanted both.
Ellson: Okay. You're right. I changed it to just say lakes.
Conrad: I wanted lakeshore and lakes.
Ellson: Okay. I'd be willing to change that.
E~m, ings: And then the rest of the sentence may need a little alteration.
Ellson: To sound better.
Planning Co~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 54
Emmings: Yeah. Because it says, that may present conflicts with
neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same
lake or the lake itself should be added then.
Batzli: Steve, in the intent statement where you said that we require the
following conditions for recreational beachlots. We used to be a little
bit more broad and loose than that by saying that something about we could
impose other conditions. In other words, the following standards apply to
recreational beachlots, conditional use, in addition to such other
conditions as may be prescribed. Do we want to give ourselves that luxury
still or are these the only conditions you will ever?
E~mtings: I think under 13, I did that with the buffering. The last
sentence in the introduction of 13 says, the City may impose conditions to
insulate beachlot activities including but not limited to. I did it there
with the statement of what I felt was kind of the standard items.
Batzli: So you're really, you'll have the ability to adjust buffering
capabilities but not other conditions? If other unique conditions arise,
you really may not have that capability.
Emmings: Well you know, I wouldn't be adverse to that change.
Batzli: I don't know. I didn't know if you had considered that or not.
Emmings: No, not really.
Batzli: Would we ever feel comfortable in imposing a condition that wasn't
in here?
Emmings: Yeah. I think so. If something just stood out as being
necessary for...because of some unique feature, I don't think we'd have any
problem with that. At least under 13. I don't know about the other
sections.
Batzli: I guess I would have proposed that we would have left that in
there so that the last sentence of the intent statement reads, therefore,
the City requires the following conditions fo~ recreational beachlots in
addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit.
E~m~ings: I like that.
Conrad: Say that again.
Batzli: The last sentence would read, therefore, the City requires the
following conditions for recreational beachlots in addition to such other
conditions as may be prescribed in the permit.
E~m~ings: Sure. That gives us flexibility and that's good. I think.
Ellson: Where would you put it?
Planning Co~m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 55
Batzli: Right at the tail end of the intent statement. Between the word
beachlots and the following.
Ellson: No problem. I'd be happy to amend the motion to add Brian's
co~'Lent.
Emming s: Second.
Ellson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission reco~m~end
amending Section 20-263 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding:
Section 20-263: Intent. Based upon experience, it is recognized by the
City that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be an intensive use
of lakeshore and the lake that may present conflicts with neighboring uses
of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake
itself. Further, beachlots may generate complaints because if they are not
maintained to the same standards as single family lakeshore lots.
Therefore, the City requires the following conditions for recreational
beachlots in addition to such other conditions that may be prescribed in
the permit:
and by amending Section 20-263(7) as follows:
The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot is three (3). No
dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlot unless the beachlot
meets the following conditions:
(a) Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock, and
(b) Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional
20,000 square feet for each additional dock.
and by amending Section 20-263(13) as follows:
Ail recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other
property owners from beachlot activities. This buffer may consist of
topography, streets, vegetation, distance (width or depth), or other
features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure
appropriate buffering, the City may impose conditions to insulate beachlot
activities including, but not limited to:
(a) Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or
other allowed recreational equipment or activities;
(b) Hours of use;
(c) Planting of trees and shrubs;
(d) Erection of fences;
Planning Co~m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 56
(e) Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and
upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and
debt i s;
(f) Increased width, depth or area requirements based uPon the intensity
of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of
access.
To the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions even after
approval of the beachlot if the City finds it necessary based upon
conflicts with the ,]se of other property or failure to maintain property of
equipment.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned the Chair over to
Steve E~m~ings.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING
WITH LOT FRONTAGE AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Terry Forbord
Lundgren Bros., Vice President
Emmings: Has everybody read the material? Is there anything you want to
add to what you've already read?
Krauss: I'd be happy to respond to questions. I guess all I'd say is,
this is arising out of a need that's become apparent during the processing
of our subdivisions and having worked on these things over the years, that
we just needed a method of legitimizing these things. The standards that
are being proposed are pretty tough. This does not provide an easy out for
somebody that wants to avoid a public street.
E~,ings: Okay, this is a public hearing so we'll open the public hearing.
Is there anybody that's got coFm~ents?
Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros.. Actually I support Mr.
Krauss' proposal. There certainly are, this does legitimize the need for
private driveways although I may at times think there's a need far greater
than Paul's at the time but it's a great concept because there are times,
just from an environmental standpoint, that it really doesn't make any
sense to put in a street. Oftentimes we get conditioned into thinking with
if we put in streets, that's a good thing to do. The bigger and the wider
and the longer and the more pavement and that's not always really what's in
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 57
the best interest of the land, the City, the public. Remember somebody has
to pay for those streets and those get attached to the price of the homes
so sometimes putting in streets aren't the best thing to do and private
driveways, in the right situation, certainly are a good idea. Paul,
certainly pointed out a couple areas in the existing ordinance that really
didn't deal with this correctly and he's done a really good job in the way
he's presented this.
Emmings: Do you have any comments on the neck lots and flag lots?
Terry Forbord: No. I pretty much can support this and endorse this.
There's a time, certain situations that may come up where you might have to
deal with it differently but there's a variance proceeding that one can go
through. I support this.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Paul, this basically clears up things that we've been talking
about for a long time. This ordinance. Isn't that right?
Krauss: I hope so, yes.
E~m~ings: Okay, let's go around for comments. Annette?
Ellson: I like it. I think it answers what we've been trying to
accomplish and I am not about to try to make it better. I think it's
perfectly fine.
Batzli: My only question is, it seems to me that we had a situation not
really like this but kind of in what was Vineland? Now one of the concerns
there was that they were putting the road in the guy's backyard. We were
talking about a sideyard setback from the road that was proposed to go up
through the neck. How do you address something like that? It's really not
addressed in here necessarily other than you would allow a private drive if
there were fewer than what, 4 homes or whatever?
Krauss: Yeah, but there is language and I doubt if I can find it but
there's language in here that allows you to set some sighting criteria for
a private drive recognizing that particular problem. It will also allow
you to impose some landscaping requirements if necessary to minimize impact
because these things do run near people's backyards. That is a problem
with them. But I think it does give you the flexibility to do that. It's
number 5 on page 2 of the zoning ordinance amendment. The driveway shall
be designed to minimize impact upon adjoining parcels. The City may
require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts.
Batzli: Okay. So in Vineland they had more than the 4 parcels so this
wouldn't have helped that particular situation.
Krauss: Well the way Vineland ultimately shook out is that there was only
one home that became a neck lot access from Pleasant View.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 58
Batzli: Yeah, but as originally proposed it would have served what, like
20 lots so they wouldn't have been able to do the private.
Krauss: No. We didn't support that concept from the start.
Batzli: Well it was a big cul-de-sac. But assuming that that was the only
access into and out of there, you'd still have a problem in situations like
that where there was more than 4 homes. Still have a sideyard setback
problem for certain neck, flag accesses so this as originally proposed by
the developer, this wouldn't have helped that particular homeowner.
Krauss: No, and specifically it's intended not to. If you're platting
more than 4 lots, almost invariably, you can put a public street in.
There's really no reason not to.
Batzli: But that's the question. How intrusive can a developer be into an
existing homeowner's sideyard by serving, let's say it was 160 lots?
That's my problem with it and I don't know that this addresses it and I
don't think it's intended to.
Krauss: No, it isn't and that's a problem that occurs anytime you're
developing a new public street or private drive that's in proximity to
somebody elses property line rather than being centered within a large
parcel. It's an issue that, typically you want to keep the roadway
centered so those who benefit are the ones who are impacted by it. That's
a rule of thumb and we do that with all public streets. This ordinance is
real specific. It's only dealing with those situations that for very
specific criteria we can't serve by public street. And yeah, that
situation, that scenario may develop but unlike with public streets where
the design is basically handled in the subdivision process, this gives you
the authority to move the private driveway around. If you want to save
some trees on a property line, you can require that it be shifted. If
there isn't landscaping, you could require that it be installed so in some
respects you probably have better control over the private driveways under
this o~dinance than you do with the public street.
Batzli: But let's go back to Vineland for just one second and I agree with
what you just said but if they would have put a public street in there,
wouldn't it have been reasonable to require them to not have it shifted all
the way over to the east on their property line so it was only 24 feet away
from this guy's house. Wouldn't it be better to be able to force them to
center it on their own neck portion even if it was a public street and not
a private driveway? That's what we weren't able to do and he was trying to
put in the 3 houses on the west side and run the road right along the
property line. That's what the adjancent property owner was objecting to.
We still have that problem.
Krauss: We still have that problem.
Ellson: This won't be the one that's going to solve that.
Planning. Co~'~,ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 59
Batzli: Yeah I know but I was hoping like maybe we were working on
something to solve that problem too. But I like this. Don't get me wrong.
I was hoping that this was going to solve that. The other problem's still
in the mill I guess.
Emmings: We don't have it as a work item or anything.
Batzli: No, and I had it on my list.
Emmings: I agree. It's something that's always bugged me when I see them
put in a road and all of a sudden the person who had a yard now has
frontage on the sideyard.
Krauss: Well you know, if you reflect back for a moment to the first item
we had tonight where we proposed that road dropping to the south. The
purchaser and the realtor suggested that we require, that we put that road
right up against a neighboring property. His proposal to us was that
rather than put this road over here, which impacts a new lot that comes
like this, he said why don't you just drop it down there. I said, well we
have a fundamental problem with that because that's making this person over
here a corner lot and...
Emmings: Now other than jawboning, do you really have any way to prevent
him? I think there ought to be, even if it was...
Batzli: But see at times you may want it there. That's the difficult
part.
Krauss: First of all, it can't be any closer than 30 feet or we're
violating our own standards. If we do that than we have to go through a
variance procedure.
~m~ings: What can't be closer than 30 feet? A paved street?
Krauss: If we plat a new road less than 30 feet from somebody's house,
we're creating .a variance situation.
E~m, ings: House or lot?
Krauss: House.
Ellson: But for now in this what do you think Brian?
Batzli: I like this. I've said that. We got off the track. That's all I
have.
Ahrens: I'm not aware of the past problems with Vineland but I think that
this is well written.
E~ings: I agree. I only have a couple of things. I just don't know, I
circled two words as being, they're looking funny to me spelling wise.
Curvalinear on the first one. Maybe that's the way it's spelled. It just
looks funny to me.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 60
Batzli: I think there's an i in there.
~m, ings: Instead of an a?
Batzli: Yeah.
~mings: That's what I thought. But I didn't look it up so I don't know.
And then over on the other one, under Section 1, paragraph 1, it says
unfeasible and that's a funny word to me. I think it's either not feasible
or may be infeasible.
Krauss: Where are we now?
Emmings: Unfeasible. I don't recall ever seeing it before. Again, you
could refer to your dictionary and see. Then the only substative co~Lent
I've got is down under the second group of numbers in number 1, it says
private driveways. The reason this is interesting to me, I live and you
should know, on a system of three houses are served by a private drive and
it's a very, very nice arrangement. It works real well. We share. We ali
hire one guy to plow and share the cost in a real reasonable way and it's
just very nice. I really kind of like it but here it says, if it serves
two or more homes, it has to be a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet.
My two neighbors have an asphalt drive and I have just rocks because I like
just rocks and it's not 20 feet wide. I'll bet it's 8 feet wide.
Krauss: Well there's a real good reason for that and that's the Fire Code.
Emmings: Well okay.
Ellson: And he's going to come after you as soon as this goes into law.
E~ings: What's the problem?
Krauss: What's the problem is we can't guarantee that we can get our fire
trucks down an 8 foot wide street or an 8 foot wide driveway.
Ellson: With gravel especially.
Krauss: We're not talking about serving one home where you can sort of
bull your way through if you need to. We're talking about serving 2 or
more which is a fairly significant amount of traffic. There's more of a
likelihood that you'll have an emergency situation. Fire code requires a
20 foot wide paved surface with a turn around area that they can maneuver
in. Now that turn around area is not a 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac but you
can flare out driveways and such to make it work.
E~-mLings: But just a minute now. You're talking about actually paving a 20
foot width. A standard driveway.
Krauss: For a single home, may be 10 feet.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 61
Emmings: I think that's awful unless you absolutely, fire trucks are not
20 feet wide. They may need some maneuvering.
Krauss: They're not 20 feet wide, no. They would fit in a 12 foot drive
lane but they oftentimes have to maneuver around one another.
Ellson: If a parked car is there or something.
Krauss: If it's not plowed to it's full width.
E~-~ings: What's a little odd to me here is that you've got, if I'm just
one house on a driveway, do I need to be 20 feet wide paved?
Ellson: It says serving 2 or more.
Batzli: Do you just require then that portion of the driveway that's
serving the common portion of the driveway?
Krauss: That's correct. And if you have a driveway that serves two homes,
one behind the other, after you pass the first home, the driveway could
then flare down to 10 feet.
E~m~i ng s: Oh, alright.
Batzli: But this doesn't say that I don't think does it?
E~m~ings: See in my situation again, everybody comes in on the same long
piece and then it all splits off. If it's only the common portion, I have
no problem with that.
Krauss: If you'd like to clarify that so that it is the common portion, I
don't have a problem with that. That's what it's intended to mean.
E~-m, ings: Okay. Then that makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm
grand fathered in.
Ellson: You mean there's no way to go after him.
Batzli: Do we need a motion or something?
Emmings: That'd be good. If no else has any other comments. We'll have a
motion.
Ellson: I move that the Planning Commission approval proposed ordinance
changes on, I supposed I should give the Ordinance Number.
Emmings: Yes.
Ellson: Amending Section 20-615 as set out in the staff report and 18-57.
E~m~ings: Is there a second?
Batzli: I'll second it for discussion purposes.
Planning Co~-~,ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 62
E~m~i ng s: Alright. Discuss.
Batzli: Are you going to go with the amendment that the private driveways,
only those co~on portions.
Ellson: Yeah, reword the section to be a little more clarification to
that.
Batzli: Then I like it.
Ellson: I didn't think it needed an amendment to it. I figured he was
just going to write it that way but you're right. We're going to get
legal.
Emmings: Okay. So you're amending your motion then. To allow the staff
to clarify that in that section they're talking about the common portion of
the driveway and may be certain other things like when one house is behind
the other. Again it will be past the first house or something like that.
That's what you're amending your motion to?
Ellson: That's exactly right.
Emmings: And you agree with that?
Batzli: Yes.
Ellson moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission reco~Lend
approval of amending Section 20-615 and Section 18-57 as presented by the
staff with clarification in Section 18-57 on the co~Lon portion of the
private driveways must be paved to 20 feet in width. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Emmings: We have a report from the Planning Director on the City Council
meeting. Does anybody want to make any co~m~ents about that?
Ellson: I was really surprised with that number 3 item.
Krauss: Everybody in the audience was real confused as was I and the City
Attorney.
Ellson: What was the vote?
Krauss: It was unanimous.
Emmings: Is it okay to change the second reading in midstream like that?
Krauss: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 63
Ellson: What does this do to that applicant?
Krauss: He claims that, he told me quite a bit earlier on that he could
live with 1 1/2.
Ellson: So what they want to propose would allow him to have 1 1/2 but
then they want this new R-16 that's going to allow 1 and 1 outside? Where
will we put these R-16's?
Krauss: Really there's a couple of problems, there's a lot of problems in
our ordinance but one of the problems was R-12 density does not really
support apartment development in the manner to which you're accustomed to
seeing it. It's not intense enough. Then we have the problem added to the
fact that we have a very restrictive hard surface coverage requirement.
First we take out the park. Then we take out the wetlands and then we only
allow him to build on 35% of whatever's left.
EFm~,ings: That's called creating open space isn't it?
Krauss: It does that.
Ellson: It saved the oak trees I remember.
Krauss: But Brad Johnson pointed it out and I had to second his feelings
on that, that there is a problem with that and if they truly want some
multi-family development, that they ought to look at that. And they felt
that that was a reasonable way of providing that type of development. The
upshot up of it being, the long and the short of it is, through a fairly
convoluted approach, the City Council sort of did what you reco~-~,ended.
E~m~ings: ...the fact that number 7, we've got a special meeting in one
week and I suppose everybody's taken note of that. That we're having an
extra meeting.
Krauss: Yes. And we will provide pizza for dinner.
E~m, ings: Pizza? That's new.
Batzli: I thought everybody should notice that in number 4 they increased
it to 250 feet which I think I wanted.
Ellson: Yes, I recall that. And I noticed they had that storage tank
smell thing.
Krauss: I need to get them to reconsider that second reading though.
There was a problem that surfaced in that, Bill was concerned that the
Amoco station, he felt the Amoco station and the Holiday station would meet
the requirement. Therefore, the ordinance wasn't restrictive enough. In
fact, the Amoco station does not meet the requirement. They had come in
for a building permit late last, before early winter. They never received
it. I was unaware of that for a while but apparently there's a problem
with the PCA. They had to clean up the site so we issued the permit last
week and when an ordinance comes into place, our City Attorney keeps
Planning Co~'m~ission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 64
telling us that the ordinance is in effect until the building, unless the
building is e~ected already.
Ellson: Fo~ heaven's sake. So now they don't qualify?
Krauss: Well technically they don't, no.
Ellson: Good, they have to have a service station there like we always
wanted.
Krauss: So what we're saying to the City Council is we didn't intend that.
In fact when the ordinance was drafted, we had language in the co~entary
that said we didn't think they should apply to existing permitted uses.
That was never put into ordinance language so we're going to ask the
Council to see if they want to modify that before it gets published.
E~m-,ings: Anything else? I suppose we should say we're happy to see in
our packet this time both the report on what the City Council did and our
revised work schedule. Since we bitch about it not being there all the
time.
Krauss: Didn't you know we'd get them both at some time or another?
E~ings: Since you got them both in there, I think you ought to be
complimented. I'll do that.
Ellson: I just have one request. Can we go back to numbering these things
like we used to when it was on number 1. Someone had a 1 on here. And
that was number 2. I get this packet all over my dining room table and
then I can't put it back in order. Do you remember when we used to do that
Jo Ann ?
Emmings: Annette, can't you put your own little numbers?
Ellson: Well I could but it was so convenient when it was done for me.
One of those minor things. I don't ask much, let's face it.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Ahren seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Co~m, ission meeting dated January 3, 1990 as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: I thought we were going to discuss this week, and I don't think
it's a very good week to discuss it since we're kind of short co~issioners
but we were going to discuss our own priority for our work list this week.
Ellson: Oh, choosing our favorites?
Batzli: Choosing our favorites and those that we don't think are moving
along fast enough, kind of taking a more proactive role in.
Ellson: Like some of these aren't even ours. Recycling of oil?
Planning Co~mLission Meeting
Janua~y 17, 1990 - Page 65
E~m~ings: I think everybody ought to be here.
Batzli: I agree. But I think that that should be part of the discussion
next week or in 2 weeks or whenever.
Krauss: At the regular meeting?
Batzli: Yeah.
Ellson: I want you to know that I'm not going to be here February 7th.
I'll be out of town so I'll turn in what I think from this list. How does
that sound?
Emmings: Is there anything else?
Ellson moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Director of Planning
Prepared by Nann Opheim