PC 2004 03 16CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 16, 2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, and
Steve Lillehaug
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bethany Tjornhom and Kurt Papke
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner;
Nate Bouvet, Planning Intern; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
7302 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A 7,068 SOUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-615(1)
AND A 3.6 PERCENT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO SECTION
20-615(4) OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSTRUCTING A HOME AT 795 PONDEROSA DRIVE, ZONED RSF,
PLANNING CASE #04-11.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tom Koehnen
Bruce & Sue Koehnen
Mark Van Guilder
Shelly T. MacGillivray
Ginny Koehnen
Brenda Bjorlin
Randy & Ally Vogel
Michael L.
Chuck Worsfold
Bruce Burrington
Julie & Mark Quiner
6280 Audubon Circle
1830 Koehnen Circle West
805 Ponderosa Drive
805 Ponderosa Drive
7263 Pontiac Circle
824 Lone Eagle Drive
6890 Yuma Drive
6870 Yuma Drive
6900 Yuma Drive
6869 Yuma Drive
6889 Yuma Drive
Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Claybaugh: I have a few questions.
Sacchet: You want to start Craig?
Claybaugh: Let's see here. I just wanted to verify that the overhangs were included in
the square footage calculations for the hard surface.
Bouvet: No they weren't.
Claybaugh: They were not?
Bouvet: No.
Claybaugh: Okay. Isn't if per our city statute or ordinance that they are included? Can
you clarify that for me.
Generous: Not by ordinance. Usually we just count the building or surface area.
Pavement. Patios. Accessory structures.
Claybaugh: So we just use the overhangs with respect to setbacks.
Generous: To setbacks.
Claybaugh: Okay. Let's see here. With respect to the drainage, there was some
neighbors that had forwarded some e-mails, letters to the city and highlighted one of the
major issues in their opinion was the drainage. At which point is that through the
building process, that this applicant would be addressing those drainage issues and
specify how those drainage lines are going to be cut so on and so forth.
Bouvet: It was passed onto the City Engineer and from my records and what he told me,
that there wasn't any.
Claybaugh: City Engineer didn't feel there was any drainage issues to be addressed?
Generous: As part of the building permit process we would review the grading, drainage
and erosion control plan.
Claybaugh: Okay, but at this point the City Engineer has looked at it?
Bouvet: That's correct.
Claybaugh: And with respect to the driveway location, some discussion as well in
regards to that. Could you comment on that?
Bouvet: City staff including the City Engineer talked about that earlier this evening and
relocating it to meet the Yuma Street would actually impede onto the trees that are more
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
abundant east and north of the property. So having it where it's at right now was staff' s
recommendation would be the best possibility.
Claybaugh: So the end result is, is that the city's position is that it should remain where
shown?
Bouvet: Because it'd be relocating or taking trees down.
Claybaugh: Okay. With respect to the hard surface coverage, was there any discussion?
! understand that 18 foot driveway width isn't necessarily wide but was it discussed that
that was also possibility another opportunity to cut down on that hard surface coverage?
Bouvet: Staff also talked about that and to meet the 25 percent impervious coverage or
lessen the impervious coverage, we'd have to cut back by about 258 square feet so
whether it be the driveway, the garage or the home, roughly about 260 square feet.
Claybaugh: In any event they're going to require a variance.
Bouvet: Right.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions ! have.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any other questions?
Feik: I've got a series. Nathan, we spoke today earlier. Would you please reiterate for
my benefit particularly, on page 1 we talked about the 5 parcels. You had said that that
really isn't 5 separate, it's not 5 lots.
Bouvet: Correct.
Feik: It is this parcel, is that correct?
Bouvet: A lot of the lots in the area are designed similar to this. Essentially the 5 lots
that ! was speaking of are within this lot that we're seeking a variance for. So in short the
5 lots are this lot but that's how it was addressed is Lots 2230, or sorry. Lots 2322
through 2326 and we changed the physical address to 795 Ponderosa. So that's how it
was addressed before.
Feik: Secondly, there's a discrepancy on your staff report regarding the deck. The
graphical representation on page 5 and the graphical representation is called the plot plan
in the back. On page 5 the deck appears to project into the setback on the west side and it
does not on the plot plan.
Bouvet: The plot plan that I have here on the table would be the accurate one. It would
meet the 10 foot setback. The discrepancy you're speaking of which on page 5 does
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
appear to be going over the 10 foot setback but it does, it is being proposed to meet the 10
foot setback.
Feik: Continuing on that deck issue, the deck is or is not included in the hard cover?
Bouvet: It is not because it's raised.
Feik: And the height of that deck is approximately?
Bouvet: At the base of the house is going to be 30 inches and a maximum of 4 feet going
along with the property slope.
Feik: Typically, if ! understand if a deck is built like that and they put poly and rock
underneath now it becomes hard cover. Is that not correct when we see?
Generous: If they create an impervious surface below that, yes.
Bouvet: And from my understanding, speaking with the applicants, that wasn't the case.
Feik: Okay. Thirdly, you made a statement regarding a lot which is non-conforming
itself that is technically buildable should proceed without, if ! understood, I'm
paraphrasing here. If this came in at a 25 percent hard coverage, surface hard coverage, it
would not be here tonight? Is that my understanding?
Bouvet: If it met the 25 percent impervious coverage?
Feik: Yes.
Bouvet: I'll refer that to Bob but.
Generous: If the lot itself met the 75 percent of the ordinance requires or 11,000 square
feet, and they met all the other setbacks, no it wouldn't have to come in for a variance.
Feik: You had to meet the 15,000 square feet as well?
Generous: No, you have to meet 75 percent of that, which is approximately 11,000
square feet.
Feik: And the lot is?
Generous: 7 iA.
Feik: 7 iA, alright. And then ! guess the last question is, at this point is, we talk about
reasonable use with the foot print being 1,000 and change square feet. Do you
reasonably believe that the applicant would have reasonable use of this site if he/she
constructed a dwelling that met the hard coverage requirement of 25 percent?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Bouvet: If it did meet the hard coverage of 25 percent, ! believe so. On average. The
smallest footprint that ! found for a two story home was about 4 iA. 450 square feet. So
it could be given reasonable use. The size of the lot come back into question but it has
been done before.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Steve, any questions?
Lillehaug: Can you continue on that same lines of areas. What are the similar areas of
the smallest lots within 500 feet?
Bouvet: Going back to it, do you want me to just refer to the smallest to largest?
Lillehaug: Anything underneath the 7900 feet. ! think you previously said it but ! wasn't
keeping up with you there.
Bouvet: What we have on record, without a home, the smallest lot we found was 3,049
square feet. Without a home.
Lillehaug: How about anything just with a home.
Bouvet: The smallest that ! found that's not on city records is 6,098 square feet.
couldn't find any variances approved or denied for this. The smallest one on record that
was approved with the variances is 8,000 square feet. With a home on the lot.
Lillehaug: Is that within 500 feet?
Bouvet: That's correct.
Lillehaug: That's all ! have, thanks. One other quick one.
Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead.
Lillehaug: Who provided the drawing you have there? Typically we would, ! would
think we would see a survey. That just looks like a stick figure drawn by possibly staff
here.
Bouvet: That was from the applicant.
Lillehaug: It was from the applicant, okay. Thanks.
Sacchet: Rich.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Slagle: Just a couple questions. Nathan, ! don't know if you can address this or maybe
Bob or Sharmeen but dove tailing with Steve's comments, the Carver Beach subdivision
obviously is a little bit larger than 500 feet from this property and ! guess I'm wondering
if you can recall from history, ! mean have we had a fair amount of these within Carver
Beach, and would you venture to offer an opinion as to whether most of them have been
approved with variance requests?
A1-Jaff: Lot area variances have all been approved, yes.
Slagle: Okay. Okay. The other question ! had is, within 500 feet there was a reference
to Cree Drive, and ! apologize for not having got out to the site. Where is Cree Drive
from the subject property?
Bouvet: It's directly northeast.
Slagle: Directly northeast. Okay, so sort of what, to the northeast of Ringo Drive?
Would that be correct?
Bouvet: That's correct. Directly north of Ringo Drive.
Slagle: Okay. Okay, that's it.
Sacchet: ! want to dig a little further into a couple of these aspects already questioned.
First of all, the aspect of this being a legally non-conforming lot. That gives the owner
some rights which includes reasonable use.
Bouvet: Correct.
Sacchet: And it's staff's determination that reasonable use is the type of house they're
planning to put there.
Bouvet: That's correct.
Sacchet: Now, one thing that I'm trying to understand is with, in relation to the
impervious surface element. If they would actually meet the impervious surface
requirement. Would they still need the minimum size of house and garage and all those
requirements or would those get impacted?
Bouvet: That's correct. It would meet all the requirements, setbacks, buildable size for
two story home in this district. The code only requires a footprint of 600 square feet.
Sacchet: So they would meet all the requirements. It's not like the city requirements are
actually contributing to them to go over in the impervious.
Bouvet: That's correct.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Okay. And you mentioned in terms of the trees on the lot that it would have
less impact the driveway going out to Ponderosa. ! don't know whether ! remember
correctly but ! was just out there before the meeting and it seemed to me that there were
actually more trees along Ponderosa, and especially more healthy trees than towards
Yuma. It seemed like the part, the way ! read the drawing where the driveway will come
out, if it would come out to Yuma with more or less the configuration of the house and
garage the way it is, actually the main tree we'll cut down is already dead if it would go
to Yuma. And we didn't get a tree survey or a tree inventory for the lot?
Bouvet: No we did not.
Sacchet: We did not at this point. Okay. In terms of the size of the lot, so you're finding
is that we do have lots like in the 8,000 square foot size that we approved building upon.
But not smaller than that so we basically would be setting a new precedent with the
7,500.
Bouvet: From what we have on record, that would be correct. We'd be setting a new
precedent.
Sacchet: Now in terms of those lots being in that area being composed of a collection of
smaller parcels, ! want to be clear. I'd like to understand what the status is of these
parcels versus the lots. Let's say somebody has 10 or 20 of these parcels and that's
where they have their house and how subdividable would that be to come in and say well
! only need 10 of my parcels. ! want to sell 10 of the other ones that ! also own and have
somebody else live there. What governs the rules on that? Can you help me out? ! don't
know whether that's you or Bob want to address that.
Generous: Yes, that's the conglomerate of all those lots currently meet the ordinance,
and then they sell some off. Well they can sell it off, they're creating a self created
hardship and so if they come in to request a variance for that, you would be able to deny
the variance on that they created the hardship by reducing the lot size.
Sacchet: So basically it would have to be subdividable into conforming lots in order to
work. If it would be subdivided into non-conforming lots, they would not be buildable.
Generous: Right, because they would be creating the non-conformity.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, yeah ! think that's important to understand too. That's all my
questions for right now. Thank you very much. With that I'd like to ask the applicant to
come forward and if you want to add any additional points in terms of what you're
planning to do. And state your name and address for the record please. Good evening.
Tom Koehnen: Hi commission. My name is Tom Koehnen. ! live at 6280 Audubon
Circle in Chanhassen. I've lived in Chanhassen my whole life and what I'd like to do is
put a house on this property obviously for myself and my family so we can raise our
children there, because Chanhassen's a great place to raise kids and we'd like to stay in
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
the area. And Carver Beach is one area where a young couple can afford to get started.
We want to put a house on there, and we want to put a decent house that's going to add to
the neighborhood and add to the city of Chanhassen. That's why ! have it as big as ! can
and close to the maximum hard cover requirement. Basically it's a lot with difficulties
and that's why we're here because it's not your flat, 15,000 square foot lot and ! put a lot
of time into trying to situate the house on there so that it works with the existing grade
without having to build retaining walls or take out trees to meet grade, or to take out trees
period because trees are a big part of the area of Carver Beach. ! know that the issue of
the trees is very important and if you, you know we don't want to clear cut it at all, and
that's not what we're about to do, or try to do. We just want to get the house on there so
that it fits, so that it works well on the existing lot of record and so that we can make the
driveway that isn't steep and everything, and that is also part of the reason ! chose to have
the driveway come out onto Ponderosa. After looking at it all and trying a bunch of
different drawings, designs for houses, this is how ! felt it would work best to keep the
natural flow of the land and to keep as many trees as possible. And ! guess the last thing
! would like to point out is it is a precedent because this non-conforming lot is smaller
than 8,000 square feet and previously the city was only approved 8,000 square feet but
this lot is 7,932 square feet so we're talking.
Sacchet: Pretty close.
Tom Koehnen: Really dang close. Again I'd like to thank the commission and the staff
for their time in considering this and.
Sacchet: You're very welcome. Let's see, we may have some questions for you. Any
questions from the applicant?
Feik: ! have two. We received a couple letters from some neighbors and also in the staff
report some concerns regarding potential runoff. Are you proposing anything specific to
address runoff from the lot?
Tom Koehnen: Well ! haven't heard any specific problems that people have so ! don't
know that ! can address them.
Feik: They're general concerns.
Tom Koehnen: However during the building process obviously there are.
Feik: I'll paraphrase the concerns so you can address it maybe more better. You're
asking for 28 percent, roughly hard cover versus 25. And the question stem around the
additional hard cover is going to increase the amount of runoff and concern that this
runoff does not impact neighboring properties.
Tom Koehnen: Right. Well ! guess, ! believe myself, if you look at the lay of the land, it
slopes down towards Yuma and so ! believe that any additional runoff is going to run
towards Yuma, or out the driveway onto Ponderosa. ! believe that if it does create any
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
additional runoff it will go to the street and into the storm sewer management. I don't
believe it will adversely add to any runoff onto any neighboring properties at all by
placing a structure on this property.
Feik: And then lastly, if you had to shave off268 feet, could you do it?
Tom Koehnen: Well obviously ! could do it.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Any other questions? ! have a quick question. Just to be clear, ! think you
actually already answered it but you're planning to live there yourself, correct?
Tom Koehnen: Absolutely.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, just want to be real clear about that. Thank you.
Slagle: ! have one.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Have you, there was a mention earlier of who did the renditions of the drawings.
think it was yourself.
Tom Koehnen: It was.
Slagle: Have you had a professional engineer or architect or anybody look at the site
with you?
Tom Koehnen: No, my drawings that you have in front of you came from the original
1927 plat.
Slagle: Okay. Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing so anybody who'd like to
address this particular item is welcome to come forward and if you have anything to add.
As was mentioned we have received a couple of letters and comments already of
concerns of neighbors. This is your chance to voice any concerns or issues that you think
we should consider that may not have been mentioned yet so far, or should that be looked
at from a different angle so is there anybody who wants to come, please come forward.
State your name and address for the record.
Michael Kohane: Michael Kohane, 6870 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen. I'm originally from
Australia. ! haven't lived in Chanhassen all my life. We've been here about 6 years now,
and ! agree with the gentleman that Carver Beach is a very good place. ! did send one
letter in and addressed four issues. Safety has not been mentioned here. That road is
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
quite a dip. ! don't know if any of you have looked at it, and individuals drive there quite
quickly up to get up the hill to exit the area from the lower Carver Beach area. There's a
school bus stop on the actual corner, diagonally opposite from the house. Speeds that we
imagine, we estimate 0 to 15 to 50 mile an hour there. ! think the legal limit is around,
should be 30. It is a thoroughfare for a lot of individuals from lower Carver Beach so we
address the safety issues from families already there and also families that may move in,
that it is an issue of increased traffic. ! need to just table one thing here, if ! can just show
the committee, the big woods rule about Chanhassen development is in the lower Carver
Beach area. There's a number of very large houses there, and as ! understand it there's 3
or 4 new ones being built presently, and probably many, many more so we can anticipate
! think probably a 50 percent increase in traffic from that lower Carver Beach area up
through Ponderosa to get out into Kerber Boulevard. Putting a house on that corner that's
not a right angle or a site line issues. There's one stop sign coming from Yuma down to
cross over, but there's no four way stop sign. We've discussed those issues with the city
before and they argue that people need to get some speed up to get up the hill in the
snow, and we accept that at this point in time. But with a driveway coming out of the
house onto Ponderosa, we have great concern about the safety issues. We mentioned
about the setback of 10 feet was quite small. We thought short and difficult to adhere to
when you're building a home like that. And the environmental issues, it's more general
that the legislature, if you read antidotal evidence, they're now measuring the various
pollutants in the water but there is a concern with Lotus Lake. One letter to the
Chanhassen Villager recently, about 6 months ago stated that the man who used to look
out at his dock could see the bottom, now can see half an inch or 2 inches into the water.
Any new property, any new development' s going to contribute to the runoff and drainage
issues in this entire area and that's why we thought that if you were considering the first
variance, that the second variance should be of prime concern to you. And then
regarding the land owner denied reasonable use of the property, we understand that that's
fair, but we thought that if you're going to give a 50 percent reduction in terms of the
actual code, which is 15,000 square feet down to 7,900 square feet, that the second
variance again with the hard cover issue relating to the environmental issue of drainage
and Lotus Lake and also the Yuma Drive drainage area which runs off eventually into
Lotus Lake, we'd like to raise those. And then ! just had a couple of points from the
initial Nathan's comments. He spoke about the smallest lot size but he didn't mention the
smallest house size on those lots and that's something that ! would like to know. ! mean
you can have 6 square feet and build something like a sky scraper, so that to me was
confusing. The engineer's drainage report was mentioned antidotally and the local
business would like some more information because there's significant development
happening in that whole area. And as an Australian, this is a big stupid but under a deck
in Australia you don't have to worry about anything except for spiders and snakes, but
here with the runoff issues and things like that, you have to consider pavers or other
issues because if you're just going to have mud dripping through onto the ground and
then running down the street, that's an issue that ! would think would be important. And
! think that's about it. So we're just concerned mainly with safety .... lot busier. Putting
another driveway out onto it and a house on a corner where there's a school bus stop,
drainage issues. Lotus Lake is ! think close to being an endangered species. And the
issues of variances maybe considering the hard cover issues. Thank you.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak up? This is your chance.
Seeing nobody, yes. Please come forward.
Ally Vogel: Hello. My name's Ally Vogel and ! live in the lot directly to the south of
the proposed site. 6890 Yuma. ! did submit some written comments for you all to look
at, so ! won't go through all that again but a couple of the points to highlight again being
the drainage issue. My husband and ! currently do have some washout simply from the
lay of the land at Yuma. Our driveway is currently gravel and there is towards the end of
the driveway a lot of washout into our yard space already, and then also around our
garage area there is already some erosion to the ground in the land there. The other thing
that hasn't been brought up is that lot does have our mailboxes and a fire hydrant on it so
! didn't know if there was a proposal to move those. Where those would be located or
how those would be affected. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we know what would happen with the hydrant and mailboxes?
Any wisdom on that from staff?.
Bouvet: From the photographs and from other sources, I don't see how that would be an
issue. Blocking access to the property or construction of the property because it is
literally the mailboxes and the hydrants are on the corner of Yuma and Ponderosa.
Sacchet: So what you're saying is they could stay there or?
Bouvet: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright, then that answers that one. Is there anybody else before we get
into more discussion? Anybody else who wants to address this item? Otherwise I'll
close the public hearing. Nobody else want to speak up? Okay. I'll close the public
hearing. Bring it back to the commission. In terms of the comments that were brought
up, if staff could address the safety issue a little bit that came up in both the comments of
the neighbors. If there are, where are we at with safety in this place? ! noticed Yuma is
actually a one way street. The house is kind of elevated so does it really impact sight?
Generous: Not sight and it's back far enough I would think. As a single family home, on
average they general 10 trips a day. ! don't know if that's significant on a local street.
Sacchet: In terms of the one comment was the setback and the standard in the city. !
mean it's 30 feet from the road since it's a corner lot it has to have 30 feet from both
Yuma and Ponderosa and then the 10 feet is the side yard setback towards the other two
sides right? Okay. And those are given, everybody gets the same with that. Alright,
bring it back to commission. Discussion. Comments. Who wants to start? Want to start
Steve?
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Lillehaug: Sure. ! have a few questions here to clarify a few things. In your report on
page 4 you say that it's a legal non-conforming lot because it was recorded back in 1972.
But it was recorded as 5 parcels back in 1972, correct?
Generous: Yes, as 5 lots.
Lillehaug: So 5 lots, so each of them 5 lots, they weren't legal non-conforming lots.
Generous: No, each lot was but through assembly he created, they created that 5 lot
parcel.
Lillehaug: So when were they assembled into one lot? Because I'm having problems
with this. This is very, very, very small and the only reason that ! would approve it is
because staff is saying it's a legal non-conforming lot and we have to provide the
applicant reasonable use and that's the only reason ! would support this. So ! want to be
clear why this is a legal non-conforming lot. Is it currently are those 5 parcels recorded?
Do they have one property identification number with the county?
Generous: That's correct.
Lillehaug: And then when would that have been recorded under a single PIN number?
Generous: ! assume in '67 when the parcel was purchased.
Lillehaug: Back in '67. Okay so.
Generous: Maybe before then but they didn't search any sooner than that.
Bouvet: We don't have anything on record before 1967 pertaining to who bought it, who
had it.
Lillehaug: So basically it really that's what staff's position is, if it's recorded like that,
that's what makes it a legal non-conforming lot. Well, going the other direction, what
other tools could the city use to prevent the house from being put on there or to allow the
applicant a reasonable use other than putting a single family house there, because it' s just
too small for a house.
Generous: You could purchase the property.
Lillehaug: The City would purchase it? I'm not going to.
Generous: The City would, yes. Or if you could show that there's a public health, safety
or welfare issue resulting from the development of the lot, then you could stop
development on it. But it doesn't, just because it's smaller than the rest of the lots
doesn't mean that you create that situation.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Lillehaug: Because right now the city draws a line at 11,000 square feet. Well that's
what the ordinance says. 75 percent of 15,000. Specifically really for this purpose to
limit the minimum size of a legal lot. Right? Or not.
Generous: Well that's part of our discussion later .... the city attorney's office advised us
on that, that that really is, it's not a magical number. If you look at just meeting the
minimum ordinance requirements for lot size and 2 car garage and a driveway that
corresponds with that, you're about 60 percent of the 15,000 and you can do it and meet
setbacks. Could you do under, at 50 percent? Sure. This one could if he knocks off 260
square feet he can meet the lot coverage, so. And still comply with our minimum house
sizes that our ordinance specifies later.
Lillehaug: So if this went down to 6,500 feet, which it's not. Just as an example. You
know we're getting down into that area right where it's at right now it's just right on the
bubble. It's almost just too small for a house. If it was 5,000 feet, what would the city
do? I'm just trying to figure out what else we can do here?
Generous: Well it depends what that 5,000 feet, do you have a 10 foot by 10 foot house?
Well then it doesn't meet our minimum house size and then a reasonable use of it may
not be for a single family home. So if we change, it depends on how big or small you
specify your minimum house sizes and what pertinences you need. Do we need a 2 car
garage for every home? If you don't, then you can reduce lot sizes further.
Lillehaug: Okay I'll try to, I'm almost done here. By the applicant recording that at the
county with one property identification number, does that mean, does that guarantee him
that he can have a house there though?
Generous: No, only the city can guarantee that he has a house.
Lillehaug: So if it was a 300 square foot lot you could still get a PIN number for that lot?
Generous: Yes. But you can get that for a wetland and you can't develop a wetland. In
that instance you'd say you bought a wetland. That's then what you want it for.
Lillehaug: So that's why I'm trying to get to a point is, just because, what makes it a
legal non-conforming lot? What exactly makes that a legal non-conforming lot, and it's
not clear in my mind.
A1-Jaff: It was created prior to adoption of the subdivision ordinance and the ordinance
that regulates the size of the lot. Those parcels, those five 20 by 100, typically Carver
Beach, 20 by 100 parcels were in single ownership. None of these parcels have been, it
wasn't 7 parcels once upon a time where he sold off2. It's always been 5...
Lillehaug: It's always been 5.
A1-Jaff: The same ownership.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Lillehaug: Okay. Well everything is pointing me not to support this. You know ranging
from lot size to traffic. ! guess that's all ! have for comments, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay.
Feik: Yes. I've got some comments here as well. As far as I'm concerned, we cannot
deny reasonable use to a landowner in this case. The question then becomes what is
reasonable use in my mind. Clearly some other neighbors in the proximity of this house
have said that a smaller home is reasonable. They're currently living in them. The
applicant himself acknowledges that he could meet the 25 percent hard coverage if
required to. He'd prefer not to. ! understand that but it could be, he could do it, so
therefore you know I'm looking at okay how do we mitigate this and move forward.
Some day someone's going to build something there, in my mind. Whether it's this
applicant or someone else. ! guess I'd rather deal with it now. My concerns would be, !
could support it under some conditions that one, it does meet the 25 percent coverage.
That there would be acknowledgement in here that there would be no further
intensification of the lot going forward, including patio, sheds, out buildings, any other
structures. That no impervious materials would be used below the deck area. You know
some things like that so that we have some reasonable understandings that indeed the
hard coverage would be no greater than 25 percent. It's a small lot. It's a small house. !
could certainly see the applicant putting in a single car parking space, you know or
something like that. ! mean ! lived in a 600 square foot house when ! first got married.
That was the whole thing. So you know what, it's definition of reasonable use. ! think
with a 25 percent hard coverage, if we can get there, ! don't necessarily like it totally but
! don't see a reason to deny it at that point.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Craig.
Claybaugh: Yes. As Commissioner Lillehaug stated, it's a lot that is on the bubble. You
start to get down to the square footage requirements where it doesn't seem possible to
quite meet what we consider the typical 2 car garage, single family dwelling, sidewalks,
so on and so forth. Another 1,000 square feet added to the lot and it becomes
dramatically more achievable. That being said, ! guess my position or my feelings about
this particular application is that the house that's going to be put on this lot, and ! do
believe that there will be, if not now, in the future a single family dwelling placed on this
lot, is dictated by the lot size. Not by the size of the family considering building on a
particular lot. And as such ! would look to hold the applicant to meet that 25 percent
coverage requirement and ! would leave it at their disposal whether that was a
compromise on the garage, square footage of the home, width of the driveway or a
combination of all the above. And if that isn't the case, this may not be the lot for you. !
believe that again, that it's very important to focus that it is a developable lot. That is
reasonable use but that being said, it isn't an automatic that you build a house to the
square footage that you need. This just may not be the lot for you is all. That's the end
of my comments.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Rich, no comment? Question from staff. One car garage would
not meet city requirement?
Generous: That's correct.
Sacchet: So they would need a variance if they would want to make a one car garage?
How's that work?
Generous: ! don't even know if you can get a variance. Our variances are setback.
Sacchet: So what would we do if they say well we really only need one car and that
solves the issue with the hard cover and probably more than solves it considering the
driveway's going to be more narrow. What would they do?
Generous: I think there's other ways for them to meet the 25 percent. They can go with
a smaller garage.
Sacchet: They can just make it smaller.
Generous: Less driveway width.
Claybaugh: Right, the statute 20-905 states a two story building must have an area of
600 square feet to meet their requirement. This is 1,008 square feet. If they shrink the
size of the garage, shrink the size of the house, compromise on the driveway, there's a
way to achieve it. Meet the city ordinances with respect to the house, the garage, and the
other ancillary needs and still get their, like ! said. My point is that it just may not be
enough to meet this particular applicant's needs.
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's all. Oh, I have one more comment about aspect of, in the
findings. Finding with letter C. It's about, it states that it doesn't appear the case that the
applicant is trying to increase the value or income potential and I think the applicant
addressed that by stating that they really want to live there themselves but for staff I
would like you to note that if in the documentation, the findings of fact, if it should say
this does not appear. You have to spell out what this means, otherwise it doesn't mean
anything. Especially on what is that called, the next page after that. The thing that's
supposed to be signed as a legal document. That will need to be fixed. But ! don't have
any further comments so.
Feik: ! have one more question though.
Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce.
Feik: My question is, as a body here, if this does move forward and I'm assuming for
just a moment that it would move forward at 25 percent. How do we ensure, not for this
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
applicant necessarily, because ! will give the benefit of the doubt that this applicant is
ethical on everything. How do we ensure that the second or third owner of this parcel
understands at purchase that they can't do anything with this thing? Can we put
something on the title? Is there any way that you can do something that a further owner
might be notified that if they're considering purchasing this house in 5 years, that you
know, they're precluded from adding additional hard cover. Is there anything we can do
or is it just on faith?
Generous: The variances themselves are recorded at the Carver County against the
property, so whatever you approve with the conditions are recorded against the property
in the records.
Slagle: But point of clarification though, that would allow, just like any other property, a
future homeowner to apply for a variance?
Generous: Yes, you can't limit someone's ability in the future.
Feik: But our comments or the requirements, the conditions ! should say of that variance
would be listed on that variance statement so that theoretically if they hired a qualified
attorney when they purchased the lot or something, they would be notified.
Generous: That there are encumbrances.
Feik: So it's a little buyer beware there.
Generous: Yes.
Feik: Alright, I'm fine with that then.
Generous: And also, depending on how you structure the variance, the next person may
be, if he goes to a 600 square foot house and he's at 22 percent, the next person might be
able to do a small addition, as long as he's under the 25 percent.
Feik: ! understand that.
Sacchet: ! have a few more things too actually. If this does get forward, well it's going
to get forwarded from here to City Council one way or another, but assuming that we find
some agreement that building a small house is reasonable use, which it seems like we're
sort of leaning that direction. Would it be possible to request that a little more detail gets
added about the trees? And access possibly from Yuma Drive, and also how that relates
to safety. That's some aspect that would be good to look at it further as it goes to
council. As well as drainage. Drainage aspects that get further looked at by our
engineering. That ! think would be reasonable.
Claybaugh: Could that be communicated to the affected neighbors? ! know that some of
the people that are up and spoke said that in general terms that the city engineer had
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
looked at it and the rest of it but there wasn't any feedback or any relative information
available to them to address their specific concerns.
Sacchet: Yeah, that could be shared with the neighbors since there is obviously concern
at least amongst some of the neighbors about that. Yeah, okay. Let's move on.
Anything else?
Claybaugh: ! have nothing to add.
Lillehaug: One other thing?
Slagle: ! was going to say I'll make a motion.
Lillehaug: Can ! ask one more thing?
Sacchet: Yes, you can ask one more.
Lillehaug: As far as a survey for the property goes, will there be a survey that would be
recorded with the building permit?
Generous: With the building permit.
Lillehaug: Okay, that's it. Thanks.
Slagle: ! can make a motion. ! recommend that the Planning Commission approve
Variance #04-11, and that's assuming that it did not include maximum lot coverage
variance, but for lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet for the
construction of a single family residence on 7,932 square foot lot zoned RSF period, with
the following conditions, and ! would just add if staff thinks it's appropriate, that the
applicant will not exceed the 25 percent lot coverage variance.
Sacchet: We've got a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Feik: Friendly amendments maybe? Your, point of clarification. Whether your last
point, that is a condition or it is a something for staff to consider, the 25 percent hard
cover?
Slagle: Well since my motion doesn't include a variance for the 25 percent, ! sort of
think we don't even need to include it.
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Right, it does not include the variance for the exceeding the 25 percent so they
would be held to that.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Feik: Alright. Then ! guess my comments become moot.
Sacchet: Any further discussion?
Claybaugh: Friendly amendment? With respect to the coverage under the deck, if the
city could specify a type R or equal fabric barrier in lieu of any poly to allow additional
drainage.
Slagle: I'll accept that.
Sacchet: ! have a question still for staff, if you allow me. If we approve this, it doesn't
go to City Council, correct?
Generous: If you approve it by 75 percent or more, that's a final decision. It is appeal
able within 4 business days. If not, then it goes.
Sacchet: It's appeal able by anybody?
Generous: Anybody.
Sacchet: Okay. So we need at least 4 of us voting for this. Then it would not go to City
Council. Because if that's the case, how would we further look into that tree inventory
and the location of the driveway and this safety aspect and drainage.
Feik: Make a condition.
Sacchet: Okay, so okay. That helps. So I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Thanks
for clarifying. I'd like to add a few more additional conditions. I'd like to add the
condition that the applicant will provide, work with the city to inventory the trees and
consider what the best location is of the driveway in terms of trees and in terms of safety.
And what the, how the safety impact can be minimized. And then another friendly, is
that acceptable?
Slagle: (Yes).
Sacchet: Another friendly amendment that the applicant work with, ! guess that would be
engineering of the city to look into any possible drainage issues and how they could be
mitigated, if that would be deemed appropriate. Does that make sense to our engineer
there? Yeah, okay. Is that acceptable?
Slagle: (Yes).
Sacchet: And ! think that's it. Yep. We have a motion. We have some friendly
amendments.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance
#04-11 for a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet for the
construction of a single family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot zoned RSF as
shown on plans dated 2/12/04, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit a building permit before construction.
2. The single family residence must meet required setbacks.
3. Applicant meets the conditions of Ordinance No. 317 (Building Regulations).
4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees 6 inches and larger, and their
designation as removed or saved. The lot may not be clear cut.
5. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around
all saved trees. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed.
6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous 2 1/2 inch diameter trees.
7. The material placed underneath the deck shall allow drainage to occur.
8. The applicant will work with the city to inventory the trees and consider the
best location for the driveway in terms of trees and safety.
9. The applicant will work with the engineering staff to address drainage
concerns on the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Feik: Excuse me, if you might, staff if you could make a note going forward into your
files that in the future if an owner of this parcel comes in for a shed, you know permits
for sheds or other things that might not meet the hurdle of variance, normal variance
considerations and other stuff, that this be reviewed. Thank you.
Generous: We can also put the variance in the parcel, in the building permit file for this.
Feik: That would be good too. Thank you.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
RECONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION OF WALNUT GROVE 2ND
ADDITION, JOHN KLINGELHUTZ, PLANNING CASE #04-10.
Public Present:
Name Address
Susan Remaley
John Klingelhutz
Erik Johnson
Elissa Ellefson
2198 Baneberry Way West
1560 Bluff Creek
350 E. Hwy 212, Chaska
2194 Baneberry Way West.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Any questions from staf~
Claybaugh: Bob, refresh my memory. Why weren't we using some vehicle to choose
density transfer on this one?
Generous: Under the lew density residential land use guiding, the PUD ordinance does
not permit density transfer or cluster development. You would be able to, the minimum
go down to 11,000 square foot lot but you'd have to average 15,000. We weren't really
gaining anything. We can do it via this mechanism through the approval of the variances
to the lot width and the side yard setbacks to make these houses work on the property.
Claybaugh: That's all I had.
Sacchet: Rich.
Slagle: Bob, just a quick question. You mentioned that the applicant in your opinion has
come forward with a better plan. ! unfortunately was not here the first time this
application came before us. Is it possible in just a minute or so to tell me what you view
as the improvements.
Generous: Well unfortunately I left the old plan together but previously they had 4 new
units versus the 3 that they're proposing here. They have lot lines that were configured
that made people uncomfortable. They weren't straight and rectangular. It's easier, we
preserved a significant block of the primary zone and an eutlet. They provided the turn
around area on their property rather than using the existing turn around. And then of
course they're meeting the lot area requirements for this so the 15,000 square feet has a
big lot. We know these can't be further subdivided because they're at the minimum now.
Outlet A will be at a minimum have a conservation easement and drainage and utility
easements over it. Preferably it will be dedicated to the city, however that's really up to
the developer. Either way it will be protected but we can't take it as an exaction because
we don't need it specifically for park purposes.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Slagle: Okay, fair enough.
Sacchet: Any other questions from staff?.
Feik: Just one. Bob, we've seen this a number of times, and I'll ask this to the applicant
as well. There are a whole lot of conditions on this deal, and ! understand how we got
there so I'm not griping about that at all. I'm just concerned that we've reviewed or
you've reviewed with the applicant all these conditions and everybody is pretty much
bought off on them.
Generous: The majority of them are fix up for the final plat.
Feik: ! know they are so, but there's way too many to go over and I'm just making sure
that those have been adequately reviewed with the applicant.
Generous: Well ! haven't discussed it personally with him but they had the documents.
Feik: Okay, thank you. That's it.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: ! do have some questions. Condition number 3. Sewer and water services up
to, on all four lots. So do we anticipate the sanitary and water main services coming up
from the private drive?
Generous: Yes.
Lillehaug: And then up to the north? To that existing house.
Generous: Correct.
Lillehaug: Okay. And then in the same line, ! think it'd be condition 5. ! assume that
existing house has an old sewage treatment system.
Generous: That was the building official's assumption, yes.
Lillehaug: Somewhere on site it's buried because it's not hooked up to sanitary and
water main ! would assume, right? So in your condition, what does abandonment consist
of?. Does it mean totally removing it, because ! mean ! wouldn't want to just abandon
you know and sitting right behind the proposed house for Lot 2.
Generous: ! don't know if they have to fill it and.
Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug I'll just add, if you're talking about the septic tank that
might possibly be in back of the house. Typically they do allow them to fill them with
concrete and leave them in the ground. Or they can take them out. It's up to, you know
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
if it hinders the construction, typically they'll be taken out, but if not, they may choose to
leave it in the ground.
Lillehaug: And then one other question would be the storm sewer line running between
Lots 2 and 3. One of the conditions indicate to change that, well it's shown as 9 on the
very first sheet. 9 feet on each side of the property line and one of your conditions say
change it to 10 feet. It's only 1 foot in each direction but ! know that 1 foot is a lot when
we're talking in this area here. Has that fully been looked at? Is that, ! mean ! would like
to see a 20 foot easement over that storm sewer also. Is that something that the applicant
is aware of and can do in this case?
Saam: Again ! have not spoken to the applicant. ! know they have received the packet.
I'm not sure if it's a concern of their's or not.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Saam: Something will have to be done to the house though because they are at the side
yard setback of 10 feet.
Lillehaug: That's all ! have, thanks.
Sacchet: A quick question. Actually 2 or 3 of them. First of all, the outlot. Who's going
to own the outlot?
Generous: The developer would own it and that'd be dedicated to the city.
Sacchet: The developer would own it but he would sell the other lots to somebody who
lives there and then he would be the owner of the outlot?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay, ! guess that would be a question for the applicant.
Generous: He did mention to me that he'd probably dedicate it but it's.
Sacchet: Because yeah, ! mean it seems kind of an open ended thing. And it says that 2
out of these houses are walkout and 1 is lookout. Am ! correct by assuming that the
middle one is the lookout?
Generous: No, the southerly one.
Sacchet: The southerly one is the lookout. And the middle one is a walkout? Is there
enough elevation for that?
Generous: Yes.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: There is, okay. Alright, thank you for clarifying that. Then there's a comment
in the grading section on page 4 of the report. It says the proposed slopes along the east
side of the new private driveway are steeper than 3 to 1. And ! have a hard time seeing
how that works on the drawings. ! was just looking also at the grading thing. Can you
explain that a little bit? And also it seems like that private road is very narrow, if you can
help me out with that one too I'd appreciate it.
Saam: Okay, first the 3 to 1 issue. Zoom in here Nann. Thank you. It's right in this area
Commissioner Sacchet.
Sacchet: Oh, it's not the whole length. It's just a part...
Saam: No, really just at the north end where they're tying in and the street width, ! do
believe meets the 20 foot. Yeah, it's 20 foot wide.
Sacchet: Okay. And to mitigate the steepness, they could just do a little different grading
or possibly retaining wall...
Saam: Yeah, small retaining wall.
Sacchet: But it would be minimal? It wouldn't be anything...
Saam: Yes, very minimal.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, thank you very much for answering that. Yes Craig, do you have
another one?
Claybaugh: Yeah Matt, with respect to the private drive. We've talked in the past about
requiring an independent testing. Did ! overlook the condition for that or is that not
included?
Saam: ! believe we have it. ! thought ! caught that. There's a condition for inspection.
If you give me a minute I'll look it up and get back to you.
Claybaugh: Then coming back and dove tailing the chairman's question with respect to
the outlot, potentially if the developer retains ownership of the outlot, and at some future
date they could sell that outlot to an adjacent property owner, who then in turn could
acquire that square footage to make primary changes to, hypothetically if there's an
adjacent property that needed additional square footage to further develop their land, they
could actually be acquiring that square footage from the outlot and we could have a
similar situation of what we're looking at tonight somewhere down the line where
someone could come and say well, we want to do a variance for density transfer because
we have all the square footage but this area is bluff and it's not developable. Is that
plausible?
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Hope not.
Saam: I believe we are getting a conservation easement over that entire area.
Claybaugh: ! just want to make sure that someone else, the adjacent property doesn't
benefit in the same way that we're looking at this property with a different set of eyes
because it is a challenging property with respect to the bluff area. If you had an adjacent
property to it and acquired that same bluff area, that same scenario could come to pass.
What I'm asking is can you address that and say that no, that cannot happen or do we
need to look at what the possibilities are for the city having that dedicated to them as part
of this process.
Generous: I'm trying to, the city owns the property to the south. The association has the
property to the east and there's conservation easements on that so those are all
encumbered. And ! don't know if an encumbered property has the same benefits as an
unencumbered one. You'd have to ask an attorney. ! wouldn't think that you could. The
only lot, Lot 4's the only one that conceivably could benefit from acquiring that, but then
they have a wetland in the rear and they don't.
Claybaugh: I'm just posing the question. I don't, I'm not familiar with the perimeter
properties to this. ! just want to make sure the scenario that ! laid out doesn't apply here.
Generous: No, someone would have to reassemble the whole thing to really make that
work and do a PUD.
Sacchet: It's too small for a PUD.
Generous: Well, yes and no. If you're adjacent to a PUD you can go under the 5 acres.
Sacchet: Okay.
Claybaugh: Is there a reason that the city wouldn't move to have that outlot dedicated
and be done with it?
Generous: Well that would be our preference, yes.
Slagle: Is it related to park and the funds that go to the trail fund?
Generous: Right. We can't take it as an exaction as part of this development. The parks
commission doesn't want it for a public park.
Slagle: Well usually Bob, if ! can ask you, we usually have in our conditions or
somewhere in these applications the amount that would be contributed to the city, and !
don't see it in this. I'm probably missing it.
Generous: $8,400.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Slagle: What page are you on?
Generous: Page 4. Well it starts on the bottom of page 3 and goes to 4.
Slagle: Oh there we go, okay. Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Claybaugh: Yeah Bob, could you just bring that full circle for me? So your comfort
level is high that that's not a concern?
Generous: Right.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: Yes Steve.
Lillehaug: ! hit on this previously. The high water level is 963.1 and our current
ordinance is either 2 feet or is it 3 feet above? Has that been.
Saam: It's 3.
Lillehaug: It's 3 feet. So the house on Lot 1 would be, and maybe, or Lot 2 and 3 would
be my concern because they're not 3 feet above that high water level. Or is that
something addressed in the report that I'm missing?
Saam: Yes, ! believe it is in the report Commissioner Lillehaug, and I'll find the
condition for you.
Lillehaug: Good enough, thanks.
Sacchet: Is that it? With that I'd like to ask the applicant if you want to come forward
and add any other aspects to this. We've looked at this a couple months ago so welcome
back. If you want to state your name and address, and you might want to pull the
microphone over towards you please.
John Klingelhutz: John Klingelhutz, 1560 Bluff Creek. In regards to the outlot, the city
can have it. We don't want it. ! mean we don't have to argue much about that one. I'd
sooner have the city own it than me own it and we'll make that part of our end resolution
that the city gets the park, or gets that outlot.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anything else you'd like to?
John Klingelhutz: Not really. ! mean ! guess we're trying to fit it in within what you
guys want. ! mean we did the two quads, two twin homes. There was some problems
25
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
with the way maybe the decks could be built in the future, so we came back and re-
looked at it and thought that this kind of housing probably would fit better than anything
and if you really wanted to see what that is, ! mean we are doing a similar project to that
in Chaska right now with those same houses being built on them.
Sacchet: Okay, good. Thank you.
Feik: ! have a quick question for the applicant. ! know you've been through this process
for a while. The conditions are copious. You've reviewed them in their entirety?
John Klingelhutz: Yes.
Feik: And you're okay with them?
John Klingelhutz: There's nothing really in there than what we're used to doing anyway.
Feik: Alright, thank you.
Sacchet: Excellent.
Lillehaug: One question that ! hit on this earlier about inbetween Lots 2 and 3. Tweaking
that a little bit and changing it from 9 feet to 10 feet. Is that possible? Because one of the
conditions is to increase that, the setback to 10 feet so it's not encumbered by the D&U
easement.
John Klingelhutz: That's tough to do.
Lillehaug: Yep. That's why I'm asking.
John Klingelhutz: Because we only have this much room to stay out of the Bluff Creek
Overlay.
Lillehaug: ! guess that's why I'm asking. Do you plan on doing it? Because it's a
condition.
John Klingelhutz: ! don't know how we, ! actually cut down the garage some and the
garages are pretty small already. ! don't know how we can get a 10 foot setback there.
We're going to have 18 feet between the buildings.
Claybaugh: Commission Lillehaug, what condition number are you on?
Lillehaug: Well it says, ! don't remember which one it is. 22. D&U easement needs to
be 10 feet either side of the property line for Lots 2 and 3, so right there it's pretty clear
that the applicant.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
John Klingelhutz: It could be that one of those is 10 feet. We might be able to push Lot
2 over. We have a purchase agreement on the house, the old house, and in that agreement
we have 10 feet in there as being the closest that we would build another structure.
Feik: So you could move that property line northward? You can't?
Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug, if I could add one thing to this. This condition, just so
you're aware, came from the city contracts with Carver County Soil & Water to review
erosion control, grading, that sort of thing. This condition came out of that person's
review. He's not aware, and I'm sorry ! didn't mention this earlier but the city doesn't
take easements over storm sewer and private streets. We consider that private drainage,
runoff. However we will have one over the pond so that is why that condition didn't
come from us. We're not requiring a 20 foot public drainage and utility easement.
Lillehaug: So over the storm sewer between those lots you don't require that either then?
Saam: No. We would require a private easement over that, but that could be 18 feet.
Lillehaug: Sure, okay.
Sacchet: So 18 would be sufficient, is that what you're saying?
Saam: Yes. That'd be fine by us.
Sacchet: Good enough. That's what we need to hear. Any other questions of the
applicant? Okay, thank you very much.
John Klingelhutz: Thank you.
Sacchet: This is a public hearing so if anybody want to come forward, address this item,
this is your chance. Anybody want to address this? Please state your name and address
for the record.
Susan Remaley: I'm Susan Remaley, 2198 Baneberry Way West. This is where ! live.
Right at the edge, and.
Sacchet: Could you point again now that we have it on the screen. Okay, thank you.
Susan Remaley: And I'd like to thank the commission and staff and also the builder. !
think this is much better than we first saw. ! think everybody will agree that ! think this
is a much better solution, but ! do have a question regarding the turn around and maybe
Bob you could help me understand where exactly that is in this plan.
Generous: The turn around area is this hammer so that you go forward and back up and
go that way. Or reverse it. Turn...
27
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Susan Remaley: Okay. I'm not really familiar with that kind of a turn around. I do
know that there is a lot of traffic that does come down that street. ! think a lot of people
think that they can get to Galpin that way so it is fairly heavy. There's a lot of people
that do use that turn around, and ! would just want to make sure that that is pretty clear
that that is what it is, instead of people turning around in either our driveway or our
neighbor to the south. And then just one other comment. The grading. Currently on the,
! guess it would be the west side of my property. The ground is constantly wet now, in
the dead heat of summer and so ! just, ! don't know what can be done to make sure that
that runoff or drainage doesn't exasperate it any more. And ! don't know if that's
something that's been addressed or not.
Sacchet: Can you address that?
Saam: Sure. We could try to make sure that a swale will be put in along that lot line
which would carry the water down to the street, and then there's going to be storm sewer
there which can typically.
Sacchet: So it should actually improve rather than get more aggravated?
Saam: Yes, to me it appears so. It appears that we can get that water going south toward
the street.
Susan Remaley: ! just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that there's a
potential problem with the way it is right now and ! didn't want anything done that might
add to that, and again just thank the commission and Bob and the builder because ! do
think that this is a much better plan that we were first shown. And again my only
concerns would be the drainage and then also making sure that that turn around is a
viable solution and well marked. That's it.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Susan Remaley: Thank you.
Sacchet: Anybody else want to address this item? Yes, please come forward. State your
name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say.
Elissa Ellefson: Hi, my name is Elissa Ellefson and ! live at 2194 Baneberry Way West
and my concern is, has there been any decision as to the construction traffic? Where that
is going to be coming in.
Sacchet: ! think we touched on that last time this was in front of us.
Elissa Ellefson: Right, and ! don't know if that was completely decided.
Sacchet: Yeah, do we have a plan for that?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Saam: I guess it's something we should ask the applicant but I did take a look at this to
see if, last time it was brought up possibly routing the traffic off of Galpin. With the
amount of trees on the site, I wouldn't say it can't be done but it'd be pretty tight to have
trucks get around the existing house and garage and still miss some of the significant
trees. So if they can't come off Galpin, then they' re going to have to come off Baneberry
Way West, and they do have an easement allowing them access through there so.
Elissa Ellefson: That's our main concern because those roads aren't built really I don't
think to carry heavy construction vehicles and, you know it's our residential area. We
back out onto those streets and we don't wish to have construction workers parking along
there. ! mean there just isn't room with the small townhome area so that was my
concern.
Slagle: I have a question. Are you related to Tim?
Elissa Ellefson: No.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Well would it be appropriate to ask the applicant about that still in terms of
construction traffic? That's one thing we touched on last time and maybe you could give
us an idea of how you would envision that.
John Klingelhutz: I don't know if it's possible. If it is, we would try to route it off of
Galpin because I'd sooner that too but if we have to take down trees, ! don't think that's
going to be possible. But if there's a possibility that we can come in and stay on our own
land and not on the existing house land that's there, we would try to do that.
Sacchet: So we could, it would be reasonable to request that there would be no parking
in the neighborhood.
John Klingelhutz: Bob and ! can go out there and take a look and if he thinks we can do
it, we will do that.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? If not,
! will close the public hearing. Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it
back to commissioners for further discussion. Comments. Or questions. You want to
start Rich?
Slagle: I just have a couple of thoughts and one question if I may for staff that was
thought of after hearing about the turn around from the neighbor. Bob was there any
thought given to having the private drive come in further to the west and having what !
will call a half cul-de-sac put in with the homes going further to the west? ! mean in
some respects going away from the existing neighbors. ! mean with 250 feet lot lengths,
! mean it seems to me there would be room and then having, like ! said, like a half cul-de-
sac sort of each with their own little what I'll call driveway. Was that ever considered?
29
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Generous: Not that I'm aware of, and we relied on their engineer to review that mostly
and then the city approved it. We did look at, suggest one time that the turn around be on
the north end.
Slagle: Okay.
Generous: ! don't know that that's how, then you would force the people that are driving
through Baneberry Way West realize it's a dead end, drive all the way up to the end of
this little neighborhood too to make their turn around.
Slagle: Well I'll get to that in my second point but the reason I'm throwing that out is, is
if you had in essence a half cul-de-sac for those folks who go down Baneberry thinking
that it is a through street. If they miss the sign that says not a through street or a dead
end, which is my second question if there is a sign. If there isn't, then maybe there
should be, but my point is if you had a half cul-de-sac, they'd go down there. Realize
oops, ! can't get through and it's pretty easy to turn around versus what we're proposing
of they pull into these people's literally 30 feet from their house and back up and go back
out again. It doesn't seem to me to be a wise use of space. And if the applicant, I'd just
be interested in why you didn't push it back towards Galpin a little bit more...
John Klingelhutz: We tried everything here.
Slagle: Okay.
John Klingelhutz: The reason for that is, we still have the Bluff Creek Overlay zone and
then we have the wetland, and we have a 40 foot setback from that. We can't get any
closer with this house here. Now we had a half of cul-de-sac in that. That doesn't work
for the fire department because they can't turn their truck around. ! mean we went over
this thing tooth and nail trying to figure out what we can do to make this work.
Slagle: Okay. That makes sense. So the last question then Bob, is there a sign to your
knowledge, or will there be a sign to hopefully try and minimize people heading down
there?
Saam: Like a turn around ahead sign?
Slagle: No, like on our, Vine Hill Road we have not a through street.
Saam: Well we could put one in is what...
Slagle: So you'll put one in?
Saam: Yes, we can require that.
Slagle: Okay.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Actually ! have a question too. Along, is there any buffer planting along this
private street? Do we have any requirements for that?
Generous: No buffer yard.
Sacchet: No. No buffer need planting.
Generous: They get one tree per front yard and then there's some buffer planting on
Galpin.
Sacchet: Okay, but not towards the Baneberry side? Okay. Just want to be clear.
Alright, comments. Anybody have comments? No comments?
Claybaugh: Yeah, ! have a comment.
Sacchet: Comment Craig?
Claybaugh: Yeah. I'd like to extend my appreciation to the developer. ! know we had
some sit down meetings. You've been in front of us discussing this, certainly more than
once and I'm satisfied that you have certainly done due diligence to the best of your
ability and I'm prepared to support it.
Slagle: ! would add the same thoughts with one request, and ! don't think it needs to be a
condition and that is, the developer and the applicant be open to working with any of the
residents on Baneberry towards the western end of that development, if there is any
thoughts of buffer plantations or something that maybe you guys could work something
out. Help them wholesale something like that.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bruce.
Feik: I'm ready to support it. It's been through here a couple of times and I'm
comfortable with the changes that have been made.
Sacchet: Steve?
Lillehaug: Yeah, ! appreciate Mr. Klingelhutz coming back and really refining this.
Getting something that's acceptable. I'm very appreciative of that. ! think a couple
things I'd like to change for conditions before we make a motion would be, instead of
abandoning that sewage treatment site, ! think it just needs to be removed. And then
condition number 22, we need to change that to 9 feet either side. Other than that, I'm in
support.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, ! don't have too much to add. ! think it certainly makes sense that
the outlot would be owned by the city. ! don't know whether we would put that into, !
31
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
don't know how we would do... I mean it's not something that we can really make a
condition is it? ! mean that's up to the applicant, not to us.
Generous: Verbally you could, the applicant agrees to dedicate Outlot A to the City.
Sacchet: We could just state that? Okay. And if we would ask that the applicant work
with staff to consider if there's a need for a drainage swale on the east side of the private
road and also to look into how best to mitigate the impact of construction traffic.
Whether it's through assuring that if there's construction parking, they will be on the
property itself and not on Baneberry Way. Ultimately ! think the possibility of coming
off of Galpin with construction traffic is probably not that big, considering the speed of
the road, of the traffic on Galpin for one thing, and then the impact it would have on the
natural environment there. But with that I'm certainly happy to see this in front of us in
the shape that it is. ! want to express my appreciation too to you for doing that, and I'm
willing to take a motion.
Claybaugh: We'll let Bruce do it. Come on Bruce.
Lillehaug: ! make the motion the Planning Commission adopt the following three
motions. Rezoning, subdivision.
Feik: ! think you need to do them one at a time because we make changes and friendly
amendments.
Sacchet: Make three of them? Okay, one at a time. Alright.
Feik: Want me to do it?
Lillehaug: ! got it. ! make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family
Residential District, RSF.
Sacchet: ! have a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to
Single Family Residential District, RSF. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Lillehaug: ! also make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Walnut Grove Second Addition with lot width variances and one
(1) foot side yard setback variances and a variance for the use of a private street,
according to the plans prepared by Otto Associates, date stamped Received February 12,
2004, subject to the following conditions 1 through 48 and revise condition number 5.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
The old individual sewage treatment site for the existing home must be removed in
accordance with MPCA regulations. And condition number 2, revise from 10 feet to 9
feet.
Sacchet: Number 22 that was right?
Lillehaug: Number 22. From 10 feet to 9 feet, either side of the property line.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Friendly amendment?
Sacchet: Second first.
Feik: Second.
Sacchet: Okay, friendly amendment.
Slagle: You okay with adding something about a sign?
Lillehaug: Sure. No outlet sign posted at the intersection of Baneberry Way.
Sacchet: That's not an applicant thing. That's a city thing. Isn't it?
Slagle: Yeah, but why couldn't we add it as a condition?
Claybaugh: Because it's a city thing, not applicant thing.
Lillehaug: Matt, is that something the city can easily do? Very low cost.
Saam: I'm sorry, can you repeat.
Lillehaug: Adding a no outlet sign.
Saam: Yes. Yes, we can.
Slagle: So no condition needed?
Saam: No, I would recommend that you put a condition.
Sacchet: It makes sense to have a condition there?
Saam: Yep. We typically charge the developer for the signage but we put it in.
Sacchet: Okay. So it makes sense to have a condition then. Alright. Do you have a
friendly amendment?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Feik: Another friendly amendment.
Sacchet: Was that friendly amendment accepted?
Lillehaug: Sure.
Sacchet: Okay.
Feik: All parking related to contractor and contractor's employees shall be
accommodated within the parcel.
Lillehaug: Very good.
Sacchet: That sounds good.
Slagle: Clarification on that. ! mean do we really think that that is feasible given Galpin
and?
Feik: Yes. I've been there. You can't turn around on Baneberry as it is. Literally you
can't turn around in Baneberry. If there was a couple of trucks there, people would be
backing out.
Slagle: I'm with you. But then let me ask you this. Are you thinking that the
construction traffic will enter the property via Baneberry versus Galpin? I'm having a
hard time seeing how Galpin's going to be the entrance.
Feik: I'm not worried about necessary where the construction traffic comes in.
Hopefully they'll come in in a safe manner and respect the neighbors but we have to
accommodate access somehow, but as it relates to all day parking of contractors and
stuff, if they're on Baneberry, it's going to be a mess. So I'm thinking of the contractors
and their employees. They've got to be.
Elissa Ellefson: ...construction traffic. Next spring are we going to wake up in the
middle of spring and have big pot holes in front of our driveway?
Saam: Chairman Sacchet, I'll just add private streets in town, we don't allow parking on
because of their narrow width so Baneberry Way already is a no parking street. Also
with all developments we always try to encourage the developer to make sure the
contractor's park within the site, so ! feel that's something that we can take care of.
Sacchet: How about that weight of the traffic? Is that a 7 ton road or 5 ton road or what
is it? Do we know?
Saam: Well I'll say, it's supposed to be a 9 ton.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: It's supposed to be 9 ton so if it.
Saam: Yes, but this was before the ruling, yes exactly.
Sacchet: Before we made sure they were 9 ton.
Saam: So I can't guarantee that but...
Sacchet: Now assuming it is built to specs, a 9 ton road can handle the type of
construction traffic we would see.
Saam: Yeah, and this is a 90's development so we're not, ! mean it's not like these roads
are 30 years old or anything.
Generous: That's our local street standard.
Slagle: But point of clarification, if ! can ask. If they go through this construction period
and there is damage to the private road, is it the developer of this development or the
developer of the, how does the city work that?
Sacchet: How would that be worked?
Saam: Well if this was a public street and we could directly attribute it this development,
then we would try to get some type of compensation but it's not a public street, it's a
private street so.
Slagle: That's why I'm asking. I mean what's going to happen if there's damage to the
road?
Saam: Then the owner should come forward and, it's incumbent upon the private, the
townhome ownership. Maybe their president to come forward and say, you know,
mean we'll watch them too but if the residents see it, then they should come forward and
then we can get them in contact with the developer.
Lillehaug: Matt is there also an easement agreement between the two owners, since they
are?
Saam: Yeah, that's something I pointed out earlier. This property that's under your
review tonight does have an easement to come off of Baneberry Way to get legal access
to their property, so we really can't deny them that. And keep in mind we're talking 3
additional houses.
Claybaugh: Right. Is it reasonable as a function of condition number, what was it 46
Matt with the independent testing, that part of that independent. 45? As part of that
independent testing we specify that the testing agency go out and do a site observation
and any appropriate measures to basically document condition of the road in advance of
35
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
construction and then as part of their summarization, go back and look at the same
conditions and file a report with the rest of their testing findings?
Saam: That's a great idea, yeah.
Sacchet: So is that a friendly amendment?
Claybaugh: I'll put that in the form of a friendly amendment, yes sir.
Sacchet: Is that acceptable as a friendly amendment?
Lillehaug: ! think with the addition of maybe a few pictures.
Claybaugh: Yeah. Whatever appropriate documentation that the independent testing
would, and the city staff and the developer would agree upon. Photos included. You
know written text. Whatever. Just so there's some body of information on what it was
before the construction started.
Sacchet: Let me come back to my question again that wasn't really answered. A 9 ton
road, how does that compare with expected construction traffic? ! mean if they come in
with a big bulldozer and stuff like that, ! don't know how heavy these things are.
Saam: Yeah, like a bulldozer. The trailer those are carried on. They have more axles to
spread out the weight so they aren't supposed to go over what the legal load limit is of the
roads. But the only way to truly measure that is to have a scale out there. Carver
County's done it before, the deputies to tag off trucks that they feel are over the weight
limit and then actually measure them. That's really the only way to do it.
Lillehaug: They can get to Baneberry because everything going to that is a 9 ton road.
They can get there so, if they get that far they're legal anyway.
Claybaugh: Baneberry's nothing less than the roads that are leading up to it.
Sacchet: Alright. So that should be enough on this topic. Friendly amendment, but any
other friendly amendments? Or discussion actually, yes. I have more friendly
amendments. Did we have a statement that the applicant expressed intent to have the city
own 0utlot A? Another friendly amendment that the applicant work with city
engineering in considering if there's a need or how to mitigate drainage or if there's a
need for a swale on the east side of the private road.
Lillehaug: Sure.
Sacchet: To mitigate any drainage issues if there are any. And that's it. Okay. Is that it?
We have a motion. We have a bunch of friendly amendments. We have a second.
Lillehaug: Sounds good.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Walnut Grove Second Addition with lot width
variances and one (1) foot side yard setback variances and a variance for the use of
a private street, according to the plans prepared by Otto Associates, date stamped
Received February 12, 2004, subject to the following conditions:
1. At the time of final plat recording, the developer shall pay full park dedication fees for
the three lots that are subject to park dedication fees.
2. Adjust the lot line(s) to assure that all lots meet or exceed the 15,000 square-foot
minimum lot area.
3. Individual sewer and water services must be provided and for Lots 1 - 4 and indicated
on the plans.
4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before permits will be issued.
5. The old individual sewage treatment site for the existing home must be removed in
accordance with MPCA regulations if encountered during grading procedures.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-01.
7. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required on the new private street. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed.
8. Conservation easements shall be dedicated over all areas within the Bluff Creek
primary zone.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall protect trees on proposed lots as well as trees in neighboring
properties located next to the grading limits.
10. Any trees lost due to construction that are not shown as such on plans shall be replaced
at a rate of2:1 diameter inches.
11. Applicant shall submit landscape plans for city review and approval prior to final plat
approval. A minimum of one overstory tree will be required in the front yard of each
lot.
12. Buffer yard plantings are required along Galpin Boulevard. Planting requirements are:
1 overstory tree, 2 understory trees, and 4 shrubs.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
13. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before permits will be issued.
14. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around the wetland. The wetland buffer shall be 0 along the east side of
the wetland and 20 ft. on the north and west sides. Wetland buffer areas shall be
preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City' s wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
15. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths
proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40-foot
wetland buffer setback. All structures shall maintain at least a 40-foot setback from the
edge of the wetland buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, from the delineated
wetland edge.
16. The primary zone boundary shall be amended to include the wooded area in the rear
(westernmost) portion of Lot 4.
17. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the primary zone. All structures shall
maintain at least a 40 foot setback from the primary zone. No disturbance of the site
shall occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Open space shall comprise 100% of
the primary zone.
18. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. On-site storm water
ponding shall be sufficient to meet all City water quality and quantity standards.
19. A manhole with a two-foot sump shall be installed as the last road accessible structure
prior to discharge into the storm water pond.
20. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet and
outlet of the storm water pond.
21. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
buffer areas and storm water infrastructure.
22. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the 9 feet either side of the
property line between Lots 2 and 3 in order to accommodate access for future storm
water infrastructure maintenance. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated
over the areas in the western portions of Lots 3 and 4 that are currently not encumbered
by drainage and utility easements since water discharged from the storm water pond will
flow through this area as it moves toward the wetland.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
23. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if
no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Silt fence shall be provided
as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site.
24. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
25. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for
the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time
frames:
26. Type of Slope
Steeper than 3:1
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10:1
Stabilized within
7 days
14 days
21 days
27. These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water
conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or
permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man-made systems that discharge to a
surface water.
28. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
29. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 3.09 acres, the estimated total
SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $11,041.
30. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering),
Minnesota Department of Health, Carver County, Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services, etc. and comply with their conditions of approval.
31. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
32. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The
2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the
parcel at the time of building permit issuance. Hook-up charges are based on the
number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council for each lot.
33. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year
and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer must be
designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements shall be
39
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds,
drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum
easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
34. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. The
applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
35. The applicant must enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to
guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
36. Submit detailed construction plans and specifications for the public utility
improvements before final platting.
37. Construct public utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
38. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections
through the City' s Building Department.
39. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. Submit a haul route for
City approval prior to any hauling.
40. On the grading plan:
a. Revise the side slopes along the east side of the private drive to be a
maximum of 3:1 or install a retaining wall.
b. Add Type III silt fence along the secondary bluff creek zone line on the
south side and Type II silt fence along the west and east sides of the
grading area.
c. Show a minimum 75-foot rock construction entrance.
d. Show all existing and proposed easements.
e. Add a bench mark.
f. Show the storm sewer manhole rim and invert elevations.
41. On the
utility plan:
a. Show the proposed utility lines 10 feet inside the property line.
b. Add a note "connection to existing manhole must be core drilled."
c. Show sanitary manhole rim and invert elevations.
d. Show all existing and proposed utility easements.
e. Show the location of existing water and sanitary services to Lot 1.
42. On the
street and storm plan:
a. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must include a 3-foot sump.
b. Show the proposed and existing street easements.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
43. Add a legend to the plans.
44. The driveway easement must be 30 feet wide with 20 feet of hard-surface pavement
and built to a 7-ton design.
45. Submit an inspection report certifying that the private street is built to a 7-ton design.
Independent testing shall be done on Baneberry Way West to document the
condition of the road in advance of construction and at the completion of
construction to look at the same conditions and file a report with the rest of their
test findings.
46. Elevation of lowest house opening must be three feet above high water level of the
proposed pond.
47. A 30-foot wide public drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on the final
plat over the public sewer and water lines.
48. Structure setbacks shall comply with the following table:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Setbacks: front, rear, side, Bluff Creek primary zone, wetland
buffer
30, 30, 10, na, na
30, 30, 9, na, na
30, 30, 9, 40, 40
30, na, 9, 40, 40
No outlet sign posted at the intersection of Baneberry Way.
50. All parking related to the contractor and contractor's employees shall be
accommodated within the parcel.
51. The applicant expressed his intent to have the city own Outlot A.
52. The applicant will work with city engineering to mitigate drainage or the need
for a swale on the east side of the private road.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Lillehaug: And then ! make a motion, the Planning Commission recommends approval
of the conditional use permit #2003-6 for the development within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District subject to following conditions, 1 through 2.
Sacchet: Do we have a second?
Feik: Second.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the Conditional Use Permit #2003-6 for development within the Bluff
Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
1. The primary zone boundary shall be amended to include the wooded area in the rear
(westernmost) portion of Lot 4.
A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the primary zone. All structures shall
maintain at least a 40 foot setback from the primary zone. No disturbance of the site
shall occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Open space shall comprise 100% of
the primary zone."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: We'll take a 5 minute recess. We'll continue at a quarter to 9:00.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 2.1 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
WITH VARIANCES; LOTS 1 & 2 PLEASANT VIEW; 400 PLEASANT VIEW
ROAD; KENYON BLUFF, CBR DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE #04-03.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jacie & Max Hurd
Sandy Olson
Maryevelyn Monty
Larry Tivy
Tom Rollings
Don & Darlene Miller
Mary Ann & Gary McCauley
Nick Perkins
Katrina Clemens
6695 Horseshoe Curve
6696 Horseshoe Curve
370 Pleasant View Road
370 Pleasant View Road
4550 Weston Lane, Plymouth
395 Pleasant View Road
420 Pleasant View
339 Pleasant View Road
6691 Horseshoe Curve
Sharmeen A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Bruce.
Feik: I'll start. The abandonment is really a housekeeping issue. This could go forward
without the abandonment? They don't need the square footage.
A1-Jaff: That's true.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Feik: Had this come in not with a private street, 3 separate dwellings with driveways,
irrespective of how many trees they're going to knock down but 3 private driveways off
of a collection, Pleasant View ! guess and ! guess it's all Pleasant View by the time
you're done, or maybe a piece off Horseshoe. The applicant would really be allowed to
move forward on that assuming that we could meet the tree coverage issues and there's
no real restrictions on that development to bring in that way. Bringing it this way gives
us some additional tools to work with the applicant to protect the site more than it
otherwise would be able to, correct?
A1-Jaff: That is correct.
Feik: That's my questions for staff at this point.
Sacchet: Okay Bruce. Any other questions from staff?. You got any Steve?
Lillehaug: Well real quick ones. On the Klingelhutz development they have a concrete
curb and gutter and this one there's bit curb. What's?
Saam: We do require concrete curb and gutter on private streets, if I'm not mistaken so
that will have to be concrete.
Lillehaug: Alright. That's easy. 10 percent on the grade of the driveway, that's pretty
much maximum, right?
Saam: Correct.
Lillehaug: Okay, that's it. ! don't have any.
Sacchet: Craig? Rich, any questions?
Slagle: ! had one. With respect to the driveway, and ! don't know if it's an engineering
question or Sharmeen, if you can answer it. ! drive that road, if not every day, almost
every day. And that location you're going down a hill, if you're traveling from east to
west, and with a 10 degree grade, ! would, it's going to be a delicate position for that
driveway. ! mean am ! fair to say that there's probably some concerns?
Saam: Yes. I will add there's a flat spot at, they are putting in a flat spot of 30 feet
where it connects with Pleasant View so it's not steep all the way to Pleasant View.
There will be a place for cars to stop, and that's the same requirement that the city
requires on public streets, is a 3 percent flat spot.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Craig, any questions from staff?.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Claybaugh: Yes, just a second. Any concerns, I'm on sheet 4 of 6 with lot number 3.
You've got 10 percent grade coming off that driveway. You've got house elevation of
964 where the driveway is coming in intersecting with the road. It looks like you're at
963. Just in terms of how those driveways are going to come in, what that grade is going
to be like. ! mean they're going to want to flatten out that driveway in there, the 10
percent grade on whether it's a 20 foot wide driveway. You look at how some of those
are going to come together?
Saam: Yes. We pointed that out that Lot 3 does have a 10 percent driveway onto a 10
percent driveway, so it's rather steep. Really the only way around that, well maybe they
can move the house back to gain some length to make the slope not as steep.
Claybaugh: Increase the run.
Saam: Yeah. The only other way that that we came up with is maybe a small retaining
wall along, I'll call it the east side, or the side yard of Lot 3 where it matches with Lot 2.
Then they could lower that house down so it wouldn't have to come up as fast.
Claybaugh: Okay. And no concerns with respect to the street elevation and the house
elevation there?
Saam: Well there's concern. ! guess it's meeting our maximum though so we can't deny
it. However we have recommended that they look at some alternatives. But 10 percent
onto a 10 percent is a concern.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the comments, or questions ! have.
Sacchet: I have two questions. It relates to the report on page 5. You talk about that
staff is concerned with the proposed grading in the rear yard areas of Lots 1 and 2. It
points out there's a steep slope of 3 to 1 in the rear yard of Lot 1, which drains toward the
house pad. And that the recommendation is that either the house pad be raised 1 foot in
elevation or that a small 2 to 3 foot retaining wall be installed. ! want to make sure !
understand what exactly we are recommending and what kind of impact that has. In this
case, and also in the second case where there, it is pointed out in the rear yard of Lot 2
it's very steep. It's a vertical drop off over 20 feet from the house pad to Pleasant View
Road and that staff recommends to make a flatter 10 to 1 slope be used for the first 15
feet of the rear yard of that house pad along with the 4 foot retaining wall. I'd like to
understand very clearly what those two recommendations are and what kind of impact
that has in terms of possibly requiring for trees to be cut down and so forth. Is that a Matt
question? Yes ! would think so.
Saam: Yes. In each of those it's my opinion that no further trees will have to come out
than what they're showing here.
Sacchet: So yeah, like specifically like for instance in the rear yard of house 1, ! guess
that's a silt fence. Already kind of curse around one of the trees there, which actually
44
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
makes me wonder what the probability of that tree surviving in the first place. Now if we
have additional construction there with retaining wall, what have you, you don't think
that that' s.
Saam: I guess if it got into the root structure then it could potentially damage the trees.
Sacchet: But whereabouts would you see that retaining wall?
Saam: Just inside the silt fence line.
Sacchet: Just inside the silt fence line, okay. Okay. And then on the other one which is
Lot 2.
Saam: In about the same area as the silt fence. So not going any farther back to where
the trees are.
Sacchet: ...yeah, okay.
Saam: Do you understand the recommendation why? To give the future residents a little
bit of a usable back yard versus having to...
Sacchet: Which makes certainly a lot of sense. ! mean that's very understandable.
Okay. Alright, that's my question. With that I'd like to ask the applicant to come
forward and tell us any additional information that you'd like to present to us. State your
name and address for the record.
Tom Rollings: My name is Tom Rollings with CBR.
Sacchet: Would you mind to pull the mic towards you please.
Tom Rollings: I'm Tom Rollings with CBR Development, 4550 Weston Lane in
Plymouth. This is Tom Goodrum. He's also with Schoell and Madsen. ! think I'm
addressing the first question you had Lot 1. We would probably try to raise the pad first,
which.
Sacchet: Makes more sense.
Tom Rollings: It would have less impact on any future problem with that tree you're
referring to so, and ! think on Lot 2, it's not, it shouldn't affect any trees, if we had that
retaining wall, which is fine.
Sacchet: Okay, good.
Tom Rollings: If you have any questions.
Sacchet: Any questions from the applicant?
45
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Lillehaug: Sure, I have questions with your driveways. Do you intend of trying to
provide some flat spots on, maybe tweaking the grades here and there to minimize 10
percent driveway grades?
Tom Rollings: We will. We did what we could to get to meet the requirements at this
point. The nice thing about a custom home pad, we'll be able to tweak them as we go
through the grading process.
Lillehaug: How about the construction on the storm sewer across Pleasant View Road
and Horseshoe Lane. Obviously you have good intentions on fully reconstructing the
streets that are damaged and ripped up and meet the existing pavement depths and all that
when you go through there. You have to use high standards to get Pleasant View back up
to par. Do you, and then my last question, and then I'm done. Vacating that north
portion, do you plan on taking the whole vacated swath there or having the one half go to
the north property and the other half would go to your property?
Tom Rollings: ! think we have to take.
John Goodrum: What happens with the vacation, we're looking at it right now. Once
you vacate a piece of property it goes back to the original property that it came from and
in review of our initial review of this subdivision, that entire Oak Grove Avenue was part
of this subdivision and so it appears at this time in our surveyor's have taken a closer
look at it, that the entire road will come back to this property as part of the vacation.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Tom Rollings: We were planning on taking half because we just assumed it.
Tom Goodrum: Yeah, because it's still between the two parcels but.
Tom Rollings: And we don't care either way but then he found out that it was originally
belonging to the property anyway.
Tom Goodrum: The property to the north was not part of the original plat when that
right-of-way was originated from.
Lillehaug: ! guess ! do have one more. Do you have any comments on the percent to
remain in place with the trees versus what's required? It's less than what's required of 35
percent and then mitigation of the trees. Do you plan on lessening that at all to try to, !
think it's 35 percent required, is that not right Bob?
Tom Rollings: For the tree count?
Lillehaug: Yep.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Tom Goodrum: We have provided a revised tree canopy and tree count and in working
with the city staff, agreed to a calculation that we would need to add 16 trees to this site
as part of the trees that are being removed and we are willing to do that. ! don't know if
there's enough room to put 16 trees on that remaining area but we'll find room for them.
Lillehaug: That's all ! have of the developer.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any other questions from the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yeah, question. On that sheet 5 of 6 on the preliminary utility. ! should
have probably asked this of staff but while you're up with your engineer I'll ask, and if
Matt has some comments. You've just got, as ! read it, two catch basins at the bottom of
the private drive. On a 10 percent slope grade.
Tom Goodrum: That's correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. Do you think it'd be advisable to possibly position some catch basins
up for, to try to mitigate the degree of water or the runoff that's going to be coming down
that private drive? ! guess my thought is by the time it hits the bottom of that at a 10
percent slope on a good rain, it's going to blow right through that. So you're going to be
coming down a 10 percent grade with a 20 foot flat spot, hydroplaning just, you
understand where I'm going with this?
Tom Goodrum: ! understand the question and we were about to go with the catch basins
down below there. The amount of water is going to be in that small of a private drive...
flat spot towards the bottom of that road. We were comfortable with the catch basins, the
two basins to be able to handle the drainage coming off that road. We could again talking
with staff...
Tom Rollings: We could certainly re-look at that if that's.
Claybaugh: Yeah, it's certainly a concern to me... That's all the questions ! have.
Slagle: I've got a couple.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: And dove tailing with Craig's comments, and Matt address this to you as well. !
would encourage, assuming this goes through, ! would encourage you to go a little further
west on Pleasant View where there's new construction, a couple big homes, because
going directly to Craig's point, there was a rain a few weeks ago that actually caused a
puddle that took half of Pleasant View because of that private drive at that house.
Tom Rollings: ! saw that, yeah. ! know where you mean.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Slagle: So, and I'm going to guess that's probably the same type of grade that you're
looking at as well. So if you can just spend time with staff, that would be appreciated.
And then I'm going to ask one last question for just your thoughts on the placement of
this private street, and I'm not sure there's, ! can come up with a better place, but ! just
want to hear from you, are you aware that because of the turn and being situated on the
northern side of Pleasant View, that there is, that you run some risks as a homeowner
going left or right out of that property. ! mean your sight lines are not ideal.
Tom Rollings: Exactly. We've looked at that very sensitively. It is where it needs to,
we've looked at a lot of different opportunities. A lot of different options for that and !
think it's the best.
Saam: Yeah, we did, staff had wanted, what staff had directed the applicant to do was to
move the private street either as far east or as far north and west as he could, to get away
from this curve because that's really, when you're in the center of the curve like that,
that's the bad spot. And it's my understanding in looking at the grading plan, because of
grades, they're constrained to, ! mean they're at 10 percent right now. If they keep going
to the east where it drops off more, they're going to go over 10 percent so.
Slagle: Is there anything, and direct it to staff, is there anything again from signage or, is
there anything that we could put somewhere around there, because I'm again traveling
that as much as ! do, I'm just trying to think of taking a left you know and not being
totally aware of what you're doing and having a car come, going 40 miles an hour around
that curve, so I'm just wondering, have we explored all options?
Saam: We could certainly have a blind entrance, a hazardous driveway and that signed
and so. As far as the speed, ! would hope nobody would be going 40 around that tight of
curve. ! would hope so.
Slagle: That's it.
Sacchet: Questions from the applicant? No one? One question ! have, and ! know it was
a good answer. ! mean ! see you, and ! touched on that before. ! see you're silt fence
kind of circling around a bunch of trees and that kind of makes me wonder what the
probability is of these trees actually reasonably have a chance to survive. It looks like
overall you're trying to be minimizing the grading, which ! think is certainly good.
Tom Goodrum: If I could add. It's our practice, and what we always do with the silt
fencing is, not only use it as a, for erosion control but also the tree preservation fence
line. And so when you have your contractors out there with their trucks, that orange
fence really helps identifying what areas to stay out of and what, and to avoid so we do
use the silt fencing as actual tree preservation so we do locate them outside the canopies
of the trees so we are protecting those trees when we put those fences. That's why they
curve around there.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Yeah, and the grading wouldn't really allow you to take, give them a little more
space, those trees. ! mean in some cases literally it goes zig zagging around the trees,
which ! mean ! appreciate your effort to try to save them but is it really going to do the
job if you don't give them a little more space. That's my concern.
Tom Goodrum: We've identified this as, because our intent is to put the silt fencing
where they're placed to protect the trees.
Sacchet: Okay, and you're working with the City Forester on that?
Tom Goodrum: Yes we will.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, alright. I think that's all the questions we have for you two.
Thank you.
Tom Goodrum: ...it was 4 or 5 months working on this. We do appreciate your efforts.
Tom Rollings: Yes we do.
Slagle: They're a good staff.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing. I'd like to open this for comments from anybody
who'd like to come forward to address this item. Please come forward. State your name
and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say please.
Larry Tivy: My name is Larry Tivy. I'm at 370 Pleasant View Road and I'm right
adjacent to the property that Mr. Rollings is planning on developing. I came up to the
city hall right after the property had been purchased and did some inquiry. Particularly
about that street. Oak Grove Street, and was told that it was a, the ground actually
belonged to the city of Chanhassen. Hadn't been used forever, and I've been there since
1981, and that I could apply for vacancy of that. And then I went through the
documentation and the documentation said that I had to contact all people within 500 feet
of that piece of ground, and there was another complicative because that piece of ground
extends past the property that Mr. Rollings is looking at developing, going all the way to
Pleasant View Court. And I was advised that probably it wouldn't be a good idea to do
that because it wouldn't gain me anything. My concern about doing that is that when I
saw the plot layout for the homes, home number one is almost on my back deck, and I
didn't want to have that home any closer than it absolutely had to be. So now without
being notified, which I thought was a requirement by anyone about the vacancy of that,
I've been told that Mr. Rollings has just picked up 15 feet, which 15 feet on most of my
property wouldn't make an awful lot of difference but 15 feet right there is a big 15 feet
because he's going to be looking in my kitchen. And that is a real concern of mine, and I
think it's a problem that can be easily resolved by taking house number 1 and moving it
towards Pleasant View Road as close to the setback as can be allowed, and then everyone
would wind up a winner. So that's the only issue that I've got and it's a fairly significant
one as far as I'm concerned.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Thank you. Can staff address the aspect, there's basically two issues that ! see
that were raised. One is the vacation of the easement. The road easement in terms of
how this plays, and the other one is the location of house number one.
Saam: Sure. ! met with the resident, Larry back late last fall, when this originally came
in and we discussed the vacation. Most of the time with vacations, and I'll take that part
first. When the property's vacated, in this case 15 feet, typically half the property, the
property's split and half of it goes to each of the adjacent land owners. However, and this
is something that ! haven't researched yet so it was news to me tonight too. When the
applicant's engineer mentioned that in doing their research, their surveyors are saying
that the road was dedicated, it was originally part of this applicant's property. If that is
correct, then when that roadway is vacated, yes. It will go back to whoever platted it
originally. But that's something that the city has not looked into as of yet.
Sacchet: And the way the house pad is currently on the plat is like the regular setback
maybe. It doesn't show where the house exactly is going to be. It just shows the house
pad at this time. It doesn't mean the house is actually going to sit right on the setback,
but we don't really have control, we can't dictate anything beyond the regular setback.
A1-Jaff: Actually we can.
Sacchet: We can?
A1-Jaff: Because one of the things that we did when we permitted private streets as,
private streets with variances was the distance of your side yard, front yard setbacks. If
you would like to see a wider setback, a larger setback, that's one of your options. You
could require.
Sacchet: So that would be within our framework to ask that. It's still public hearing so if
you want to address that you can come forward.
Tom Rollings: Yeah, ! was talking to Tom. If! can accommodate him ! will. ! mean we
would move it. He said just looking at it with our little pencil and paper over here, we
can move it. Obviously ! think there's an impact fairly quickly on another tree, we're
going to try to avoid but we would certainly not try to, ! mean it would benefit lot selling
too as well, not that ! want to be as close to this gentleman as possible but to have as
much separation.
Sacchet: And if ! understood your comment correctly, of the resident was that with the,
potentially the whole abandoned road easement coming back to this property, that it
would even move it closer and that was really what aggravated mostly the way !
understand your comment.
Tom Rollings: We certainly wouldn't move it any closer, even though we get another.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: So that is already a given then.
Larry Tivy: But I was also going to ask Mr. Rollings to consider the closeness of the two
homes and move them closer towards the.
Sacchet: A little further over, yeah.
Tom Rollings: We will and ! don't remember which commissioner pointed it out but we
will take it as far away from the neighbor as we can to make it as pleasant for the other
owner too because as much separation is desirable for everybody in this situation. And
obviously if that means 1 foot or another 15, we'll take it as far away as possible. And
the house will not encompass the entire pad either so again we'll move it as close to them
having a little more better living space than you guys have a little separation so.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Now public hearing is still open, if anybody wants to
come forward. Yes please. State your name and address for the record.
Gary McCauley: My name is Gary McCauley and I'm at 420 Pleasant View Road. I'm
the Lot 3 and 4 so I'm familiar with the steep driveways. My concern has been that
we've been there for 19 years and haven't seen too much in the way of erosion since
Betty's been there, and with one single house. And I'm concerned about the erosion with
the elimination of some trees up there and ! see that they have deemed not to build maybe
the fourth unit that they had thought of, or they had moved houses around with the
commission was working with them. My biggest concern is any further erosion on that
basically a deer can't crawl up that side of, next to my driveway. I've seen them fall
down. It's that steep so it's a very critical area if anybody would want to take a look at.
To give you an idea, my driveway's 100 yards long and it goes up 6 stories. Along the
east side it's, well I'm 62. ! can't climb it anymore. ! used to but ! can't do it anymore
so the issue of drainage is going to be critical in that area and engineers would want to
maybe take a look at it considering what happened across the street with our new
mosquito pond that they've built. The city's built for us. So that's about all ! had.
Sacchet: In terms of erosion, is there anything that staff can offer?
Saam: They are minimizing, or they're lessening the amount of drainage which in turn
will cause erosion that's going to go off site. Most of the drainage is going to be
collected in the catch basins or additional catch basins and then routed to the pond that
was just mentioned. Versus just going off site so ! guess from staff's perspective we
didn't see that drainage and/or erosion as an issue. They're not routing more down the
bluff or anything like that.
Sacchet: So it's actually, you feel there's a sufficient catching of the drainage?
Saam: Correct.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. I saw another hand. Yes please, if you want to come forward.
Public hearing is still open. State your name and address for the record.
Sandy Olson: My name is Sandy Olson. ! live at 6696 Horseshoe Curve. ! am between
the catch basin and the pond and ! am very concerned about where that water is going to
go on it's way to the pond because it has to run down my property line and the curbs are
tar and it's going to go into my yard which is in a valley. So ! am concerned and ! would
like some assurance that I'm not going to be the catch basin for my new neighbors. !
would also like to speak to the point that you made with regard to the traffic. ! have lived
there for 35 years. The speeds on that road at night are horrendous. ! know it's going to
take a fatal accident before anything is done because it's almost impossible for the police
to enforce the mileage restriction. People do go 40. People go 50 and at night the
teenagers go 60. ! hear them because they drive right by my house. ! hear them all
summer, and nobody can do anything about it. That driveway is going to be very
dangerous for the people who live there. It's going to be very dangerous for the people
who drive by. ! realize that that's not going to stop the project but ! think you should be
aware of it. That those are the facts on Horseshoe Curve. There are no shoulders there.
There's no place for people to go. If you've got a runner in the morning or at night,
they're right on the road. Anybody who drives the road knows that. I'm also concerned
with regard to the street plan. You're talking here about a 33 foot width from the center
line. Because the roads are small, I'm on the other side of that road. I'd like to be sure
that I'm not going to pay the price that my 100 year old trees are not going to go down
because you make an agreement with people across the street and so if something has to
be done you go my direction instead of their direction. ! have surveyor stakes in my yard
that have been there since last fall without any explanation. ! still don't know why
they're there but I'm assuming somebody wants to know something, and so ! guess I'd
like to be kept informed because ! am very directly affected by a lot of the things that are
going to happen over there.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. ! think this would be good too, if you could address this
aspect. There was a section in the staff report about the widening of the easement and
that we wouldn't necessarily need the full width of a collector street in that particular
area. If you could put a little bit of a framework around that. Maybe give some
assurance in terms of where that's at.
Saam: Sure. I'll start out by saying the city at this time doesn't have plans to upgrade
Pleasant View. We're not going to be coming out there and widening it or anything like
that with this project. With that said, Pleasant View, as Sharmeen had mentioned, is a
collector. The city requires right-of-way to be 80 feet in width on collectors and what
right-of-way is is just the land that the city owns that the road is on. So 80 feet, half of
that is 40 feet and we look at half of it because this property's only on the north side.
With that said, as the city doesn't have plans to upgrade Pleasant View to a full 36 foot
collector roadway, so we don't feel the need to have a 40 foot right-of-way from the
center line. So in working with the applicant, and in looking at previous plats to the east
we're 33 feet from the center line of the right-of-way was taken. That's what we decided
to go with to keep some consistency.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: So that's consistent with older and newer developments.
Saam: Yes, to the east it is shown on these plans. We feel 33 feet will be plenty of right-
of-way for the city. If we want to increase the size of the road in the next 20 years, surely
not to 36 feet but we might add in a sidewalk, a trail, something like that. We'll have that
right-of-way now and typically we get that with developments. So again the city doesn't
have plans to widen Pleasant View so.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Yes. Public hearing is still open. Please come forward.
State your name and address for the record.
Don Miller: My name is Don Miller. ! live at 395 Pleasant View Road, directly to the
east of this proposed thing. ! have a number of comments. Number one, regarding the
easement, when we built in 1992, the park commission took the easement for proposed
trail, which ! thought I've been told by Mr. Hoffman has been abandoned and that ! could
have that right-of-way back. I've not proceeded to apply for that but ! think I'm going to
have to now. Because ! don't want a wide right-of-way there. In reference to Sandy's
comments about the corner on Pleasant View Road there, I'm, if you take an apex of the
corner, the two apex's of that corner, I'm on the opposite end. I'm on the east end. !
have had to put boulders out at the end of my yard to keep people from knocking down
the trees, the telephone pole. They take the sign out that the city has there for a 25 miles
an hour sign monthly. In fact ! finally asked the city to just put it somewhere's else. I'm
tired of picking it out of my driveway as I'm picking car parts out pretty much every
winter. That's going to have the exact opposite effect on that side when that road comes
out with Horseshoe Lane, also with the water coming down that driveway, it's going to
go across there. That's a shady spot. It's right at the apex. It's right at the top of the hill.
There's going to be a collection of ice there or a collection of salt, and somebody coming
west, or easterly, westerly bound is going to be, there's going to be an incident there and
there's going to be a bad one there. As far as the speeds, the sheriff, if you talk to him
and you will find that they've documented many times speeds in excess of 50 miles an
hour around that corner. That's why ! have all the car parts in my yard. ! realize that's
not your concern with planning and ! certainly don't want to upset the developers there
but it's a major, major issue. The other questions ! do have, are there any proposed
square footages of the footprint of the house? ! know you've got a 60 by 60 thing. Do
you have any specific plans yet for what you're going to build there?
Tom Rollings: No sir, we really do not yet. We're speculating they're going to be
probably in the 5,000 to 7,000 square foot range. Homes.
Don Miller: These are going to be 3 story homes or 2 story and walkout?
Tom Rollings: Two story with walkout.
Don Miller: So elevation wise they're going to be higher than my house which is 30 feet
higher than you guys are.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Tom Rollings: They'll be 2 story.
Don Miller: Okay. The other question ! have is for the surveyors. You guys surveyed
my lot when we built and now your surveying marks don't line up at all. You're a couple
feet apart and I've lost a couple feet to my south side. I'm curious has the world moved
or what's going on? And everybody down the line has had the same comment. In fact
my neighbor has had you guys survey for him and we both questioned it and they came
back and they said no, it's right where it is but it isn't where the old stakes were so
anyway, those are the ones ! have.
Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Please.
Maryevelyn Monty: My name Maryevelyn Monty. ! live at 370 Pleasant View Road and
Larry Tivy is my husband, and ! really, ! am very, very concerned about the size of the
homes that you are putting on this piece of property. Particularly on Lot 1, and my
husband did mention that the proximity to our property line. But when you're at the top
of that ridge, you can see, you're looking almost eye line with the roof of our house so if
you're putting a 2 story home, or maybe a 2 lA story home if you're talking about a high
basement part that would give you a walkout, we're going to have a tower over our
house, and also we might as well kiss goodbye any light after, at the end of the day. In
the afternoon because your home is going to be blocking the sun on our house. ! don't
see how that can possibly be avoided unless you put in, as you folks called them here a
rambler instead of a huge house.
Tom Rollings: And it could very well be a rambler. I don't mean to, but I would say it
could be a 2 story as well but ! can't promise a rambler. People...
Maryevelyn Monty: Right. So you're not actually developing, you're not building.
You're selling the lot. ! see, because what I'm concerned about, at the end of Pleasant
View Road, at the west end there's a huge 2 lA story home next to that cute little rambler
house that was there earlier, and now those folks don't have any sun until the sun is on
the western side of the road. So it's, to see things like that happen, that's really, we want
to stay living there so okay. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Yeah, please come forward.
Jacie Hurd: My name is Jacie Hurd and ! live at 6695 Horseshoe Curve. I'm on
Horseshoe Curve. ! drive Pleasant View Road every day. It's my only outlet and my
concern frankly is the safety of that road. ! know it's been talked about tonight. ! have a
few ! guess suggestions that maybe we could think about. ! did send an e-mail requesting
this. ! was wondering maybe if it would be possible to put a sidewalk on that property,
and ! know that the answer from Matt ! believe was that typically the city won't put a
sidewalk that leads nowhere and ! understand that. That makes a lot of sense to me. But
I'm a walker and I'm a driver and my children used to be bicyclers and there is nowhere
to go on that road when there are cars coming. And on this particular spot on the road,
54
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
since it is that curve, if we could just offer just a little respite for somebody. I know that
ideally we'd love to have the whole road sidewalked and that's just not going to happen
in our lifetime. ! don't see it happening for the entire road, but perhaps if we do it piece
meal where we can and then as perhaps other people subdivide their properties, we can
perhaps add onto that sidewalk. It at least would offer someplace to get away from that
traffic if you're walking. And my second suggestion, which also goes to the same safety
issue is, ! was told that the entire length of Pleasant View Road is no parking, which I've
lived there for 15 years and frankly ! did not know that. There are cars parked there
every single day along Pleasant View Road and there is not room for them. ! personally
know of two accidents that happened because of that and ! don't know if they can enforce
that no parking or perhaps say there really is no parking on this road but that might help
just a little bit on the traffic issue. And then the third issue is maybe they could strip the
road, and ! know that there's not really enough room on either side to actually have two
sides but if they put some sort of a divider down the middle it might at least mark a
territory. ! don't know. Those are my suggestions. ! think the project is going to go
forward. Obviously that steep driveway is, it's scary so thank you very much for your
attention.
Sacchet: Thank you. Yep, we've got a couple other people. Please come forward.
Mary Ann McCauley: I'm Mary Ann McCauley. ! live at 420 Pleasant View Road and
I'm tremendously dismayed over the thought of having 3 houses on that property. We
bought 2 acres in the woods because of the ambience. Because of the seclusion of the
house and the thought of having 3 huge houses of 5 to 6,000 square feet with people
breathing down my neck, ! think is really disappointing and ! would be very disappointed
if this project goes through. ! think it's at least one house too many. I'm concerned like
everybody else about the safety. Somebody said earlier that the average trips or 6 a day
per, or 10 per day per household. That's 60 more cars coming in and out potentially if
you think about trips out on a curve that's already blind. If ! make more than 2 trips a
day out of my driveway, ! need at least one person on the wrong side of the road in front
of Don Miller's house and ! also run the great risk of getting broad sided nearly every
time ! leave my driveway because it's blind and people drive too damn fast. And add all
of that traffic coming out on that corner ! think is a really serious issue and ! think you
should reconsider how many houses you allow to be built on that property. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Your turn.
Nick Perkins: Nick Perkins, 339 Pleasant View. ! think we know there's a traffic issue
on that corner.
Sacchet: Looks like we have pretty clear agreement on that one yeah.
Nick Perkins: Yeah, ! won't harp too much on it but ! just want to throw into the mix
that we also have Horseshoe Lane and Horseshoe Curve dumping into the same area so
although we have a steep area, we also have two different streets that are meeting
Pleasant View so we have like what, five all coming together. So we need some
55
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
regulation of some sort in that area. The other concern that I have is, I'm at the bottom of
the other side of the hill so we talked about drainage. ! think ! talked to you Matt about
it' s all going to be funneled the other direction. For the most part. ! don't have a pond at
the bottom of my hill. ! do, it's been somewhat there. It's not legally there ! don't think
but there's something there right now but it still does dump across my road, or excuse
me, my front yard. There's a collection and then it goes across the rest of my front lawn,
so if we have a great problem and it does bypass the collection, it will end up in my front
yard, as long as it's on my side of the hill. So that's one major issue is the drainage. And
! know that the drainage was an issue for the previous owner. I've only been there a year
and so I'm coming into this with kind of no knowledge but some stuff has been pieced
together basically, if there's any more water, it will be a major issue on my side. That's
all ! have.
Slagle: Quick question. Where are you?
Nick Perkins: 339.
Sacchet: Can you show it on the map?
Nick Perkins: I'm here. So again ! need something to regulate the amount of water that
comes there or dump it somewhere else because also my other neighbor who's not here,
the larger property here, he doesn't have anything across his property at all. It goes over
the top of his yard and into...
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Yes,
we have somebody else.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. In Chapter 18, Subdivision. Section
40, unless waived by the city the plat should show the location of building and structures
within 150 feet. ! don't know if it was waived or not but ! think it's important after
hearing the neighbors talk about their properties. And then in Section 20, in the zoning
58, under variance. Point 6. You may have already read through this but, a variance may
be granted if all the following criteria are met. Criteria 6 is, again after hearing the
neighbors, that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public street or
increases the danger of fire or endanger the public, safety or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood. That's all ! wanted to add, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Staff, can you help us out with this house location within 150
feet. Is our proposed house pads fulfilling that or?
Saam: What she was referring to was the existing house pads and that's a good point and
when Larry came up and mentioned that he's so close to this property, I just noticed that
they're not showing his house so that's something we'll get on the next addition.
Sacchet: Right, I was wondering about that. Okay.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Saam: ! think Sharmeen will take the next one.
A1-Jaff: As far as the variance goes, Debbie is right as far as zoning variances. However
what we have in this case is actually a subdivision variance and the requirements are just
slightly different.
Sacchet: It's a different set of rules. Okay.
Claybaugh: Could you expand on that Sharmeen.
A1-Jaff: It is.
Generous: Section 18-22.
A1-Jaff: Correct, and if you turn to page 10 on your staff report. Basically what you look
at is the topography of the site. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience and then
conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to
other properties, and those are the only three criteria you look at when you're evaluating
a subdivision.
Sacchet: That's a subdivision variance. Okay.
Feik: But Sharmeen, the variance is primarily for the private street.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Feik: ! mean the applicant has proved that he could develop this with a public street if
chosen. So the variances being sought as an accommodation for the city and for
accommodation of the trees and some other things so really we're looking at the variance
that they're bringing to us quite frankly as a trade off in our favor. They could bring this
in without a variance if they wanted to and the result of that would be significantly more
lost trees, am ! not mistaken?
A1-Jaff: That as well as you could potentially have individual driveways that.
Feik: 3 or 4 driveways. ! just wanted to bring that back to why we're looking at
variances here.
Slagle: If ! can ask a question to staff. Sharmeen, can you address the point that was
mentioned by the last visitor at the podium regarding a light. In other words what I'm
getting at is, if house 1 call it was quite large, and I'll give an example. Go to the very
eastern, western side of Pleasant View off Powers. We are familiar with that big green
house that got put in. ! mean was that okay? ! mean that met all requirements and
plopped it in there and so, with the example of light, you know explain.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
A1-Jaff: Typically if they meet setbacks, in that specific house that you're talking about.
! mean the neighbors, the next door neighbors came in and wanted to stop that house
from going in. But because they have met all required setbacks, all requirements of the
ordinance, there was nothing that could be done to stop it.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright, public hearing is still open. If there's anybody else who'd like to come
forward at this time. Otherwise, yes there is. Alright.
Janet Paulsen: Well unless the code has changed, condition number 4 for a variance said
the granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is
in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and the
comprehensive plan. Has that been removed? That's in Chapter 18. Subdivision. That's
all ! had to say.
Sacchet: Thanks Janet. Does staff have any comment to that?
A1-Jaff: ! think Mrs. Paulsen is referring to missing number 4. The number itself.
Sacchet: That should be a number 4.
A1-Jaff: ...where it says the granting of the variance.
Sacchet: Oh yeah, ! see where the number's missing. It is in the staff report on the
bottom of page 10.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: It actually says the granting of the variance will not substantially be detrimental
to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the
zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. And then the associated finding basically
affirms that, correct?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, or Commissioner Feik pointed out the granting of the variance
is for the private street which we believe is for the betterment of the community for the
preservation of trees and that.
Sacchet: Correct. Yes please. Come forward. State your name and address for the
record.
Katrina Clemens: Katrina Clemens and I live at 6691 Horseshoe Curve and I just had a
question and ! just want to make sure we're not losing something by agreeing to go with
58
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
a private street to get one driveway, we're reducing the hard cover so that's increasing the
house size that's available to go on there? Is that true or no?
Sacchet: Not necessarily.
Katrina Clemens: Okay. I just want to make sure that that's not the case. We don't want
3 driveways. Nobody does because of the safety aspect.
Sacchet: But you don't have smaller houses.
Katrina Clemens: Well, or is there a way to compromise there? So that was my
question.
Sacchet: No, they're not directly related. Alright, unless there's anybody else, ! will
close the public hearing. Thank you for all your comments and bring it back to the
commission for further discussion and comments. Who wants to start? Bruce.
Feik: I'll start, why not.
Sacchet: You look like you're ready.
Feik: I spoke with staff at length today regarding this and in all deference to all the
neighbors, it's a beautiful site. It's a beautiful neighborhood. Everything about it is
beautiful. The staff has worked long and hard with this applicant. There are other rights
and privileges that this applicant could be employing that would be significantly more
detrimental ! believe to this site than approving what we have here. If this, I've done
some rough calculations. If this was a flat site, you'd be looking at 5 houses at 5,500
square feet. I'm just saying, if it were flat, it would be 5 and so you know, just to put
things into perspective here so. I'm looking at this and understanding the amount of
work that' s gone in by the applicant and the staff and ! fully support the application.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Any comments, discussion Steve?
Lillehaug: Sure. I'll try to make mine quick. And just to go on a little more that Bruce
is saying. These lots that they're proposing, they're very gracious lots comparatively.
They're pretty big lots. They could go smaller so that's a plus. They're trying to save
every tree possible that they can and that is just a huge benefit to the neighbors. A couple
of comments on trying to provide a walk in that area. ! would have to disagree and not
support any walk being constructed in that area, and having broken segments of walk and
the reason being ! think it's good engineering practice not to have the different segments
of walk because if I'm a driver on that road, and if ! see a walk, you've got to look at
driver expectancy and if he sees, and if the walker, pedestrian see a walk in one area and
not in the other, you want to maintain a consistent driver expectancy and pedestrian
expectancy and by adding a walk in and then taking it out and adding it in, that's not a
good thing so ! wouldn't support a walk in that area. But ! would recommend that the
neighbors petition the city to put a walk in for the entire length to connect up with other
59
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
segments of walk. Storm sewer. Right now there isn't any catch basins I don't think on
that property, or on that driveway. The developer is not increasing the runoff rate that
significantly so ! think by them adding the two catch basins that they do have there, it's
going to improve the drainage on all the adjacent properties, and they'll work with staff
to even further improve that so ! think they are addressing all your concerns of what
they're doing to be detrimental to your property. ! think they are being sufficient in that
matter. Other than that, ! think what I'm hearing is problems with Pleasant View and not
this development. ! think what they're bringing to the table is really everything they
possibly can and ! fully support this proposal.
Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Rich, not for the comment? Craig?
Claybaugh: Yeah, ! have a few comments. ! guess ! agree with most of what
Commissioner Lillehaug said with the exception of the sidewalk. That is such a tight
curve, it is such a blind curve and ! think the expectations are expect the worst and that's
what you're going to get. ! think a sidewalk in that area, even though it is non-
contiguous, may be a safety valve to allow people to negotiate that very blind, tight curve
on a narrow road. Like ! said, it doesn't necessarily lead anywhere but ! think it goes a
long ways towards mitigating some of the safety concerns. With respect to the
development as a whole, ! believe it's a reasonable use. Again the largest lot size on lot
size 1 is 43,000 square feet. Our ordinance is 15,000 square feet. ! am troubled by the 10
percent grade, but once again as our city engineer identified, that's within our city codes,
ordinance and statutes. There isn't anything within respect of what we review in this
body that we have the latitude to deny based on the neighbors concerns. Like ! said,
there's adequate square footage. There's adequate setbacks. They're not putting in
property that, or building houses that they require variances specifically for the house.
The variance is for the private drive. ! would like to see the developer's engineer and city
staff review the need for some intermediate catch basins. ! personally believe that by the
time on a good rainfall that by the time it hits the bottom of that 10 percent grade, it's
going to blow through those catch basins at the bottom so I'm in favor of looking at
catching them further up and helping mitigate that problem. ! would support it and ! do,
would like to identify, ! do appreciate the developer's tone in response to some of the
neighbors concerns insofar as that he's able to address them. So that's all my comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. A few things I'd like to add. ! definitely want to add to the
comment that was just made. ! think it' s very refreshing to have an applicant that shows
this amount of willingness to work with all aspects, try to accommodate everybody. !
definitely want to commend you for that. It's very much appreciated. The specific items,
we have that condition here with the house on Lot number 1, whether the house should be
raised or a retaining wall in the back, ! mean the applicant expressed that raising makes
more sense. It makes more sense to me. It would have less impact on the environment so
! would propose that we not say or and say it's going to be raised rather than or have a
retaining wall in the back. In terms of the setback to the north of that house pad, ! would
think that was very clearly expressed, that the applicant would try to accommodate as
much as possible the concern of the neighbor to the north to have as much distance
between the dwellings there. Safety is definitely an issue and as was mentioned, it's not
60
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
necessarily specific to this particular development. Certainly if there's anything we can
do to encourage the city to look into how that can be mitigated with enforcing speed limit
or posting and so forth, ! think that'd be appropriate but ! can't tie it specifically to this
development. ! don't think that'd be fair. ! like not having the parking marked along
Pleasant View. ! mean those are city issues. They're not issues for this particular
development. The drainage aspect, ! like your idea Craig that additional catch basins
would help with that and considering there is no such facility in place at this point, you
would expect that the drainage problems should be improved. Certainly not get worst.
With the tree preservation, again the applicant has expressed willingness to work with
city forester and maximize the chance of those trees to survive that are right on the line
where you're grading. So ! would want to encourage that to really be carried through.
And then my final comment in the findings of fact to the subdivision, finding E it states
the proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. ! would like to tone that
down and say something like the proposed subdivision will not cause excessive damage
or something to that effect because ! think cutting down 50 percent of the trees certainly
is an impact on the environment, but under the circumstances if we say it's not excessive
or it's being mitigated to the extent possible, then that would be more closer to the reality
of what we're saying so that's my comment. With that ! would like to have a motion.
Feik: I'll make a motion. I move the Planning Commission recommend the approval of
a preliminary plat for planning case 04-03 for Kenyon Bluff for 3 lots and a variance to
allow private street as shown on plans received February 6th. February 26, 2004, subject
to the following conditions, 1 through 22 with a change to item 11 that the commissioner
spoke of. Removing the either or language. Raising that one foot and deleting the
remaining portion of that requirement.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: Second. Friendly amendment?
Sacchet: Friendly amendment, go ahead Craig.
Claybaugh: Staff, if you could tell me what is reasonable and how this could possibly be
structured but ! would like to add a friendly amendment to incorporate a sidewalk on the
adjacent property to Pleasant View Road with the intent of mitigating the severest
component of that curve and the sight lines. I'm not necessarily advocating that it has to
run the total perimeter adjacent with Pleasant View Road but with respect, ! have seen a
number of joggers out there, walkers, ! think Ladd's out there on cross country skis if I'm
not mistaken. That's what we're talking about right? Yeah, that something where people
have an opportunity to at least defend themselves negotiating that curve ! think would be
at least a reasonable response. We certainly can't address most of the concerns that the
neighbors have but ! believe that that is one that we can so what, how could that be
reasonably structured, if ! could get some input from staff.
Saam: If you don't want it along the entire property boundary, maybe from the radius
end points of the curve. That would...in the worst place.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Claybaugh: And ! guess ! would leave it at the developer's discretion, if you wanted to
run it at the perimeter or if he was willing to do that as an offering to the neighborhood,
that'd be fantastic. ! guess mine would be stated that ! would want it to the radius points
as identified by Matt as a minimum.
Feik: Before ! accept, ! know Commissioner Lillehaug has a different opinion and I'm
bending a little bit his direction. Do any of the other two gentlemen have a comment
regarding that?
Slagle: ! have a question. The two, correct me if I'm wrong Matt. It looks like there's
two parcels to the northwest, or west as you go along Pleasant View, is that correct?
From this site. That would sort of take up that big stretch of Pleasant View on the north
side. Is that correct? Two additional property owners in essence. So three total. So you
own both.
Audience: 3 and 4.
Slagle: Well good because my next question was going to be, are the owners here.
Would you guys be open to discussing with the city a sidewalk on the north side of
Pleasant View?
Audience: If they take one house off the development...! don't want 3 houses in there.
Slagle: If ! can just close the thought though. ! mean ! would be as one commissioner
totally supportive of a sidewalk if it went the entire length of that section, because ! think
that that, Steve to your point of consistency. ! mean to me as a driver who does that
daily, ! mean that would be enough of a consistency and perhaps would be an impetus for
the city and other land owners to start to put, because that road truly does need some type
of shoulder/trail, and maybe if! can add. If the folks here are as loud as the folks were on
101, you might end up with something at some point. But ! mean ! think ! would
encourage a discussion.
Lillehaug: Could you have them point on a bigger map of where you're exactly talking.
Sacchet: Yeah, let's make sure we all understand.
Lillehaug: And then if ! can comment. You're exactly right. It's going to increase
safety right, it's going to increase it right there, but then you look down Pleasant View
where they don't, where there isn't an opportunity for this, and what I'm saying is, the
driver may expect that in other locations and then all of a sudden it's not going to be there
and it's going to make other locations less safe so ! will not support putting in a short
segment of walk around that radius. It lessens safety in other locations.
Sacchet: Just the radius. But how about the whole stretch there?
62
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Lillehaug: Well what is the whole stretch is what I'm saying.
Sacchet: Let's make sure what we're talking about.
Slagle: No, I'm talking all the way down to.
A1-Jaff: Indian Hills.
Sacchet: To Indian Hills.
Slagle: Indian Hill Road.
Sacchet: That's from Indian Hill to around the curve.
A1-Jaff: If you look at the first page of your staff report, there should be a map.
Lillehaug: Yep, that's what I'm looking at.
Slagle: Just go northwest. Steve, all the way to Indian Hill Road.
Lillehaug: Yep.
Slagle: Maybe that be better.
Lillehaug: Sure, that'd be better.
Sacchet: But then how far up on the other side.
Slagle: I mean ifI can throw out for the... I mean we're throwing out some thoughts that
need to be discussed with landowners and stuff but I do think to.
Claybaugh: It's an opportunity is what it is.
Slagle: Yeah.
Lillehaug: But we can't hold the developer to do that stretch there.
Claybaugh: But we can, certainly can discuss it in the context of the property that's in
front of us.
Lillehaug: For that whole stretch?
Claybaugh: No.
Lillehaug: Oh, just for that piece. Right, but then who's going to construct the other
portion? I mean is the city going to act on that at the same time?
63
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Saam: Chairman Sacchet, if ! can address a couple comments to Commissioner
Lillehaug's, what he just said. First off, we're talking about a sidewalk along a steep,
we've got a bluff here so we're talking retaining walls. This isn't a flat area that we just
go out and grade a little and pave concrete sidewalks. Secondly, to what Commissioner
Lillehaug said, sure. In this development we can require the developer to put it in, but
once we get off his property, now we're talking a public improvement project with
assessments and if we don't have right-of-way, with the city obtaining right-of-way
and/or easement.
Sacchet: It's a big thing.
Saam: Yeah. This is more than just slapping a sidewalk in and so just so everybody' s on
page with that.
Lillehaug: That's why ! think it should be petitioned as a city as something separate and
not included as part of this because it's, ! don't agree with it and ! guess ! wouldn't
support it and I'll leave it at that.
Sacchet: Would there be a balance point in, you were kind of asking more sentiment.
Balance point of having some sort of a provision with this development that this can be
accommodated at a future.
Claybaugh: Or at least achieve the right-of-way.
Sacchet: Yeah.
Feik: Well we have the right-of-way already with the replatting of this.
Saam: Yeah, we'll be getting the right-of-way. Maybe if ! hear where you're going
Commissioner Sacchet, maybe we get additional funds and a letter of credit and hold it
for ! don't know, 5 years or whatever so if we do do a project, then we have the funds
from this developer.
Sacchet: Yeah, ! don't really have the specific idea how to do it. I'm just trying to find
what is the balance point and.
Lillehaug: Wouldn't it be assessed anyway by those same property owners so what
would really be the use of it though ! guess. ! mean it would be assessed to those same
properties if it was put in so why muddy it up and have...
Claybaugh: Can I address a question of Commissioner Lillehaug. I don't understand the
down side of a driver expectation expecting pedestrians. ! don't see the down side of
that. If there's a segment of sidewalk, ! understand that you would like it to lead
somewhere but in terms of that curve and the amount of restrictive sight lines associated
64
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
with it, the road width, the concentration on the road and the rest of it, the driver comes
around there expecting a sidewalk and they're expecting a pedestrian.
Lillehaug: Sure, right there. I mean that's great but.
Claybaugh: If they're driving on and they're expecting more pedestrians somewhere
else, I don't see the down side of that. That's just makes a driver.
Lillehaug: If you go on another corner and it doesn't have the walk there, the driver's
going to be expecting that walk to be there. They're not going to be looking for it and
expecting it. They're going to be expecting pedestrians to be on that walk and there's not
going to be a walk there. So they're going to be in the road. I mean that's, I guess I
don't know how to explain it any clearer but.
Claybaugh: No, that's fair enough.
Saam: Commissioner Sacchet, if I could just point out one last thing. It is our opinion,
city engineering that this entire area be looked at in terms of a sidewalk or for a trail and
not do it piecemeal. I guess that's our opinion, just so you know where we stand, and I
think the park director said something to that effect too. That they're not looking for a
pedestrian route in just this area. I could maybe see if we do an entire trail from Lotus,
North Lotus Park I think it just to the northeast on Pleasant View. All the way down to
Indian Hill or wherever. Maybe that would be something that would fly.
Slagle: And there was a reference by a visitor suggesting that in dialogue with the park
director that this person would be able to get back their right-of-way which I wouldn't
think would be correct, is that?
Saam: Yeah, I'm not privy to the situation he referred to but typically we don't give it
back if it's a planned trail and.
Feik: Before I accept or decline, Matt do you want to weigh in on this a little bit rather
than, you think from the city's perspective that it would be advantageous or a detriment?
Saam: We wouldn't be for it. Not in this piecemeal fashion.
Feik: That being said I won't accept the friendly amendment.
Claybaugh: I will withdraw my friendly amendment in a not so friendly fashion.
Feik: So noted.
Claybaugh: That being your parting gift.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. We have some attempted
friendly amendment and do we have any more attempts of friendly amendments?
65
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Claybaugh: No, we're not friendly any more.
Sacchet: No, you're not friendly anymore. Alright. You're giving up on the friendly
part. Alright, we have a motion. We have a second.
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 04-03 for Kenyon Bluff for 3 lots
and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans received February 26,
2004, subject to the following conditions:
Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions:
a. Applicant shall submit landscape plan showing the 16 trees required to be
planted. Trees shall meet minimum size requirements.
b. Minimum bufferyard planting requirements for Lot 3 includes 2 overstory
trees, 4 understory trees and 9 shrubs.
c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed prior to grading at the perimeter of
the grading limits.
d. Any trees not shown for removal that are lost due to construction activities
will be replaced at a rate of2:1 diameter inches.
The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on
two of the three lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing
single-family home on the property. The park fee on two single family homes
totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting.
Submit a 30-foot wide private cross-access easement against all three lots at time
of final plat recording.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained,
including but not limited to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and
Watershed District.
The storm sewer must be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit
storm sewer sizing calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at
time of final plat.
The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height
must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
Also, it will require a building permit through the City's Building Department.
7. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
8. Show all of the existing and proposed utility easements on the utility plan.
9. On the grading plan:
66
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c. Show a minimum 75-foot rock construction entrance.
d. Extend the silt fence along the south and southwesterly sides.
Add
a.
b.
to the plans the following notes:
Any connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled.
All sanitary services must be 6" PVC-SDR26 and water services 1" copper.
On Lot 1, the house pad must be raised one foot in elevation to better facilitate
drainage away from the house.
On Lot 2, 10:1 slope must be used for the first 15 feet off the rear house pad along
with a 4-foot retaining wall.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the
applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic
control plan.
The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new
lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for
water-main.
Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for
review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with
the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit
or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of
final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to
be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health,
MCES, and Watershed District.
The private street must be built to a 7-ton design. The developer will be required
to submit inspection reports certifying this.
The existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed.
Water Resource Coordinator Conditions:
a. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures.
b. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the
site.
c. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal
to 3:1.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
19.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent
cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table
of slopes and time flames:
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3:1
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10:1
Stabilized within
7 days
14 days
21 days
These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm
water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer
inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made
systems that discharge to a surface water.
e. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street
scraping and street sweeping as-needed.
f. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time
of final plat recording, is $6,860.
g. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit
proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street
lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer
boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and
operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
c. No burning permits will be issued for tree/shrub disposal. Any trees
removed must be removed or chipped on site.
20.
21.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing
structures.
b. A building permit must be obtained to construct any retaining walls over 4
feet tall.
c. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before building permits will be issued.
Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the
vacation of the right-of-way.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
22. Access to all three lots shall be limited to the Private Street. Direct access is
prohibited off of Pleasant View Road."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Feik: I'd like to make an additional note though before this goes to City Council. That it
be very clear, either in our summary or in the packet someplace that the variance being
requested is done so at the request of the city so that is a little bit more clear when it gets
to City Council.
Sacchet: Yeah, and in summary for council ! also would like to point out some of the
concerns that came up in our discussion. And from the comments from the residents.
Namely the concern of the neighbor to the north of the proximity of house number one
specifically. And in that context expression of the developer that they are willing to
accommodate that as much as possible. The concerns that are not specifically related to
this development like safety on Pleasant View Road, in terms of speed, in terms of the no
parking not being signalized sufficiently, potential concern for a sidewalk and finally
concluded not to have included in our motion but that it's really ultimately also more a
city concern than a concern for this particular development. The drainage concerns. In
combination with the steepness of the private road. That it's something that probably
engineering could add a little more weight to how much the new drainage facilities can
mitigate drainage problems. To what extent it would be practical to have additional
drainage facilities further up the hill. To not just catch it on the bottom. If that makes
sense from an engineering viewpoint, that that would be considered. And then finally the
tree preservation. That it appears certainly that the last thing, just about every other
aspect for that matter the applicant expressed great willingness to work with all the
concerns he had. And in the context of the trees, to work with the city forester to place
the silt fence as far away as possible from the trees they're trying to save. Any other
aspects that you want to...
Claybaugh: Yeah, ! want to clarify my position that ! don't believe that the safety
concerns that I'm trying to address are a result of the development going in. Something
that's been there. Will continue to be there before and after the development goes in.
This is just ! perceive as an opportunity to try and address it and mitigate it.
Sacchet: Yeah, and to add to that point that some of us felt that even a partial sidewalk
could help mitigate the safety concerns for pedestrians around that curve. However that
really it has to be put into a larger context as staff pointed out. That we can't just put that
in and add in combination with the steep grades to the north, on the westerly part of
Pleasant View, that it would really be a rather complex situation to deal with. But that
City Council should be very clear that we tried to look at that as an opportunity with this
development to get something rolling. That's it. Okay? That's it for that one. Thank
you very much. Let's move on to our next item.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING:
REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. THESE CHANGES AFFECT ARTICLES I
THROUGH XXXI OF THE CHAPTER AND ARE INTENDED TO UPDATE AND
CONSOLIDATE THE ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chair and commissioners. Let's start with, we're back
tracking now. The cover memo for tonight's application.
Sacchet: So which page are we on?
Generous: Well it's page 11 of the strike through bold.
Sacchet: No, no. We were on page 47.
Generous: We were on 46.
Sacchet: 46, alright, alright.
Generous: But as far as the cover memo, that deals with page 11.
Sacchet: Yeah that's right. You had a specific one on page.
Generous: And regarding the non-conforming lots and non.
Sacchet: Oh here it is. Alright. Cover page.
Generous: Non conforming lots of record. Section 20-73 and it came up tonight with the
first hearing item. We had sub-standard lots that were platted you know 80 years ago.
They met ordinance at the time we adopted our ordinance we created non-conformities.
Right now we have this in here that says if it meets 75 percent of the ordinance we don't
have to give a variance. In discussing this with the city attorney's office they said well,
you have to provide them with a reasonable use. At some point you're right, it's
undevelopable. And maybe we should get rid of the percentage thing and say as long as
they can comply with the standards in the zoning district, site coverage, minimum house
size, two car garage and impervious coverage, then that would be the point that they
would have.
Claybaugh: What ! was looking for from the city was, if ! come in with a two story.
You're going to take my garage at 24 by 24, if you consider that the standard. Calculate
that. You're going to calculate my 600 square foot footprint, and my two story building
on that lot. And you're going to give me a reasonable drive. Minimal drive, but a
reasonable drive, and my sidewalk and you're going to tell me how many square foot of
hard coverage that's going to be, and you're going to come up with a formula for that and
say if somebody comes in with a two story application, they can't make it reasonably
under this amount of square feet period because in order to meet all the city housing
70
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
standards and the standards to have a garage and the rest of it, they have to have at least
X amount of square feet. So to me it's a done deal. If somebody comes to you with an
application for a variance to put a house on a lot on a legal non-conforming, and they've
got 7,000 square feet, 7,200 square feet and they come in with a rambler, ! expect you
to... at that point that you can or cannot make it with a two story, but you should be able
to set those minimums in front of them right there and now.
Feik: How do setbacks fall into this? ! mean you could theoretically bring in one of
these smaller lots that was alluded to earlier, that based on the setbacks there's no
buildable area. Would that preclude them from having what we'll call reasonable use for
this? ! mean.
Sacchet: A reasonable use might be a park bench there.
Generous: That it is a permanent open space. It's not large enough to support a house
that the city has determined is the minimum standard.
Claybaugh: Right. What I'm talking about is the term we apply to reasonable use. You
know we're up here debating whether or not that lot reasonable use is a single family
dwelling. And what I'm talking about is establishing a base line just based on square
footage to start with, and then going to the modifying factor, like Bruce is talking about
with setbacks so on and so forth, but I'd like to either stop the people at the door if in fact
that lot you know doesn't meet those minimums.
Feik: So for example a 30 foot wide lot is basically deemed unbuildable for a dwelling,
is that what I'm hearing you say?
Claybaugh: What I'm looking for is a couple prototypes or models. If you take a
standard 2 story building and you use your own standard of 600 square feet for a
footprint, okay. In terms of configuration, you're not going to come up with anything
more narrow than a 20 by 30. You know. Just run a few of those models, a few of those
scenarios on a couple two or three building types for a rambler, for a split level, for a two
story. Okay, come up with your calculations and establish your thresholds. Anything
below that threshold, based on those, based on calculations, wouldn't be deemed
reasonable use for a single family dwelling. So then if it comes in above that, then
they've got some latitude to move left and right with their house design but if it doesn't
come in above that, ! wouldn't think that it would be suitable for a single family
dwelling. Or at least you can advise people that are coming in and saying, you don't
have enough for a rambler. You're going to have to, this will only you know, you can
only do a two story on this. We've run the calc's on it and this is a possibility, but rather
than having people come into us and saying we've got a Carver lot beach, or a lot on
Carver Beach, and it's 8,000 square feet and coming in with a 2,500 square foot house
plan on it. I'd rather the people at the door be told okay, this is what the ordinance is and.
Because ! think it's important for people to understand, they come in and typically what
they come in front of us and justifiably so, from their perspective, they say ! have 3 kids.
! have X, you know we need X number of bedrooms. We need X number of bathrooms.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
You can only get that in 1,500 square feet. Well they're right. You can. But that also
means that that house may not be for that lot. That lot may not be for you and that's what
! would like staff to make people, or help people ! should say, understand when they're
coming in and going through the process.
Sacchet: ! think that's a real good point Craig. We really do have some clarity with that.
! mean because if it fits, like the thing tonight, ! mean if they make it a little smaller, it
actually sort of fits on that size lot. But if they do something bigger, then the lot is too
small. ! think that's the rationale in there.
Claybaugh: And my opinion, by the time they get to us, they've invested a lot of emotion
and a lot of time and untold resources of getting it to that point. ! think it would be
certainly more consumer friendly at the front end to understand, to present it to them in
terms of specific lot limitations.
Sacchet: Does that give you the feedback to this one that you want?
Generous: Well it gives me some things to work out.
Claybaugh: A framework anyways.
Generous: Yeah, and you know whenever someone comes in with an application or
anything like that, we look at alternatives.
Claybaugh: Yeah, but then at least that way on your staff report when they come in, you
can say the applicant's been advised that the lot will only support this and we're
obligated to support it up to that square footage amount based on the style of home.
Sacchet: Really this is in line with your proposed language. With your proposed change
here. It's just gives a little more specifics to it. ! mean the way you're wording is pretty
open ended. And by the way, this is a public hearing so the way we work it is.
Feik: Jump in.
Sacchet: Do we need to invite some of you to sit by the microphone Janet? Are you a
microphone person tonight?
Claybaugh: Debbie Lloyd, please come to the microphone.
Feik: Let me ask you a question. ! totally agree with you but ! guess ! want to hear how,
a year and a half ago we looked at that pie shaped lot that the oversized garage was going
to go on that had a minimal building site at all, and required a variance to do anything
and they wanted an over sized garage. In your analysis what is a reasonable use for that
lot? Is it a 2 story garage?
72
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Claybaugh: I'm not saying that that was a reasonable use for the lot, one way or the
other. I'm not looking backwards. No, I don't believe they did. In fact I don't believe I
was at that meeting, but...
Feik: Would you check the minutes on that one Bob. I'm just curious because I agree
with you 100 percent but.
Claybaugh: What I'm after is to try and give us a baseline. It's like when I was talking
to Matt during break tonight and this is unrelated to this specifically but there is some
correlation and that is, under independent testing. You know I asked him, I said okay we
sit up here and we say condition number 46. We want independent testing on the ruling.
What are you asking them to do? Is there any incorporated reference that you're you
know, identifying so that developer knows what's expected of him and how do you know
you're going to get what you're expecting in your mind. What I talked to him about is
putting together a cheat sheet, making an exhibit, whatever. Attaching it to the
application. Incorporating it by reference and saying these are the things that we want
included in that report from the independent testing so.
Debbie Lloyd: I'll just comment.
Sacchet: Yeah, do you want to come up a little bit? Because we're not going to get it on
record. We're still on TV. We've got to make sure Nann can hear.
Debbie Lloyd: Carver Beach is a real unique area. Are there other areas that have small
lots like that in Chanhassen?
Generous: The one on Minnewashta.
Sacchet: Minnewashta has a couple, yeah.
Generous: Red Cedar Point.
Debbie Lloyd: So it seems like it's almost a separate type of area and maybe to me it's
almost like right for affordable housing. You know for one or two people affordable
housing with, you have a single stall garage. It's 2 stall garage. A lot of families don't
even have 2 cars. You know that's what I keep thinking about whenever I hear this it's
like, maybe we should have some sort of, well it's almost goes back to your comment.
This is what you can do there within these areas if you want to keep these small lots.
You know you're not taking away their rights to develop the lot then. And you're
almost.., maybe another affordable, in our affordable housing that we hear so much about
but that's my comments.
Sacchet: Yeah, it's important to note also in this context that we're with this, the way I
understand this, it's not like somebody could subdivide to these small lots, but we're
accommodating the lots that are already small. I mean that's a very important component
in this.
73
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Debbie Lloyd: Exactly. That's why ! asked if there were other areas that had this same
issue, and if there's only like two areas, maybe they're, and it's outside of what you're
doing today but maybe they're a special zone.
Feik: To your point, how many lots do we have?
Generous: That are sub-standard?
Feik: Yeah, in that. I mean is it 50? Is it 1507 Is it 500?
Generous: A few hundred.
Feik: Okay.
Generous: Most of them have houses on them already so.
Lillehaug: How would we handle it differently than how we handled it tonight though?
Are we going to come out with a different outcome by making a more extensive
ordinance?
Claybaugh: I'm not necessarily talking about making a more extensive ordinance. Just
in terms of the screening and what ! would like to see in the staff report is that they're
allowed the 600 square feet. This is what we, if it's a two story coming in, I'd like to see
the calculations.., in extrapolated form. 600 square feet for the two story. You know 400
plus square feet or 400 square feet for the garage. The other hard surface coverages.
This is what we've established. This is what the applicant is proposing. And then ! can
very easily calculate what they're running over or not and look at it in the context that it's
presented. It's just something else to help expedite the process in my mind.
Sacchet: Alright, I think we beat that one to death. Are we ready to move on?
Generous: You'll get another chance at it.
Sacchet: So that goes with page 11 you said?
Generous: Yes, and actually I'll clean that up eventually. Plus I'll incorporate the
changes that come up. So let's go back up to page 46. We were on the wetlands. This is
the one about the building pad and I just wanted clarification. Basically 60 by 60 we can
put in there. However I will run into a problem when we have this new zoning district
for single family on a 50 foot wide lot. So as we look, I was thinking maybe we
combine the two. Use the 3,000 square feet so that we have the same building area, and
then also the idea that you needed at least a minimum of 40 feet deep or 40 feet wide, so
one of those would have to.
74
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Yeah, that makes sense. Makes sense to me. Obviously we have to use a
measurement that is, you can't require 60 as a minimum if you have 3,000. ! mean it has
to be less, like 40.
Generous: Yeah, well that would be a 60 by 50 pad. You know but just so that
everybody was concerned that you get someone that has this odd shaped lot that maybe is
you know 90 feet here and then whittled down to 10 feet wide and well that doesn't give
you your minimum 40 by 40 area, so maybe that's a way to accommodate it and also get
the 3,000 square foot.
Debbie Lloyd: Well this whole...
Sacchet: Debbie, we really need you by a microphone because ! mean the people are
going to watch this on TV.
Debbie Lloyd: The code technically has 60 by 60 or 3600 for RSF. So if, so you're
diminishing what you presently require and you have a PUD. You used to have a PUD
requirement that was different than RSF, and if you're going to put in a different category
of RSF, you could have a separate, ! would think you could have a separate pad for that.
! mean why can't you differentiate between different housing types? Or whatever they're
called.
Lillehaug: ! agree. I'd like to see 60 by 60 right there. I'm staying consistent.
Generous: And we can do that. ! was just you know trying to incorporate this so, rather
than create a separate one, but we can do that also. Just take, and we'll see that later.
Okay, page 47. Wetland. These are all clarifications that Lori put in. Demonstrate that
activity impacting the wetland is complied with all the following requirements, and
basically it tells you what, this is a reiteration of state code.
Sacchet: Yeah, I've got a question. In terms of fens, we basically are basing ourselves
on state statute then. State rule.
Generous: Right. And we also may look at, at one time we have a separate ordinance for
that and we may bring that back.
Sacchet: We did have something separate for that?
Generous: Well we had discussed it with you know.
Sacchet: Well we talked about it and then we dropped it.
Generous: It's also part of you know, are we going to purchase the property and if we
purchase it then it's protected and what is it now if it's not going to be purchased.
Sacchet: Well yeah. There seems to be some interesting stuff going on with that.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Generous: But yes, we would have to follow the state guidelines for calcareous fens.
Page 47. Section 412. Craig, just correct citation, and then the rest of C, ! believe we put
in another section of the ordinance. Page 48, this explains sequencing of wetland
mitigation. Page 49, Section 20-408. It just expands on what is an impact and when
that's permit required.
Sacchet: So mowing is an impact, right?
Generous: It is an impact but we generally, like it's farmers when they're haying, that's a
type of mowing and we don't enforce that.
Sacchet: Yeah but they're not haying a wetland. There are people that mow wetlands.
Generous: Yes.
Feik: We determined that that dock going across was, impacted a wetland because it was
above the ordinary high water mark.
Generous: It was impacting it, I don't know how they make a distinction because
wetland doesn't have high water.
Feik: Right, right, but can they, where's the mechanism on it because we shall not.
Where's the mechanism of putting that dock in across a wetland to get to the lake?
Generous: Then they'd still have the wetland impact, or wetland mitigation
requirements. Wetland alteration permit.
Feik; Okay. Okay.
Generous: Number 4, we take out the sedimentation boundaries. Section 50, and ! wish,
Lori's on vacation. These are all her's. The City must notify at least 5 business days
prior to the use of any public treatment. This is if someone' s going to treat their wetland
chemically. Biologically.
Sacchet: Or mowingly.
Generous: Any treatment of it. Filling. Section 20-409. Page 50. Again referencing the
wetland conservation act and consistency within our ordinance. Page 50, and then
deleting all the extraneous stuff. Section 20-410. We just, all that activity is considered
grading and so and then it goes on to specify that. Section 20-41 l's being deleted. Pre-
treatment of storm water must be provided prior to discharge. That's just what's
required. Mitigation. Section 20-412. It just cites the cite rule. Minnesota Rule 8420.
And that's again what controls what we can do with wetlands. And then delete all the
extra information. Mitigation techniques on page 53. This is what it was like the first
time. ! promised we would get done at 10:30.
76
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Sacchet: Keep going. You have 5 more minutes.
Claybaugh: Maybe by your watch.
Generous: Page 54, 55. All this relates to the section, Minnesota Rule 8420 so we're just
incorporating in there. On page 57 we finally have the shoreland management district.
Or shoreland management district. The first change is to correct citation Section, Chapter
105 has been repealed. Section 20-477 on 57 is correct citation. Because we added
something, we just had to keep it consistent. That's the Community Development
Director and ! think Bruce pointed out that you'd like me to go through and capitalize all
that.
Feik: ! think they're a define term so that's just me...
Generous: If you read through the City Council, it's sometimes not capitalized. 58,
we're proposing to add the ordinary high water elevation and as part of you know we
reference there, number of the state inventory ID and the name of the lake and this is
information that the developers need and the city does when we enforce our code for
minimum elevation above the OHW.
Janet Paulsen: Bob, can we just back track a minute? To severability.
Sacchet: Page?
Janet Paulsen: Page 58. E. Why would you want to remove severability?
Generous: Well the attorney's told me to but if you look at the beginning of the code, the
whole thing is severability, if you really, that's how it's structured. If one part of this is
wrong or unconstitutional, you can do that.
Janet Paulsen: Where does it state that though? ! just want to be sure.
Generous: It's in Chapter 1 ! believe is where it starts out and says that the.
Feik: So it's a blanket severability for the entire book.
Generous: So you don't need to reiterate it every time, even though the attorneys like to
keep putting it in there and that just adds to the length and complexity of the ordinance
and so that's when we have, we hired a consultant to go through and look at what were
inconsistencies and redundancies and that was their recommendation that that part come
out of it.
Janet Paulsen: Well just that back in the shoreland recommended code, it'd be nice to
have it in there by the city.
77
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2004
Claybaugh: Bob, isn't a function on the legal review where they went through. They
want it stated specifically and broadly in one place so if it's omitted in one section
throughout, someone can't say that it was included in 9 out of 10 sections, so the tenth
section that was inferable that it didn't apply there. Isn't that kind of what the attorneys
are after?
Generous: Yeah, they'd like each section to stand alone. If they had their way, these
things would incorporate everything in state statute so it's all right here. They say if it's
in the state statute, let's go up to that because that gets amended and changed and we
don't have control over that.
Claybaugh: But that's kind of a function of consistency issue isn't it?
Generous: Yes. And you know leaving that in, it doesn't make a big difference. We can
leave it in. Page 59 under tributaries. We had Riley Creek and then those points are
designated by the DNR so it's just to clarify what that is. Also we're adding Assumption
Creek which is down in the Seminary Fen area. It is a protected water course.
Janet Paulsen: Do you happen to know what... 10-12 to Lotus Lake?
Generous: I'm not sure. I think, well it's on the west side of the lake. That's all I know.
Lori put this together. I'm sure she has a map and I can get that information. Page 60.
This is one we wanted to clarify that they have to still comply with the ordinance, zoning
ordinances. They don't get the language said that there was no minimum lot
requirements. Well there is under our zoning requirements. We just wanted to clarify
that.
Sacchet: Bob, just a second. Since we're kind of hitting our curfew hour, how much
more time do we want to do this? Any suggestion here from fellow commissioners?
Slagle: I'm done.
Sacchet: You're ready to go. Rich wants to go home. Alright, meeting closed.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
78