PC Minutes 11-18-08Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2008
Undestad: Just the lot line split or, that’s not an option? You don’t want to do that? Subdivide
the two so you can.
Scott Schroeder: It’s definitely an option. We were interested to see after a year and a few
months if anything had changed and clearly it hasn’t so we’ll have to…
Papke: Okay. Any more questions? Okay. With that, if there’s anyone from the public who
would like to make any comments on this. We’d ask you to step up to the podium and state your
name and address and tell us what you think. Seeing no one, we’ll close the public hearing and
bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion and then we’ll need a vote.
Dillon: Kurt, I think you said it best. We have to make our recommendation based on the
guidelines or the rules or whatever you want to call them that are in place today, and you know
there doesn’t seem to be a hardship demonstrated, which is one of the criteria for granting the
variance. And also we’ve got a precedent set where we you know made someone go through a
lot of work and expense to take out a non-conforming hard cover. So I think we’d be hard
pressed to go ahead, and I personally would be very hard pressed to go ahead and support the
granting of this variance based on the rules in place today and our previous actions.
Larson: Pretty much I feel the same way. Our hands are kind of tied as far as what we can do.
Unfortunately.
Laufenburger: No other comment.
Papke: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. That the Planning Commission denies Planning Case 07-20 for a
nd
2.6 percent hard surface coverage variance on Lot 25, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition based on
the staff report and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action.
Papke: Is there a second?
Larson: I’ll second.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission denies Planning Case 07-
nd
20 for a 2.6 percent hard surface coverage variance on Lot 25, Block 1, Pinehurst 2
Addition based on the staff report and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Action. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK
CORRIDOR AND FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS (UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL TO
PERMIT THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AND ALLOW FOR THE
INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OR REVISION OF THE PROPERTY LINE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD NORTH OF THE
6
Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2008
TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD. APPLICANT: BRUNO J. SILIKOWSKI,
PLANNING CASE 06-34.
Public Present:
Name Address
Laurina Tofteland 8325 Stone Creek Drive
Bruno Silikowski 3615 Zircon Lane North
Lynn Gossfeld 8377 Stone Creek Drive
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Kathleen.
Thomas: I’m good.
Laufenburger: As am I.
Larson: I read this over a couple of times and I’m not understanding what’s different from
before. Could you, it’s just not sinking into my head tonight.
Generous: The only difference is the City is in the process of adopting an ordinance that would
void the conditional use permits that were approved for this project because they’re revising
property lines. Through the expansion of the common interest community. Plan.
Larson: So they are revising the lines, or the City is?
Generous: The applicant. As they build they’re expanding it.
Larson: Okay.
Generous: You could request.
Papke: As it grows.
Generous: The line changes for the common interest community.
Larson: So everybody owns all of it?
Generous: Yes. That’s in the CIC.
Larson: Right. But like you’re saying, if they wanted to break off Phase III for example and sell
that to somebody else, they could. Is that what you’re saying?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2008
Generous: Theoretically they could but the idea is not, only the first, the most easterly properties
may be subdivided out. They’re not currently included in the CIC. They weren’t, there’s not a
storage building plan approved for that.
Larson: Can you point to which ones you’re referring to?
Generous: Is there an arrow on here? On no. Oh yes. There it is. This one and this one. These
don’t, these are just conceptual locations.
Laufenburger: They don’t exist today?
Generous: They don’t exist. They don’t have site plan approval. These other 12 buildings in
here were approved as a part of the original site plan.
Larson: Right, okay.
Generous: And so well basically this solid line will be expanded with phasing so ideally,
idealize with this club house coming into the CIC, they’d pick up this area. And then this parcel
would look like that. And then as 3 came in, that they come in and one of the conditions we’re
saying is that with either Phase II or III that they incorporate the conservation easement into the
CIC because there’s no improvements there but we want to maintain the balance of the hard
cover and the pervious areas so.
Larson: Okay, thank you.
Generous: But yes, these, the properties zoned industrial office park, so those buildings could be
used, site plan approval for anything that’s permitted in the IOP district.
Larson: Okay.
Keefe: How did the applicant find out about this? Or did we notify them?
Generous: I told him.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. I was curious about that.
Undestad: So it’s just more or less the City’s administrative clean-up. Something we’re
changing.
Generous: We’re changing and that would impact him. Had this been in place when we
originally reviewed it, we would have accommodated it as part of the conditions of approval.
Because that was what it was always intended that this would be an incremental project.
Dillon: No questions.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2008
Keefe: One Bob. There is a variance though to relocate as a part of this or is that a second
piece? You’re just saying variance to locate the storm water pond within the Bluff Creek
primary zone.
Generous: That was the original CUP. So they’re not changing that either.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: I just, I carried that full of CUP approval forward.
Keefe: I see. I’m following you.
Papke: Okay. Is there an applicant here tonight who would like to speak to this? If you could
step up to the podium please and give us your name and address.
Bruno Silikowski: I’m Bruno Silikowski and I live in Plymouth actually. 3614 Zircon Lane
North. I think Bob did an excellent job of describing it. It really is more of a technicality and
we’re just trying to clean it up so unless you guys have questions, I think it’s been well said.
Thank you.
Papke: Any questions for the applicant? Okay, very good. A couple members of the public
here. If any of you would like to step up to the podium and state your name and address and tell
us what you think of this. We’d like to hear it.
Laurina Tofteland: I live at 8325 Stone Creek Drive which is a property that abuts to the wetland
right across from the trail system, and I guess I’m just here mostly for clarification. I had
emailed Bob as well and I asked him to forward on my email to all of you. It’s, I just want to
make sure that the orange silt fence that is presently in place, that there is no change in that
boundary. There has been several times over the summer where there has been dirt bikes, golf
carts, four wheelers that have made a trail that come out into the wetland area. I listen to them
motor around out there and so that’s been really upsetting. You know we were told originally
when this project came before the commission you know that this was going to be a very high
end development. There was going to be expensive cars stored in here and that there wouldn’t
be noise. I believe Mr. Undestad had several comments that first night about reassuring noise
and that type of thing, and so it was really upsetting this summer to watch the wildlife be
disrupted. The undergrowth of trees be displaced and you know my husband and I walked
around back there to take a look and see what was, you know how much disruption there was
and that was of a concern so I just wanted clarification about that. About where those property
lines are going to be. And there was a question that I had too, if Mr. Generous could maybe
explain that to me further. In regards to the City had discovered that a trail system was being
used and we told the developer that the conservation easement prohibited that. If you could just
explain to me a little bit more about what the conservation easement is and.
Generous: Chairman Papke, Laurina. What it is is a document that the property owner has
granted to the City that states that no development or alteration or uses would be permitted in
this area of the property.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2008
Laurina Tofteland: And would that be the area that’s noted wetland on the.
Generous: Well it shows that the conservation easement. Yes, primarily but it’s mostly, all the
western part of the site. One of the documents has the actual conservation easement. There. So
it’s shown. You can see the line, yeah. It starts there and then it goes all the way to the back and
it encompass everything west of that line.
Laurina Tofteland: Because that last area of the Phase II, which is right at that kind of pointy
part of that development there, that is about 200 yards or so from the trail. And then the property
directly across from that would be my back yard.
Generous: Yes. And so the easement document says no development there. And the site plan
was specific that there’s those two buildings where it says Range 23 and that’s the end of their
project. Or this project.
Laurina Tofteland: Okay. And I do have to, since the Carver County Sheriff was notified of that
disruption that was going on, we haven’t seen any further disruption but it’s now fall. I mean it
was during summertime and now that, and there has been snowmobiles back there as well too in
the winter time so I guess that’s all I have. Thank you.
Papke: Thank you for speaking up. Would anyone else like to address the Planning
Commission? Okay. Seeing none, I close the public, oh. Go ahead.
Bruno Silikowski: I want to make one more comment. We’ve also noticed that there’s been
traffic and it’s not necessarily our people. Now I’ve talked to our folks to make sure, because
there was a miscommunication. We thought we were allowed to have a trail there and kind of
for walking, and so we were mowing it. Well now we know that it’s clear. We’re not doing it
any longer and it’s been stopped and I’ve communicated it, but we do have people coming
through with snowmobiles and it’s not our people. I posted signs. They’ve been ripped down.
I’m going to do my best to block it off but just know that it’s not just us. These motor bikes and
things, actually some of our people have been complaining to me that people are scooting
through. Walking dogs through, this and that. I’m cool with it. It’s just, you know as long as
they don’t become abusive, so it’s a balance thing. I just want you to know that we’re trying to
address it, but it works both ways. Thank you.
Laufenburger: Mr. Chairman, before you go. I’m wondering, staff can you address who’s
responsible for compliance of the easement. Compliance, make sure that things are done
properly. Is that the property owners responsibility or is that somebody else’s responsibility?
Generous: It’s the property owners. It’s the City can require enforcement of that. As a private
property owner he also has property rights to prohibit people from accessing the property too. It
seems like that’s the...
Laufenburger: This is property that belongs to the.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2008
Generous: The Motorplex.
Laufenburger: The owner. The Motorplex.
Generous: Yes.
Laufenburger: And he has granted the easement to the City.
Generous: Right.
Laufenburger: Okay. So he’s saying City, I have no intention of doing any developing on here.
You have my word on that and, but it’s within his rights if he sees people violating his property
rights, it’s within his rights to either report that or ask for support and compliance from the
sheriff or whomever.
Generous: That’s correct.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Keefe: One follow up, just real quick question. You don’t have any fencing around there do
you?
Bruno Silikowski: Do I?
Keefe: Have any fencing.
Bruno Silikowski: No, but we do think we need to do some. There’s some access points from
the west I think we need to put it up. I think that will stop some of the issues we’re having, and I
do plan to have a limited but some fencing in key areas, just so people don’t hurt themselves
more so than anything else. It will be gated and that will take place in the spring. Gated in terms
of the road access that is.
Keefe: And that will slow down some of that traffic coming through.
Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, I hope so. Yeah, and out of fairness, I approached Bob on this is when
I heard about it that it was an issue. I actually called Bob and asked for clarification on it and
that’s how we found out, and clearly our intention is to support what we agreed to.
Keefe: Appreciate you working.
Bruno Silikowski: Thank you.
Papke: Okay. With that I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for
discussion.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2008
Thomas: Okay. Well I think it makes sense. We’re just going to do some clean-up of it and
why I recognize the neighbors concerns, I find it is got to be hard to keep people off a big piece
of nice land that they deem is fun to motor bike or you know, or snowmobile on or that kind of
stuff and I think as the property grows and if then they gate it. If they put some fencing up, I
think that’s going to help keep people from realizing that this is not just an empty parcel of land
that they can just use for their own fun play time and then hopefully that will get people to stop it
but you kind of see it where places where there’s going to be businesses put in, the people are
using it for unfortunately inappropriate things while they wait so. Yeah, I’m good for it.
Laufenburger: No questions or comments.
Larson: Neither do I.
Papke: Okay. With that I’ll entertain a motion.
Laufenburger: Mr. Chairman. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of
the amendment to the Conditional Use Permits to approve the phased development of the project
and allow for the incremental expansion or revision of the property line subject to the conditions
on page 8 of the staff report.
Papke: Is there a second to Commissioner Laufenburger’s motion?
Undestad: Second.
Laufenburger moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for development
within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a variance to locate the storm water pond within the
Bluff Creek primary zone, in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Sathre-
Berquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the original conditions of approval and the
following condition:
1. The Common Interest Community shall include the land within the Bluff Creek Primary
zone within the common area of the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Laufenburger moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for multiple
buildings (up to 14) on one parcel, subject to the original condition of approval and the
following conditions:
1. Should the two building sites along Audubon Road develop with businesses unrelated to
the Autobahn MotorPlex Common Interest Community, then those sites shall be
separated from the balance of the site into separate parcel(s).
12
Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2008
2. The development shall comply with the approved site plan for the project, plans prepared
by Sathre-Berquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Bruno Silikowski: Can I ask one quick question? This is.
Papke: The public hearing is closed. If you could chat with city staff afterwards, that would be
great. Thank you very much.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 21, 2008 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
None.
Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
13