PC 2003 12 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 2, 2003
Acting Chair Feik called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Feik, Kurt Papke, Rich Slagle and Steve Lillehaug
MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh and Bethany Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner;
and Matt Saam, Acting City Engineer/Public Works Director
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #2003-8 TO ALLOW A FOOD
PROCESSING FACILITY (MAIN STREET BANKERY) TO BE LOCATED IN
AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL OFFICE BUILDING; LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF MALLORY COURT
AND LAKE DRIVE WEST; LOT 1~ BLOCK L CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK 8TM ADDITION; WELMAN SPERIDES ARCHITECTS.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Nick Sperides, Welman Sperides Architects,
Kristi Khumert, Andreas Development
Victoria Woods, Andreas Development
8500 Normandale Lake Blvd, Bloomington
708 East Lake Street, Wayzata
708 East Lake Street, Wayzata
Sharmeen A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Feik: Questions for staff.
Lillehaug: One only, and it's regarding the compliance plan. Do we have similar
compliance plans that other businesses have in the city, and what are the results and
enforcement issues with them?
A1-Jaff: We are in the early stages of trying to adopt these standards. At the present time
we don't have these ordinances in place. It is staff's opinion that these are reasonable
conditions to be attached to the conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: So we don't have any other compliance plan like this established, or in use
right now?
A1-Jaff: No. The only other place that is a food processing plant is basically General
Mills.
Lillehaug: Is there any enforcement issues with them? You know that this compliance
plan would have actually helped. You know any complaints. I'm just seeing a
compliance plan here that's pretty detailed and I guess I'm just not familiar with them.
A1-Jaff: And it's intended to be for let's say a turkey plant, if that ever came to town.
Then you would be able to use that criteria. A bakery will not generate as much odor as.
Lillehaug: Sure. That's good, thanks.
Feik: Questions?
Papke: Yeah, just one quick one. There was some verbiage in here pertaining to the
percentage of the space that can be used for retail. Has the applicant given you any
indication as to their intention to that regard? Do they intend to offer some sort of retail
pie, periodic pie sales or something? You know I'm familiar with the Pies Inc in the
district.
A1-Jaff: One of the things that they had discussed with us was potentially selling loaves
of bread. And under our ordinance it is a permitted use. We just wanted to ensure that it
does not exceed the 20 percent. They did not give us an exact square footage.
Papke: That's it.
Feik: A couple questions. Is there any limitation on the types of products that can be
produced here now with this application?
A1-Jaff: It is bakery so donuts.
Feik: So any bakery items. Are there, our experience with the Pillsbury facility, what is
the product in particular, if there is anything, that we've had the most complaints?
A1-Jaff: Donuts. The smell is too sweet.
Feik: And there's no limitations of hours of operation?
A1-Jaff: No. It's an industrial park and typically don't have that in an industrial park.
Feik: Okay. Thank you. Other questions for staff?. Alright then.
and would like to make a statement, please address the podium.
address for the record.
If the applicant is here
State your name and
2
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Nick Sperides: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the council, or commission. Nick
Sperides. I'm Welman Sperides Architects representing Andreas Development, who !
have with me this evening. Always nice to be back in Chanhassen doing a project.
We've done several here and working with Sharmeen so we have nothing, we haven't
started doing any design work on the interior only because the tenants lease is contingent
on the conditional use so as soon as this is moving forward we'll begin working with the
tenant to design their space and work closely with your building officials, as we always
do, to make sure we're fitting in as we should.
Feik: Questions for the applicant? ! have a couple. You do as well? As representing the
applicant, do you know if there will be 24 hour operation or if it will be a daytime
operation?
Andreas Development Representative: ! don't think it's a full 24 hours but it's not just a
daytime either. They work pretty late at night.
Feik: How late at night?
Andreas Development Representative: ! don't have any exact hours.
Nick Sperides: Don't have the information available.
Andreas Development Representative: They can work up to 18 to 20 hours a day.
Feik: Okay. So the operator of the bakery is not here?
Nick Sperides: No, he's not.
Feik: Rich.
Slagle: A couple questions with respect to what I'll call the retail application. Would
you have in your vision plans for signage?
Nick Sperides: Not having met with them yet I'm not sure. I'm sure they would want to
put a compliant sign on the exterior towards the front door. Their retail operation is
minimal, if any and again we haven't begun working but our understanding with them is
that that's not one of the functions. They are an outsource bakery and so it's not like a
drive up.
Slagle: ...! got you. You know, I'm going to hold this for staff. ! have another question
but that' s it.
Feik: Thank you.
Nick Sperides: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: This is a public hearing, if there's anyone else who would like to speak on this
issue, please step forward at this time. Seeing none we'll move on. We'll close the
public portion of this and bring it back. Additional questions, discussions for staff.
Amongst yourselves. Anybody want to start?
Slagle: I've got one. Sharmeen I apologize for not asking this earlier but similar to our
last meeting with the neighborhood to the south, not falling within the 500 feet. I take it
from the mailing list that basically none of the homes to the south were notified, other
than seeing it in the Villager.
A1-Jaff: As well as, well the.., buildings were notified. To the south.
Slagle: Okay. I'm with you. You've got to go south of the fields but my question is this.
Is there any sense from staff' s viewpoint that that could be a potential concern because if
you use General Mills as an example, assume for the most part that the winds either
travel northwest, southwest, this has a neighborhood, fairly large neighborhood, directly
to the south of it. I mean any anticipation?
A1-Jaff: It would need to comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements.
If there is a pollution that falls within that criteria, then we would be able to do something
about it.
Slagle: Okay.
A1-Jaff: Now whether the smell of bread is offensive to someone, whether it's
considered a pollutant.
Slagle: I don't know. Okay.
Feik: Any comments?
Papke: In the event that the business became very successful, having seen what
happened years ago with Pies Inc over in the Crosby Industrial Park where when they had
their seasonal pie sales and so on, we had all kinds of traffic problems. If this business
became very successful and they decided to do something like that, would there be any
additional permits that would be required by the applicant in order to host something like
that? Just curious as to you know.
Generous: If they were to expand...
Papke: On the retail.
Generous: ...they could do a temporary sales permit.
Papke: Temporary sales permit? Okay.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: I have a question for staff. I'm a bit troubled with this myself because I live down
wind, over half a mile from Pies Inc and don't quite enjoy it actually. This is a
conditional use permit so we do have the ability to add additional requirements to this.
A1-Jaff: Absolutely.
Feik: For approval if it were to move forward. My concerns, and ! want to address it
back to staff, would be the hours of operation. Somehow being able to, assuming it were
to move forward to limit the hours. Make the applicant come back to extend the hours, if
necessary, and prove that they're a good corporate and neighborhood citizen type of an
operation. Staff, do you have any concerns with provisions of that sort?
A1-Jaff: One of the things that they did state is providing bread for bakeries and ! don't
recall the names of the areas that they provide the bread for, but my assumption would be
the delivery truck would leave the premise at an early hour to get it to, let's assume that
it's Byerly' s. To get it to Byerly' s. So when you talk about limiting the hours.
Feik: Limiting baking hours. Or hours of baking where you would have odors
essentially being emitted from the facility.
A1-Jaff: You can definitely do that.
Feik: Okay.
Papke: Do we impose any such limitations on General Mills or anything of that sort?
A1-Jaff: No.
Papke: Would there be any issues with equitable treatment if this applicant, if we
requested this applicant or required this applicant to restrict those hours?
A1-Jaff: General Mills is a 24 hour operation.
Papke: Yes.
A1-Jaff: These are their headquarters in Chanhassen.
Papke: Right.
A1-Jaff: And again this is an industrial setting. The majority of what all the businesses
within an industrial office park don't have limitation on the hours of operation.
Feik: But this would be the only firm that would be knowingly emitting odors into the
environment.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
A1-Jaff: One of the conditions of approval that we added.
Lillehaug: As long as we're in the discussion stage, could ! maybe discuss a little bit
about really what is limiting hours going to do for us? ! mean if they're emitting odors, is
limiting hours going to fix that?
Feik: I'm not sure. It might give the neighbors a break.
Lillehaug: Right.
Feik: I'm guessing that being next to a bakery a couple of days or 2 or 3 days a week is
very different than living next to one 7 days a week. You know 52 weeks a year.
Lillehaug: ! guess my opinion would be is, what staff has done here is implemented a
compliance plan and if there are problems with it, ! think my opinion is that would be a
more appropriate measure than limiting hours is enforcing the compliance plan may be a
little more stringent.
A1-Jaff: If you look on page 7. Condition (c). 7(c). Mitigation or control of odor
pollution.
If ! could ask. No, go ahead.
The city can require them to implement those procedures. We would be able to
Slagle:
A1-Jaff:
do that.
Slagle:
In that plan, if! can ask, would go to our engineering department? Is that? I'm
just asking, are they qualified when it comes to emissions?
Generous: Probably building...
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. Then if! may, one last question. I'm remiss about not asking, since it's
come up before with General Mills. ! trust we won't have trucks backing up where they
bang against the side.
A1-Jaff: We have talked about that and they will.
Slagle: This room will have trucks that.
A1-Jaff: They will not have the size of the trucks that General Mills has. This is a
substantially smaller operation.
Slagle: But they're aware that.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
A1-Jaff:
Slagle:
A1-Jaff:
Slagle: Noise.
A1-Jaff: Noise.
Lillehaug: There never is though, right.
A1-Jaff: We can add a condition that says.
Lillehaug: No noise.
Slagle: I'll leave that up to you.
A1-Jaff: No beating of trucks against.
Slagle: I'll leave that up to your discretion.
Feik: Commissioners, any other thoughts
someone like to make a motion then?
They are aware that that is something that.
Don't knock the mix down. Okay.
They're not, there's no intention to generate that kind of raucous.
you want to share? Concerns? Would
Slagle: I'll make a motion. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit #2003-8 to allow food processing facility in IOP district for
Main Street Bakery Inc to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
8th Addition as shown on the plans dated received November 7, 2003, subject to the
following conditions 1 through 7, including within 7 a through f.
Papke: Second the motion.
Feik: Any amendments? Seeing none, call for a vote.
Slagle moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Conditional Use Permit #2003-8 a Food Processing Facility in an lOP district for
Main Street Bakery, Inc., to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park 8th Addition as shown on the plans dated received November 7, 2003,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall contact the Building Inspections Department to discuss permit
and occupancy requirements.
2. The applicant shall meet with the Fire Inspection Department to discuss Fire Code
requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
3. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
There shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment associated with the bakery or
the auxiliary uses associated with the bakery.
A maximum of 20% of the floor area may be used for retail purposes of
merchandise manufactured or stored on site.
6. Truck parking is permitted on site only along the northerly parking area.
7. Compliance plan must be submitted to the city including:
An inventory of potential or identified odor emission point sources
associated with the bakery.
An engineering quality plan detailing best available control technologies
and appurtenances designed to eliminate or achieve the maximum
reduction of odor pollution from an emission point source inclusive of, but
not necessarily limited to, certain processes, procedures, or operating
methods intended to mitigate or control odor pollution.
A detailed explanation of the specifications and operating parameters of
the best available control technologies, monitoring instrumentation and
equipment, and processes and procedures intended for the mitigation or
control of odor pollution.
A specification of the documentation that will be made available for the
city's review that will verify the data produced by the monitoring
equipment and which will verify that processes and procedures are
conducted consistent with the specifications in the facility's odor control
study and plan.
An approved schedule which states, in a time certain manner, the
implementation and installation of the best available control technology,
processes, procedures, operating methods and monitoring instrumentation
designed to mitigate or control odors at the facility inclusive of any
approved completion date.
An acknowledgement of the authority of the city and it's agents to enter
into the facility or it's property in order to investigate complaints and to
verify the facility's adherence to the compliance plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT #2003-3 FOR
THE
PLACEMENT OF A DOCK; 6735 LAKEWAY DRIVE~ ANTHONY ROEPKE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Anthony Roepke 6735 Lakeway Drive
Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Feik: Questions for staff.
Papke: Yeah, it wasn't clear from the drawing exactly where the permanent structure is
and where the dock is. All ! have on my drawing is a penciled drawn arrow proceeding
south from the property.
A1-Jaff: Maybe that is a question for the applicant to answer.
Papke: Okay. Do we require specific placement on a drawing of such a structure or do
they just need to locate it within a certain area?
A1-Jaff: They need to locate it within 10 feet of the property line.
Papke: Okay, so we don't require them to specify exactly.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: How about start, beginning and end, or ending point of the permanent structure,
do they need to specify where it begins on the drawing here? How far back in it's
positioned within the property line.
A1-Jaff: You mean on the site, on the parcel itself or as we're out onto.
Papke: Both.
As far as the lake goes, it's wherever you reach a depth of 3 feet or, 4 feet? Or
A1-Jaff:
50 feet.
Papke:
A1-Jaff:
For the permanent or the floating?
For the dock. It's either or.
Papke: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
A1-Jaff: It is not addressed.
Papke: And as part of their application they don't have to show the placement of how far
out it will actually be located?
A1-Jaff: No. It's wherever they reach the, the ordinance is flexible there.
Feik: Other questions?
Slagle: Just a couple. Sharmeen, if ! may. Touching a little bit upon the prior question,
it seems to me with this, as important as we place wetlands, that it seems to me that a
plan that would be submitted to us would have a little bit more detail than an arrow
showing where the dock or the boardwalk will be, or material will be. If it's a floating
dock, how's a floating dock going to get in and out? You know, are they going to put
aerators? I'm just curious, ! mean do you think that this is a complete application? And
maybe it is, ! just.
A1-Jaff: Our Water Resource Coordinator reviewed this application and she was
comfortable with the submittal. In reading her report she concluded that this was a
complete application.
Slagle: Okay, with that answer, then can you tell me, unless ! missed it, what the
material will be for the boardwalk quote unquote, permanent.
A1-Jaff: Can the applicant answer that question please?
Slagle: Sure. Sure.
A1-Jaff: Thank you.
Slagle: I don't have any questions.
Lillehaug: My question is actually, it's not for this application but I want to look at this
survey in the back. Is this a survey that the city has on record? What you're looking at
there. Is that what the building department or planning has as their recorded survey for
this lot? And what I'm getting at is, we have things to come here where it didn't appear
that the wetland buffer was shown on the survey that the owner received. Is that a
requirement to show the wetland buffer and any other easements on the survey that the
city has recorded? To insure that the owner and whoever else receives that survey is
aware of everything.
A1-Jaff: We are making an effort more and more to look very closely at surveys and
insuring that buffers do appear. Wetlands are required to show on surveys. The buffer is
something that we're trying to make an effort more and more to insure that it does appear
on surveys.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: So for example I can safely say that there's no unforeseen tree easement here
that's not shown on this survey that would be on maybe the developer's plan?
A1-Jaff: No. I worked on this subdivision and I remember clearly, there was no tree
preservation...
Lillehaug: Alright, thank you.
Feik: I have several questions. Help me out with a few of these. Permanent boardwalk.
When you say permanent, we are talking permanent footings below frost, the whole 9
yards?
A1-Jaff: Yes. It does not come out. It's there four seasons.
Feik: What kind of damage occurs to the wetland with the installation of a permanent
walkway which would differ from the installation of a temporary walk? Obviously they
have to bring in bigger equipment. They've got to bring in machines and post hole
diggers and backhoes.
A1-Jaff: And remember that you are removing the structure at the end of the summer.
Putting it back in the spring so, and this happens every single year.
Feik: But one would be potentially just rolling in and out. The other one I'm envisioning
back hoes and heavy equipment in there in the winter when the ground's frozen but
significant amount of wetland disturbance. Am ! wrong?
A1-Jaff: In speaking with the Water Resource Coordinator, it was her direction and her
preference to see a permanent floating dock.
Feik: Floating dock but there's two pieces here. One is the permanent boardwalk, which
is followed by the permanent floating dock. The permanent boardwalk you're going to
have to disturb some wetlands to do the installation.
A1-Jaff: Which is also exempt under, yes. You are correct. You will need to disturb it.
It's a one time deal. It's exempt under state law.
Feik: Under state law. We have the authority to insure that damage is minimal during
construction?
A1-Jaff: If you look at page 3 of 4, under analysis. They're not classified as fell under
the state statute.
Feik: Understand.
A1-Jaff: Is it our job to ensure that there is minimal impact on the wetland? Yes, it is.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: Okay.
A1-Jaff: It is the Water Resource Coordinator's opinion that this will have minimum
impact.
Feik: And this person would be helping supervise the installation of the permit?
A1-Jaff: Absolutely.
Feik: You had mentioned that the dock and the boardwalk could extend a maximum of
50 feet.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Feik: Combined. The two items combined, correct?
A1-Jaff: 50 feet or.
Feik: Or 4 foot in depth.
A1-Jaff: If they reach the 4 foot prior to the 50 feet, then.
Slagle: Or vice versa.
A1-Jaff: Or vice versa.
Feik: The dock itself, does that require a separate permit then? Because we're only
talking about the boardwalk here.
A1-Jaff: The Water Resource Coordinator would be.
Feik: Would handle the dock.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Feik: Also in here we talk about the height above the water, 6 to 8 inches above the
ordinary high water mark. And that would hold true for the permanent portion of the
dock which extends into what ! would call the open water area.
A1-Jaff: Yes it would.
Slagle: Just point of clarification Mr. Chair, sorry to interrupt but on the back of what
I'm going to call page, ! don't know if this is 6 or 7, I'm seeing verbiage here that talks
about dock will be approximately 100 feet long from shoreline to get past the reeds. And
then the dock will continue approximately 50 feet long or as required to get past the lily
12
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
pads. Just sharing with you, I mean how, again trying to get a perspective on this survey.
! mean how long is this thing? ! mean ! have a dock at our cabin that's 70 feet and it's
quite long. So ! don't know if when the applicant comes, and I'm sorry to interrupt but if
they have more verbiage or pictures or drawings than other than an arrow, I'd like to see
it.
Lillehaug: Is the 100 foot a permanent boardwalk and then the 50 foot the temporary
dock?
A1-Jaff: The 50 foot is the temporary dock. Can the applicant please answer that
portion?
Lillehaug: My question would be then, is the boardwalk part of the calculation and the
total length? The permanent boardwalk.
A1-Jaff: It's from the OHW out so from the edge of the lake out is.
Lillehaug: That's the 50 foot, so the boardwalk is going to go from the OHW in?
A1-Jaff: In, exactly.
Lillehaug: Across the wetland.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Lillehaug: Across reeds and whatever else so that's not part of the 50 foot calculation
then.
Feik: What? It's not part of the 50 foot?
A1-Jaff:
foot.
The dock is from the shoreline...floating piece. It's not included within the 50
Slagle: Floating would be on the lake.
A1-Jaff: The permanent.
Feik: Well they're both permanent according to the, according to your write up here.
Both the floating dock is permanent as well as the boardwalk.
A1-Jaff:
Slagle:
A1-Jaff:
The portion that has the footings.
The boardwalk.
The boardwalk, is not part of the 50 feet dock that extends out into the lake.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Papke: So there is no restriction on the length of that boardwalk?
A1-Jaff: We will work with them to ensure that it is over the wetland portion only.
Papke: But there's no city restriction on how.
A1-Jaff: No. No.
Papke: So the only restriction is the 50 feet into the lake or 4 feet depth, whichever
comes first.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Slagle: IfI may?
Feik: Continue. You're on a roll.
Slagle: I'm sorry, just, I just want to understand. So are we concerned at all as a city that
people who let's just say don't have the luxury of being right on the water, but happen to
have call it marsh, wetlands, woods, you know whatever you could come up with, that
separates them from a body of water, that they could in essence install a permanent
boardwalk, whatever you want to call it, ramp, to get to a body of water.
A1-Jaff: If you are a riparian lot you have riparian rights. Our ordinance allows, there's a
criteria that allows you to get to the water. If what you're trying to get at is let's say can
you clear cut a wooded area? The answer is no. To get to, the answer is no. However, it
does allow for a path that would get you to the lake. The same is true with slopes. To get
you to that area. You have riparian lots, there are riparian rights.
Feik: A couple more quick questions. Getting back to this is going to be 8 inches or so
above, the elevation of the walkway is 8 inches above the high water mark. How many
of these permanent docks, which is now out in the open water area, do we have in the
city? Do we have, ! don't recall seeing any permanent dock structure.
Papke: Didn't we just have one a couple weeks ago on Lotus Lake? On the west side of
Lotus.
Generous: Yes.
Feik: I wasn't there that day.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Feik: Do you have any concern for snowmobiles and winter traffic and with a permanent
dock out into the lake area that is used by all, you know all sorts of people for
recreational purposes? I'm envisioning a snow encrusted dock being hit by a
14
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
snowmobile, a permanent dock that's being hit by a snowmobile at excessive speeds. Do
you have concerns?
A1-Jaff: It's not a problem that we have faced, that I'm aware of.
Feik: Okay. That's my questions for now. Any other questions for staff?.
Alright, thank you. With that if the applicant is here and would like to make a statement,
please step forward at this time. Please identify yourself and state your name and address
for the record.
Anthony Roepke: I'm Anthony Roepke, 6735 Lakeway Drive. ! really don't have
anything to add but ! can try to answer any of your questions that you have or concerns.
It's hard to kind of envision just from the paper what the dock looks like, or the land
looks like. It is very reedy and that's the purpose of the boardwalk is to get past those
reeds. The purpose of the dock in the open water that you're talking about is to get past
the lily pads, so that was our intention of trying to do the least impact to the wetland as
possible, including the lily pads are in the water. Was to use the floating dock to take it
past the lily pads so at least when we bring a boat up, we won't be chewing up the lily
pads. The neighbor two houses down from us who put his dock in 2 years ago, before the
ordinances were in place, his dock is 300 feet long so.
Feik: Any questions for the applicant?
Papke: Could you describe a little bit about the permanent boardwalk? How is that held
in place? Is it floating? Is it anchored with posts into footings? How are you going to be
constructing this?
Anthony Roepke: ! have two bids out right now with contractors. ! don't plan on doing
it myself. I'm not sure how that process works, although both contractors wanted to do it
in the winter time and wanted to do it in December timeframe when the ice was in but
still wasn't that thick, and their intention was to go out with an auger, cut holes and I'm
assuming they were going to put posts in via that mechanism. So I'm not exactly sure
how it's going to be affixed into place. ! do know that the neighbor two doors down from
me, the people who did his dock once they got further out, there really wasn't a firm
bottom to mount feet or whatever the verbiage is, and they actually put in like a drum or.
Slagle: Barrels.
Anthony Roepke: Barrels, exactly that. To keep it in place on the end of his dock.
Slagle: So if ! can ask, is the floating dock, let's call it the end piece of this thing, is it
permanent? Meaning you don't anticipate pulling it into shore in the winter.
Anthony Roepke: That's correct. We do not plan on bringing the docks, either the
boardwalk or the permanent floating dock in or out. They're in. They're going to stay in.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Slagle: Okay.
Feik: Are there things you need to do for that floating dock to ensure that it gets through
the winter, i.e. bubblers or does it just freeze in place and hope the ice doesn't shift or?
Anthony Roepke: You know the contractor's assured me that he knows what he's doing
and he's going to take care of that. I don't know how to answer that question.
Feik: Okay.
Anthony Roepke: The other alternative, instead of doing a floating dock is to just carry
you know the boardwalk all the way out. Past the lily pads also but the floating dock
seemed like a little bit better solution.
Lillehaug: One question. From the survey I'm looking at there is an established OHW
outline. You do realize that city staff is saying that you can only go 50 foot beyond that.
I don't know if that gets beyond your lily pads or not, but I think the city will restrict to
50 feet. Will that get you out far enough?
Anthony Roepke: I'm not sure what that means.
Lillehaug: Sharmeen, could you show him where the OHW outline is there?
A1-Jaff: The ordinary high water mark of Lake Lucy is right here.
Lillehaug: And maybe at this point you don't know, I mean because that line, it's hard to
place. There's no landmarks probably to tie it in right now, but.
Anthony Roepke: So you're saying, you can go 50 feet past the ordinary high water
mark?
Lillehaug: That's my understanding.
A1-Jaff: Into the lake.
Feik: Maximum.
Generous: Or to a point where you reach 4 feet in depth.
Feik: Whichever is first.
Anthony Roepke: 4 feet in depth of the lake?
Feik: Whichever is first though.
Lillehaug: So you can go beyond 50 feet?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: No.
Generous: Well you could if, if it's a shallow lake and it goes out 200 feet for instance to
get to 4 feet, theoretically a dock could go out that far.
Papke: So it's not whichever comes first?
Generous: Well yes, it's no. It's the 4 feet. Or if you come to 4 feet in less than 50 feet,
you can stop.
Papke: So your dock can be a mile long if you have a very gentle slope?
Lillehaug: So 50 feet is really irrelevant then, in my mind. ! don't think the
interpretation's correct on that.
A1-Jaff: No dock shall exceed the greater of the following lengths. 50 feet or the
minimum straight line distance necessary to reach water depths of 4 feet.
Lillehaug: That means a maximum of 50 feet. That means a maximum of 50 feet.
Feik: Yes.
Anthony Roepke: So even if.
A1-Jaff: ! just read it.
Feik: If you're in 2 feet of water when your dock is 50 feet, you've got to stop.
Slagle: Can ! make a suggestion Mr. Chair? If! may.
Feik: Any more questions for the applicant? Is this an applicant related question?
Lillehaug: ! just wanted to make sure you're aware of that.
Anthony Roepke: Yeah, thank you for clarifying that. And how does the high water
mark get determined where it is?
A1-Jaff: That is determined by the Department of Natural Resources and in this case it is
at 956.1.
Anthony Roepke:
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Anthony Roepke:
So that's something that can be pinpointed?
Okay. Any other questions?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: Any other questions for the applicant?
Anthony Roepke: Okay, thank you.
Feik: Thank you. This is a public hearing if there's anyone who'd like to address this
issue, now's your time. Please state your name and address for the record.
Joe Morin: My name is Joe Morin and my address is 1441 Lake Lucy Road. ! have the
property adjoining my neighbor here. And the interpretation as ! read it, it says shall not
exceed the greater of 50 feet or the distance required to get to 4 feet in depth. So
whichever one is greater, it can't exceed that. And that only makes sense because if you
go 50 feet out and you only have 2 inches of water, you can't put a dock in. Right? So
it's the greater of the two. I just wanted to make sure that that we all understand that. So
he could go to 60 feet if he had to.
Feik: Well ! think we'll leave that for the staff to interpret the codes.
A1-Jaff: We'll contact the city attorney and get a clarification on that.
Feik: Thank you.
Joe Morin: And then my other point is that we've talked about the dock situation and
we're working together to make sure that it's minimum impact on the environment. If we
share the dock, then I don't have to put in a dock. We wouldn't be using it very much
anyway so there'd be half as many docks on Lake Lucy, at least on that end of the lake.
Thanks.
Feik: Anyone else like to address this issue? Seeing none I'll close the public comment
period. Bring it back for I'm sure there's going to be numerous questions. Anybody
want to start with questions directed to staff or comments amongst yourselves?
Slagle: I'll start. I just have two quick ones. One is directed to staff. Is there a concern
staff that, and the gentleman just raised what ! was thinking. That this dock could
potentially be a community dock where, and do we have a limit to the number of either
one, boats or users or what's our limitations on docks?
A1-Jaff: The ordinance allows two property owners adjacent to one another to share a
dock.
Slagle: Okay.
A1-Jaff: But that's the extent of it, and we would rather see something like that than have
individual docks.
Slagle: Absolutely. Okay.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: Is there a limit on the watercraft then?
A1-Jaff: It would be three.
Feik: Three boats total, including canoes, paddle boats, anything? Because ! know we
had this discussion a year ago.
Slagle: Lake Minnewashta.
Feik: Yes. That included.
Generous: For overnight.
A1-Jaff: For overnight mooring, 3 watercraft on any lakeshore site.
Feik: Okay.
Slagle: I'll save my other comments after questions.
Feik: Any other questions for staff?.
Lillehaug: Questions or comments?
Feik: If there's no questions we might as well move to comments.
Lillehaug: Okay, my comments would be is ! support this application. ! think it's a good
idea to have a permanent boardwalk over the wetland. It does minimize the impact.
Annual impact is far worst than a one time impact so ! do agree with staff that this is the
way to go to install a permanent boardwalk. ! do want staff to look into that. The way the
ordinance reads ! guess that's not even clear to me, after hearing you read it. The 50 feet
is almost irrelevant then the way, if it's, the way it reads, it doesn't seem clear so. ! do
support it and that'd be it, thanks.
Feik: As long as you bring it up, prior to moving on. Sharmeen, would you do me a
favor and please read that again. Just so we can be clear on what it states.
A1-Jaff: Okay. No dock shall exceed 6 feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater
of the following lengths. One, 50 feet or the minimum straight line distance necessary to
reach a water depth of 4 feet.
Feik: Okay.
Lillehaug: ! think that's pretty poorly worded actually.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: I think the intent was to be 50 feet. Or 4 feet, whichever comes first. I think that
was the intent.
Papke: I don't think so.
Feik: No?
Lillehaug: No.
Papke: That's not the way it's worded. It's not very precise but it makes sense that if
you hit 5 feet 10 feet away from shoreline that you can still go all the way out to 50 feet.
Okay, so that you can have at least a minimum of 50 foot dock. And if after 50 feet you
still only got 6 inches of water, you can keep on going until you hit 4 feet. Otherwise
how are you able to dock a boat.
Lillehaug: That makes sense.
Feik: Short boat.
Slagle: Kayak.
Feik: Alright, other comments. Anything? No comments? I've got a couple still. I
would like to have the staff work with the city attorney, irrespective of what happens with
this application today, to get that language clarified and interpretation or statement from
the city attorney what the intent is for that paragraph. I have a concern regarding the
safety of that dock which extends out into open water. Maybe it's just me. I have a
concern regarding the potential number of boats, if it's used by a number of neighbors.
Those are my concerns. With that I guess if there is, someone would like to put a motion
out.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves wetland alteration permit
#2003-3 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6735 Lakeway Drive subject to the
following conditions 1 through 3.
Papke: Second.
Feik: Any other comments before we call for a vote?
Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #2003-3 for a boardwalk across the wetland
at 6735 Lakeway Drive, subject to the following conditions:
The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and
a dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lake Lucy to provide docking for
watercraft.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City and the
installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement.
3. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone.
All voted in favor, except Feik who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3
to 1.
Feik: I'm voting no because ! think the interpretation of the clause is erroneous. ! think
it is not supposed to be unlimited length of dock, and until such time as that is, would be
further defined, ! can't support the motion.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE #2003-16 AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #2003-8 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SHED ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R~ 7474 MOCCASIN TRAIL~ KHAI &
HEATHER TRAN.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Feik: Questions for staff.
Papke: Question on the new phrasing here. Including evergreens is pretty vague. Is that
one 6 inch pine tree or what is that?
Generous: Well we're looking for year round screening on this so, however we wouldn't
want to be to only evergreens. It might be nice to have an evergreen with some
deciduous so you get color into it. Or more native type vegetation.
Papke: So my question is, do you feel this is sufficiently unambiguous that it gives
guidance to what the applicant is supposed to do to satisfy city staff?.
Generous: It would probably be better if we used some language of permanent year
round screening. But we don't want to limit it to evergreens. It could be a mix of
evergreens. We want something that make real color. Also we'd like landscaping that's
quote more natural or native. Generally when we have this condition, then we have them
work with the city forester to come up with the plan.
Papke: So could we include some verbiage in here relative to requesting, work with the
city forester to come up with an acceptable strategy, year round screening strategy.
Generous: Sure.
Papke: Okay.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: Other questions for staff?.
Lillehaug: Yes. On page 4, let's see. The fourth paragraph down. The last two
sentences. I'm not sure what the point is here that staff is trying to get at here. Can you
elaborate on that a little bit? And it's regarding the nation wide permits, there needs to be
a 10 foot buffer and city code says 40 foot buffer. I'm just not understanding the point of
what you're saying here.
Generous: Well the city ordinance permits buffers to vary. It's 0 to 20 feet with a 10
foot average. This permit actually required a 10 foot buffer so that was the orange line
that we had on the one plan. And now the ordinance requires a 40 foot setback from the
edge of that buffer so the city ordinance is on top of what the nationwide permit is.
Lillehaug: So there's a 10 foot buffer and then a 40 foot.
Generous: Then a 40 foot setback from that edge.
Lillehaug: 40 foot setback from the buffer. Okay. And then on page 5, the Certificate of
Survey. Again ! hit on this earlier tonight. What are we doing wrong? What is the city
and staff doing wrong that we don't, or didn't catch this one in this point, because I'm
seeing, ! see a Lundgren survey. Back to back here, it has the same ! don't know project
number or same numbers here. One shows the setback. One doesn't. What are we doing
wrong here that we're not seeing both of these certificates of survey when the applicant
comes in here.
Generous: Yes, we're being more stringent now that we require they put all that
information on the original survey, because usually we allow the property owners then to
use that survey when they come in for their building permits. When they want to do a
deck or a shed or anything. Rather than having them spend another $1,500. We just need
to be more diligent in following through on that.
Lillehaug: Well that's my point here is both of these surveys are dated the same,
February 8, 1996.
Generous: The second one isn't, the surveyor didn't add that. That's what staff included
through research. We drew that on.
Lillehaug: Oh, you drew it on there? Oh.
Generous: To give you a representation of the difference.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Feik: Bob, would you please put the picture up again that was colored that shows the
wetland and the setbacks please. The 10 foot buffer. The green area is the 10 foot
setback.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: The buffer area.
Feik: Or the buffer rather. Not the portion that's supposed to remain undisturbed, is that
correct?
Generous: Right.
Feik: And what is the status of that buffer?
Generous: It's undisturbed.
Feik: It is now.
Generous: That's actually, there's a little bit bigger area that's more natural.
Feik: Okay. Okay. And then are there any, ! know this isn't really our job but are there
any covenants within this subdivision which would preclude the homeowner from doing
ancillary structures or anything else that we know of?.
Generous: Not that I'm aware of, but the property owner may be more aware of that.
Feik: Do we keep those on record so that we can advise the property owner in case there
is, they come in for a permit, they would violate a covenant?
Generous: No.
Feik: So that's strictly up to the homeowners association to enforce?
Generous: Correct. The only thing we do is we review the covenants initially to make
sure they're not permitting something that our ordinance would prohibit, but after that it
gets recorded at Carver County in the final documents.
Feik: Okay, thank you. That's it.
Slagle: If ! can throw out something Mr. Chair. You brought something to my thinking
and that is with respect to your question on the covenants. Bob, it might be wise at least
for the city to consider obtaining either a copy of covenants in a situation like this, or
even situations that might be a little bit more impactful. And I'll give you an example. If
this was a different situation and the applicant came to us and somehow we approve it,
not being aware of what covenants in the association are, you literally could have a
number of homeowners going well wait a minute. Here in the covenants that we all
agreed to, it says that they can't do this and yet somehow this guy or lady went to the city
and got it approved. You know what are the legal?
23
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: Well they still could, the association could enforce those, that's a contract
between the homeowners so they could enforce that.
Slagle: And I guess I'm just raising the point that we might want to consider when
something like this comes up, asking the applicant, just making sure, have you gone
through your covenants and are they okay with this and if the answer is yes, no or
whatever, at least we've sort of raised the issue versus I don't know. It could happen. I
was on an association board for 2 years.
Generous: I understand, yes.
Slagle: Okay, that's it.
Feik: Any other questions for staft? If not, if the applicant is here and would like to
make a statement, feel free to do so now. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Khai Tran: Khai Tran, 7474 Moccasin Trail, Chanhassen. Thank you very much for this
time. ! want to first of all thank the staff. The planning department. They were very
cordial to work with through this process. As a homeowner ! felt ! followed the right
policies, rules, guidelines. Got what ! thought was necessary and unfortunately through
some mishaps of lot surveys and what not, 3 months later ! find out that it's within that
wetland setback so. ! have some very detailed reports in terms of, I'm an engineer by
trade so ! keep everything so I've got plans that we submitted to the staff and everything
but we're here for questions and as one of our neighbors thankfully submitted his
approval of this as well.
Feik: Questions for the applicant? Thank you. If there's anyone else who would like to
speak on this issue, now would be the time. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion
of this. Commissioners, any questions or concerns you'd like to share? With that we'll
call for a vote, or rather a motion. Who would like to make a motion tonight?
Slagle: I'll make a motion. ! recommend the Planning Commission approve conditional
use permit #2003-8 to permit the construction of a 9,600 square foot shed, playhouse
that's shown on the registered land survey dated checked and reviewed on February 8,
1996 and based on the findings in the staff report. ! think that's the first one. Is that
correct Bob?
Generous: That's correct.
Lillehaug: Second.
Feik: Amendments? No amendments.
Papke: Yeah, ! propose a friendly amendment. I'd like to amend condition number 3.
Shall add landscaping, including evergreens.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: We're not, we have to do this in two pieces.
Generous: There's two motions.
Papke: I'll withdraw then.
Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Conditional Use Permit #2003-8 to permit the construction of a 96
square foot shed/playhouse as shown on the registered land survey dated checked
and reviewed on February 8, 1996, and based on the findings in the staff report. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Feik: We have a second item to vote on, or have a motion for.
Slagle: I recommend the Planning Commission approve Variance #2003-16 for a 28 foot
variance from the 40 foot wetland setback requirement and a 34 foot Bluff Creek
Overlay, BCO primary zone setback variance from the 40 foot BCO primary zone
setback for the construction of a shed, based on the findings in the staff report with the
following conditions, 1 through 3.
Lillehaug: Second.
Feik: Friendly amendments? Now's your chance.
Papke: Okay, I'd like to propose a friendly amendment that the wording include in
consultation with city staff or forester for the acceptable amount of evergreens or
however you want to phrase it Bob.
Slagle: Accepted.
Feik: Smooth that out for us, will you Bob. With that I'll call for a vote.
Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance
#2003-16 for a 28 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback requirement and a
34 foot Bluff Creek Overlay, BCO primary zone setback variance from the 40 foot
BCO primary zone setback for the construction of a shed, based on the findings in
the staff report with the following conditions:
Maintain existing buffer.
No additional structure encroachments into the required setbacks.
The applicant shall work in consultation with the City Forester to add
landscaping to screen the structure from the east and west and create a more
natural appearance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A S HORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE #2003-18 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; 6900 UTICA LANE~ DALE & GLORIA
CARLSON.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Feik: Questions for staff.
Papke: Yeah ! have one. As ! was looking, reading through this, the only thing that
struck me when ! finally saw the last page with the picture, the spa room looks like an all
glass structure and it doesn't strike me as having been built in 1962. Okay, do we have
any, do we know when that spa room was constructed?
Dale Carlson: 1987.
Papke: 1987. So that was after the '86 ordinance date. Yes?
Generous: '87 would be after the ordinance date, yes.
Papke: Thank you.
Feik: Other questions for staff.
Lillehaug: ! have a question, and it's looking at the site survey ! guess. It looks like the
main addition, that's happening on the opposite side of the lake. Is that correct? Or is
that a previous addition that was added? Do you have it highlighted on your's where the
actual new addition is occurring?
Generous: It would be in this location.
Lillehaug: Can you look at what we have in our packet here? And explain ! guess what
that addition means on there. There's an area shown there that's not shown on your
sketch that says addition.
Generous: It must be another addition.
Slagle: Are you talking about the one that goes to Utica Lane?
Generous: Towards Utica but it would meet the setbacks. Yes.
Lillehaug: Yeah, it goes towards Utica Lane, yeah.
Generous: So that would just be a normal building permit application.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: That's not part of this application?
Generous: No. The variance was for expanding that 13 by 13 area.
Lillehaug: Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that.
Feik: Any other questions for staff?.
Lillehaug: One more question would be, does the ordinance specifically talk about a
non-conformance being increased if the non-conformance is being increased vertically?
Generous: It says any expansion and the city attorney's opinion was that by going up
you're expanding the non-conformity.
Lillehaug: So that'd be the, only the city attorney's opinion then. It's not specifically
clear in the ordinance?
Generous: No, it says expansion of a non-conformance.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's all ! have, thanks.
Feik: I'll dove tail on that. In the past when we looked at the non-conformity in a
setback variance, once you're into that setback area you start measuring from the eaves
versus the face of the wall.
Generous: That's correct.
Feik: Is the map here correct with the new addition to include the eaves?
Generous: I'm not certain that that's included, no.
Feik: Okay. Second of all there's another ancillary structure which is also a non-
conformance. Has a variance, or side yard setback apparently problem. Do you know
the nature of that structure? It's listed on the top of page 4 and then it's shown on the
sketch, looks like on the left side of the sketch. Encroaching into the side yard setback.
Labeled shed.
Slagle: So is the next question, does the shed have footings?
Feik: No, the next question is, is the shed going to move to bring it into conformance?
Generous: That was not part of this, our review of this. We were just looking at the
area.., expand on the existing house.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: Do we have any architectural submittals of the addition which we could use to
ascertain what the dimensions of these eaves are? It's got to be in the package though.
Generous: No.
Feik: Okay. Other questions for staff. Alright. With that, if the applicant is here and
would like to make a statement, now would be your time to do so. Please state your
name and address for the record please.
Dale Carlson: Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane in Chanhassen. Certainly this has been an
interesting experience for us and your staff has been very accommodating. And !
certainly appreciate the time that you spent looking into, obviously you've done your
homework on this. Just a couple of questions ! heard you discussing. Number one, the
addition towards Lake Lucy was approved by the city. We've never done anything
without a permit. We've lived here since 1972. We put that addition on in 1991 towards
Lake Lucy, expanding our house towards the lake. Or Utica Lane. Towards Utica Lane
by 14 feet. We also when we also applied for a permit and received that permit in 1987
to put the hot tub room in with foundation, that was approved by the city and needless to
say, no one ever notified me until about a month ago that ! lived on a non-conforming lot.
! didn't even know what that was and I'm still not sure that we know what that is because
! have not been able to find anywhere in the city where the ordinary high water mark is as
it relates to the property. ! know it said whatever that number is. Whatever that is and
you draw that out from, ! can tell you this. ! can say this that if Lake Lucy ever hits the
high water mark, there are some of those homes that have been built there and some of
them over on the, one of the fellas that was asking about a dock. They're going to have
water in their basement, and we are 19 feet or so above, or ! don't know how many feet
that is, but quite a few feet above the ordinary high water mark where our house sits. So
in any event, ! think one of the things that ! am going to want to find out, and the city, we
didn't have time to do it, was to get another survey to find out exactly where the high
water mark sits on our property because I've measured it at 73 lA feet. And this, I think, I
believe that the 70 foot line that was drawn in there, I'm not sure how accurate that really
is. In any event, what ! need to find out from the city, having lived here for 30 some
years, because now all of a sudden a shed that has been sitting on that property since
1962 becomes in question. So does that mean that you folks or that our city can pass
these ordinances and all, because we've got about 10 sheds to take down on that, on the
east side of Lake Lucy. You follow me? ! mean there's a lot of sheds that people are
using and now all of a sudden because I'm asking for a slight variance here to build over
an existing structure, now I'm being questioned about my shed. Well where am ! going
to put that baby if I'm on a non-conforming lot? I'm very confused as to where you guys
are going to lead me now because that means every time ! turn around to do something to
this house, I'm going to have to face you folks and you're going to say you live on a non-
conforming lot. ! didn't live on one for 25 years, and then all of a sudden now ! do. So !
would like, I'm going to try to get some more clarification on that. ! do appreciate your
looking into this for us. There's, some of the pictures, you said there was a picture on
here. We've got better pictures than that, that we've brought along with. ! don't want to
28
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
bore you with that. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to take a look at this and
anyway, do you have any more questions for me?
Feik: Any questions for the applicant? ! brought it up, and you did too. I'll ask you
about that shed. What is the nature of the construction of the shed? Is it a metal utility
shed type of a thing?
Dale Carlson: You wouldn't want that shed. It's not on a foundation. It sits on blocks. I
think my neighbors, or I mean I'm concerned about just sitting on building blocks.
Somebody took, it's kind of like on a hill like this and they put some blocks under it and
put a shed...
Feik: Could it be moved 10 feet? I think it's a 10 foot side lot setback. 10 foot would
bring that into conformance.
Dale Carlson: Here's my problem. If you look at the lot, and again the way this was
built and it was in compliance then, but there's a, ! would have to bulldoze, I'd have to
remove a whole lot of dirt to move that shed because in that corner of the lot on the,
which is the north end of the lot, that land slopes down into, towards the north. And so in
order to move the shed to the south, I've got to dig. You've got to dig and I've got to,
there's a lot of dirt that has to be removed and so that's about the only place that shed
could be placed, at least back in 1962. So, and believe me we've wanted to get rid of that
shed but ! have nowhere to put one, and now what ! find out is when ! come and ask you
to put one on the other end of the lot, you're going to say you live on a non-conforming
lot and you need a variance.
Feik: Well if it makes you feel better, much of Chanhassen lives on non-conforming lots.
Dale Carlson: But anyway, some day ! will be back asking you what should ! do with
that shed but right now my hands are tied.
Slagle: Mr. Todd Hoffman probably could take it, couldn't he?
Dale Carlson: Well we could probably give it to Todd and then maybe he'd put me in a
new one on the other end, yeah. They're good shed but the property is such that it's
really difficult to move that. And we'd like to move it and make it a little bit, it's a small
shed in terms of at least when you drive around Chanhassen and see some of the other
sheds that are up, it's relatively small.
Feik: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much.
Dale Carlson: Thank you very much.
Feik: It is a public hearing if anyone else would like to speak to this issue, now would be
your time. Seeing none, we close the public portion of this. Fellow commissioners, any
questions and concerns? Before we do so, ! want to have a question for staff. We do not
29
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
know what the actual setback would be on this if this structure's going to include eaves.
We're not looking at anything in front of us that would show us that. Is that correct?
Generous: Correct, unless you assume that the eaves are to the lake and you'd add 2 feet
to that.
Slagle: To the variance.
Generous: To the variance.
Feik: We'd have to have 2 feet. And the deadline date it looks funny, it says 12/13. !
mean 2/13/03. I'm assuming that's a 12/13. Do we have time to have the plans reviewed
and have that, those eaves measured and have that corrected?
Generous: Yes, we could bring it back the first meeting in January.
Feik: Okay.
Dale Carlson: Can ! speak to that?
Feik: The public hearing is now closed so unfortunately, unless you've brought plans
with you that they can work off of, we have, and have been submitted, we have to go by
what we have in front of us. It's unfortunate but this is the package we've got to work
with.
Dale Carlson: It's just we're matching the existing eaves on the house. It's a continuation
of the existing eaves.
Feik: Bob, what is your thoughts?
Generous: I'm confused if it's matching. ! assume this would be almost like a dormer
and for the addition so you'd have an eave that would project towards the lake and then
towards the street.
Feik: Eaves with gutters? Going to measure it all.
Generous: We'd have to go out there to measure it all.
Slagle: Yeah, maybe if! could throw out a comment.
Feik: Please do.
Slagle: We're at comments aren't we?
Feik: Absolutely.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Slagle: I'm okay with this request, especially since it's going vertical, and if we're
talking another 2-3 feet going into the setback, especially given that the setback is only
really in violation of the code if you will, only on that southern part of the house. And if
it went and continued along with what is existing, ! think aesthetically that's what you
want anyway. So ! just wanted to, ! don't know if ! would table it.
Papke: Yeah, I'd concur with those comments. ! guess it would be good to have the
precision about the overhangs and so on but would we do anything different? And ! think
that's kind of what you're getting to and ! think we would approve it if there was.
Feik: Give us time to find a level spot for the shed.
Slagle: See my only fear about the shed is it sounds like there's 10 others.
Feik: Well you know you do them one at a time.
Slagle: You could be in the shed patrol.
Feik: I'm guessing I'm going to be the lone voice on this one.
Lillehaug: ! have a couple questions though of staff here.
Feik: Okay.
Lillehaug: Hitting on the applicant's question, on the survey ! see a shoreline that was
established on March 16, 1992. Are we certain that that is where the high water level is
and how are we measuring 70 feet? Has this been tied in to some benchmarks? Survey
wise or where are we sitting here?
Generous: We did look at the aerial topo but ! don't know that they haven't been tied
together. The assumption was that was the OHW. The shoreline that was shown as part
of that survey.
Lillehaug: So basically what you're saying then is that 70 feet is scaled off from this
survey.
Generous: Correct.
Lillehaug: And you've verified it through an aerial photo.
Generous: Yes, which is an even bigger scale.
Lillehaug: That's my question. ! had a couple comments ! guess.
Feik: Feel free. As Commissioner Slagle said, ! also support this. My opinion and
interpretation of the ordinance is that the intensification of going vertically isn't of a
31
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
concern to me. I think the intent of having the 75 foot setback is more a horizontal issue
than a vertical issue. I don't see a problem in going vertically. We're not increasing the
runoff. I just don't se an issue with it. And I guess I do support this applicant. One item
I would like to bring up though is I would not support going a single inch closer to the
water if it is indeed within that 75 foot, because that would be an intensification and then
I would not support this application. So I think if they maintain the existing building
foot, the foot pad of the spa area, I do support it.
Slagle: Includes eaves?
Lillehaug: Including eaves.
Feik: To match.
Lillehaug: It would match the house better. We're talking 2 feet. I think that's a very
reasonable request.
Feik: Rich, comments. I guess I'll give up on the shed because I see no support for that
at the table tonight. I am in general support, whoever makes the motion and the
amendment for the rephrasing of the language, please pay particular attention to how you
want to include those eaves and other items such as gutters and what not so with that, I'll
call for a motion.
Slagle: I can do it. I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion and that is approving Variance #2003-18 for a maximum 7 foot variance for a
continuation of the eaveline, is that a word? Eaveline. Eavesline. Variance from the 75
foot shoreline setback requirement as shown on the registered land survey dated checked
and reviewed on March 30, 1992. Based on the findings in the staff report with the
following conditions, 1 through 3. Will that work Bob? In your expert opinion.
Generous: That would work.
Feik: Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance
#2003-18 for a maximum 7 foot variance for the continuation of the eaves line from
the 75 foot shoreland setback requirement as shown on the registered land survey
dated checked and reviewed on March 30, 1992, and based on the findings in the
staff report with the following conditions:
The applicant shall install a silt fence prior to any excavation, if necessary.
The applicant shall apply for a building permit.
The applicant shall show the location of the existing driveway on the survey.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF CITY CODE~ SUBDIVISIONS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Feik: You know Bob can we, just let everybody know, let's just do this as sort of an
open comment as you would. Otherwise if everybody saves our comments to the end.
Papke: What page are you on again?
Generous: Unfortunately I was looking at the ordinance and ! was on page 2 of the
ordinance but it was Section number 4 of the ordinance. ! don't know if that's the best
way to proceed with that. Maybe ! should just go over areas of contention or if you have
questions.
Feik: Yeah, the reason I want to mention that because ! had a question regarding that 500
feet. You know 500 feet has come up numerous times over the years, whether 500 feet's
adequate. Is it adequate for all applications? Is it applicant for a bakery? It's going to be
a different notice ! would think requirement for a bakery for somebody else putting up a
fence. I'm wondering, and maybe this isn't the time but, I'm not sure that's adequate.
Slagle: Can ! ask, where are you seeing?
Feik: The 500 feet, I'm still on page 1.
Generous: Page 1 of the ordinance, Section 18-39(a).
Feik: I know that is our ordinance and I know we've got to address what we've got in
front of us but.
Generous: And we have been trying to go beyond in instances. ! know like when ! did
the hotel ! went up into the new neighborhood in Arboretum Village because the 500 feet
didn't go past West 78th Street so we tried to get everyone on Century Boulevard. Yeah,
it' s, our ordinance provides more distance in it than state statute requires it.
Slagle: Do you have any sense as to how our compares to other communities?
Generous: ! think we have, the ones that I've seen, we have more, the distance required
in the notice.
Lillehaug: I think when we sat down to discuss this before and we did discuss this 500
feet, ! think we kind of looked at it as a balance cost wise too. ! mean if we go 1,000 feet,
! mean is that reasonable to send out, ! mean 1,000 feet might, 1,000 feet just straight
across the board might encompass quite a few.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Papke: Yeah, because it's surface area. When you double it, you quadruple the number
of potential residents you're contacting so.
Slagle: I think what I would just throw out to fellow commissioners is again we just ask
staff to be, oh what's the word. Be aware of in certain situations because to be quite
honest with you, little disappointed in the last meeting's review of that business. The
landscape, snow removal and then today's bakery, that we didn't think to go to the
neighborhood just on the other side of that...by the apartments. And ! know that's an
oversight so I'm not being critical but ! just think, if we have, if ! have your trust that,
trust you that you'll.
Generous: And this is something we could also bring up at our work session.
Feik: Well ! don't even think the landscaper got to the apartment building. Tonight's did
but the landscaper was outside of that. ! don't believe it was. Alright.
Generous: ! would skip to page 3. It's Section 8 of the ordinance. It starts there. Under
the existing ordinance we have a range for the arterial and local streets. The Planning
Commission last time had stated a preference for going with the maximum. Staff is
recommending that we go with what our detail plates show. We're recommending that
everyone come in for a variance on it. Well that was the previous city engineer. So
that's one of the discussion items if we want to go forward on that. Go with the detail
plate. Would you like to reaffirm your recommendation that we go with the maximum
under our ordinance?
Lillehaug: ! would like to throw out 31 feet. ! guess when I'm working with other cities
! see 32 feet because you have two standard 12 foot lanes and then you have two standard
4 foot shoulders so that's 32 feet, and that would meet state aid standards. 31 feet, you're
cutting it by one foot. ! mean we're splitting hairs here but do you see an issue with that
Matt at the 31 feet and is that a standard that the city's been using for years and years?
Saam: The 31 is yeah. At least since I've been here and previous year's plans that I've
seen. But ! guess from an engineering standpoint we don't have a problem with 32. Now
developers may have a problem with 32 and it might impact environmental features, what
have you but yeah we just, like Bob said, we're trying to stick with what our standard has
been, at least in the recent past per our detail plates. So ! do want to point out the only
thing that we varied on page 4 from what you previously recommended was that local
street width of 31. ! think you had recommended 32. You as a Planning Commission
and we have 31 in there so everything else we've gone with your previous
recommendations on. ! just want to point that out.
Lillehaug: And the only reason you switched is because so 31 meets the standard plates.
Saam: Yeah.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: You didn't want to switch the standard plate?
Saam: We sure can but it's, I guess that's what we arrived at after internal discussions.
Lillehaug: I guess I'm okay with 31 feet.
Slagle: ! am too.
Generous: While there was a lot of.
Feik: Excuse me, go ahead.
Generous: I'm sorry. Next is under the landscaping section. We took out a lot of the
redundant requirements and some trees that weren't, we don't like to see anymore. We
had some invasive species. We had some maple trees that were, or conifer trees that
while they grow fast here don't live long and so Jill said let's slim down this and get rid
of a lot of the redundancies. If we're going to say a species and a lot of varieties, let's
just list it once. All of the subdividers that come in have landscape professionals that
help them create those plans so we're trying to get out of the being too prescriptive there.
And so the significant change would be on Section 18-61 (c).
Slagle: 7. Top of page 7.
Generous: Top of page 7, right.
Lillehaug: Can we hit on that quick like?
Generous: Yes.
Lillehaug: So really what that says is if they're beyond the development review process,
then you're going to enforce basically the replacement ratio there?
Generous: Yes, and they'll have to resubmit plans to show those changes so that
basically it tells you that the Planning Commission would table it at that point when they
found out that they can't go with those.
Slagle: IfI may though Bob, we table it. It comes back to us. You remind us that it's on
a timeline. And you know basically you know we need to approve it or reject it, and as
we found out two meetings ago, an applicant can tear down all the trees they want and
then have to replace it at a ratio that we show here, but it could be in a city park. Or it
could be anywhere in the city.
Generous: If they don't fit on the site. And if they're tearing down that many trees we
would require to be on site.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Slagle: I guess you know, my question is this. Simply put we have an applicant, and I
don't need to go into names, tears down a bunch of trees north of Lake Minnewashta and
you know they pay a fine or who knows. I haven't heard exactly what happened, but
they're replacing trees and it could be beautiful, mature trees are now gone and we have
trees that I can't even tell you for sure that we maintain some periodic inventory to see if
they're still growing. And I just don't see any penalties other than replace. Why not a
citation? Why not a stopping of the process and a resubmittal of an application?
Feik: Why not forfeiture of a portion of the escrow or the.
Generous: Well at this stage we wouldn't have any of that.
Slagle: Well why wouldn't we have landscaping escrow?
Feik: Well because the application is incomplete so he doesn't have the, either the bond
or an escrow or a letter of credit posted yet. Correct?
Generous: There's no conditions that he has to comply with.
Feik: But you could change it and say that the application must, a new application must
be completed or submitted with a revised tree condition. ! mean start the process from
zero.
Generous: But the clock doesn't start from zero is what the city attorney's office...
Feik: We can't say the application is deemed incomplete at that time?
Generous: Well you could recommend, instead of tabling it they'll deny it or approve
without a condition. That they do something. Here we're saying if you go in and you
have a site that's wooded and you go and you start removing trees while you're in this
process, you're going to have to give us new information because our tree preservation
calculations are based on what they submit originally and if they're changing that original
submittal information then we need to get that data. So at least you'd have more accurate
data information.
Slagle: If you listen to what you're saying Bob, ! mean so ! come to you with a tree
survey that shows 120 mature trees. And in the course of working through staff and what
not, ! then go and cut down 110 of them illegally, or however you want to phrase it.
Prematurely. Whatever the word is. So what you're saying is, oops. I'm sorry. Now !
just have to give you a survey that shows 10 trees. And now you're going to tell me
where to replace them or how many ! have to replace.
Generous: But we'd have the previous information so they'd have to show the trees
being removed.
Feik: From where?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: Because the original submittal would have that 100 and whatever, 60 trees.
The new submittal would show that they have 50 trees, or so much canopy area less and
so we're already counting that as being removed.
Feik: All this does to me is ensure that the developer knocks the trees down before they
pull, start the application.
Generous: Well and that's something we need to clarify...
Feik: Knock them down 2 months before any discussion of an application and then they
don't ever have to count them.
Slagle: And what if they do that? What's the penalty? What do they suffer?
Feik: Nothing.
Generous: Well no clear cutting is permitted without, except through the site plan,
subdivision or building permit process. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor.
Feik: Yeah but we had one in front of us a year and a half ago that was on a hillside with
lots of trees, that was actually, it was an outlot. Next to an outlot and was actually zoned
agricultural. The owner could knock all the trees down and say he's going to plant corn,
and then decide not to. You know, there's nothing you can do about that stuff. Alright. !
don't know, any suggestions? Gentlemen?
Slagle: Well if! could say, ! would hope, if! may, the city attorney and planning, ! mean
! would hope that we'd be able to come up with some measure of, what's the word I'm
thinking of. To create some penalty, phase, action, that would prevent any of us from
going and clear cutting trees if we were going to be requesting some action on the city for
a development or something.
Feik: Well is there no letter of credit posted with the application?
Generous: No, because those are based on compliance with certain criteria.
Slagle: So it's a misdemeanor threat if you will of clear cutting ! guess.
Generous: Yes. Also there's economic self interest for developers. There's a premium
paid for wooded lots. You would hope that they would use that as part of their reasoning
when they do the development.
Slagle: Depends on where you want the woods.
Generous: Well that's.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: What's your next item Bob?
Slagle: What page are we jumping to Bob?
Generous: Section 18-61(d)(4). It's page 9. Now this is one that Jill recommended. The
previous ordinance said show a 60 by 60 pad to estimate tree removal. She said 8,400
square feet. Just say that 8,400 square feet of this site is going to have tree removal if
there's trees within that 8,400 square feet development.
Slagle: Is that easy for people to understand?
Lillehaug: ! read it about 10 times and ! don't understand it.
Generous: We took a look at it and she said maybe the first 100, she wanted to go 110
feet. 115 feet of the lot, say that you're going to clear everything out of there to estimate
the tree removal.
Lillehaug: ! just don't understand how it's written there. ! mean ! can't, without the stuff
that's crossed out before and after it, ! wouldn't know what that means. ! really
wouldn't.
Feik: But if you just put comma, after 8,400 square feet comma, or 60 by 60. That'd
give you some grounds to interpret how that 8,400 came up with. 60 by 60 isn't 8,400.
Lillehaug: 8,400 square feet, that's over a 90 by 90 foot pad.
Feik: Well that would include obviously all the excavation for foundation and stuff.
Generous: Everything in front of the structure.
Feik: You have 60 by 60 plus 15 feet all the way around?
Generous: No, it's even more. She just said the first, well in here it's 105 feet. Actually
she came up with 9,200 and ! dropped it down because she was double counting within
the 60 foot pad you have supposedly you would have a deck area.
Slagle: Bob, can ! ask you a question? Again getting back to neighboring communities.
What do other communities use? Can we find out?
Generous: They're all over the place but yeah, we can find out.
Slagle: ! mean I'm just thinking, if you did Eden Prairie. You know, ! mean you pick the
communities, it'd just be interesting to see what they do. Half a dozen.
Generous: Sure.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: Is this section only referring to tree removal so somewhere, I can't remember
off the top of my head but somewhere else in the ordinances we're saying they have to
demonstrate that they can still place a 60 by 60 foot?
Generous: No.
Lillehaug: This is it right here?
Generous: This is it.
Lillehaug: This is only for tree removal that we state that.
Generous: Right. That's to calculation, unless you know what the actual building
footprints that are going on this site. We had to come up with the mechanism for
estimating what tree removal would be.
Lillehaug: So nowhere else do we say that an applicant has to demonstrate that they can
place a 60 by 60 foot pad?
Generous: No.
Lillehaug: Separate from tree removal.
Generous: So as part of this we wanted, You know ! suggested that alternatively we look
at just saying the first 105 feet of the lot, but Jill was trying to come up with an area
calculation and ! don't know if it's a combination of the two that we need for that, and
how to make it understandable for people.
Papke: Yeah, just don't word it like the dock you know.
Generous: Yes, the greater of.
Feik: What's the next one?
Lillehaug: Did we have problems with how it was worded before?
Generous: Well it just said the 60 by 60, and Jill, we had a problem because we thought
that was under estimating tree removal because usually they have the house pad and then
you have 15 feet beyond that where the grading equipment goes in and the little Bobcats
and so.
Lillehaug: So actually this 8,400 is actually more conservative if you really look at it.
Generous: Yeah, it's closer to what we would think would actually happen.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. Yeah.
Slagle: Are we to page 10 yet?
Generous: The financial penalty, yes. You've got on page number 5, as part of your
previous recommendation we have $500 in there. Council felt that was punitive. ! didn't
check, this came from Plymouth. They had $100. Per diameter inch of trees being
removed. Theoretically you know a 28 inch tree that goes out, that's $2,800.
Feik: Well that would be in addition to replacement though.
Generous: Yes. They would have to pay.
Feik: Do we still have the replacement in here?
Generous: Yes. The replacement in there is probably not changed. And this is only
after, if they, once they get through the process, preliminary plat approval to final plat
and they say we're going to save these trees and then they don't do that.
Feik: So we should put there, then at the end of that sentence then, you know comma, in
addition to the 2:1 replacement as indicated in whatever other section it is. So they
understand it's both. It's because you know what, at $100 a diameter inch, there's not a
developer in town that wouldn't rather just knock them down. And not replace them. !
mean to be construed like the dock.
Lillehaug: Probably ! mean, you talk about over adjacent to the Legion over here.
They've got 3 oaks they're trying to preserve. Well, just cut them down if it's causing
too much confusion. You know they're only going to get fined $2,800 bucks per tree.
Big deal in their pockets.
Feik: Right, right. But if it's that and replacement.
Slagle: They have that much money?
Lillehaug: I don't know but, it's a big deal to me.
Papke: What are we really trying to achieve here? ! mean because this is really going to
protect small trees, saplings and is it really the old growth oaks in town that we're trying
to preserve here? Is that kind of what we're getting to or what? Because we may take a
different strategy if we want to protect a few big old trees versus every tree in the city.
Feik: Sure. You could do $500 per inch for any tree over 12 feet. 12 inches. Something
like that.
Papke: I mean what do we want as a Planning Commission I guess is the question I'm
asking. What's our goal? What do we want to try to achieve with this?
40
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Slagle: Well ifI can throw out. I remember, and Steve I don't know if you were here but
there was an application for a building just south of the church. The old historic church.
It's now a Remax building. And there was an old oak that the claim was that they would
rock wall around it and Craig was pretty involved in that one and I think basically the
concern was that they said they would do this and be being a construction expert if you
will, was just sort of, it's just not going to work the way you're thinking and the question
came up well, what happens if they say they're going to protect it and it doesn't. And
that's what I remember at least personally with the involvement and awareness of these
trees, so I think your question's great and I would be an advocate to say that after a
certain diameter width we increase the value. And I would hope the council wouldn't
feel that large, large trees, by adding that would be punitive. Who knows.
Papke: What's the nature of the council's concern from a punitive standpoint? Are they
concerned that some guy who's putting up 4 houses is going to get unnecessarily dinged
if he cuts down a couple small trees or what, can you give us any context where the
punitive.
Generous: I think they were just concerned that a developer comes in and he's following
the rules and his subcontractors don't and so then he's penalized because he's the
responsible party under DC when it's a subcontractor that is storing materials over the
root zones and killing trees or whatever the case may be.
Slagle: Wouldn't they just put.., subcontractor.
Generous: Well it depends on their contractual arrangement I suppose.
Papke: Isn't that the general contractor's job?
Generous: Well we have you know, same thing with like erosion control fencing.
Keeping that up.
Lillehaug: One more comment on that I guess is, in the ratings here they're, or the
council's justification was that they couldn't really distinguish between trees removed,
being removed accidentally or purposely. In my mind I guess it really wouldn't matter if
they were accidentally or purposely. It should be the contractor's responsibility to purely
protect them. So I guess I wouldn't go along with that justification.
Papke: ...accidental versus purposeful.
Lillehaug: Right, to me it doesn't matter though.
Feik: Would this go in the actual development contract as well? Because if it doesn't go
in the contract you'd never know about it and it'd be that much tougher to enforce.
Would you include?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Saam: Typically this stuff, if it's in the code already, there's no reason to also put it in
the development contract because it's already in ordinance.
Feik: Well ! understand that but if the developer actually read it, and then he could go to
his excavator and say guys, you knocked these trees over. It's coming out of the sub's
pocket. Because I'm looking at it saying you know what, I'm not sure how collectable
it' s going to be. If it' s in the development contract and he' s got to acknowledge it.
Slagle: Let me ask this. Again without mentioning names, what did we learn from the
incident on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta? ! mean and some things you can
share, some things you can't but ! mean something happened there. Clear violation of
whatever right, wrong, laws, ordinances we have and there was punitive action against
the perpetrator if you will. Was that sufficient in the city's mind? Do we wish we had
done more? ! mean ! just remember Lori being very upset and very disappointed, as was
Jill. And so ! mean.
Generous: I can't answer for them.
Slagle: Is it your opinion that what you see here, $100 per diameter inch would be
enough of a deterrent to prevent that?
Saam: You're asking me?
Slagle: You're my two staff people.
Saam: Maybe you meet council halfway. If you wanted 500 before and now you don't
feel 100's enough, you come to 300. ! don't really have an opinion on it.
Generous: It could get pretty expensive you know. Diameter inches add up. 28 inches
here, 10 there, 5 there. It could be a significant cost.
Slagle: We don't want to be negotiating with council.
Generous: No.
Saam: ! guess the one thing ! think you should keep in mind is, you know no matter how
much you set it, some people if they are bad per se or don't care, you know is it going to
matter? And how do you regulate that? So it's tough. ! mean most developers that we
see aren't going to do what you're referring to up on Minnewashta. ! mean we just don't
see that happening so.
Lillehaug: And then this punitive damage wouldn't have applied there anyways because
they weren't finished. Or would have been applied. Were they finished with their
approval process?
Generous: The replacement, this $100 wouldn't have applied, no.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: Right, because they were, yeah.
Generous: But the replacement stuff up front would have been delayed, their project was
delayed long enough anyways with the court.
Papke: ! hate to let this just slide though because ! think we're going to face this in the
AUAR area that we were looking at not long ago has a lot of old growth oaks and once
we start to look at proposals in that area, this is a potential issue.
Slagle: Can ! make a recommendation to the commission here? Mr. Chair it looks like
there's at least two items, two areas. Tree preservation and sidewalks/trails that the
council and the commission are differing on. Is there any reason that they should be part
of the work session? And why wouldn't we have that dialogue amongst the two groups
versus talking to staff and you go back and.
Feik: ! think that's a relevant comment but this still is a public hearing so we still have to
hear from everybody else too before we move on to what we're going to do with this. !
don't disagree.
Lillehaug: And maybe it's a point, it's at a point where we give our recommendation
again.
Feik: My opinion on this deal, you know what, it's supposed to be punitive. That's why
we put the dollars in there, and ! guess ! don't have a problem negotiating with council. !
don't know. Alright, well let's move on and see what else because we may not take
action on this tonight anyway and ! want to make sure we get public comment in before it
gets too much later. What else do we have to look at here Bob?
Generous: Well the last one, significant item was on page 11 in Section 10. It's Section
18-78(b)(5) of the code. It was, right now the ordinance says sidewalks will be required.
Previously we had it on all local streets and on one side of collector and arterial and so
council said go away from that. Develop criteria where we would look at putting it in
and make it not permissive rather than mandatory.
Papke: When I read this, I couldn't figure out how you could possibly interpret this.
You know, what does it mean that you may be required to put a sidewalk in if there are
sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks. Well connect to what existing sidewalks?
Where?
Generous: On adjacent developments is what we were looking at. We have subdivisions
that are in place. They have a sidewalk up to their property line. When the next
development comes in we would make them continue that sidewalk through their project.
Feik: Or access the trails.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: Or to access the trail system, yes. And a good example of that is the Hidden
Creek development. Off of the north side of Highway 7.
Papke: Can you at least then put in here connect to existing sidewalks in adjacent
developments where the sidewalks abut the proposed development? Just so, because I
was concerned that we're going to see this at some point in time, you know in a proposal
and we're going to go well, how do we interpret that?
Feik: And then go back to shall. Drop the may and go back to shall.
Papke: May is just.
Generous:
sidewalks?
So something, and adjacent developments continuing those existing
Feik: And trails.
Papke: And in the next one, you know to kind of carry out of that, sidewalks that connect
neighborhoods to schools, parks and neighborhood. Well where are these schools, parks
and neighborhood areas? Are they again on adjacent properties? Is that what you're
saying?
Generous: That's the intent. If you're in the neighborhood and if this would bring you to
that development. An example would be the Walnut Grove project. Had this been in
place we would have had a sidewalk.
Papke: It sounds like you need to put you know, at least adjacent property or something
like that on each of these or maybe in the preface area there, so that it's clear that we're
talking about a sidewalk in an adjacent development. Or a school or a park and a
neighborhood commercial area that is adjacent to the proposed development, or an
existing or proposed trail that you know terminates at the proposed development or
something like that where we can have some criteria for looking at ...that does or doesn't
meet the criteria.
Generous: I think that adjacent development would work for all three of these.
Papke: Right, except are we going to treat it, if adjacent development has sidewalks that
are 200 feet away from where these two things butt up, how do we interpret that one?
Okay. And then does that adjacent development that's already developed, do they have
to bring their sidewalks in so they connect with this new development? I don't know,
what's the intent?
Lillehaug: IfI can ask fellow commissioners to look at page 16. What staff had drafted
up before, maybe we had discussed before was a, b, and c.
Feik: Which was struck by council. I'm assuming that's where that.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: We wanted to show the progression of this.
Lillehaug: That's really more on the lines of what I'm still thinking anyways.
Generous: Well and maybe that's the recommendation.
Slagle: IfI may.
Feik: Please.
Slagle: Since ! ! think probably of all have been the most vocal. I'm not suggesting I'm
the biggest supporter but at least the most vocal of this. And a bit of background. There
is a staff member who shared with me in the last year that neighboring communities were
enforcing and updating ordinances that required, it didn't matter, it didn't talk about
neighborhoods. It was street. This kind of street got either two sidewalks or one
sidewalk. Cul-de-sac got something, on and on and ! remember asking staff to research
that. And that's where ! would like this to go, is to research communities and Maple
Grove, Plymouth, Eden Prairie, Woodbury, you name it, but where are the communities
out there today going on this because the more and more ! read, which is not all that
expansive on planning, is that there is a movement towards the community feel. More
sidewalks. You know the porches out front. That whole whatever you want to call it,
Americana if you will, but more importantly for me and why I've been such a proponent
for this is just the safety and to me to think that we would have may instead of shall,
when you look at some of the neighborhoods, and I'm talking within the last 10 years,
that we don't have a sidewalk and it mystifies me when ! see mothers pushing kids on
strollers and if the issue according to Bob tonight was that there was some concern by
some about upkeep over time of sidewalks. Repairs. That would cost money and who
pays for it. ! guess ! would ask engineering to further research really what have we spent
on an annual basis to fix sidewalks. And maybe it's a lot more than ! think it is, but !
would guess that the streets have been a major focus, not so much sidewalks. ! haven't
seen many sidewalks repaired in my running, and ! run a fair amount throughout the
cities. Heck the last time ! remember ! wanted Pillsbury to fix their sidewalk, if you
remember the one off Galpin and it still hasn't been fixed. It's call cracked up so, and
that was two years ago. So I'm just using that as a basis that ! don't think there's a lot of
sidewalks being fixed these days.
Feik: You mean Audubon.
Slagle: Audubon, I'm sorry. Audubon.
Papke: Just to add to that, ! think we've heard some pleas for trails in developments that
don't have sidewalks.
Slagle: Exactly.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: And now that brings me to a question, why did park and rec recommend deletion
of the references to trails?
Generous: They just wanted to be able to look at a project...
Slagle: And do their own thing.
Feik: But we're just saying access. If it has access to trails we want a sidewalk. We're
not trying to tell park and rec where to put the trails. I'm in one of those neighborhoods,
Bluff Creek Estates, top of the hill on Audubon. We have no sidewalks but we're hooked
up to a trail. We have no sidewalk on Audubon. We've got, and it's gravel shoulder.
We've got strollers on Audubon. We've got kids you know, we've got 5 year olds
Rollerblading on Audubon to go around the block. Anyway, anything else on this item?
Otherwise ! want to move this to public comment period and then we can bring it back
and we can deal with it as we choose. So if there's no other comments for staff at this
point, I'd like to open this up for public comment. If you have a comment, now would be
the time.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. ! live at 7305 Laredo Drive. ! would like to
comment first on streets. On page 5. ! noticed this mentioning that a private street has a
right-of-way, actually defined as right-of-way and as ! recall, code have been changed
about a year and a half ago, and ! don't. Bob would know this. Where the definition is
of right-of-way. It didn't include private street so ! would like that to be covered. It's
pretty important because it affects our shoreland rule which means you have to be set
back 20 feet from the right-of-way of a private street. And then on page 13, where you're
talking about the 60 by 60. 60 by 60 is such a practical way to figure out if there's
enough room for a home on a lot. Just have this little square and you fit it on and you've
got it. Or you don't have it. The buildable area, where is that defined? Bob would know
this too. What is replacing this? What is the buildable area required now?
Generous: What's the buildable required?
Janet Paulsen: Yeah. And is there a certain width?
Generous: Well you have the lot dimensions in the subdivision. It's any area within the
required setbacks. Buildable area.
Janet Paulsen: Well as ! recall ! think Minnetonka and some other cities have more
restrictive standards because they have to have a certain width before you can measure
the buildable area, otherwise you could have a really narrow triangle. That you shouldn't
really include that.
Lillehaug: ! support you there.
Janet Paulsen: And then ! was wondering, also on page 13. In the parenthesis 5.
Minimizing tree loss. ! have to disagree that that would be accomplished by having a
46
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
private street. Private street causes more intensive development because it doesn't
require the same setbacks and the lot line is measured many times from the middle of the
private street, enclosing a private street. So it becomes more intensive. ! don't think this
causes less tree loss. It causes more. And then ! have to agree, ! think we should require
sidewalks. It should say shall, not may. Why would want to go back to a lesser
standard? We should be improving things. Not lessening them. Okay, thanks.
Feik: Thank you.
Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. ! almost missed the meeting
tonight. ! had to work late and I'm looking, oh my god. It's Tuesday. Hit the computer.
The agenda. Oh my god, Chapter 18. So I'm not very well prepared. But ! have to say, !
don't think this report is very well cooked up either. ! think there' s a lot of improvements
that need to be made. ! think if we're going to change the code, let's make it better. Not
make it more ambiguous. ! really liked seeing that right-of-way there for private streets.
That was a pleasant surprise seeing that documented. Boy, ! don't want to have to page
through all this. Jan pretty much covered everything. The 60 by 60 is a real issue and
staff in the past has tried to say, well you don't build a square house. But you know I've
seen a lot of development plans come through and if you don't have adequate building
area, you could have a lot that met requirements 15,000 square feet, but it might not have
enough buildable area. It might have shoreland, wetlands. It might have too steep of an
incline. A bluff. ! think that stamp has proven to be really a valuable tool when you see
the plats coming through. I'm not, this is not my area of expertise but ! think it's really
important. That number very much surprised me to see 3,600 square feet because I've
defended that time and time again. In fact ! wish ! had everything I've said about it, but
I've seen that number go up to like 8,000 some. ! mean what does that really mean, that
you can demonstrate that you can clear cut that much land or something? ! don't quite
get what you're trying to do with using a number that that's big. That's like half of a
RSF lot. And our residential lot is like 15,000 square feet minimum. It's more than half
of a lot. ! just don't get the logic there. I'd like to see some meat in this and ! did do
some real quick research before ! came and that's, I've been watching Dream House and
Portland, Oregon has some really strict codes about tree preservation because these
builders on this show were really concerned. We have to make sure that we do
everything correctly. So ! pulled up something here. Construction fencing in their code.
The fence must be 6 foot high, orange plastic and must be secured to the ground with an
8 foot metal post. Or the fence must be 6 foot high steel on concrete blocks. Well, ! saw
a project in our neighborhood, you know the orange fence goes up, and then it just slides.
And no one cares about where they drive, what they do. What they move over this area.
! think when you put meat in it like they did, it prevents that fence from moving.
Development limitations. It says here, within the root protection zone of each tree, the
following development is not allowed. New buildings. Grade change or cut and fill
during or after construction. ! have to say ! observed fill, just huge tons of fill over areas
that should have been protected. No meat in our code for that. New impervious surfaces
so they can't create an impervious surface around the root zone. Utility or drainage fill
placement. Staging or storage of materials and equipment during construction. Huge
issue. Particularly when you're building like in our neighborhood, building, making and
47
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
creating a new lot because where would those construction materials go? You know
they're not supposed to go in the street. If the lot is the minimum size, where do they go?
90 foot wide lot. 60 foot wide house basically. You know, and then you're supposed to
have some trees on this site. Where do they put these materials? And vehicle
maneuvering areas during construction. You know, someone brought up the contractor's
responsibility and the subcontractor's you know just kind of going and do what they
want. Well there has to be some controls. Someone has to be responsible. Enforcement
is not here. ! mean ! wish we had enforcement to protect the trees from being clear cut.
I'm all for steeper fines. It seems the pocketbook is the only place that hurts people. And
maybe yeah, you take down a tree and it adds up. Well maybe it's going to add up to a
number that they can't afford and they'll think twice about cutting out trees that they
shouldn't be cutting out. But you know, ! think with the budget that we've just gone
through, the budget process, the one large gap that we could fill in the revenue stream
would be doing some enforcement. And ! hope that you will table this tonight and give
serious consideration to doing things to really improve what we have, because our
resources for building are limited and your right about the AUAR. It's coming. There's
sensitive land down there. Sidewalks, huge thing. Let's plan. Let's do things right. Not
make things easier to get through but let's try to make what little we have left the best it
can be. Thanks.
Feik: Thank you. Alright. More comments from commission. ! did hear, ! did like the
idea of a different sort of tree preservation barrier that would, most people just see the
yellow, or the orange fence. Think it's a silt fence and that's as far as they go with it so
they don't know it's really necessarily protecting the trees. If there's no other comment
then, Rich you had to make some statements regarding you might want to table this or
something. You want to continue on your.., from earlier.
Slagle: I'd like to table this and ask staff and get a firm commitment Bob, if! may, from
you that we will actually receive a written, for lack of a better term, research paper that
would address what different locales are doing. ! mean ! noticed as an example on the
tree removal at $100, there's use of reference to the City of Plymouth. That's what they
use so we suggest we adopt that. ! mean ! wonder if ! called 7 other communities, ! mean
! might have a listing of $200, $50, $400.
Generous: Zero.
Slagle: Yeah, zero. Yeah exactly so ! mean I'm not advocating that it comes out one
way or the other. Just what's out there. And then ! would ask for you to do the same
thing with the sidewalks and specifically what do communities, and those communities
I'll leave up to you, but what do they require for sidewalk criteria. For you know
collector streets, main arterial, you know, you give me the listings or give us the listings.
Because it might turn out that 80 percent of the communities are where we are today and
suggest may. You know who knows.
Lillehaug: What does tabling really get us here? You know the council's reviewed this
already. Is tabling going to help us make them more aware that we have more concerns
48
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
with this? Is that our goal of tabling it? Because I mean I have real distinct
recommendations how ! would like to change this and recommend.
Feik: Well I don't think there's a hurry. I think what we want to do is we want to do it
right in concert with all the parties and we've only got 4 of the commission up here as
well to comment on this.
Papke: Uli often has a comment or two on trees.
Feik: Yes, yes.
Slagle: Just it adds to fact finding. I mean I think the council, ifI may be bold enough to
say, similar to what we've been operating a little bit of a vacuum. ! mean council says
boy you say shall and it's punitive. Well.
Papke: They may be coming to the conclusion it's punitive because they don't have
data... There's no justification for what we've proposed or what we think we should do.
Slagle: And vice versa. We feel, we operate in that same vacuum.
Feik: Does that answer your question?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Feik: With that I guess we need a motion.
Lillehaug: Can ! make a couple comments?
Feik: Absolutely.
Lillehaug: As ! see where our motion is heading, ! would definitely like staff to look at
what Debbie brought to the table for item 6 there, about tree preservation during
construction. ! think she had some very valid points and every one of them ! think we
could include as ! think they're all legitimate. That's it.
Feik: Anything else?
Papke: As a Planning Commission, do we ever look at other communities you know
guidelines and code books and so on? The example of Portland was brought up. Now
they are known to be extremely protective obviously. They're kind of on the outside of
the bell curve, but ! think that provides an interesting data point to use as a reference.
And maybe some good ideas as to how you might be able to structure some of these
things, put some teeth into it. ! don't know. As a group you know I'm fairly new to the
group, ! don't know if periodically do we look at other community standards and codes
and guidelines and try to learn something from that?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous:
Lillehaug:
Generous:
Lillehaug:
sections?
Generous:
Lillehaug:
Feik: Bob, can you answer that?
Generous: We do and yes we can.
Papke: City staff does but does the Planning Commission do that?
Feik: Well ! think what ! hear is a desire to have some of that research that you do on a
regular basis, or in the process, brought back up here so that we can be made aware of
that. And everyone else so, versus just the recommendation based upon research. Give
us a little background of how you're making that recommendation.
Generous: Kind of the matrix that we showed you?
Feik: Yeah, or comment or whatever. Something.
Slagle: Summary, like there'd be a spreadsheet or something.
Generous: It's easy to do. It's, all it takes is a little staff time. Once you have it you can
keep it in our update.
Feik: Well if we deny enough permits you'll have lots of time. Just kidding.
Lillehaug: ! have one more comment. Also ! would like to really look at the 60 by 60
foot lot. ! guess ! didn't realize that this was the only place that we referred to a 60 by 60
foot building pad.
Under the PUD, they talk about a 60 by 40 pad.
But that is strictly for tree removal.
Under this section.
Under this section, but that's what ! was getting at earlier. Is it under other
The only other place that it's mentioned is in the PUD.
Okay. Because ! also have concerns regardless of trees, and a minimum and
maybe this isn't the chapter to be, ! think it is the chapter to be addressing it in. We do
need to specify a minimum width because ! have concerns with that obviously, and !
think it's a valid point that we should be establishing a minimum of a 60 by 60 foot pad.
Now I'm done.
Feik: Very good. Now you're done, alright.
Slagle: Well then make a motion?
50
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: ! wasn't 100 percent behind tabling.
Slagle: ! can do it if you don't want to. I just have made most of them tonight.
Feik: Then you're on a roll, go ahead.
Slagle: You want to do it?
Feik: ! can't make one so. It's up to you three.
Slagle: Here we go, alright. ! recommend that the Planning Commission table the
approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code as shown
through the attachments presented tonight, and ask that staff research per our prior
direction and report back within 60 days. Is that enough Bob?
Generous: Yes. We want to move, keep moving things forward.
Slagle: 30 days?
Feik: Well, do we need a time limit?
Slagle: No.
Generous: No, ! don't know that we need a time limit because my boss is going to push
me.
Slagle: Oh, and ! would add to that, if! may, in my request is that we consider for future
work session that if we still end up having some differences of opinion between council
and commission that, because ! just think that's helpful face to face...
Feik: Or maybe our council liaison could be here. Do we still have liaisons? Oh we
don't. Never mind then. Alright, so did you make a motion?
Generous: Yes.
Feik: I'm sorry, do we have a second on that? Any amendments to that motion?
Slagle moved, Papke seconded to table the amendments to Chapter 18 of the City
Code, Subdivisions per Planning Commission discussion. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Feik: Would someone please note the minutes?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: ! have a couple questions before we note them.
Feik: Yes.
Lillehaug: On page 6, halfway down through the middle paragraph there. And this is
referring to the intersection control at Great Plains, right by the Citgo station over there. !
can't remember the other street but it says installing a stop light, or spread the burden of
installing a stop light. ! don't think a stop like will be justified there and so ! think our
words, or summary should have indicated burden of installing stop signs, yeah. And
then.
Slagle: It would be one less letter, wouldn't it.
Lillehaug: Yep. And then on page 79. We were modifying the conditions and !
indicated that number 3, that we should re-word it that there shall be no outdoor storage
of any equipment or vehicles and then that wasn't carried over into the conditions so !
think on the packet that goes to the city, or the council, if it hasn't already went there, that
condition number 3 should cross out associated with the contractor's yard. So it should
read, there shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment or vehicles.
Slagle: ! note the minutes.
Acting Chair Feik adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
52