12-6-89 Agenda and Packet P'
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6 , 1989 , 7 : 30 P .M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
6 : 00 P.M. Interview Planning Commission Candidates
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. *ITEM TABLED BY STAFF*
Preliminary plat to subdivide 20 . 9 acres into two single
family lots of 10 .1 and 10 . 2 acres on property zoned RR and
located off of Dogwood, east of Lake Minnewashta, just north
of Crimson Bay, Peter and Deanna Brandt.
2 . Preliminary plat to subdivide 3 . 2 acres into two single
family lots of 2 . 08 and . 79 acres on property zoned RSF and
located between Pleasant View Road and Lotus Lake, 365
Pleasant View Road, Robert Sathre.
3 . Preliminary plat to replat Lots 5-9, Block 1 , Frontier
Development Park ( 16 . 77 acres ) into two lots and four outlots
on property zoned BH, Highway Business District and located
on the east and west sides of Market Boulevard, north of Hwy.
5 and south of the Soo Line Railroad, Crossroads Plaza
Addition, City of Chanhassen.
4 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, Division
6 , Site Plan Review, to revise the procedure, expand on
— development standards and require financial guarantees for
landscaping and other site improvements .
5 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code to modify
the recreational beachlot ordinance to clarify lot depth
requirements.
6 . *ITEM TABLED BY STAFF*
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code for modifi-
cations to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance for the RSF
District standards dealing with lot frontage and access by
private driveways .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
CITY o
,11) CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning
DATE: November 30 , 1989
SUBJ: Draft Questions for Planning Commissioner Interviews
Prepared by Chairman Conrad
The following questions and review matrix were prepared by
Chairman Conrad for use during the Planning Commissioner inter-
- views.
The review process was discussed on a preliminary basis at the
special Planning Commission meeting on November 29th. It was
felt that the 8 candidates should be ranked for scoring purposes
with "1" representing the candidate you believe is most qualified
for the position and "8" being the least qualified. It is
expected that the top 3 candidates would be sent to the City
Council for further interview.
6 : 00 p.m. Joan Ahrens
6 : 10 p.m. Steven Berquist
6 : 20 p.m. Jim Boeshans
6 : 30 p.m. Jeff Farmakes
6 : 40 p.m. Richard Gavert, Sr.
6 : 50 p.m. Nancy Mancino
7 : 00 p.m. (Application withdrawn)
7 : 10 p.m. Robert Peterson
7 : 20 p.m. Carol Watson
DATE I0 tea`(-(- 9
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
I POSITION DESIRED U .- Icahn► 11Cari"rl LTERNATE
NAME: - Irl E. Ahrens BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) 7-a3-53
ADDRESS IC1001 C.1'1avn &I-KJ
HOME PHONE (414- (pI t S BUSINESS PHONE 4-7/--t - SaN
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN Ck 'AE.
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY _
&)\rk 5 --DCZir6Y ,C taw dLnree
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY-
MENT AS WELL)
at Remce r &- . t LeOS ( law rrv\ , 17 gD eit
}-ktAit.h l ll5 I r. YVI tt�a 1'11 .
LETl -- r-ac-ice l i wi l ied --;� -\-ie moo._s of (eQ [ ES-t-o4_ u ckci vvloa-le (au1.
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND; HONORS OR
RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) wk .4L � IC� 1��
Cowl n erns Cow►vt,c ; uotm .ez.lx-: , , LET
- ..'V CQ c1 uc ,
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: --)12V6'6R.--
&6L 14k est Wt pti?` Otem-c.iat SSeti ax a_ ciu-(A-e- fr Cohirt v-)-e___, (.1/4-6,--
_
LI/1kt
4 -
LI/1C,c s't t a uc4 odor 1(i'L, J- ilow-P 1 '}v _.l'icia S fra4ks 4t6 NiattAirtsSes fr66( 774 .
/ ' .e J(catS E V-e. P 1 . i'41.; tE 4I2 U r ' s la ze_c 4 .
w. K.
u� T
IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME,
ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE-
PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE
ABOVE COMMISSION.
, 1 .. .
SIGNATURE:
2!74
OCT 2 5 i989
LITY. OF CHANHASSEN ••,...;4e-
-
r ,-
w
a
-H
z
0
H
H
—Cl)
W
M
a
3
—W
H
C4
w
z
H n.
r1:1
Z a)
w to a
—Z C c o rb
0 a) a) > C) •� v C
� 1 I
H , (1) d
1) .0 a) .-1 U U) > •••1
1) yJ U) U) )..1 C m a)
—4 a) - ra O •,.1 'd m C
Z 0 lJ 0 E C c •O
o to 4-1 •.•1 0 41 0 C a) m
J C tri C •-•1 co U to E rn
•r1 C 0 c .4.J a) m a.1 •.-+
z .0 >, >, E C .0
H r-1 L.1 0 a -r-1 -r-4 C E 0 (N-
Z c a 1n c U .0 c 1a O U E
Z 0 a E c c .0 u a)
Q >,n- it a) c a) o a) 1C U a) .c
a C .-1 w .0 >1 ..0 r-1 a) .c +J
Pu 0 0 L+ .0 4-.1 4-) a " a) E +J
'O •,.1 0 O a) a) a) .,.1
U) 4-1 W -C a) N a) a) m w b1
U) U) a j) $-1 ea 3.1 .0 O .,.1
a) --1U) ea ea -1 0 a) 3
•..1 c ." C 10 4.) .c 1.i
0 m •-1 a) ) a
a ) C v W
•-4 o U) a) > C > n- > C C 11
r i U to m e a) U) a) m a) x 'O E .10
co 0 CT a) •.•1 n• U) •.•1 3.1 •..1 •..1 C v 'C
tr 34 •.-1 m r 4 m •.i n- ,•-1 0 r•a .-1 rC E
O' C .O to a) 4- .0 W .0 a) 4) �+
-r-1 f4 CC .0 a) Cr 11 XI .0 .0 c m CC 0
r-1 C a) >r Cl) C •r1 tr, o $-+ 4-1
it C O n• L C C (1) -".1 3 c ..4 C >, a) a) E
•r1 1C >, C 1J 0:1 O 65 C O a) 0 't:3 .0 0
0 ri 0 .c >, C 77 >, c >, b C U
C w a) .r1 a) U +J (Cl)) ,-1 O
a L1 m 1-1 o U) .- C o 1-1 o c J,
CJ) a) ram ra a) fri W a 'o c 'a1 0 c 0
.0 •r1 C 4J a) O n. 3 o m >1
4.) 4) }J •.•1 1J b 4J U 4.1 >, 11 m >, a)
b t4:)0CO it bC it (Cl)) 3 x a)
.00 .00 .Cb C )a .00 .0 4-1 .CO 0 0 IV $4
J-, 3 1J 3 U 3 4-1 3 3 O 3 0 3 b x G 4J to
- V
1C. • • • •
Z r4 cv re) Mr I 40 4 CO 01
r
w
a
H
- Q
z
0
H
H
U)
w
a
3
- w
H
a
w
H
- z
H
a
W
- z
0
H
U)
U)
H
E
f
0
U
- z •
H C •
Z $.t 'a
z C a) c
Kr o U •-1 •
= a U c E to
a 0 c
b C.) C 0
• c a) --4
a) co ,--4 a
10 0 --4
It 0 W u)
U ►-4 a) 170
•.•4 c'-. a c c >, a
c a) a) (0 i.)
Ls) e, •.-1 c
-1 h a -i o
u) ba)
--1
o -i •-4 c a) .Q co
U aI ro rt x ita)
'o o x .0 4J o a c
c a) a c •4-+ a)
E a) .c >
o >, 4-4 a) E >, u) -,I
S-1 +) b 4- )4 0)
v, •.i •4.1 a) -4-1 a) c
.x 4-1 0 Z .-4 ' 'a a)
0 •-4 a) u) E •,-1 it w
ro .4 a m 0 .0 ) a)
•+ co < U) H U Q a c
IV
E -
Z ,-1 N M •cr l!1 lD I co.
DATE A/e t Ei tZ-E;e -,2, /%G
1
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
POSITION DESIRED P;eA/A.//A76 ALTERNATE
NAME: �/C=N &/Z eUi/S� BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL)444__-
ADDRESS 7 '7 /27G/1l T/,r,e f%j4// /
HOME PHONE 929-�.L�/. BUSINESS PHONE �` 7''`7' -. / 42S---
HOW
7 2s 'HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN -4/y, ' , 9z2 7
HIGH ST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY
/ // S779.1<•ee , Zice,,eO6��i S
/
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY-
MENT AS WELL) //
�A� 5'c u>&rC,e - /�-f,r/'/i /�7Y.4G - //F,A-7-;,E , y ,A77c7(_ �i,e_
e<,Ahg,- 7c7�/ Co-It-7774 c7 �� - ,e,S iC7�L �/l7/!/F/fcF// Z
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR
RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) ,c-7,tS �� - �� �� � ( ,�� c '' ,IF
Y 495-7- %?'1�7,/'ee - /`�`//��,� may/ , 5 L'G07�c 4Ci Z:es
L' , 72//_€o. — ,/LS e/e c. ifs c,
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: QC2�,k
_ aa-i ( 4C-- (lc; q •-, a-4 . ar, a_ a -ici,4 ,1_,-
� / /
2Cz�f-�f CC-kC� �k'yLt- C-C�' amt �f/ ��.1�'�
4.,iib_bc/ _ ,,x2-4, , ai-ic_./ez.t.4 ,
IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME,
ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE-
PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I A -,APPOINTED TO THE
ABOVE COMMISSION. /
SIGNRE:
_
NOV 0 6 19139
Cly OF CHANHASSEN
�_ --�-
R
W
x
H
-4
z
0
H
E
-W
CS
3
W
-H
>
C
it
H Ck.
'O
il L a
Z C C o 'a
--0 $.4 0 - C
H a1 a) >, a) •;•r a) 4.) al
CO a) .-i 0 Cl) > .,.r
;n +-1 U) U) ►i C U) a)
-1 (1) - RI 0 •^' T1 tn
� O 44 O 4.4 O
Z4-1
U E C C •�
o ar w •.-1 0 +) O a) a) U)
•J c a, C ••i U) U U) E U)
•.i C +J a) fn +-)
.'.,
M. � >' ►) o a. .°' •� c E o n.
Z 0 a U] 0 C) C m O U E
z 0 a E 4 a C .0 0 a)
ct >,h rd a) 0 a) 0 Cl) b U a) =
-7 C w .0 >, .0 H a) .0
0 0 4..) a , .a) E ''
'° u) r° o .0 Cl) Cl) a) Cl) m w +.,
En u) a4.) ca w 0 -"1
a1 .,.r Cl) rt) 4-1O a) 3
-,-1C l +, C cn 4-) .0 I-+
.+-r 0 U) •- a) a) a) a) +) a.)
•-a O U) a) > 0 > h > a) A
U ra a, c a) u) v U) a) x O' E .0
co v a) a) .-4 (N. U) ..-1 $- -.a -.-1 C a) ro
a rn -,4 cn .-4 Cl) •.•+ n. .-a o -1 .-4 ra E
V c -0 ul 01 4.) .0 a) .0 a) +) Li
.,i s-r cd .0 a) Cr 4-) .0 .0 ..q m ca 0
.-, C 0 a) -C u) C --r Cil 0 w
it C O h .0 C O N --•i 3 0 --4 0 >, a) a) E
•.•r rd >, C +. rd 0 ca C 0 a) 0 'ti O 0
O -f 0 .0 >, C 'O >, C >, 'CI C 0
a) a a) •.1 a) 0 4-) rd v .-i 0 O
a )4 U) our r C 0 -4 0 0 +.) c
U) (1) It cn cd CP r a) a 'O 0 r0 0 0 0
.0 •.-1 C 4-) a) 0 c-. 3 O U) >1
+-) +.) 4J E 4-) -.4 +) rd +) 0 +1 >, +) m >4 a)
it cd E (t1ca ait 0 ) C it ra a) 3
.0 0 .0 O .0 Ell .0 $.4 .0 0 .0 w .0 O 0 O b )-)
4 3 •W 3 U 3 w 3 an 3 0 3 0 3 '10 x A et
11
-_ • V • . .
- z .-r N M c ( u1. �c N co ch
r
r
W
CX
H
Kr
z
0
H
F
CnW
M
a
3
CO
= H
Z
w
El
z
H
X
w
z
0
H
Up
U,
H
2
0
U
C7
z •
H C •
z f-+ 'O
z C a) C
o U -•4
a U C E U
- a o c
7o U c o
. c a) -.-i
W (Ti CI, ,.)
4 rrS 0 •.4
RS 0 W U)
— U 3a a) raO
--, n. a c c >, n,
c a) a) ra 4)
c cn al -,4 c
++
N a) r-I 0
N b a)
O 3a -.1 C a) .0 U)
U WU) (Ti .. (Ti N
TS CL 0 k .0 4) 0 a C
C 4) a) a c 4 •.•i a)
E a) .c >
o >, r+ a) E >, Ell -,.,
3a 4) (CI 4) 4 3.4 v)
a, •.., •,., a) .0 •.•4 a) c
'-4 U C -.4 '--3 'O a)
o •,.r (1) v) E ••-, it w
ns .0 a U) 0 .0 a a)
a)
co d Cn H U a a o
E
. 0 -
. .. .
z .-i eq r1 cr in ko N I co
- I s
DATE O[z?,`s�
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
POSITION DESIREDRcJt. iN(:_- l.,Ciffrrili5�it--) ALTERNATE
NAME: �ll1 lx ��1\7�� BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) 6
1 to hib l
ADDRESS c -f- '
HOME PHONEC'419 -7_113 BUSINESS PHONE (.51(,, --T7\-11
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN I4 M
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY-
MENT AS WELL)
CU�rCs�1 C: S kst�i t LAE
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR
RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY)
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
1c. A' Lo),1' _. [N --T C�,�� I7.yo
sok LI _ �� T vE 1 . • �� i�-!. ���£� s�
at I\1� n LLQ_I , 4J1�� �u ''t\AL1
050 -;
IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME,
ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE-
PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENTI AM APPOINTED TO THE
ABOVE COMMISSION.
/ 2
SIGNATURE.
Asp
izCl�ti�RT�civ �N 0-17N ( - S ict -- �1 rJ 6 rn Yrt
CIT-1 C9E . ..'a--k..
•
R
•
CLI
y
H
—Z
0
H
H
O
0 •
3
r7.3
>
rx
alZ
H N
e0
,x a)
it to a
Z C C O ro
—D $4 0 .••a C
H a) a) >1 a) •ra a) 4J co
U) .0 a) .•1 U d) > -,-I
J) 4) U) U) 14 C U) a)
-I a) - CO 0 -••1 T) co C
-E .O 0 44J U E C C -0
O b'+ 4-1 •r1 U 4J 0 a) a) U)
O C _ C •-c v) U U) E cn
--4 C c C 4J a) U) 4J --1
- o N s-I tr, is tts 4J e
"-I Z C a U) C U .0 C CO o O E
'Z 0 Cu E 4J C C .0 U a)
ca >,0-. to a) c a) 0 a) CO U a) =
4 C r-1 44 .0 >1 .0 r-I (1) .0 4-!
—a, 0 0 $a J 4J.0 4 a v E 4J
'o •,-4 0 o a) a) •a) •-I .0
U) w 61 .c a) I. a) a) co 4J w
cn U) a 4J sa CO sa .0 o -'',
(1) --' U) ell CO 4J 0 a) 3
•-1 E C +) C (1) 4J .0 1.4
4-1 0 U) --1 a) a) a) a) 4.4 a) a)
•-1 o to a) > > n• > a) A rI
r-1 U CO CT C (1) cn a) m a) .-t '0 E A
COW Cr, a) •-4 N m --1 $4 -,.1 --4 C (1) CO
C tr) 5.1 •••1 U) H U1 •.•1 N r-i 0 r-1 r-1 (0 E 4J
tr C .sa N a) 4-) .0 a) .O a) 4J W
•.•1 W it -0 0 0)4J .0 J; J U) (0 0
r-1- C Z a) C m C ••-I tr, 0 >~ 4-1
ro C O N .0 C 0 m •.i 3 c •,-I c >1 a) a) E
--1 10 >, C 4J b 0 (0 C O a) 0 'tr A 0
U r-1 0 .0 ?, C ' ?, C >, '0 C U
W a a) •-1 a) V 4J its a) H Z 0
a 14 co 1.i O co r-1 C O 1.4 O c 44 c
cna) 013m CO ba) a )4 '» c ro O C 0
.c •.a C 4-) 0) 0 N 3 o U) >,
4J 4) •..1 4) (0 4J U 4.4 >. U) >1 a)
CO CE (0 0 cd a) CO C it ro v 3 .k a)
.: 0 -C O .0 N .0 14 ,C O .0 4-1 C 0 0 0 t0 $4
3 4J 3 U 3 w 3 tr) 3 U 3 0 3 'O x A 4J cd
E
4 - • • • • • . • •
- Z' .-1 N M1 cr I u) uc r` co rn
t
w
C4
H
4
— z
0
H
H
tnw
M
a
Cl,
— H
C4
w
E
Z
- H
Ce
W
Z
- 0
H
GI)
CI)
H
E
E
0
U
U
z •
H C •
z W rO
Z C a) C
Q 0 U •.i •
a U C E a)
- a o c
'0 0 C - O
• C w •,.i
C to - a
.0 it o -,.,
(11 0 m
U $4 C 71 0
•.-1 M Q. C [ >1 CL
c a) a) It 4)
Cl) ci, -.i C
E -,1 h a. O
E 4..1 v, a) -.-+
O ►i -.-I C a) .a u)
U a) ca rt) .4 rd U,
a, rt a)
'0 0 k .0 .1..) 0 04 C
c +) aJ a c 4 -.-1 a)
E (ll .0 >
o >, r+ a) E >1 m -.4
W 4-) (U 4) i cn
D1 --1 •.-1 v 4) -,.t a) c
- .--1 0 c •., .-I ro a)
O -,-1 C cn E •-+ rd w
its .0 a, to O .a a) a)
ai ua a to H U a a 0
v
E
...# ce _ r .
Z —IN m -41. to t` I co
DATE 1/18/89
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
POSITION DESIRED PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATE
NAME: JEFF FARMAKES BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL)
ADDRESS 7100 UTICA LN
HOME PHONE 474-8148 BUSINESS PHONE 474-8148
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN 9 years
• HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY
BFA IN DESIGN
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY-
MENT AS WELL)
OWNER OF FARMAKES DESIGN , I DESIGN FOR SEVERAL CORPORATIONS SUCH
AS MINNETONKA INC. , TONKA TOYS ,WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC , GENERAL MILLS ,
IN THE AREAS OF SHOW DISPLAY, PACKAGE DISIGN, ANNUAL REPORTS .
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR
RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY)
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
I HAVE DESTGN'_ED,CnNTRACTED AND BIITLT A RQME TN CHANHASSEN, I ' VE
A CONCERN FOR CHANUA SFNC ' FUTIIRE_ A_ WOIL n LIVE Tn DONATE MY TTMF,
TO HELP LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME,
ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE-
, PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE
ABOVE COMMISSION.
GNAT RE:
NOV 201989
c:ITY OF CHANHASSEN
".zer
R
W
Z
H
z
0
H
H
:n
—w
a
3
H
H C.
Z r0
U) a)
Z C C 0 73
o W o r- c
H a) a) >. a) ••-1 a) 4.) 1a
7) .0 0 r-f U V) > ••i
J) .W Cl) U) $.4 C U) a
-+ a) tv O •r.1 'O Co C
E 4.) O 4) C U E C C .O
OCrl 4.. •.•i U .1-1 0 a) a) u)
cn
-c4 C 0 0 y Cl)U u) 4J --4
w •.•1 0 hl4 Cr tn 10 4) E
--Z A >, >-, aE) E to tn c .c -.+ E
H ,-1 W 0 a •.•1 •••1 C
Z C a m Z 0 A C 0 O O E
z 0 a E 4- C C .0 U a)
t ?,n. t0 a) a a) O a) 1a U a) .0
C w .0 >1 .0 .-i a s 4J
a o 0 44 A 4U 4U a • • a) E 4J
T1 •••1 O O a a a -.-1 ,c
Co 4.4 4.4 .0 a) 1.1 a) a) U) 4) 144 4-)
m v) a 4, 44 .0 0 •.-1
a --1co (U ca 0 a) 3
- •,.1 C 4J c v?
4-) 0 cn -.-4 a a a a 4-1a) a
-••1 o U) a) > C > h > a A r+
r-1 U 1a CT C a) U) a to a) .se 'o E A
ca a) to a) -••4 O. U) •.-1 )4 •r1 •.-4 c a) 0
0 17) W -.-1 U) r-1 U) •r1 (,.. .-4 0 ,-4 '-4 1a E 4-)
b' C .0 co CL) 4-) ..0 a) .0 a) L4
.,.1 )a [a A a tr+4J A A A C U) to 0
•--i C C a .0 Cl) C --1 On O f4 44
1a C O 0. .c c c Cl) ..a $ 0 -•-i 0 >1 v a E
-.•1 fa >, C 4, c0 0 et C 0 a 0 '» A 0
U ,H 0 .0 >. C V >, C >r b C U
a w a -.4 CO U 4-1 10 a .-4 c 0
a sa co 1.4 0 U) 4-4 C 0 ).a 0 0 0 -
m a ITS [n ca 'O a a 4-i 'O 0 V 0 0 0
A •.4 C 4J a O n. 3 O m >,
4J 4) 4J ••••1 4i (U 4) U 4-) >, v) >, a
ft ta m U 1a a ca C al to a 3 ..s4 a
.0 0 A 0 .0 to .0 s-1 .0 0 A 44 .0 O 0 O 1a )-1
4 3 4) 3 U 3 44 3 to 3 U 3 0 3 'D Z A +) t0
a
Z r-1 N m d,J I to VD 1- co O1
w
a
H
- z
0
H
H
Cn
w
a
3
w
- H
C:
w
F
z
H
a
w
z
_ C
H
Cr)
Cr)
H
E
- E
0
C.)
0
- •
z
H c •
z , ,n
z c a) c
< 0 C) •.a
a C) c E ai
z a
c o c • o
0
a) ,a .-i a
it 0 S O
CID
.I M a a c a, a
c a) a) b
cN bp - C
,4 h a 0
rn b a) •.a
o 14 •.4 c a) - m
C.)•
a U) ( x 'a a)
't5o x 0 a
a)
4-)c .. a) a, c 4-) .,,4 a)
c
o >, - a) E >, ren •.4
14 (a $.4 as
rr -,-I -,.,
- .a a m o .0 U) w
CO a Cn H C.) Q ►a7 A
E
A., 0 •
•Z , 1 N r1 J C to k.p N I co
DATE /?
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
POSITION DESIRED G-�( 51-/ ti f/AC /'4,.d y ALTERNATE
NAME: l I C 1/A • C7 A G'LW1- S Q - / BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL)11
ADDRESS 7 7 0/ r4",,, 17& f_ /t 4 / (t .4S S e=--,,t)
HOME PHONE �3 C/ 7,?G BUSINESS PHONE a /‘93
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN ,1 3 y
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED; PLUS nvrvtrgc _ IF �.Hw
i (4). 9�/-�L� k).,4 3 v Art ] /�A C' C'+ex+L () i}:
1 -/
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY-
MENT AS WELL)
4 4 M A .) L 7-1/ 4( !1,I 4174 i4J�4T����J ��A.,,,rorc.r,4 �,��' C/) .
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR
RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) /-{0,v,; A Y -�j1
I � G(Jt-5 5r ��
a T( t "4./S ,455 - C i; f .f r1 S ;"i c{
lei-.vi
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: U
U i Av t� w v; ti� -r'&- 4 f.•A ri1 o i E /1 : �c‘
T r 72,-/ LJ n7 i t S i;1
IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME,
ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE-
PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE
ABOVE COMMISSION.
- � �Y•�vyc� _!/ice
SI
NATURE:
ti
•
•
- - ..-
R
W
a
H
z
0
H
E-+
—W
J
COI
3
_W
H
>
a
w
E-+
—z
H
M
X b
w a)
�'
a
z
_0 w 0 .° ,C
co H . a) >1 a) •
En a) 01 RI
� C )
H N V) ka C fn � �
E 0 W >I .-4 OU E O c
E O
O 0-1I --4 c c c •
U -1.-) 0)0 Cl) v �
U -c a' c •-4 v) U v) E co
c
}1 a) U) 41 •,a
-z .0 >, °,a E >~
H ,� U ial E
Z 0 Q. m 0 o O. •o c C o U E
.n c
Kc ?,n.' ro Q) z Cl) 0 a) rC0 .c U v .�
a C ,-1 wv .,;
—a o 0 1~ .0 >1 a , .v Er
'Ls -� 0 0 v ) ..-1 ..c
Cl)v
(Cl W $.1 L it Cl) ro +1 W
0) m
v $.a
a+) s� o
v -1 cn co Et o a) 3
�+ c .1.1 c En
0 a -. 4 Cl) Cl) Cl) v 4.)' .J v a)
o
U C CnC a) w
(Es a) CT a) .,.r M (Cl •.•1 ..1 -4-1 -4-1 C a) MCI
C Cr $-, -.41 V1 ,--1 CO •.r r'.. •-1 0 ,-1 .-1 Ill 4-1
1:7 .C•+ .0 N v .0 44-I W
'� c C v .0 .0 a) Cr•-i .0 £ C it 0
roC Oh .cc crn •.i3 c •- c >, aa) v E
..•1 co >, C .-) it O ro C ' ro o c .0 0
-4 o >9
_ 0 ' 0 .0 >, C ' C >,
Ci.) a v ••-i a) U RI (1) 4-t c 0
ocnw roo 4-)vv re cn RI CI 'c a a 'o 0 0
-C •.-) c v O n. 3 O v) >,
1.1 4-14.) 4..) •1-1 -1 .a.1 0 4--) ft a 3 >
)11 rov
5 rou � ro rt v it c ro
3 � 3 U 3 w 3 a, CO 3 0 .03 0 0 o it R+
a) 3 0 3 'L) x p RI
ro_ - .- Y .
z ,-1 rN rh I n co rn
w
a
H
Or
-
z
0
H
E
cnW
A
0
3
W
H
C4
w
E
z
H
C4
W
z
0
H
C))
CA
H
z
X
0
C)
0
z •
H C
Z
3.4 r0
Z a) C
Q O U •.1
a u co •E 0)
ro U C C
a) c a) o
4-14.1 0 tt o
m
U a a) ro •
C a) a) co 4..)
Cl) tr' -)
c
� a a) .�
o W • C a) XI
m
U C) co to ca m
..0
o 0 DC y ,) .) a C
C
Ca) a Ca)
i
o >, .-4 a) >, .0 .�
i*.)
ro a) a) a
a' '-1 •
U ..-4N N E .^+ b 44
az RL Cl) H
E
b • • I
Z -I N rel er u1 r
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
• R
1...:3-,.! -
2
CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT. . DATE: 11/2 -/ef7
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN CO?•1MISSION
Position desired: '� - p Alternate:
Name: �/ Date of Birth
U (Optional)
M4P.
Address: 67 6 ,zo - e.4..r.1-
Home Phone: Lhci-5,4 / Busi ess Phone:
How Long Have You Lived in Chanhassen?
-
.Highest Level of Education Attained, plus degrees, if any:
ct ) a-t� ./..L.,- Current employment: 2 "
(Give position, employer and brief discussion of dutie.
If employment is relatively recent, discuss previous employment as well) :
$LeAr..ta..0.1 /AP 4 --„-_, aligg„ .. ,,., - . . A' Arttio ..1.-A-.1 _..L- .-
Q cf..0€4. 8, (moi-kc _34 . /
-
/ ttoe /4..614.--e-etre_4( y
_/'' W...,--7-41 Oke. -
twit ,' s/i % "
affiliations (Include elective offices and honors or
recognitions received, if any) :
- L e__ -. l
Reasons for seeking this pncition and special qualifications:
_ • sa 9 (A.,‘,.. 76 "it* 2-Xa-4.1..- AL
/ t. I- T,LL `/ _ . __ / _�_ _
In filing this application, I understand that a commitment of my
- interest and participation will be involved, and am times, hea
such
rg
commitment in the event I am appointed to the above Commission.
-7;(4Z-4. • --.
-
/ Signature
.
w
H
4
—z
0
H
H
Cl)
—W
0
W
'H
CZ
w
F
—z
H
'o
U)
— z C C o V
H 5-+ 0 ,-.5
C
co .00 a) >1 a) ;.i a) 4-)
cC
tn 4-3 N H U V)
„ En C
Z 0 1.a >, H 0U 1.) O
0
U C 0) w C -�4-) a) E v4)
C) I-i -•C+ 0 N EC $$4 O, t0 +� E
.___Z .0 >, >, a) E tC t1+ C
H H C E 0 h
Z Z a to 0 a .A C its o U E
a >1'. ro aa) 0 to 0 a) ro -C U a)
C
U C .�
—a o o Li � "' >, H EW A
zs --i 0 o a) " a . 4-1
to w c a) O a) •- .0
m U)
u) a) m �, w +4
CD -1 Cl) a w ro cC 0 0) O .3
.F-) C -) .0 Cl) .0
4.) O m a) 4J a) a)
'—IU tC 0) C a) 0 > h > A H
Cd a) al a) -••i N Cn •.v-i )-r •.i •-i
CJ' C W H Cn HU) •.•r M H O H H It E
A to a) 4-) A 40
-'� )-+ CC A a) is 4) .a ,.0 .0 0 Cn RI 0
H C C v .0 u) Cr 0 - w
b C ON 4 C C
.,-1 rC >, C w rt 0 CC C 3 0 .) 0 >, a) E
U H 0 4 >, C 'LJ >, C >, V 'C A 0
CI) w a) --+ a) U w ro a) H C O
O.,
(Cn faa 'ti0 Q -i ° �' o C C
.0 •.•1 C y) a) 'L7 0 'O M O C 0
t) 4 4J -.i +.) CC 4a U 4 >, -4-) Cn 3 O N >,
b rd 030 (T)) Q) cC C
>, a)
rC MI CO0 a)
y 3 CO 3w C b+ CO 3 0 3 '0 x° 0 +�) C
S .
3• H (NI rn .:1' I t11 tG f-- c J Os
1
w
CZ
H
Kt
— z
0
H
H
Cn
W
a
3
W
— H
C4
W
F
z
- H
Ce
w
z
— 0
H
U)
H
5
— 2
0
u
_ z .
H C
z
Z C a) C
':c 0 U -•a •
4 C.) C E m
— p,, 0 C
C U C
-°
a)coo ;° o
ro 43
an
-� M a a) C >, 04
Ca) a) It43
En a' C
.� c...ul .ti aa) H 0
o 1 -.-1 C a) -0 m
0 a b It x co m
zi 0 x 0 04 C
C 4J a) a c -.., m
_ c
o >. H4 v E >, U) -.4
tr+ 4.4 RI -64 .1..) w m `
C) •r+ a) U)
-' go rd Cna H C.) a a A
CD
..e K
— Z ,-4 N m •V LEIkD • I •
m
DATE November 7, 1989
t
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
POSITION DESIRED planning Commission ALTERNATE
NAME: nnhert .T Peterson BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) 1/31/36
ADDRESS q750 Greatlains Blvd,Chanhassen
HOME PHONE 445-8892 BUSINESS PHONE 937-8o33
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN 3 Years
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY 12
Plus -ech
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY-
MENT AS WELL)
Midwest Asphalt Corp. Chief Estimator. Eid and oversee all
rnpd construction estimates.
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR
RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY)
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
To become involved in the growth decissions of Chanhassen.
Thirty years of construction experience with a working
knowledge of the Chanhassen growth for the past six years.
IN PILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME,
ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE-
PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EV ' I AM APPOINTED TO THE
ABOVE COMMISSION.
•
_fa, 4 rLe-9.
SIGNATURE:
R
1
w
Ix
H
= d
Z
0
H
H
Cl)
--w
0
,w
H
a
w
E
—z
H
M
IX
b
w a)
Z a
U)—o
4 U) U) 1-4 C U) C))
E IN >, r•-1 00 E .i.) O
o tr� .. 4.4 .�.1 0o c c •.i
J c 01 C •-4 U) O a) a) co
.7 Li ..i 0 c'. E S O U 4
H a) .d � c .c .�
—Z 4, >4 >1
,.-1 S-i 0 a •.4 .,-c
Z 0 a U) U Q c s U u a)
et [ ra 0 C a) OU a) .0
a) ft
0
la
b 0 0 0 a, -.4 .�
co w � 4 O
a) et O a) + w
- w1-1
:I E U) a+) ro b 4) 0 0 0 --I
c 4+ c ul
O 0 Cn - i a) O 4) r a)
+) 0 0
O.
co a) tr•, a) •,c n• Cl) -,-.1 3-4 --4 - �C Cil it
0)
C Cr 1-1 •.4 V) .-c U) •r•i h .-4 0 r-1 .-1 113 E 1-1
a9 c .0 U) 0 1J 1A
--4 o-' (0 A a) tr,) la .c .0 m cC 0
c 0 S w
115 c 0 n. .4 ctr+
•„iit It 0 U) C 3 0 0) 0 C .Q 0
-
v v 0 � • >1 C v ° c �>01, TS
CD U 4) RI a)
m a) iv N m m 'n a) CI 0 C 0 0 tr 0
-.•a C a) ct 0 't3 h 0
.cO 4cE c0 .cc it CO � roW 3 O - a)
0
co
34-+ 3U 3w 3tr+ 3u 30 3ra X a0y ro
Z •r-1 N I • • •
M � � %Jo � 47 D1
R
w
X
H
Kt
- z
0
H
F
W
M
0 •
3
W
— H
a
w
F
z
H
a
w
z
- 0
H
Cl)
H
x
0
U
0
z •
H
z V
Zc a) c
< U 0 -�
aE Cl)
a c
c C c . •
0
a)
CO 0 $ O --4- )
- U • O
•'"'H M a Z c >, aa
c a) a) tz 4J
En a, -.-, c
--4 Na
'L3 a) ••4
o 34 •-4 [ a) .0 v)
u a) v) b .$4 al Cl)
• a
w
c ° w a c a a)
ca)
o b a) >1 m -- +
r -.-' --•i Cl.) 41 ._4 a)a) c
.-- U Z -,4 .4 V a)
C.)
•.0 a m o --t tzt 144
r a) co U] H
U ot a 0
E
..e _ •• • -
•
' Z ,—.1N m V. in 1O N I co
-
DATE p (o I Tc\
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
POSITION DESIRED4nn L.p�M,SS..o`^ALTERNATE
NAME: al__Ti) �, ) c BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) 9 K to
ADDRESS -1 N Z L n
HOME PHONE Lt"-j l BUSINESS PHONE ,S - Th�
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN 1 -7 drs
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGR1ES, IF AN!
\
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY-
MENT AS WELL)
cQ _nok
S-k-a}.1\ f-t_.)`• sP
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (I LODE ELECTIVE OFFICER AND HONORS OR
RECOGNITIONS RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED• IF ANY) I _
ALL cAYCtr--( • ( ( z
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPE FAL QUALIFICATIONS:
- a c; C^s tit
r11 _
C f U rr /,
N FILING THIS APPLICATION, I U• DERSTAND HAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME,
ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE-
PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE
ABOVE COMMISSION.
77 7CjkL: "
SIGNATURE:
_
T
— _-
L 1 . -
R
W
rYi
H
z
0
H
El
U)
W
M
01
W
—H
W
Ei
—z
H n.
W a)
z U)
—z C C O 't3
0 '-1 C
U) -C a) r-1 U 'U) > •r+
(.1) U) U) 3a N
H td 0 '0 4J O
C
0 0 0 a) C •U)
a U U) U a) U)
C7 3a C C
—z .0 >1 >o,v E � Cr C .0 •.�-1 E
H - C E O n•
Z O 00.., N C O Oa .0 C (d O U E
< >i n• (d a) C a) 0 a) (d U U a)
'0.1 O C 3a w -C >, ..0 ,-1 U a) -C
+.) a . a) E4
'a ••� o 0 v a) ..-1 .0
DI w sa .0 a) L4 a) a) u) 4 �
m (n 0a-W $.4 Cd $a ,C o . .1
a) --1 U) rd et +.) O a) 3
••-1 C +- C CO +- .0 3a
+3 0 U) -,.1 (V a)
-,.1 O m a) > C a) n. > a) 4-1 .o ,
—1 U co Cr C a) U) a) U) a) ...s4 Ts E -0
(d a) o) a) •.-1 C. U) -'-1 3-4 •.-1 •.-1 C a) (d
Z CP -.-4 U] •� Cl) •.1 n. .-i 0 ,--1 .-i (d E y'
V C 3a .0 m a) 4-1 - a) .0 C)
.-( C C Q) .d .0 a Cr) 0 .0 a 0 m Cd O
cd C 0 n. .0 C � U) -.i 3 C •- >, a0) a) E
-,-1 its >, C +-) (d 0 (d C o a) 0
0. a) m a) U td a) C '-I C o
U) a) rd U) (d Cr '0 a �, 3C.1 '� C '0 00 C4.)
0
- --I C 3 0 u) >,
4-) � � E 4-) -.-1 4J b 4) U 4--) >, 4J v)
rd (d E rd 0 r ) rd C ?� Q)
d a
.0 0 .0 0 .0 all .0 3-1 ..0 0 C 41 .0 00 0 0 C 3W-1
3 3 U 3 w 3 aT 3 v 3 0 3 'ti x 0 � Cd
a)
E
ra • •
— z .-1 N M cr I � ,a N w o,
,...
R
W
W
H
- KC
z
0
H
H
- W
0
_ w
H
a
w
H
z
H
Ce
w
z
— 0
H
Cl)
H
— E
Z
0
C.)
(.7
z •
H C .
Z 1-1 r0
z C a) C
a o 1) •.1 .
a o c E Cl)
— a o C
'LS 0 C 0
• C a) •••1
4 (tro O
ro O U)
O I- a) b • O
•.1
C . a C C >1 a
c a) a) it +)
C cn trr •••1 C
E •.1 n. a .-1 O
5 4-1 to "0 (1) •.•I
O s-1 •.-1 C a) .O !n
o a) uit -se se as u)
• a ro (1)
z3 0 k .0 -U o a C
C +) a) a C -I-) •r1 a)
o >, ,-1 a) E >1 N ..-1
W 1-) (Cl 4-1 S-4 CO
tr, •,.I •--1 a) .-) •.1 a) c
..5e .-1 0 C •rl .-1 'rl a)
— c) .•+ a) cn E -,1 al w
(Cl .0 a cn o .Q a) a)
m rr cn H 0 rc ,-1 C]
a)
E
it . •
Z ,--I N M cr in kD N 1 o0
C I TY 0 F P.C. DATE: Dec. 6 , 1989 '"
•
\I O.
CHANHASSEN
C.C. DATE: Dec. 18 , 1989
CASE NO: 89-20 SUB
Pre.ared b : Al-Jaff/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 3 . 2 Acres into Two
Lots of 2 . 08 Acres and 0. 78 Acres
Z
Q
LOCATION: 365 Pleasant View Road
Cl.
Q APPLICANT: Robert Sathre
365 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 3 . 5 Acres
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
Q S- Lotus Lake
•
E- RSF; single family
W- RSF; single family
W
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
—
v/ PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is a riparian lot between Lotus
Lake and Pleasant View Road and heavily
wooded with mature trees .
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
ca
p p p O O O p ore) N
O _ O ti I O I F^1aDE CA-LE--
N ` I = Reb;E
I I ( CHRI T 'A I ►N PIh COUNTY ``UR-7 _ '' .�
I. �' LAKE / • �:= �1$r.flf `LI-a-di-A.14
ioI - � 4►!1RD — �iirovripti
d ■f
• ------ - Ilikar '
wrd-1(1111
, , :Tr • ii
:47_ i- , .
'. . to _'10, ; R i =;1111
Itrimphi-- A RS , -,-/-\\I.:,
itO ,-.17 ....o ---, _J , .,,,,_ J
41" .--N,
ir4 ';4441...,-- •C' . 141
I max':u =�'! J ■
of 111 - .`� ,, .-•- );,v41 1^ coup. . ..fti 4
a ME
iiit"....,j%."401;klii-e., ,i,:i‘ . ,, )i -j/Z-4u _ i
. mitypismin boa .. , __- - -,,,,. -I'
in% -ANSI A. \---- ..Nr..v." Ie , ./ , 7
thus ;
I
-7i41
RD
0 a . 11,<< 3 & _ — �, . cation- O u����:. _
��viol .. 4414 "' I' .. - ro osed Subdivis '� ":i��� OTOS �%--�- - 1� -
Will �OM IN - -%.04r.... tri►' � "'.''':�!� _ - . �+� r;,,tt �.,
ion II 11 ,r.. ri SII X111*' +�' � ,ter
1H mg • N I° } `` VIP ., E it a •iP4:� ij 1`
c'
"186124" i 1 °1"(te AIM
ila Hui
v. 'gilt), < „..i.,,: lilaras. L , c: ,_ 4.
•
, .
R4
T"�ri 1 . J -S'''°4�a ��` �r '�:,. LAKE �\\�■ I� �"-1
Fr-rcti .i'`':.o�, ID — ? `S '�i k} w• �,'� `, it �• 44 CC
RSA - . ' .., .., `;a`,,., ,�/ •mum Ili�l� _
r •
�- �� t 10, -.ilium osiio, .44
7 �r +
6) • �•\` • r 4.1( ?• ; �-•l I:TEIV11711 �/1 ,,
. - ''.4 fi 4 ..- 'Ili.;14
1111241Prit4.1! lalb-141..
' -1/6 7 ,4 • .-1 ell 104.1 .`rte � _
avi
h.
.11 .
7
I• .' .1 , &sal '1IDA. i ••t'll ��
411.d a amu.X13111.011/, =Ir / ALIO
R
rl 1 •1 2r= I oi : P. 15 larlfal INF,R12 r. WO hihipNIMI '."I:11y::lll .
Sathre Subdivision
December 6 , 1989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
There are no actions of record concerning this site .
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 0 . 78 acre lot from a 3 . 2
acre parcel . This lot will be made available for new construction.
The remaining 2 . 08 acre parcel contains an existing house.
Both lots meet all of the requirements of the RSF District. The
standard utility and drainage easements are being provided along the
lot lines of the plat. Public utilities are available at the site.
Both lots will be served directly by driveways from Pleasant View
Road. The lots are large enough that both have sufficient area to be
further subdivided. Lot 1 could be spilt into several additional
home sites at some point in the future but at the present time
variances would be required for lots having no frontage on a public
road. Staff is in the process of developing ordinance revisions that
would clarify this issue. Lot 2 could not be subdivided due to lot
width criteria.
Streets
In the attached memo, the Senior Engineering Technician addresses the
utilization of the existing Pleasant View Road for access . He is
requesting that the proposed driveway for Lot 2 , Block 1 , be located
to the extreme easterly edge of the lot to provide adequate sight
distance from the corner of Pleasant View Road and Horseshoe Curve.
In this case, due to topography and tree coverage, shared driveways
are not recommended. To insure that future owner§ are aware of the
required driveway location on Lot 2 , an appropriate notice should be
placed in the Chain-of-Title.
In situations such as this , staff gives consideration to requiring
that Lot 2 share the existing Lot 1 driveway since it offers better
sight distance and it is beneficial to limit the number of curb cuts
on a busy street like Pleasant View Road.
Park Dedication
•
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plat at their meeting
of November 29 , 1989 . It was their recommendation that a park dedi-
cation fees be required in lieu of park land.
COMPLIANCE TABLE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Front Side Rear
Area Width Depth Setback Setback Setback
Ordinance 15 , 000 90 125 30 10 30
Lot 1 90 ,605 93 300+ 100 160/300 30
Lot 2 33 , 976 114 289 N/A N/A N/A
Sathre Subdivision
December 6 , 1989
Page 3
VARIANCES REQUIRED
None.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
#89-20 as shown on the plat dated November 6 , 1989 , and subject
to the following conditions :
1 . The driveway access to Lot 2 shall be located to the far
easterly edge of Lot 2 . Notice of the location shall be
placed in the Chain-of-Title of the lot.
2 . The final plat shall reflect the existing sanitary sewer
easement over Lot 1 .
3 . Park and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of
park land dedication.
4 . A tree preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance
of a building permit. The plan should illustrate how
driveway and home placement and construction will minimize
tree loss . The plan must be approved by staff . Preservation
areas shall be adequately marked by snow fence prior to
construction to avoid damage. "
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician. _
2 . Application.
3 . Preliminary plat dated November 6 , 1989 .
CITY OF
CIIANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planning Intern
FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician a'
DATE: November 21 , 1989
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Sathre Addition
File No. 89-19 Land Use Review
Upon review of the preliminary plat of Sathre Addition dated
November 6 , 1989 , submitted by Schoell & Madson , Inc . , I offer
the following comments and recommendations :
The site is located south of Pleasant View Road and east of
Horseshoe Lane . This plat proposes subdividing one lot into two.
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
Sanitary sewer and water service is available to Lot 2 from
Pleasant View Road. On Lot 1 where their is an existing house
water service is provided from Pleasant View Road and sanitary
sewer service from the line immediately south of the house adja-
cent to Lotus Lake .
Streets
This plat will utilize existing Pleasant View Road for access .
It is recommended that the proposed driveway for Lot 2 be, located
to the extreme easterly edge of the lot to provide adequate site
distance from the corner of Pleasant View Road and Horseshoe
Lane .
Grading and Drainage
No grading plan was received with the preliminary plat; there-
fore , it appears that no grading will occur over this site .
Sharmin AI-Jaff
November 21 , 1989
Page 2
Miscellaneous
The standard utility and drainage easements are being provided
along the lot lines of this plat. However , the plat does not
show an existing sanitary sewer easement over Lot 1 lying between
Lotus Lake and the existing house . This easement should be shown
on the final plat ( see attached ) .
Recommendations
1 . The driveway access to Lot 2 shall be located to the far —
easterly edge of Lot 2 .
2 . The final plat shall reflect the existing sanitary sewer
easement over Lot 1 .
c: Gary Warren , City Engineer —
PRLI
_ - - MINPQ•- 1- SCI
1
1 l \1
II
o
c.
\. % ro, 6)
, % \ `A
IIN%___ , _rii . ..
Nouse A
.............„.---------, , 6 \\
..__X- --\/ \\ IS
m
---;7- . -- -- . .7._225 BI- ..,3,% % \
1\
`11
, /\ \\\
4 0 \\\
Nouse \\
.roo fs, zr,--° 1; i 1 1 \
' 9
;/
9 / �i�e - 1k\
001t"7:
/ ///./.1:11.: ,.. is.„. . * 1 \
'7, �� • � • ipV9 (OP \ 1 \�� .
—_ . ,---_•...
C •_ , .
"•••,<-1 1 - .--
••••••..,...
""..._.)< I •
.:. 1
l
\ -it..-.
/
7ii )
•_,..,,,, i
r:e\:.) ) 47.e."
IV
. ..( ) ii•At.,,.4 j '.,/ i•iks... 1- -.
•3/ -
\I? / '• 4 .
• \
____
•.:N . f --.. , -:-..*
• , .. ....,
. . .. -
...... At. A
.17 :6* 4 / ''' .4,,,. •21 ----
ilic
.?.....!•.: •
. ,•••7 4.,...:;, 1 ,/
Nish, N,\\•'....\ \ '
a IC;e! .":ii: I / liki Q \ •
r..4/";(:;:!4*. ii -... / / ''...... '-;; •
''' '\k\ r) \ l..•"...4_,
•f•:,••-.•• . .. , C . • /..,‘1
A c •ct.\\ 0 \ .:s \-- 7
. , • , --- / , ,--., —
s.. •• i.-.1 : . • .• \\1•\.;\ ;.
\• :t ..' : \.\
\ . •1 •D \ \
,,. v• , . \ ., \
illaki,:j '' ‘kl) .. • \ ;\
, 1
r l -N I ,• ilitt • 1 I A
•\ ..„ s-
. III 1 \ • \ •-•.-
t.P
:. s.,0\ . .‘ \
ilk'
It%
li • i 4 i : .\
• \ \
\. .
• k
.i. :. r • \ilk N• \
\. •\ \
t
t ( \
. i % x
1 r
'IV C-N 1
I .1 i
1 t
. 1
‘ \'' . - %r • \
-
1 • . .\ 1
IL-
I
CiP
mit/....."..
'1)
..1
1,1 - -• ((•-C--
n.-
iOlaIILklk 1 8''i_:._.
..,.
_____ 41111111111111—
74—.#-.=.,..:::-•-•"•.,v..s:0-::.:-0.--.-.:1-.—.__-=-1—,1
- --..
1
(71L•
e — : _ 7—
%
,C-
wq.-.•qa
.
....--4 ....„..„
4 ..„...„ 3,N, eiru.0,
- Lir, ----- -----,....-
(-1z.;> .572.://K
•
'j 37-
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CUANHASSEJ
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
• (612) 937-1900 _ ,:
APPLICANT: /�o)3c�— . 4 ir-e. OWNER: 0 3 l y�
ADDRESS ,365 P/e4s-4�-74 //cr : ADDRESS &L,'S 19/04-54,7,-,1 V. fvJ Rd.
n `iasscn , /`4/ 553/7 . 4� Ldrrleri� Mi 553/
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) Zip Code - Zip Code
y 73 �' '/08j TELEPHONE 751 /%,
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development =t:
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan
Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment X/ Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment
Platting
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation -
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION An-.
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION 3S.
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING X
• USES PROPOSED gF3.
SIZE OF PROPERTY 3. 5 aG r
LOCATION 65 / <-,s � V,
•
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Cer4/ //
dMe-Si 4 CinT7'c, �4
6-/>Ice /9 7 6 1,v44„ 74.v o sepa4e
_re e.,./e d fit/ oLGr
Serv;ceg L✓ere. Iislz//cd 4�S ksscrS�d �y GA
y
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary )�ec.
A2 ;z3 3 , 6/ 4c .
City of Chanhassen
.Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance
filing this application provisions . Before
to determine the specificordinanceandconfer proceduralwitherequirementsCityr
applicable to your application .
•
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances . '
Signed By $ 441,110q ( g J
Date I
Applicant
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein r
described .
Signed By $ b.9Fee OwnerDate
•
•
Date Application Received �, /3 C1
MU.
Application Fee Paid $/00 ,00
City Receipt No.
' This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
•
meeting .
r ITY
c of
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: November 30, 1989
SUBJ: Sathre Addition
The Park and Recreation Commission recently reviewed the sub-
- division proposed by Robert Sathre. The Commission acted to
recommend approval and to require payment of park and trail dedi-
cation fees.
1
1
i
1
i
i
P.C. DATE: Dec . 6; '1989'x`
C I TY 0 F
CIIANIIAS5EN C.C. DATE: Dec . 18 , 1989
, CASE NO: 89-19 SUB
Prepared by: A1-Jaff/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 16 . 77 Acres into
Two Lots and Four Outlots
F
Q LOCATION: North of Highway 5 , west of Great Plains Boulevard and
south of Chicago, Milwaukee , St. Paul Railroad .
APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Q Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business District and BH, Highway and
Business Services District
ACREAGE: 16 . 7 acres, 730 , 327 square feet
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- CBD , Central Business District and BG ,
General Business District
S- Highway 5
QE- BH, Highway and Business- Services District
W- Highway 5
1.1
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
LW PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has been extensively altered by the
recent completion of Market Blvd. and 79th
Street. With exception of two retention
ponds , the larger of which is located west
of Market Blvd. , the site is flat and
devoid of tree cover .
2000 LAND USE PLAN: General Business and Highway Business
it. t..
...:
III
iii
': 111h4P 116,114r4:5 Nfi-
12.j IE
: -1 - Ip ' iii 44414~ -
_ n
IP
s a. A T"' • ja
60 or _
��►s • -. .e. c ...,:. /R,..
dr 41,_ (gaol1I
L I _I ••. i ,wt, , ,- ,rw -7 '.' ' ., ' Ili tm.,-( 'L 1 eLiktim
o �.'•.. Willtal • s.
:?
LADE* .„NM.,
'.- a
m I
RS . - , : :i
clw) ". Me ) 1 AMEN mparigil e..
in . te !. . •
_ . , > -. ii
. , .. -' 'IR A . , . \
d Whii!
• 1 .. W. 0 41114 IPP7Sfr
0 Ot
R41 p. a I . :I
t_
l .j
,. A Orn♦ �MF fffl
■.a4.,■!l.16 IFin • '' _iD
R 12 ►�Ai .id .- .
R 12 Et....
igli,am Hugo !!4:;'l IIi '
(izc.) __ ■■■NII ','lit iiiiiiiffirelkir: 1 t")!J th[t'.11 -�
''°fir''- 11111111111
4
# if 1 I Li IR I .up '_ OW : . -
ciit pl. in , 1'4".,,,..1-: . IP .11011111.....1: ..,1r. _..„,,,orjor -Ali ,: .
„,.. .
:oho K =im . � p ' 4, „„„..
1 ____ _
t... ,,......-,..002.00.1, FA .A 4.. • w Id tor. It . -- Ira.- .44/4:11Piir rigi.1rIrrA,... J ma: 01444:•.. •
III NA" War
.....o....j,...),,A,C C °ow allikkar - • I Fig e - I
.•••• 7113117c. -. la • .wilib alliii r
�p OI `� ■:2a . p ty-- ,',.. i'f `
Location If -
_, , lir _ - , i
! proposed . ite ' ; Vie RSF_
, V P- -,- -i SOMV III
I �JEN
� a� NWI R ca:‘ME
N
i 316
LAKE SUSAN # mil Ihrob.Ih = ,.
RD 4I -45,41,4
CD i •� RICE r
.\, - -•=...- - .3*. \ - .
e PUD— RI
� I 86 TM ST — -
R
Crossroads Plaza Subdivision
December 6 , 1989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
In October , 1989 , plans were submitted for the Crossroads
National Bank and development started on the site . Plans were
approved on October 23 , 1989 . The subdivision is being requested
primarily so that the City can convey the bank site to the deve-
lopers , create a second lot for future development and create
necessary easements and roads .
ANALYSIS
The City , which currently owns the site , is proposing to sub-
divide 16 . 77 acres into two lots and four outlots as follows:
Lot 1 , Block 1 contains 2 . 47 acres and will be the site of the
future Crossroads National Bank.
Lot 2 , Block 1 contains 3. 02 acres and will be reserved for
future development . Lot 2 is labeled as Outlot A on the current
survey . Staff is recommending that the final plat be revised to
plat it as Lot 2 , Block 1 since it will eventually be sold for
future development.
Outlot B, 1. 74 acres, contains a drainage pond and may ultimately
contain streetscape improvements as it is an entrance into the
CBD.
Outlot C, 0 . 33 acres, and Outlot D, 0 . 55 acres have been
established for the future expansion of Highway 5 for ultimate
right-of-way negotiations with MnDOT.
Outlot E, 6 . 14 acres , contains a drainage pond and will be pre-
served as such .
STREETS
In the attached memo, the Senior Engineering Technician addresses
the utilization of the existing West 79th Street for access . He
is requesting that Lot 2 share a common access driveway with Lot
1 to eliminate traffic congestion on West 79th Street. Provision
of a shared curb cut etween Lots 1 and 2 was a condition of
approval for the bank. A 20-foot wide cross access easement
should be provided over each side of the south 50 feet of the
common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 ( see attached copy of bank
staff report and City Council minutes ) .
Market Boulevard is located on the extreme westerly edge of
Outlot E connecting West 78th Street with Highway 5. Acceptable
right-of-way for the final design of both streets has been pro-
vided .
._ - rr
Crossroads Plaza Subdivision
Decamber 6 , 1989
Page 3
•
UTILITY EASEMENTS
In the attached memo, the Senior Engineering Technician addresses
the utility easements. He is requesting the typical utility and
drainage easements over each lot; five feet on side lot lines
and 10 feet over the front and rear lot lines . A 20-foot wide
utility and drainage easement on the southern border of Lot 2 ,
Block 1 is required as storm sewer was extended through Lot 2 ,
Block 1 into Lot 1 , BLock 1 . An additional utility easement for
existing gas lines is requested across the northerly lot lines of
OUtlot E and Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1.
PARK DEDICATION
A park dedication fee for the bank site has been negotiated under
the purchase agreement from the City ' s Housing and Redevelopment
Authority . The City reserves the right to open park dedication
fees on Lot 2 at such time as it is proposed for development.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion :
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
Request #89-19 as shown on the preliminary plat dated October 27 ,
1989 and subject to the following conditions:
1 . The following easements shall be provided:
- A 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement will be required
on Lot 2 , Block 1 .
- The final plat should include the typical utility and
drainage easements over each lot; 5 feet on side lot lines
and 10 feet over the front and rear lot lines . -
- An additional utility easement should be shown on the plat
for the existing gas line across the northerly lot lines of
Outlot E and Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1.
- Cross access easement over the southern 50 feet of the common
lot line between Lots 1 and 2 . The easement shall be 20-feet
wide on each lot.
2 . The final plat should show Outlot A as Lot 2 , Block 1.
3 . The Lot 1 park dedication fee should be paid as outlined in
the HRA' s purchase agreement at the time of sale . The City -
reserves the right to acquire park dedication fees on Lot 2
at such time as it is proposed for development.
r-
Crossroads Plaza Subdivision
December 6 , 1989
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Senior Engineering Technician report dated November 29 , 1989 .
2 . Preliminary plat of Crossroads Plaza Addition dated October
27 , 1989 .
3 . Existing features map.
4 . Staff report and minutes for the Crossroads Bank dated
October 23, 1989 .
CITYOF 1111110r . C221,112ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planning Intern
FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician `' -
DATE: November 29 , 1989 ��
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Crossroads Plaza
File No. 89-18 Land Use Review -
Upon review of the preliminary plat of Crossroads Plaza dated
October 27 , 1989 , prepared by BRW, Inc . , I find the overall plan
is generally acceptable with the following conditions :
1 . The final plat should include the typical utility and -
drainage easements over each lot, i . e. 5 feet on side lot
lines and 10 feet over the front and rear lot lines .
2 . With recent development on Lot 1 , Block 1 , storm sewer was
extended through Lot 2 , Block 1 . Therefore , a 20-foot wide
utility and drainage easement will be required on Lot 2 ,
Block 1 ( see attached ) .
3 . Across the northerly lot lines of Outlot E and Lots 1 and 2 ,
Block 1 , an additional utility easement should be shown on
the plat for the existing gas line .
Attachment: Easement map.
c: Gary Warren , City Engineer
6-
r.
. A, 1 ,
il. %4• i..
. , z
411t
/ 1
/ iQ 1 J W i.
A �/ 1
u S %
z %c'i /
4
_ W
. 1 VFX` \ N I i
i f \ . ' \ I)
/ /
/ 0
J 4 ‘g \ A se
a ,
4p4\I Ai'l 0_ // 4
/Al / , 4, •.7.-
— p t
/ r . /<
\ A. * ,,., /
n
c 111r1 fr�w
\ if
-/
-AlR
1 •3
a !
o
- I b
— I ..
0.
N
i
. J
i c —
m r�i 1 -- - m r-
. Cr— ,i\S io—:. i ftrAilli ‘
x or-
>>. 1 • 1
o hii=ii. m
'a m �i1�;i,.;.:41,
fes. , t1 1 ; —
a
0 o fl If! i•//, :- I i I 1 33
II
/it, 11 \
/4VI4# W; jiJ ! i`
Tf ,fid / i1irjili: \\`1 1 TO —
, ; f•
1;
rmooi1;J111iJ;! , `ii 1 -
r'" 1
ir = t.
ill,ri i�r if 1'; Ili 1
111/4
r;� i
'ra
:!: - • 1!. I r�
.p -5:-/. H ` ,/,,,,,• ,//,' ' C1
i
Rl r;if //j ,, r, i
46
` — -=-Ls` - -
/ ,3 ; I itil
z —FL_` .0..lam-•, •` 1 -
I.
Y VA 1�
.11•
' E1 . 1
,i __4__'. •,1.00 • ''.. \ \ ti st - ‘% 73 1— —II
I,..
,/ I Z r JO , r i tZJ--
f
•
,- 1 -+, y
S } , ral `- : . \:\,,', .._;; ;'..:ate..- / �t I
• a. a r ��:� r. 't . t 1 It
. Pli s 4,,, / / )t1,-;-:\ \\,„ % 1 1 I .
II!' (-x. i i ',#,.,,,,i ...1
ill
s f
/ , , • _ :11 ,► 1
LE i` -�, / 4` Q
t
,, i'1 �! ; --/ , MI I _
•
i j 11.,,t,_.
� �� — t s •,`
1, - i i (
. - t. ,...f le
/ t ' -
\ 'L-
is 1 1
l _ '-1t. \ 1� '.zi I , f 1 -
• lY • • ly -7ti•11 it 1
lipii..%(1( 1i r gis
t11-11 „t . , • . . `1. \ j,k 1
.te t
-,. ..,....A
, �'� � A / 1
10. .14.• -t
,_5: A '• c-. ,. i.,, je. .."15 -....•__ -,r '-‘,, • - tit . ',...-. • Ir., lu-• t , if
out... •
1 tio"... • ‘ 11--; asig. 7
.. divot..,;., .- ..1:e..-pi ., • •I iles',_,I.;s:
• . ti.',..,,,,:.,-w.t., , -
•4'1,4 t ,- A
1:'% . !:..:'.. I',I: -^'' .• ..""
.0%...:ft ? ..." . ---' -,i II 4 ' •' w " ipi'' -lea; r
„I • , ".. itic.„4. . lb"' -* t ,I• ...At a
. ...4 * '',115L-Th. ---.•-•&,•'- P, ,I..4 .N, . - --.. 17 ,,.•', .414-....,;..kiiv.,,.....
-. . . '. spik..f. -y . e. -, . -1 -.- ••• --4 r-1, - . .4 -.1.-'•,- -..**•' .- .^,411 e i
4.4'. 7 ' ti. .". 'fr ' •- ( `-. 4%,,..01- ' A Z ,a . ,
. 4. .- • r. ' 111',
i 410`
. •-f 7 ....,4 A'',/k-: .
. - -
- .-4,•;;,'..-..- •
1 .4. "r- ,.. a .-)1",•-....1',..- .'-it.'.:.;.:Al.:•,'T'llkIrdtz_. -.;,. ' '''.:.-.. ; --- - .: 4;. . ' - • ; ,s.r.,--- ..i.
,44'3 . - .• 'Tr" t -4. e 4'^ • •
t
- - . - i,. filhi-•••••,. 441
--, 7-.-.-'*Z. ' .•.`•'k..4.wt.'s..i.%i-. -- -..- :..,`
44
. ,i..n.'.if•4. ,•:
.'„- itire.-..I;/4,-..;-...•:
. lir • - . IL,
.,- -
. - dil' •-i-i" • I • -, - s,..- ,, „, --Y 4 - .r
... . .. . • Ir-,...gt.---..*:: --... A s 1 , ........./PP ' - 1 ..„ , % - It L g.
•,:4 44. . - -• a I'
. f
_
/- '
.:11* 'V.'. ". i. .k ..,,,
,,.-
, 1 ' Ls-.<.P'- -.•-• ,., • •,. _ ,:.-, t.c., . 'Ai . -. A it--)4, .... w4t
4. • , - lk.. - . ,-, -',. ,4k..r• nwk .,-1. , 4 - 1'.,, - -‘,-
,
4 t.:*--- -- - " •' "‘ - I.-- . •, - '.- v... _ AI ..•
-... ii ...IF dit--...- :,•,.
lit.. -
1 ,.:... •-„, -
-0, . ,,, •. •- . .„- -, ., .
., . lip. ,..-• ..., ...... .., %
...., / - - ., .....-4, A-..-t..- L. . , • p.- .
- , xer --A
. . tr , "WI iii 4 ' ' - t
_ ... _ 4 A :11.IP -..= . •T-et ' -, it ,sis
4 - ..* • -, - '! , -- '-•
., _ • I-- • -7.. ' ti, 4 • _.:g. ,41,, ... . .
r i ,
-
• ,.. 17*' , •
, 6',„ le .11.. 2
,- '4.' -'-.. 1
i -r. ....-. .57 : = .1 -. •0'....-±.- ,..-:---,....‘ ,-,-, 4, ,-;.1 ,.„.. fr„,
--4-.,-__.1p.
• • .
-----4, .- - - \ - - K.- • ,. .-,..-, - - . 4 -•
• , • .44
... .
..,L.
0 .•:
41 '.
- . ' ltift . - •s, - _
. .. _
..,.. - ... . •,,,,t4..-. . , .,... .
'1 *. Iv, .,,;.• --A.A.,. " - " ' - -
_ . 161---. i.t,,,,,- - •
• • i of'?"4' - •
-11.41?" .-r• .! le. •, j.. -",..
soketide,..... •-•
. - . .e.. -.--. .4.-'-*-:-,,,f' •.4.'. '
•tr...Itir
'- ilt.' -1...d 11‘4- • 104. e' t, ,••••.- '11 1 --, :"
.. -_,.--,..- , .-. .4.-4ft.---4.V.4 •.
.:;,„; lir----- ;:A.. At ..- -;-."-'-'4, - .1: . - - St- ,•'- - .. ....4,.....i ,..
-•:`,:le-1 - ,,,--.. i.i.'r- - - -vit. ..
-jct., . 1..44..,, .. ._, . - , , :, . .. . .
tritiA
, ,- -- • " --"- ar- . -A- 1`f'.
. - . - ?- . -- • , -4. .i.- .-4_ - : t i .
,-*- • it'1%. '.. .7.--,. •.47 4. •
,......... -, --
„....570.;•., - „-.4„--..--...4 - - -.,..,.- • at
., _,,,,__A,... • .-
-4w -..-,-r-itin...1 ..'-ii.iig. a_--*•-• . ,..1 :Au 7 -. a. 4 - i' cc.. • #r ,-.. • • - .1- 1 .":,-. - .....,-,• ...1...0.-
„..„-,,,,i........-... it -1r -IF It ,•• , . ,_-- , •
jr.,..„,it .. .. .,.. ..... 4 6 1. . "•! 4pn. ; .
.- -
- • ... 6 '. ;_ g-.
-,Wr.4.-4' -Zit.:' o• . v.* .-- .
- . - - - •
•%, - • -
1 1 -
-. - a ,,, 7 • ';,:,
;Al •Iii 4. fill i• •.40, ,;-„,. :,. fe
. .
, „-;.- , - - . -, A% , •*if--
.. - ......,..,
' 1.-* * •
-- •'1 4 --y..,---*. "to ..,is _ 4 • • ".. :. , ..4,.... p ip • • i roll.t* 1 • _.' . • • .- *-'''- •t 'V' ..k
•
s, . -7 ..,..• ,...r._14, - -:. I(,:•_. ..-_-;,....14. - 1.-_, •- • ,.._ Iff 1
- - -
ti .'
..1.
F. ... .._4
.-'," . V-.t•-•••.)0,_ li, , r,..46. . , ‘-',..4tio,'"'• a. _
•4 "I...gt- t.',..it , --p,....t. , -•-•
• -. wry , -7.ta.,t .
-, • .1. , , -T,
••• 4 : `II & att: . ' •-•• -
, .. 6 f•••• 1 10 .....A. z...
•,.., 4
Wirly
f ""--. - ", . r... - . •...f: jit 7V
. ... • • . , *• .
i......
. I 170'7 S...:. -............414 .7- -'„ •• -. ' '.-1L. 4:-.4:1) • ‘ --t.t..A `. Nt,'. • 01.-
41.4- y• - 1 i 1:1'.. , :v.. it aLi. .144",if •. 'i ...-, .
•-• _.....r,.,„",e.. „t,: _., . . - , , )
.i ,:. P W..'...e._-. ..• . ; ' \ '-': . - '•
• •.., ' 1- 114M11 4.'4' .1‘ . . .11‘..
t iji t t Alt 4:: •- ,. , •
• ". *
•,..y e. - . - .
I ' '14 .-14 .ti-,74.1)•.--... ,.. * i ' . .
I --t Al .' v•-., - • - -i't ' ' * 0)00' I ' • 1---r•el
I ..' ., _ .....• _--- :_r• 2_71 cx_f: .0:-:4.1. _,_ :
.. . _ ..--17:""•_•-; ) . Ili. -- • -
I .
_ 1 t. i (--, .
•
• '17- .11' . p - . .
- - -,.•4 -- 'fit...., i t' .11 ,.. ;•--•er : i . ' .. .1....3 1 ,.
_,43.1,ii,.- , . . •. ..r , .
; . . -
4W2',.- Z ii% • L$- • r -- • tr
/a- ••• ir . ''
-44.44:`" •,%
.......ai---.-=?:.• -:.-----:- --• „L• -si ..,. - a.
--_-...,-,---, ... .. , 7awr .14-,:. : .- .-4, -_,...,,,, .1 ,i5.,
---(1 ;it -
,fr •,,-.... --, ...k.,-, ... :._ . ..-. ..,,, ‘k.
-: •
.....,
, r.).
tik
1.
... -!....
, • . 'j it '
111,1 ;i1S,
....
z .;,:,.. 7 i .'' - ' - . ' 1 i
- ..., 7:e..i: t74‘4, . -".
0 0" ' aeft41 ' 4.4 1 '
-•*- rA, ,•-..-c-i - - a =-.a.,.t.. .... .- -...t•''-
• ..-,. ; .4
ts.,'i-...: it_,._,_st-d„ . .- •'--,,s1:,,1%.!-. %-11 N. . - „- ,:...
'•.... •: 4T... 74 4' • i ,•,,..-.--'1ii....-'
:-.-;. _ --:-. ••-,......,.. 4E -...-, -- - ..... i .4.-
.;4 „ 11c4tk,, ,•: - .1.:- .... ...... ra. ..
- 4_
of, :,, . - ....
At .....:
, - . .. . A . - •,.
...„...,-...x.,.. :v.., „,,_•.
--- .,...':•-._Al.' -.1-.%:!!:•--4„.‘•t . :7'.%-i. ...IA,.4 . k. 7i, .11'1
•...If i is
t: '4.- ---i- -
r: , ."-- -.16'i ' --'-- '...f.w - , ,-• ..
.1 ,..
..., .-
. •
. r -t-P'crtr.t",- '' ' -•_,_ , . f.. .. - •
1 N. l •*, • 't . r . -
.
-... -. •
4. .lif y,. . -• , • ,-.,
... .
,... ,.:. . - ,:,..,,,,,-. clsi ,:-..ic 141,...se. 14.. .,r; I, 14,0„_ t. i: ' ? r •
'4 ',. •411116‘ , . N. ''S - . .:. .1. - A•'".6 744 r'i % -0 ....
...,._-4-,„ . . tokt.,-.1-n..,,,_••,ff._,, • ,- .'" t•-Aillt,,,,.. • , :. .y , •, ,,.- - _ . i . .. -,- 'tiip., . ••••. Pr ' 4.11;e„ -
I
. •4- .. J. _t- ille"ir-,4-"*.-1114 ''''. ''' . Si•-•• •N,..".......15 - -1 -. -;-.,,l-- •- . 0.,
4 4- 's4;'•. '1' - .--4.2.0. OA° --ii 'Ilse" it - --II'- • • '
-4451.4.4*-
' ' „, ,_,. .r:•',t.. %„., :.;,,Y.'w+.7,.,,i_Tx.•14 • . .i, I,, . lk .„, .i.r ..N.,,,,,,,•-
47-1.7.• •:.',.30,.'',„. • - .-• to4:410... -- .-4 0, • 4;4 ticAl- ,.- itt f: 0..._•.. ._ .i , , -i . .• ..,...-,- ..,
- i -. .,....e._,....
, '.....ja • • _ 2 low
' i.%.. - '-t• :-.,41r. . ,._ .•, . rt:, , . ' '-''- , ' • '' li
f 4 l' ' . .0,- • -4E . _
•Vri.- ` ' -- ' I .-.::„..:-,..
,... .... ,.: , .,. ‘ •.......at .,-- .,,,--...... , .._.,_ .....--, 1 ,.., • .. . 4- /4. '.*- •
- e -- -
, 4.11_-.14....,_, -.1: , ... ,..,..-. :_. . ...i. . z... it., . ., . ,..:•.,„ .. . ......
.. .
7, - .., " . -,t4. ,,- A... •...' "or '''.=•%...-- ": '„ --- --- ::• 4.,..-. . •,-
.
•A
. • .- - ' .--_-_(- tti..'...---....'1;,. " ..e.-'•7!;'-'. . 1
' - ---IV,.....-1.-.„,• - -- -,,,,,-vie A. ?t,-. , . ,,,,..„, II,.., ..i.
. ill' '45V••S' -. • 2 S s• gt•
•-• _ _ ^ :'••• • --..-------1\e-1., -•' • ----*C*,. 14,..lb . • , ,. -
I _ 'VA , ••• . I ... ,,;.`.
., •‘ N'• 4. It
• 411111106.• -'• ' ' --Zi. 1 - ....ilk .4: ..4"
C IT 1 O r
r.C. DATE: Oct. 4 , 198/ * - _, -71,-P 9
P -
�AO CHANHASSENC.C. DATE: Oct. 23 , 1989I
CASE NO: .89-6 Site Plan
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for 14 , 000 Sq. Ft. Bank and Office
Building - Crossroads National Bank
11-
Q LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Market Boulevard and West 79th
Street - Parts of Lots 5-7, Block 1 , Frontier
U Development Park
APPLICANT: TCNB Incorporated Tom Mork
10201 Wayzata Blvd. Jim Ruckle L
cl. Minnetonka, MN 55343 Shea Architects
Q Butler Square, Suite 300
100 North 6th Street
Minneapolis , MN 55403
PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business ,District and
BG, General Business District
ACREAGE: 2. 4 acres
DENSITY: —
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- BH; railroad tracks & Chan Bowl
QS- BH; vacant
Q , E- BH; vacant
W- BG; vacant - ponding area
w
{�...
;� WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
—
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
The site is fairly level unimproved
property.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
so & :.• vi J l • '. -- to \Vil
RD ',, - �/sg
1111 dam m t- AU Irrizajavill: - '‘...:', "MS '' •( _"*amikrie
IR• a :� : . .nv • oR LOTUS r m ---- - _f WI:
ililialellt-I -;:vt.•_•4
,' ���.- /IIgM1�1�1�1�1iN1t Qi 'i1`y R Y 11111111111111111 .
\ A r `�a �F' 12
W : R i i='•J � w� A , .11 ���� IEEE
'611440.EL b AO
.11IlL
0 , ` ; 111tf�. .d. rs..411001165 ► � ein. V\ i11r4Do*Y �', 01
IP
o\ L A K E \ -‘11-1M4 k gaet
RS � � J � �, �" t• `i �` • \� i 4. _
NEE maim nom
\i: lams to
c R
E ai�!r I!T 1,714 %►rSH Vitali; ITO" te• �.�
1. �j
I.A . - ' -ARS
SA" ::\ 11111 r*, -1 um, Ito ea iiv .iirit.1, Lit.A.....1.0 \ 9,
11
R4 oh tig:* to. .1-44 v:w.... ,---ffri. itnii II
stiv
- Wbw_iiiiiiallitiklif.4“ 466.*4/1/2VIAINii priarrai - •
A1
- iGn7Mlir -"um. ...E1 I
•-.-.
- - - R12' = :.. :;:ea
� 4 ,
1 ,2 ' I ai ria :yam �' � 3b
_, ... ... r .m, .� IFIli :A
_ rib -:-.1 J i it
W Mai �� \4.......11111/11 !!�.1.1.1■.111 �_
• _ .- ifi i
,,,,,
1..gaiiiiii.-- warrelph -
I ma: 11111111:111,
. .,e .,, _
3G p . ,,, :it ii L9p._ ••• ,---- .00 man A.
f=► `'� `::�. 1_� i ��i �� 411
E• �� ame
��� ��is Mira.
iv...-.
- --- illbih. �- ` _ , IP got m.A g
11111111111141 ,
_JIrThoi :
l^ ' mi v,,I; #.1;•11-11Pi 6k-,- I: avrt. a
) ? a- ft
1■��
I
�FRSF
I*MilikV.r - ., --- - -
INNEN
i t CIRCLE �'�
4111
LAKE SUSAN
4
oii.....
f -
Crossroads National Bank oft
October 4 , 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Financial institutions are a permitted use in the BH and BG
Districts .
Section 20-715 and 20-755 requires in the BH District a minimum
lot area of 20 , 000 square feet, lot frontage of 100 feet, lot
depth of 150 feet and a maximum lot coverage 65% ( 70% in BG
District) .
The setbacks for the BH District are 25 feet front, 20 feet for
rear yard and 10 feet for the side yard setbacks . The setback
for BG District is 25 feet front and rear and 10 feet on the side
yards . The maximum height for a structure is two stories for the
principle structure and one story for the accessory structure in —
BH and 3 stories ( 40 ' ) in BG District.
There is no minimum setback for off-street parking areas when it
abuts a railroad right-of-way except as provided in Sections
20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements .
Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abutting —
right-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40
feet and a hedge wall or berm of at least two feet.
Section 20-1192 requires interior property lines to be landscaped
with one tree per 40 feet.
Section 20-1211 requires interior landscaping for vehicular use —
areas .
Section 20-1125 requires for office three parking spaces for each —
1 , 000 square feet of gross floor area and one parking space every
250 square feet of floor space for a financial institute.
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Building Inspector Attachment #1
Fire Inspector Attachment #2
City Engineer Attachment #3 —
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to develop a bank and office building
with a total square footage of 14,000 square feet ( including a
future 4 , 000 sq. ft. addition) . The building is located at the
northeast corner of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The —
proposed site is part of Lots 5-7, Block 1, Frontier Development
R-
x
Crossroads National Bank
October 4 , 1989
Page 3
Park which is owned by the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. The applicant is currently negotiating with the HRA
to purchase the property. As part of the agreement, the City is
platting the subject property and adjacent property also under
the ownership of the HRA. A condition of site plan approval will
be for the preliminary and final plat to be approved and recorded
with Carver County.
The site is in both the BG and BH District. This is due to the
fact that the old district boundaries do not conform to the pre-
sent Market Boulevard alignment. The site plan meets conditions
of either district but a rezoning of the property should occur
during the plat procedure to provide consistency. The City will
initiate the request.
Site Plan
Circulation
The bank is oriented towards West 79th Street with a drive-thru
area located adjacent to Market Boulevard. The design of the
site plan allows easy flow for the drive-thru tellers and allows
separate access for parking and entering the bank and office
areas .
Market Boulevard, once connected to Hwy. 5 , will become a major
roadway entering downtown Chanhassen. The Market Boulevard curb
cut will be an entrance only. A left turn lane will be provided
into the site from southbound Market Boulevard. Due to the high
traffic levels that are expected, staff is recommending that a
right turn deceleration lane should be provided to accommodate
traffic entering the site from Market Boulevard. In addition, a
bituminous sidewalk is located on the east side of Market
Boulevard from West 78th Street to "Bowling Alley Lane" and con-
tinues east on "Bowling Alley Lane" . Staff is recommending that
a 6 ' concrete sidewalk be located south from "Bowling Alley Lane"
to West 79th Street on the east side of Market Boulevard.
To accommodate the right turn lane on Market Boulevard and the 6
foot concrete side sidewalk, the 44 ' right-of-way will have to be
expanded. At the most, an additional 20 feet of right-of-way
would be required. Staff is recommending that the applicant work
with staff to design the deceleration lane and sidewalk to deter-
mine the exact amount of additional right-of-way which is
required. Once the amount of additional right-of-way is deter-
mined, the site plan will have to be revised to reflect the new
westerly lot line ( to maintain proper setbacks) . This revision
can be easily accommodated by shifting the entire site plan to
the east.
The most easterly curb cut on West 79th Street is approximately
75 feet from the West 79th Street-Market Boulevard intersection.
Crossroads National Bank
October 4, 1989
Page 4
Staff would prefer the exit be further separated from the inter-
section ( 100 ' - 150 ' ) . Shifting the site plan to the east to
accommodate the additional right-of-way on Market Boulevard will
provide additional separation between the exit and the intersec-
tion (approximately 100 ' ) .
The east access on West 79th Street is located on the east lot
line and the adjacent lot. In the future the easterly access on
West 79th Street will also act as an access to the adjacent lot
when it is developed. Since the access is crossing property
lines , cross easements must be provided.
Parking, Landscaping and Elevation
Using the calculation for parking for financial institutions at
one parking space per 250 square feet of building area, a total
of 56 parking spaces would be required. The applicant is pro-
viding 67 parking spaces which includes 2 handicapped parking
spaces . The 67 spaces exceeds the requirements for financial
institutions and offices . The area for cars using the drive-thru
provides adequate stacking distance.
Page L-1 of the plans provides proposed landscaping for the site.
The applicant is providing the required landscaping except for
hedges required on the berm located between the south parking
area and West 769th Street. The landscaping plan shall be
revised to provide the necessary landscaping on the berm between
the parking area and West 79th Street. Staff is not requiring
internal landscaping along the most easterly lot line since the
parking area and access will be expanded into the adjoining lot.
The building is one story with a tower at the southwest corner.
The building is brick with bronze metal roof with HVAC enclosed
internally. There are 6 covered drive-thru tellers connecting
the building with a tower made of similar materials which
features a time and date sign.
Signage
The applicant is proposing one pylon sign, several directional
signs and a time and temperature sign above the drive-thru. The
pylon sign is located at the entrance from Market Boulevard and
is 45 square feet in size. The BH and BG District permits one
pylon sign/lot not to exceed 64 square feet and the height of the
pylon sign is limited to 20 feet. A detail on the pylon sign
providing the height of the sign shall be provided prior to City
Council approval . The time and temperature sign is located on
the north and west side of the tower and is 42 square feet ( 3 ' x
14 ' ) .
Sign permits are required for the pylon and directional signs.
The time and temperature sign are permitted without a permit.
Any additional signage will require a permit.
M1
Crossroads National Bank
October 4 , 1989
Page 5
Grading, Drainage & Utilities
Please refer to the Senior Engineering Technician ' s memorandum.
Temporary Facility
Page 1B of the site plan illustrates a modular banking facility
and a phasing plan for the construction of a permanent facility.
The applicant is proposing to utilize the temporary facility in
order to open up the bank prior to the permanent building being
completed. The temporary building is a 24 ' x 74 ' modular
constructed building. The temporary building is a fully self
contained building with all necessary eqiupment including two
drive up lanes . Crossroads National Bank will be prepared to
open their bank for business in the near future and the permanent
building will not be completed until the end of 1990 or early
1991.
The temporary bank facility will be located within the easterly
parking lot. All of the parking areas used for the temporary
banking facility will be paved with the curb and gutter and
landscaped as proposed on the overall site plan. The building
will have footings , will be hooked up to sewer and water and will
be handicapped accessible. The temporary facility will utilize
the easterly full access on West 79th Street. A condition of
site plan approval will be that the temporary facility will have
to be removed within one week of the permanent facility receiving
a certificate of occupancy.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review
#89-6 for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated
September 22 , 1989 and subject to the following conditions :
1 . The property shall be platted and recorded with: Carver
County.
2 . The City shall process a rezoning of the property as part of
the platting procedure.
3 . The site plan shall be revised to include a right turn dece-
leration lane on Market Boulevard and a 6 foot wide concrete
sidewalk on the east side of Market Boulevard. The site plan
shall be revised to reflect additional right-of-way necessary
for the deceleration lane and sidewalk and to maintain
required setbacks .
Crossroads National Bank
October 4 , 1989
Page 6
4 . The applicant shall provide cross easements for the joint
access on West 79th Street.
5. The applicant shall provide revised landscaping plan pro-
viding necessary landscaping on the berm between the parking
area and West 79th Street.
6 . The applicant shall provide a detail on the pylon sign pro-
viding the height of the sign prior to City Council approval.
7 . The temporary facility will have to be removed within one
week of the permanent bank facility receiving a certificate
of occupancy.
8 . The applicant shall comply with any and all Watershed
District requirements.
9 . The city will monitor the site for erosion control problems
and if deemed necessary additional erosion control may be
required in the future.
10. Exact storm sewer connections and design shall be verified in
the field and approved by the City' s Engineering Department
prior to construction.
11. The exit on West 79th Street shall be moved a minimum of 100
feet from the West 79th Street/Market Boulevard intersection.
12. The applicant shall illustrate how the easterly parking lot
will be modified in the future when the adjacent parcel is
developed. "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan
with staff' s conditions with the following changes :
6 . The temporary facility will have to be removed within one
week of the permanent bank facility receiving a,certi•ficate
of occupancy, notwithstanding the foregoing, such temporary
facility shall be removed within 9 months of the issuance of
the building permit for the permanent bank facility.
11. Future addition designated on the plans are not part of the
site plan approval.
In addition, the Planning Commission wanted staff to provide the
City Council with the details for the lighting of the site. The
applicant has provided the details showing the type of light fix-
tures used on the site and where they are located.
Crossroads National Bank
October 4 , 1989
Page 7
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant has provided a revised site plan which provides the
additional right-of-way required for the right turn lane on
Market Boulevard and sidewalk. The site plan shifts the entire ••
project to the east and provides a connection between the drive-
thru and bank parking area. The amended plan was submitted on
October 18 , 1989 , and staff has not had time to completely review
the site plan. Staff is providing the Council with a copy of the
amended site plan for their review. Staff will be performing a
complete review of the site plan and believes the changes are
minimal and the site plan still meets the requirements of the
zoning ordinance . Unless directed otherwise, staff will admi-
nistratively approve the amended site plan.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
#89-6 for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated
September 22 , 1989 and subject to the following conditions :
1 . The property shall be platted and recorded with Carver
County.
2 . The City shall process a rezoning of the property as part of
the platting procedure.
3 . The site plan shall be revised to include a right turn dece-
leration lane on Market Boulevard and a 6 foot wide concrete
sidewalk on the east side of Market Boulevard. The site plan
shall be revised to reflect additional right-of-way necessary
for the deceleration lane and sidewalk and to"maintain
required setbacks .
4 . The applicant shall provide cross easements for the joint
access on West 79th Street.
5 . The applicant shall provide revised landscaping plan pro-
viding necessary landscaping on the berm between the parking
area and West 79th Street.
•
6 . The temporary facility will have to be removed within one
week of the permanent bank facility receiving a certificate
of occupancy, notwithstanding the foregoing, such temporary
facility shall be removed within 9 months of the issuance of
the building permit for the permanent bank facility.
7 . The applicant shall comply with any and all Watershed
District requirements.
8 . The city will monitor the site for erosion control problems
and if deemed necessary additional erosion control may be
required in the future.
c
s
Crossroads National Bank
October 4 , 1989
Page 8
9 . Exact storm sewer connections and design shall be verified in
the field and approved by the City' s Engineering Department
prior to construction.
10. The exit on West 79th Street shall be moved a minimum of 100
feet from the West 79th Street/Market Boulevard intersection.
11 . Future addition designated on the plans are not part of the
site plan approval.
12 . Lighting to be consistent with Market/West 79th Street
lighting.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Memo from Ron Julkowski dated September 27 , 1989 .
2 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated September 27, 1989.
3 . Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1989 .
4 . Letter from Crossroads National Bank dated September 12 , 1989 .
5 . Letter from Crossroads National Bank dated September 11, 1989.
6 . Memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated September 20 , 1989 .
7 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 4 , 1989.
8 . Site plan dated September 22 , 1989 .
9 . Site plan dated October 18 , 1989 .
City Council Feting - Oct 3r 23, 1989
R
whole thing and you were suggesting that we go ahead with that company to do the
whole thing. That was my misunderstanding.
Gary Warren: No, it would just be for the feasibility study and then after that
we would have a handle on the plans and specifications which would take a
separate authorization.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I had one other question on that. Can that be done in that one
day rather than incorporating another $800.00 charge?
Gary Warren: It's a matter of hydraulics. The Murray Hill tower being in a
high pressure zone doesn't always drain out in one day. It will depend on the
system pressures at the time. We'11 do it as fast as we can but it may take 2
days at the maximum.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to authorize inspection
study for rehabilitation of Murray Hill water tower. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
( CI-V,,
J. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A BANK AND OFFICE BUILDING, NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARKET
. ) ;BOULEVARD AND WEST 79TH STREET, CROSSROADS NATIONAL BANK.
Councilman Boyt: I will start this by apologizing to the group that brought it
in. They asked me to call if I had questions and I just got so busy I didn't
have time to get back to them. Reading through, this is the Crossroads National
Bank. My problem here is understanding the nature of the temporary building.
I think that it's one thing to have a temporary building while they're building
the permanent building but as I read through the Minutes of the Planning
Commission, the impression I got was a temporary building was going in and then
they were going to begin pursuing the permanent structure. I'm uncomfortable
with that arrangement. Maybe they can clear sane things up about it. Are you
open to hearing frau them?
Mayor Chrniel: Sure.
Tam Mork: Good evening Mr. Boyt. I'm Tam Mork and we visited over the phone
briefly. In actual fact, as I understand it, we are here tonight to gain a
building permit approval for both our permanent building and our modular
building inasmuch as we are well underway in terms of getting our bank
organized. We have received charter approval from the office of the comptroller
of currency. We are currently awaiting approval of our holding company from the
Federal Reserve Bank. our strategy in beginning in a modular building was to
essentially give ourselves sane time to establish ourselves as a business
entity. To establish systems. To get our staff up and running. Tb get a
marketing presence in the community and it is our intent to begin construction
on the permanent building just as soon as we possibly can. Hopefully in 1990 but
in reviewing the process and in getting to this point, we spent a lot of time
talking to a lot of bankers, both in this metropolitan area and even as far
south as St. Louis where there has been a lot of denoteable bank charter
activity in the past 24 months approximately. To make a determination for
4
City Council Meeting - •tober 23, 1989
ourselves that such an undertaking is not marketing suicide to open up in a
modular building and we have been assured and reassured by everybody that we
talked to that it is a smart strategy. It gives you a chance to establish your
presence and that is one of the principle reasons why we would like to start in
a modular building. It is not our intent and in actual fact we run the risk of.
forfeiture of the land through our purchase agreement with the HRA if we do not,
begin construction and complete construction of the building within I believe a'
2 year time frame although we'd certainly hope to initiate construction prior to
that.
Councilman Boyt: So you're buying the land from the HRA?
Trim Mork: Correct.
Councilman Boyt: And you're paying them about how much?
Tom Mork: $4.50 a square foot.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. And that's up front money?
Trim Fork: Up front money meaning? That's with all the improvements in.
Councilman Boyt: As soon as you sign the deal with the HRA you're giving them _
$4.00 and something a foot?
Tams Mork: We have already negotiated a purchase agreement that has been signed.
It was actually signed back in May and under the terms of the purchase agreement -
there's a one year window to effect closing of the property.
Councilman Boyt: Well you're investing a considerably amount of money in this -
temporary structure. I think it was something like $200,000.00?
Trim Mork: That's correct. That's what our initial estimatat are.
Councilman Boyt: That includes I imagine the asphalt and that sort of thing?
Tbm Fork: Correct. All of the grading. The asphalt. Sewer and water
installation. Lighting and so on.
Councilman Boyt: See, what I see you doing. What makes me uncomfortable is I
sort of see this as you just described it. As a test marketing situation.
When I think of temporary bank buildings, they're usually associated with
existing banks that have an equity situation in which there's no question the
building's going in. When I see discussions about potentially 2 years frau now
and understanding that it's conceiveable that 2 years frau now you could just
start construction or 2 years frau now you could came back in and negotiate with
the HRA to get an extension, I think it'd be much more typical if your modular
building went in at the point at which you were beginning construction on your
permanent building. I don't know. Does anyone else on the Council have that
concern?
Tom Fork: I guess I would like to add that in terms of how it has been done in
the past, I can point to a number of examples in the metro area in the last 10
years that have actually spent up to the first 18 months of their existence in a
5
• City Council Meeting - Oc; 'ler 23, 1989
modular building and I think, I want to be careful that we differentiate between
talking about test marketing and establishing a marketing presence. In actual
fact we have gone through a number of microscopes to get this far, not the least
of which has been approval of an overall marketing plan by both the Comptroller
of Currency currently being scrutinized by the Federal Reserve Bank and also
more importantly to us, the investing public to which we are selling stock in
our bank. So I want to make certain that it's understood that we are not
embarking on a test marketing case. We just hope to establish a marketing
presence and turn our attention to issues which we feel at this time are
incredibly important such as establishing our operating systems. Developing
presence in the market place. Establishing a loan portfolio. Developing a
deposit base so that we have a stable enterprise. We will open the bank with no
less than 2.5 million dollars in capital so I don't believe we can be classified
as an organization that doesn't have the capital as same other banks that have
used a modular building as an expansion vehicle for example so I want to make
certain that it's understood that we are not an undercapitalized bank by any
stretch of the imagination. I believe the other bank in Chanhassen has +
approximately the same level of capital after 70 years in existence so we're
opening up w;th the same level of equity capital or approximately the same as
the existing bank in Chanhassen.
Councilman Boyt: Are you in partnership with another bank?
Tom Mork: No we're not. It's an independent group of organizers. There's no
legal or ownership affiliation with any existing bank holding company.
Councilman Boyt: So now you're starting?
Tam Mork: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: With your modular building and 2.5 million in capital?
Tam Mork: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: Tom if I could maybe add to same of Bill's comments and
maybe what he's getting at a little bit. The HRA agreement is basically, you
term it basically a window or window of opportunity. Basically you're not going
to be closing on this property until the permanent facility is ready to go.
Tom Mork: No, that's not correct. We will close on the property prior to next
May. We will be closing on the property prior to construction of the permanent
building.
•
C uncilman Workman: Can you maybe explain to Council the amendment that you're
proposing?
Ti Mork: Certainly. Under the existing purchase agreement we have, well let
re back up a little bit. We would like to install the physical improvements to
the site for a modular building at a minimum no later than this fall inasmuch as
we feel that as a result of our capitalization efforts, our hiring efforts, our
development of the marketing plan, we should be open for business sometime in
early 1990. Frankly we hoped we would be ready for business by the end of 1989
but as I found out from talking to other bankers that have done the same thing
that I'm doing, there seers to be no end to same of the delays that you
6
City Council Meeting - tober 23, 1989 f } r
encounter. However, to this point we have been unable to close on the property
for any number of reasons and what we have requested is an amendment to the
purchase agreement that would essentially allow us access to the site,
completely at our risk, to enable us to go on and make whatever physical
improvements we need to make in order to accomodate our modular building.
Principally that would involve scree grading according to an approved grading
plan. The installation of utilities to the modular bank site. The installation
of lighting in the parking lot. Paving the parking lot arca the construction of
a foundation for the modular building and ultimately the installation of the
modular building when it's delivered, hopefully as of now in the middle of
January or early January. Our sense is that if we're not able to complete the
improvements, particularly the paving, within approximately the next 30 days or
at least no later than the end of November, then we will be forced to open the
bank sometime after the frost is out in 1990. Keep in mind that we have been
undertaking our capitalization efforts now for approximately 60 days. We have a
number of people who have paid in considerably sums. I think the paper quoted
about a million and a half dollars and that's what we have paid in so far. That
potential delay presents some significant difficulties as far as we're concerned
in dealing with our potential investor base so that's the reason for the
amendment is to accommodate those site improvements.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions Toni?
Councilman Workman: No, I don't.
Councilman Boyt: How would this be different than saying to same other business
in town you can open up a Quonset hut and run your business out of it until
you've got everything in place to build the permanent structure that we've
approved? Is this somehow different than that?
Tom Mork: Well I guess I came at it from a biased viewpoint but I believe it
is. I believe for one thing the opportunity to have a new business in town with
the level of capital that we intend to bring, that we will bking, is in itself
somewhat unique. I furthermore believe that the addition of a commercial bank
to this marketplace is an enhancement to the consumers in this area. I note
with interest that already prior to our even opening the doors, the other bank
in Chanhassen has expanded it's hours from 3:00 lobby hours to 4:30 and
introduced full service Saturday morning banking. We expect that the addition
of ourselves in the marketplace will just do nothing more but further enhance
the banking climate for consumers in the Chanhassen area. Furthermore, this is
not a Quonset hut. This is a building that is built by the Sun Corporation
which for the last 18 years has done nothing but construct permanent modular
banking facilities. Currently for example Norwest Corporation" has installed a
building for one of their branch facilities on a permanent basis up in Anoka.
While the renderings that you may have seen I don't think do justice to the
building, when we're talking about total cost of improvements of an excess of
$200,000.00, I don't think that that represents an insignificant level of
investment on our part to satisfy our needs on an interim basis.
Councilman Boyt: Everything's relative and I didn't mean to imply that your
building was going to be a Quonset hut. You're talking about building a
permanent structure that's around 2 million dollars so a considerably greater
investment than what you're going to have in the temporary sturcture, which I
guess is pretty natural. I think the Council, hopefully the other people on the
7
City Council Meeting - Oc er 23, 1989
Council are going to be convinced that we're not sitting in a situation in which
this group of investors is trying out Chanhassen to see if a bank will work
because we're now, shortly later in this meeting we're going to be looking at a
shopping center which is talking about a significantly greater investment than
the bank is and I guess without having them here, I'm just curious as to how
they feel about having a temporary bank structure just down the block and across
the street. I don't know. I'm rambling so I guess I'm done.
Mayor Qruel: There were some concerns I had too Bill about that modular
building. My main concern was whether or not it was in ccripliance with the
State of Minnesota requirements for a temporary structure and whether it did
have the state of approval by the State and it does so that made me feel a
little more comfortable with it. I also feel that same of the concerns that
Bill has had has been sane of my concerns. One basically is to the construction
start and they're saying it's being just a little bit of an open period of time
as we discussed the situation. I feel that the bank, with all intent, plans on
starting construction I would just as soon see that construction start as early
as possible. I'm sure you'd welcome that as well.
Tarn Mork: Absolutely. I think all of us involved in the bank are very
reasonable people and certainly recognize the impact of competition. It would
not be to our favor when our principle canpetition in the community is the
resident of approximately a 2 million dollar facility, for us to remain in this
modular facility for any longer than we absolutely need to until we have our
permanent have built for us. I guess if I could just Garment on the impact of
the neighborhood and same of the concerns that Mor. Boyt, you voiced. I think
one of the things that has to be considered is that it would be incredibly
difficult for a supermarket to operate out of a modular building just because
their spacial needs are considerably greater. We can as a result of a growing
and initially a zero customer base and a growing customer base, begin in a
modular building because we don't have those kinds of space needs. But
hopefully our growth will be a level that all of us expect it to and we'll be
forced to start construction as soon as the frost is out. I guess if I can give
you my carmitment that it is not in our intent to be in this building any longer
than we absolutely need to.
Councilman Boyt: fiat would happen if your customer base didn't build? Then
are you still going to go ahead and build the permanent structure?
'Itrn Mork: Well, I would say that certainly we can't expect to be at home in a
temporary building or modular building forever. In actual fact, we have to
construct our permanent building within I believe it's a 2 year timeframe with
our agreement with the HRA or we forfeit the land. Saneone else Can came in and
develop a bank on that site so we absolutely will construct the permanent
building under the conditions of the purchase agreement. I don't think there's
any question about that.
Councilwoman Dirtier: Tan, I have a question. It was my understanding that you
were going to build around the modular facility?
TitrMork: Correct.
Councilwoman Dirtier: Could you explain that? It doesn't look like it to me.
8
City Council Meeting :tober 23, 1989 - -
Tom Mork: we're intending to locate the modular building on the eastern portion
of the site. The bulk of the construction activity will be in the central and
western portion of the site and what we have attempted to do is locate the
modular building in a fashion such that we can accommodate continuing drive up
traffic through our modular building at the same time that we're building.
Councilwoman Dimler: While you're constructing but after your construction,
what are you going to do with your modular?
Tom Mork: It will be down within a week after we receive our certificate of
occupancy. I believe the Planning Commission further put in the condition that
it would be no later than 9 months after the issuance of the building permit for
the permanent building and that's a time table that we can certainly live with.
Councilwoman Dimler: I misunderstood you then because when I asked that
question to you the other day, I thought that you were going to incorporate it
into your...
Tom Mork: No. Absolutely not. That will be green space when it's all done.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: Can anybody think of a way to add anymore assurance to this
list of conditions? Are you going to have, if worse goes to worse and you do in
fact not build, how much money do you have in this piece of property 2 years
from now? You've got the $200,000.00 for improvements. Do you have anything
else in it?
Tom honk: well at that point we would have closed on the property and I believe
that the aggregate purchase price is $4.50 times whatever the amount of land is.
It's approximately 110,000 square feet.
Todd Gerhardt: $470,000.00.
Councilman Boyt: So your expenses and liability then would be somewhere around
$700,000.00 total?
Todd Gerhardt: He's incurred architectural fees and rendering, a site plan so.
Councilman Boyt: Well that's a ballpark figure Todd? $700,000.00?
Todd Gerhardt: Minimum.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I can live with that sort of risk. I would approval
of item 1(j) with the conditions noted in the staff report.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dim.ier seconded to approve Site Plan #89-6
for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated September 22, 1989
pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
9
LIT
CITY OF
CIIANBASSEN
•
. '41/01( 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO : Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning
DATE: October 31 , 1989
SUBJ: Proposed Amendment to Division 6 , Site Plan Review, of the
Zoning Ordinance
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
In recent months staff had indicated a concern over the lack of
any financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improve-
ments . We noted that a letter of credit or bond is normally
required in most metro area communities and that without one,
staff is handicapped in our ability to insure that a site is
developed in a manner consistent with approvals . The Commission
encouraged staff to propose such a requirement. We also note
that the City Council has been informed of this proposal and
agreed with staff ' s recommendation that the recently approved
Market Square PUD be required to post financial guarantees . The
proposed amendment that follows this report provides the finan-
- cial assurances we believe are necessary. Prior to issuing a
building permit , financial guarantees must be posted. They will
be equal to 120% of the estimated costs of the improvements .
Guarantees for landscaping will be held for one full growing
season past the date of installation since most survivability
problems become evident in the first full growing season.
We have also recently had several opportunities to work with the
balance of the site plan ordinance. I have become concerned that
there is very little structure or guidance in the procedure i .e. ,
what are we looking for and what right do we have to require
changes . Growing out of this concern we are proposing a signifi-
cant revision and expansion of the section that would do the
following:
1 . Provide a purpose section to establish the intent of Site
Plan Review.
2 . Establish general standards for evaluating a site plan that
goes beyond simple application of setbacks and other fixed
requirements . The ability to review aspects of site design
and architecture are clarified.
Planning Commission
October 31, 1989
Page 2
3 . Verbalize the process for site plan review that has been
followed to date. The draft ordinance outlines notification
requirements and states that site plans are to be required
with conditional use permits and rezoning applications and
reviewed concurrently.
4 . Provide for administrative approvals for minor changes to an
approved site plan or minor modifications to any property.
This will give staff the flexibility to handle minor changes
or approvals .
5 . The draft ordinance specifically allows the city to establish
conditions of approval to promote the intent of the ordinance.
6 . The draft clarifies that a site plan approval is valid only
for the project that was approved. Significant deviations
from approved plans requires new city approval .
7 . Architectural review standards are described in some detail .
While the ordinance avoids the "brick or better" standard
adopted by cities like Bloomington, it would prohibit the use
of "unadorned" concrete panels and block and also limits the
use of metal buildings . We are aware that the issue of metal
buildings has been discussed previously, although no ordi-
nance revision resulted. This draft is structured to leave a
lot of latitude up to the developer. It simply prohibits the
use of plain metal exteriors where metal is the primary com-
ponent. Agricultural buildings are excluded from this
requirement.
8 . The draft establishes financial guarantees for landscaping
improvements and requires that the site be maintained in the
approved condition .
In our opinion, the proposed ordinance will greatly enhance the
utility of the site plan review procedure while clarifying the
standards against which projects will be judged. Much of what is
being proposed are criteria we have used in the past so that
implementation of the draft should not significantly- alter
development in Chanhassen.
The draft ordinance is structured so that the site plan review
process remains unchanged. However, the Planning Commission and
City Council may wish to give the Planning Commission authority
to review and approve site plans when those applications are not
being concurrently reviewed with conditional use permits , plats
or rezonings. This would serve to reduce the City Council ' s
workload and the length of time it takes to gain approval . The
City Council has the ability to place this authority in the hands
of the Planning Commission and can even authorize the Commission
to approve variances related to the site plan. If a developer
Planning Commission
October 31 , 1989
Page 3
objected to the Planning Commission' s determination or if the
item was particularly controversial , it could be referred to the
City Council for final resolution. The recent approval of the
Rome Office Building on Park Drive is a good example of a site
plan that is non-controversial and could have been reviewed just
by the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
following ordinance revisions .
ORDINANCE NO. R -_
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as
follows :
DIVISION 6 . SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW.
Section 20-106 . Purpose. It is the intent of this section
to serve the public interest by promoting a high standard of
development within the city. Through a comprehensive review of
both functional and aesthetic aspects of new or intensified
development, the city seeks to accomplish the following :
a) implement the comprehensive plan;
b) maintain and improve the city' s tax base;
c) mitigate to the extent feasible adverse impacts of one -
land use upon another ;
d) promote the orderly and safe flow of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic; and
e) preserve and enhance the natural and built environment.
Section 20-107 . Approval Required. Without first obtaining
site and building plan approval it shall be unlawful to do any of
the following:
a) construct a building;
b) move a building to any lot within the city;
c) expand or change the use of a building or parcel of land
or modify a building, accessory structure or site or land
feature in any manner which results in a different inten-
sity of use, including the requirement for additional
parking .
Section 20-108 . Exceptions. Notwithstanding the provisions
of this section, the following shall not require site or building _
plan approval :
a) construction or alteration of a single or two family
residential building or accessory building on a residen-
tial lot;
b) enlargement of a building by less than 10 percent of its -
gross floor area, provided that there is no variance
involved and also provided that the director of planning
has conducted an administrative review pursuant to
Section 20-113 of this section ;
c) changes in the leasable space of a multi-tenant building
where the change does not intensify the use or require
additional parking;
d) construction of buildings for agricultural uses on land
zoned and utilized for agricultural purposes .
Section 20-109 . Application. Application for a site plan
review shall be made to the city planner on forms provided by the
city and shall be filed four ( 4 ) weeks in advance of the planning
commission meeting at which it is to be considered. The applica-
tion shall also include :
1 ) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property;
2 ) The application fee; and
3 ) Complete site plans , signed by a registered architect,
civil engineer, landscape architect or other design pro-
- fessional , to include the following :
a . General :
1 . Name of Project .
2 . Name, address, and telephone number of applicant,
engineer, and owner of record.
3 . Legal description ( certificate of survey will be
required) .
4 . Date proposed, north arrow, engineering scale,
number of sheets , name of drawer .
5 . Vicinity map showing relationship of the proposed
development to surrounding streets , rights-of-
way, easements and natural features .
6 . Description of intended use of the site,
buildings , and structures including type of occu-
pancy and estimated occupancy load.
7 . Existing zoning and land use.
8 . Tabulation box indicating:
( i) Size of parcel in acres or square feet.
( ii ) Gross floor area of each building.
( iii ) Percent of site covered by building.
( iv) Percent of site covered by impervious surface.
( v) Percent of site covered by parking area .
( vi) Projected number of employees .
-2-
(vii) Number of seats if intended use is a -
restaurant or place of assembly.
( viii) Number of parking spaces required.
( ix) Number of parking spaces provided including
handicapped.
( x) Height of all buildings and structures and
number of stories .
b. Site Plan:
1 . Property line dimensions, location of all -
existing and proposed structures with distance
from boundaries, distance between structures ,
building dimensions , and floor elevations . -
2 . Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural
features ( topography, wetlands , vegetation, etc. )
as well as propose grade elevations and sedimen-
tation and storm water retention ponds .
3 . All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress
showing widths at property lines , turning radii
abutting rights-of-way with indicated center line,
width , paving width, existing and proposed median
cuts , and intersections of streets and driveways .
4 . Vehicular circulation system showing location and
dimension for all driveways , parking spaces ,
parking lot aisles, service roads , loading areas ,
fire lanes, emergency access ( if necessary) , public
and private streets , alleys , sidewalks, bikepaths ,
direction of traffic flow, and traffic-control
devices .
5 . Landscaping plan in accordance with the provisions
of Article XXV.
6 . Location, access and screening detail of trash -
enclosures .
7 . Location and screening detail of roof top equipment.
8 . Location and detail of signage.
9 . Lighting location, style and mounting.
10. Building elevations from all directions .
11 . Utility plan identifying size and direction of
existing water and sewer lines , fire hydrants ,
distance of hydrant to proposed building. -
12 . List of proposed hazardous materials , use and storage.
13 . Proposed fire protection system.
14 . Such other information as may be required by the city.
-3-
Section 20-110 . Standards . In evaluating a site and building
plan, the planning commission and city council shall consider its
compliance with the following:
a) consistency with the elements and objectives of the city' s
development guides, including the comprehensive plan ,
official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
b) consistency with this ordinance;
c) preservation of the site in its natural state to the
extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and
designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas ;
d) creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and
open spaces with natural site features and with existing
and future buildings have a visual relationship to the
development;
e) creation of a functional and harmonious design for struc-
tures and site features, with special attention to the
following :
1 . an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses
on the site and provision of a desirable environment
for occupants , visitors and general community;
2 . the amount and location of open space and landscaping;
3 . materials , textures, colors and details of construc-
tion as an expression of the design concept and the
compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neigh-
- boring structures and uses ; and
4 . vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walk-
- ways , interior drives and parking in terms of location
and number of access points to the public streets ,
width of interior drives and access points , general
interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of
parking.
f ) protection of adjacent and neighboring prope.ties . through
reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and
sight buffers , preservation of views , light and air and
those aspects of design not adequately covered by other
regulations which may have substantial effects on neigh-
boring land uses .
Section 20-111 . Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a completed
application , a date shall be set for review of the site plan before
the planning commission. The review will be held no less than 10
days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of properties
located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the site, as
reflected in the records of the Carver County Auditor. Following
-4-
the hearing or any continuance thereof which is not appealed by
the applicant, the planning commission shall make a recommen-
dation. The site plan shall be forwarded to the city council with
the planning commission's recommendation for review on the next —
available agenda. Final approval of the site plan requires a
simple majority vote of the city council.
Section 20-112. Multiple Applications. Any site and —
building plan application which is accompanied by a request for a
conditional use permit or for a rezoning amendment to this ordi-
nance shall be considered by the planning commission concurrently
with the conditional use permit or rezoning application.
Section 20-113. Administrative Approvals. Minor site and —
building plans and alterations which do not involve a variance and
which are not accompanied by other matters requiring consideration
by the planning commission or city council , pursuant to Section
20-100 (b) , may be approved by the director of planning. If any —
application is processed administratively, the director of planning
shall render a decision within 30 days and shall serve a copy of
the decision upon the applicant by mail . Any person aggrieved by a —
decision of the director of planning may appeal the decision to the
planning commission in the manner specified in Section 20-111 of
this ordinance. —
Section 20-114. Conditions. The planning commission, city
council or director of planning may impose conditions in granting
approval to site and building plans to promote the intent of this —
ordinance to protect adjacent properties.
Section 20-115. Specific Project. Site and building plans —
shall be valid only for the project for which approval is
granted. Construction of all site elements shall be in substan-
tial compliance with the plans and specifications approved by the
planning commission, city council or director of planning.
Section 20-116. Architectural Standards.
a) It is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom
unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with
a site and building plan. However, it is in the best —
interest of the city to promote high standards of architec-
tural design and compatibility with surrounding structures
and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be' prepared by
an architect or other qualified person acceptable to the —
director of planning and shall show the following:
1) elevations of all sides of the building; —
2) type and color of exterior building materials;
3) a typical floor plan;
4) dimensions of all structures; and
5) the location of trash containers and of heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
-5-
b) The use of unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and
concrete block shall not be permitted. Acceptable materials
will incorporate textured surfaces , exposed aggregate and or
other patterning. The use of metal on building exteriors
shall be limited to trim detailing and/or to buildings using
metal and glass curtain walls.
c ) All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and
exterior trash storage areas shall be enclosed with materials
compatible with the principal structure. Low profile, self-
contained mechanical units which blend in with the building
architecture are exempt from the screening requirement .
d ) Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and
substantially renovated structures .
Section 20-117 . Maintenance of Site and Landscaping. The
owner, tenant, and their respective agents shall be held jointly
and severally responsible to maintain their property and
landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly
appearance and free from refuse and debris . Plants and ground
cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan
and which have died shall be replaced within three months of
notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may
be extended up to nine months by the director of planning in
order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions .
Section 20-118 . Retaining Walls . Retaining walls exceeding
five feet in height, including stage walls which cumulatively
exceed five feet in height, must be constructed in accordance
— with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect.
Section 20-119 . Landscaping Financial Guarantee Required .
When screening , landscaping or other similar improvements to
property are required by this ordinance, a performance bond shall
be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least 120%
value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements . The
security must be satisfatory to the city and shall be conditioned
upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engi-
neering, legal or other fees in connection with making or
completing such improvements. The guarantee shall be provided
prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid
for a period of time equal to one full growing season after the
date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept a
letter of credit, cash escrow or bond. In the event construction
of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by
building permits and other approvals , the city may, at its
option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner
and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion
of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are
reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which
may not exceed nine months , may be granted due to seasonal or
weather conditions . When an extension is granted, the city shall
require such additional security as it deems appropriate.
-6-
Section 20-120 . Issuance Building Permit and Certificate of
Occupancy. A building permit may be issued if the proposed
construction conforms to the approval granted by the city
council. A certificate of occupancy may be withheld if construc- _
tion is not consistent with the terms of plan approval and will
not be issued until the terms of plan approval are met. Minor
changes to the approved site plan may be made after review and
approval by the city planner. Major changes shall require the
submission of another site plan review application.
-7-
CITY OF
P.C. DATE: Dec. 6 , 1989 -
Y
CHANHASSE C.C. DATE: Dec. 18 , 1989
CASE NO: 89-8 ZOA
- .. -. . • • -n v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section
20-263 ( 7 and 13 ) Concerning Conditions for
a Dock on a Recreational Beachlot
Z
- a
U
Cl. LOCATION:
i.
APPLICANT:
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
S-
Q E-
W-
W
WATER AND SEWER:
vI
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
-
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots -
December 6 , 1989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On April 6 , 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed a zoning ordi-
nance amendment to Section 20-263 ( 7 ) of the City Code pertaining
to the lot depth requirement for installation of a dock on a
recreational beachlot (Attachment #1 ) . Staff had recommended --
that the ordinance be amended to read that "no dock shall be per-
mitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet
of lake frontage and the lot has at least 100 feet of lot depth
WHERE THE DOCK IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED" . The intent of the
amendment was to allow docks on recreational beachlots that meet
or exceed the lot area and lake frontage requirement but have a
portion of the lot that is narrow, resulting in less than a 100
foot mean depth . The amendment would instead have required a 100
foot depth where the dock is located to provide a larger area
where the more intensive use of the recreational beachlot will
exist.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of a zoning ordi-
nance amendment as follows : "No dock shall be permitted on a
recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake
frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth measured per-
pendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to the
first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street
right-of-way. "
The City Council reviewed the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
on April 25 , 1988 (Attachment #2) . After much discussion of the
subject, the City Council did not approve the proposed zoning
ordinance amendment.
On November 6 , 1989 , the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
reviewed an appeal to staff ' s interpretation of the recreational
beachlot ordinance by Robert Pierce (Attachment #3 ) . The appeal
was to staff ' s interpretation of the 100 foot depth requirement
for recreational beachlots to have a dock. The zoning ordinance
states that no dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach-
lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot
has at least a 100 foot depth. Staff originally interpreted this
statement to mean that the recreational beachlot must have a lot
depth of 100 foot which is defined by the definition section of
the zoning ordinance as a "mean depth" . The applicant' s appeal
to staff' s interpretation was that they did not feel that the way
the recreational beachlot ordinance was written required a mean
lot depth to be provided for a dock on a recreational beachlot.
Upon further review of the ordinance, staff agreed that it could
be interpreted differently since it states that the recreational
beachlot must have a depth of 100 feet and not a "lot" depth of
100 feet. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the appeal to
staff ' s interpretation and further recommended that the ordinance -
be amended to clarify the intent of the ordinance.
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6 , 1989
Page 3
The Board of Adjustments unanimously recommended approval of the
_ appeal to staff ' s interpretation. The Board of Adjustments felt
that the application meets the requirements as currently in the
ordinance for a dock on a recreational beachlot. City Council
members Jay Johnson and Bill Boyt requested an appeal to the
- decision of the Board at the November 6 , 1989 , City Council
meeting (Attachment #4 ) . The City Council felt the ordinance
should be amended prior to acting on the appeal . The appeal to
the Board of Adjustment' s decision will be heard by the City
Council at the same time as the zoning ordinance amendment.
ANALYSIS
The zoning ordinance currently states that a recreational beach-
lot must have a lot depth of 100 feet for a recreational beachlot
to have a dock. Staff reviewed existing parcels around the
City' s lakes which could be applied for conditional use permits
for recreational beachlot (Attachment #5 ) . The majority of the
remaining parcels will be able to provide a 100 foot of lot
depth. Only along Minnewashta Parkway does the potential exist
for recreational beachlots without 100 feet of mean lot depth.
This is a result of the location of Minnewashta Parkway adjacent
to Lake Minnewashta.
If the Planning Commission and City Council interpret the current
ordinance to mean that a "mean lot depth" of 100 feet is required
for a dock on a recreational beachlot, then the ordinance should
be reworded to state that the recreational beachlot must have a
lot depth of at least 100 feet. In reviewing existing
recreational beachlots , staff finds that accurately measuring
"mean lot depth" on unusually configured lake front lots, it is
problematic. It is difficult to measure a mean depth. Staff
does not believe the standard of requiring a mean lot depth can
be consistently enforced. A better way to provide an area with a
100 foot depth may be to require a certain width at the ordinary
high water mark and that same width at 100 foot landward of the
ordinary high water mark. For example, the ordinance could
require a 50 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and at
100 foot landward at the ordinary high water mark. This will
result in a 50 foot by 100 foot area on a recreational beachlot
that could accommodate active uses . All other recreational
beachlot standards including 200 feet of frontage and 30, 000
square feet in area would continue to apply. Under DNR regula-
tions , a lakeshore owner is permitted a 50 foot by 10 foot wide
sand blanket. If the Planning Commission and Council chose to
amend the ordinance to provide an area with a certain lot depth
and width, staff would recommend that a 50 foot width be used in
the calculation to be consistent with DNR regulations .
Currently, the zoning ordinance under Section 13 requires a
recreational beachlot to "have a width measured at both the ordi-
nary high water mark and at a point 100 foot landward from the
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6 , 1989
Page 4
ordinary high water mark of not less than 4 lineal feet for each
dwelling unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the
recreational beachlot accruing to the owners or occupants of that -
dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowners asso-
ciation or residential developers" . Section 13 is difficult to
enforce since the dwelling units which have rights to the
recreational beachlots are determined by a homeowners association
over which the city has no control . This section also does not
provide a consistent width with a 100 foot depth for all
recreational beachlots . Since Section 13 is difficult to
enforce, the proposed amendment to Section 7 would provide what
Section 13 was intended to do. Staff is recommending that
Section 13 be removed from the ordinance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion:
"Planning Commission recommends amending Section 20-263 ( 7 ) as -
follows :
No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and A WIDTH,
MEASURED BOTH AT THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK AND AT A POINT 100
FEET LANDWARD FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, OF NOT LESS THAN
50 FEET. No more than one dock may be erected on a recreational
beachlot every 200 feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30 , 000
square feet of land is required for the first docl$ and an addi-
tional 20 , 000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three docks , however, shall be erected on a
recreational beachlot .
and recommends that Section 20-263 ( 13 ) be deleted. "
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 6 , 1988 .
2 . City Council minutes dated April 25 , 1988 .
3 . Board of Adjustments minutes dated November 6 , 1989.
4 . City Council minutes dated November 6 , 1989 .
5 . List of parcels for possible recreational beachlots.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 43
Jack Brambilla : We did send a copy of the Exhibit A which is the whole
plot is listed there .
Emmings : That ' s not a site plan .
Jack Brambilla : I guess we have to go with what we had initially on the
site plan.
Dacy : As represented in Attachment #2 is what you will be basing your
approval on .
Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-4 as shown on the site
plan stamped "Received March 16 , 1988" for outdoor display of
merchandise , specifically landscape products , on property located at 608
Flying Cloud Drive and subject to the following conditions :
1. Compliance with fire code as to the use and location of the fuel
storage tanks .
2. The appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to installation .
3. Display areas shall not encroach on the 25 foot front setback .
4 . The applicant shall comply with all applicable sewer and sewage
disposal code and provide the City with the proper septic tank
pumping contracts once every three years starting on the effective
date of this conditional use permit .
5. The applicant shall prepare with the city staff an appropriate
driveway access plan .
6 . Display of merchandise is restricted to the area indicated on the
site plan stamped "Received March 16 , 1988" . The display area is
limited within the area designated by the fence and TH 212 .
All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried .
•
Erhart : I 'm opposed for the reasons stated .
Emmings: Traffic considerations?
Erhart : Safety.
PUBLIC HEARING : ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 &
/ :IA7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH
REQUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT
"' PIERCE.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 44
Public Present :
Name Address
Bernie Hanson • 4125 Thomas Avenue, Minnetonka
Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway
Robert Pierce Applicant
Emmings : Again , as a preliminary matter on this one , just as on the
first one, I 've got to ask staff if notice went out to all the lakeshore
owners pursuant to the ordinance?
Dacy: Notice went out to all of the homeowners associations with
recreational beachlots but not the individual riparian owners .
Emmings : Then I 'm going to recommend that we do the same thing with this
one that we did with the first one . There are people who probably would
come tonight to speak about this . I think they should go ahead and make
their comments known and then we should hold open a public hearing and -
continue it until notice can be given because it is a zoning ordinance
amendment that requires notice to all the property owners abutting the
lake pursuant to Section 20-43 .
Erhart : Are you sure? In what you ' re looking at , requires us to , when
dealing with a specific property proposal , it requires that we notify
everyone on that particular lake.
Emmings: This is under Division Two , Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance .
Erhart: Then we have to notify everyone on all lakes because the zoning
ordinance deals with all lakes .
Headla : It ' s got to be more than just the lakes . It has to be
published .
Erhart : Did you publish notification?
Dacy: We did the public hearing ad and we prioritize the homeowners
association with the beachlots .
Emmings: It makes sense with the conditional use permit section . Does
it make sense to have it here under the Zoning Ordinance Amendments?
Does having this provision , which is in here?
Dacy: I really think it ' s a judgment call on the issue. If you want to
table it for us to contact everybody, that ' s up to the Commission .
Emmings : Let me explain. I live on Lake Minnewashta . I look directly
at this property just like I look right across at Red Cedar Cove. I
didn' t know Red Cedar Cove was going in until it went in. My neighbors
and I thought gee , it ' s amazing they can do something like that without
saying anything to any of us who are directly affected by the project .
R
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 45
C
This is 500 feet of the lakeshore on our lake . It ' s right over there to
the right where we all look and I got no notice. If I hadn ' t been on the
Commission , I 'd never would have known this was going on and I know my
neighbors didn' t either .
Erhart : But we' re not dealing with Red Cedar Cove .
Emmings : I 'm aware of that but we ' re dealing with this piece of property
that ' s closer to me than Red Cedar Cove.
Dacy: I do know that the applicant is here. Maybe we could do the same
thing that we did on Sunny Slope .
Emmings : That ' s what I 'm proposing but now I 'm questioning whether this
makes sense on zoning ordinance amendments . It ' s here in the ordinance
but I 'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense . It ' s one thing if we ' re
talking about a zoning ordinance amendment generally but here we ' re doing
it really at the instance of a particular developer for a particular
piece of property. Even though it would wind up changing the ordinance
for all future beachlots , this is coming in from a person who wants to do
a specific thing to a specific piece of property and I think at least the
lakeshore owners on that lake ought to be here if they want to be .
Besides, that ' s what the ordinance says . I guess what I would like to do
is literally read the ordinance . Go ahead and do everything we can do
tonight. Handle it the same way we did the first one and hold the public
hearing open . I think there are people who would want to come.
Erhart: I 'm not arguing, I agree but what do you want to do? Invite
every lakeshore owner?
Emmings : Here ' s what they've done . They' ve given notice to the
homeowners association, for example Minnewashta Heights probably has one
and the ordinance requires them to do that and they did it but they did
not do another thing the ordinance requires and that ' s to give every
property owner abutting the lake on which the development is going to
occur , that same notice. I 'm not in any homeowners association.
Minnewashta Lows has no homeowners association .
Ellson: So you ' re saying every lakeowner? •
Emmings : The ordinance says that .
Erhart: On what?
Emmings : Under public hearing for amendments to the zoning ordinance , it
says is a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the
useage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the City with a list of
property owners abutting the lake at the time of the application. The
City shall provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance
with the procedures above, which specify the procedures for notifying
homeowners associations .
Erhart: I didn' t hear zoning ordinance .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 46
C
Earnings : Yes , the whole section in one zoning ordinance amendments .
That 's what the whole section is .
Batzli : Can I propose that we do table it but we allow the people who
have shown up to speak in public hearing , ask the City Attorney to give
us an interpretation on what exactly is required and then go through with -
the appropriate notification procedure?
Earnings : That ' s fine if you think that ' s appropriate . I don ' t know that _
it needs interpretation but if you feel like it does . Well , let ' s go
ahead . Is there a staff report?
Dacy: I have nothing more to add unless you did want me to go through
it.
Robert Pierce : I guess I 'm not quite following where we' re at with this
process. This is the third time , which has cost thousands to me, that
the notices have been out to the wrong people and it ' s getting somewhat
tiresome . I guess , where are we going from here with that . Is the City _
Attorney, is that what ' s going to happen?
Emmings: I don ' t know what the City Attorney is going to say. What I 'm
saying is there ' s a provision in our ordinance which says that everybody -
who lives on the lake gets notice of this meeting so they can have input
if they want to . They didn ' t get it .
Robert Pierce: Is that Lake Minnewashta?
Earnings : Yes . '
Robert Pierce : Okay, so that ' s the only lake we' re concerned with . Is
that a month away now?
Dacy: No , two weeks . Can I say one thing? We just took the interpreta-
tion that it was a zoning ordinance amendment that would affect all lakes
and that ' s why again , we just notified the homeowners associations . In
the case of Sunny Slope, we made a mistake. We should have notified
everybody on Lake Riley. In this case , we felt that a homeowners
associations with beachlots would be directly affected. You have brought
up another side of that concern that we did not look at so that ' s why. -
Robert Pierce: What' s done is done. I just want to know to eliminate
maybe a problem in the future so we can get it to the next point . At any
rate, let me just go through a little bit of what we ' re planning here .
I ' ve gone to quite a few meetings so I might get somewhat directly to the
high points . We ' re asking for one dock with three overnight storage
facilities . The slips would belong to Lots 3 , 4 and 5 of the dock. They
would go with those lots . We ' re also asking for a canoe rack. One canoe
space for lots in there and there are 15 lots and each one would be
allowed just one . We ' re putting the dock on the widest side of the
parcel towards the north . We ' re leaving basically intact all the trees .
We' ve had them located and we' ve designed our path down to the lake
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 47
around the trees in order to leave as much as possible . The beach area in
it' s natural state. We are having a sand blanket . We shorten it down
from our original proposal considerably. On either end , to the north and
to the south, we' re leaving quite an area , basically untouched other than
to clean up the area . It gives a lot of a buffer zone to any adjoining
properties .
Emmings : I don ' t mean to interrupt but I just have a thought that the
way down the slope, there was a lot of talk last time you were here about
whether it was a ramp or stairs . What is that?
Robert Pierce: I guess at this point it doesn ' t really matter to us .
We' ll work with staff or whoever might have recommendations . It ' s just
not a big concern. I think personally the tiered steps may look a little
nicer . That would just be my feelings on that but we ' re willing to look
at it. I think you' re pretty familiar , we have 550 feet of lakeshore
roughly and we ' re about 115 feet on the north side and about 80, it ' s
slightly narrower in the middle. We' ve moved from the original proposal
that we looked at , most everything towards the north . The dilemma we' re
having here, the docks allow us to start on our development with a far ,
far higher caliber of home. If we are able to go ahead with that and
market it at this point , we ' re going to be looking at homes probably from
the $200, 000 . 00 to $400 , 000 . 00 range. You can ' t market that with the
docks and the beach, we ' re going to be reducing, in my feelings, about
$100 , 000. 00 per parcel for the finished product . I think it ' s
advantageous for all concerned, including the City, to have this area
start out in a nice fashion . There ' s a lot of land in the future that
the City Planners have brought to your attention. Everyone is probably
going to be opening up here over the next , who knows how long . It might
be soon, it might be a while but I believe this area is one of the areas
that starts off , the flavor will probably carry through onto the other
parcels . I think for the City, for tax reasons , this would be a very
good idea . Also , it' s just the same useage as far as overnight storage ,
as I 'm sure you ' re all aware of, one dock with three boats is the same
what one single family can have. We' re trying to work with the City and
bring our request into line . To step on as few toes and do it in a nice
way that we can for everyone concerned . I think as a whole, we' re on
very good relationship with people around us . I think we can maintain
that.
Larry Wenzel : I live just south of that area . I guess I 'm a little
confused as to what we ' re doing with this not only just on our lake but
all the lakes . Apparently the change is to a requirement which is 100
foot depth by 200 feet in lakeshore to come within the conditional use
variety for this type of piece of property. That ' s a lot of land . It
seems to me that the overlapping program here is that anybody to utilize
that as beachlot has got to be within 1, 000 feet of either that beachlot
or waterline, I don ' t know which . If you look at that in relation to the
size lots , probably 7 families could utilize 20 , 000 square feet . Now, on
our particular lake right there, we had a public access that was utilized
by the general public and we would have 10 to 20 to 30 cars parked on the
street illegally. Nobody did anything about them. Couldn ' t get anybody
to tag them, move them. They did finally put up signs but that doesn ' t
- .,.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 48
C
mean anything . They would unload before dawn and pick up late at night .
Screeching tires and the whole thing. We' ve got another access just down
on Little Joe that ' s about another half a block with the access is a
driveway. The quantity of people who can use is unlimited. Then you
come to the othe side of the coin and you say, if you ' re a landowner or
developer or you ' re a group of people and you want to utilize it for
people that are owners within the area , you have to have all this space .
It doesn ' t seem to fit. Something ' s missing here. We do have
recreational beachlots on the lake. They are much less impact than a
public access . The only reason the public access on our side of the lake
was closed is that the park went in on the far side and as soon as you
started to charge on the far side, you put boulders in so they'd have to
go there to unload . That dramatically dropped the useage of the lake but -
something ' s not fitting right .
Emmings : What would you like to see the City do on this issue?
Larry Wenzel : I don' t think that you can take an overall scale of square
footage or lineal footage and apply it to every condition on every lake
because they ' re not all the same . The conditions are different . The
population on the lake is all different and I don' t know that you can
just put in a straight ordinance that fits everybody like that . It
doesn ' t make sense especially when you ' ve got public accesses and public -
accesses in some cases are adjacent or very close to what they want to do
with the beachlot . Everybody has their own position but this isn ' t
fitting right for some reason . I have no objection to the beachlot the
way Pierce is laying his out because right there, we' ve got others and
they' re more satisfactory than the public access , as far as the
landowners that are there or the neighbors . That ' s .not a problem but
when you start talking about something that ' s all of a sudden is 200 feet -
by 100 feet or 20,000 square feet and you only get limited amount of
spaces for utilization , that doesn ' t necessarily make sense either . If
you go half a block away and use the public access and run your boat into _.
everybody' s shore and beach it because they can ' t kick you off anyway
from the lake. It just doesn ' t make sense. We ' re so restrictive on the
guy that owns the property but we' re not restrictive in the sense of what
we do with the public access or the utilization of the lake. That ' s kind
of where I 'm coming from.
Emmings : And you ' re expressing support for this plan?
Larry Wenzel : I think this plan in this particular area , which affects
me, is great . This might not fit , but I don ' t think for instance if
you' re going to say that he' s got to have 20, 000 square feet, which
I think you ' re thinking about the ordinance changing to be , and I 'm not
sure what that is .
Emmings: Right now that is the ordinance . It ' s 200 feet of lakeshore
with a 100 foot depth. All the way along it is the way right now we' re
interpretting it but we' re going to try and clear that up . —
Larry Wenzel : In some places you' ve got roads that come down and shorten
that down .
r.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 49
Emmings : I think they looked at that and this is the only place where
we've got that situation isn ' t it?
Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta .
Larry Wenzel : So then that gets amended in that sense or what?
Dacy: What ' s being proposed is that the ordinance language is proposed
to be amended so that you only have to have 100 feet of lot depth where
the dock is going to be located . As long as you meet the area
requirement and as long as you meet the lake frontage requirement , if you
have 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is located , that ' s the
proposal .
Larry Wenzel : What if you don ' t have 100 foot anywhere in the section?
Dacy: Then you would have to receive a variance .
Conrad : Then basically we don ' t want a beachlot there .
Emmings : Do you own land between the road and the lake?
Larry Wenzel : Yes . Sure .
Emmings : And how much frontage do you have?
Larry Wenzel : 240 feet and it ' s 10. 5 acres total but I 'm already into
two front lots. It ' s plotted that way now but that .doesn ' t necessary
mean that at one point or another , I ' ve got no benefit going either way
if I develop because lots on the front that have their own lake property
in relation to a series of lots all sharing , I 'm not sure how that value
would be accepted . The value of the lot exclusive or jointly but it just
seems that all of a sudden we' ve got a situation where there ' s a road
that cuts in like that . That road has been there , my house has been
there since 1850 and the road was there and all of a sudden things are
changing and it just doesn' t seem right that the ordinance. It doesn ' t
seem right that these ordinances become so restrictive but it ' s isolated .
You can go just a short way away and you ' ve got public' accesses where
there are no restrictions . That just doesn ' t make a whole heck of a lot
of sense.
Emmings : Do you have any other comments on this item?
Larry Wenzel : No. I 'd rather see $400 , 000. 00 houses than I would
$200 , 000 . 00 houses because that helps everybody. If that ' s the type of
thing that creates it , I 'm all for it .
Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the public hearing was closed .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 50
Erhart : Specifically the current ordinance does require that it all has
to be 100 feet so if this thing was 1, 000 feet long and there was one
spot in that 1, 000 feet that wasn ' t 100 feet wide , you couldn ' t put a
dock in?
Dacy: Right .
Erhart : That seems a little silly doesn ' t it? I think it sounds like a
reasonable thing to do. Did you want to discuss the canoe thing too?
Emmings: Give any comments you ' ve got so he gets the benefit .
Erhart: Okay, we' re not going to vote on this tonight then?
Emmings : No , we' re going to table it .
Erhart : You ' re suggesting that the number of canoe racks simply be left -
to the judgmental decision at the time the conditional use permit comes
in, is that correct?
Dacy: That ' s correct .
Erhart : That' s all I ' ve got .
Conrad : I have no problem with changing the amendment . I think that ' s
fine. I do think that for canoes , I agree with the concept , I don ' t know
why we had limitations on canoes before . I think if we want a million -
canoes on a property, that' s fine with me if that ' s the way they choose
to decorate their beachlot . However , as part of the staff report , it
said instead staff recommends that canoe racks be a permitted use in _
recreational beachlots . The number of canoes to be determined as a part
of the conditional use permit review. I guess we need some guidelines
and therefore I 'm kind of happy we ' re tabling this because here
somebody' s going to come in with canoe racks that dot the shoreline and
I 'm not sure what those guidelines could be Barbara . I started thinking
what they are. I think philosophically I don' t know that we need to
limit the number . Yet on the other hand , to say it ' s going to be a —
conditional use and we ' re going to review it , we should have something
that ' s going to guide that review. Otherwise I don ' t want to see it
because philosophically I 'd say we could have a million canoes so I don' t _
really want to see this unless we have some standards to apply to
different situations like the gentleman was describing . I think staff
should do a little bit of analysis on the canoe aspect .
Emmings: That brings up another issue too. We call these canoe racks
but they store watercraft . They don ' t just store canoes and I don ' t
know, it looks like you can put sailboards on them, small sailboats , all -
kinds of things and I don ' t know if we want to get into that but that
could be another issue. Maybe you want to tie the number of spots to
( store something on a thing that looks like a canoe rack to the number of
houses?
F
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 51
Wildermuth : Didn' t you say that somewhere Barbara? Didn ' t you try to
equate the number of residents in the beachlot association with the
number of available racks?
Dacy: That would be one idea because that is being proposed by the
applicant. That ' s fine. I think maybe in the term canoe racks , maybe we
should change that language regarding to that section to be storage of
non-motorized watercraft because Mr . Chairman , you ' re right, it' s canoes .
It ' s sailboats and sailboards.
Emmings : What about a 15 foot aluminum boat, rowboat?
Dacy: That ' s fine .
Emmings : As long as it doesn ' t have a motor on it , they could go on
there too right?
Conrad : That I get real interested in because that ' s a whole different
animal we ' re talking about .
Batzli : Isn ' t the distinction made by the people that license watercraft
in the State of Minnesota? Whether you need numbers on the side or
whether you just need like the sailboat and sticker on the side?
r
Wildermuth: They all need numbers .
Batzli : No , they just need the sticker on the side .
Conrad : Yes , your sailboats and canoes just need stickers .
Batzli : You might look into that as being able to make some sort of
distinction based on the State ' s definition of that. The recommended
language for the amendment to the dock section , I would strongly
recommend that you don ' t include the language where the dock is proposed
to be located but actually where it is located . I am assuming you want
the dock to be located at the 100 foot depth, correct?
Dacy: Yes .
Batzli : So you don ' t want that to be where the dock is proposed to be
but where it actually is located . My second comment would be that I
would prefer that there be some , taking Tim' s comment , that if you had
1, 000 feet of lakeshore and only one foot didn' t have the 100 foot depth ,
change around to have 999 feet of it as 2 feet deep and you 've got 1 foot
of it that extends back 8 billion feet so you get the required square
footage . I ' d like to see that there be some minimum amount having the
100 foot depths still . At least as a minimum. For instance, how much
land has to be on either side of the dock?
Emmings : The setback? The side setback?
Batzli : Do you know what that is?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 52
Dacy : There is a "dock setback" but I can ' t recall what that is right
off the top of my head .
Batzli : Since it ' s being tabled , I guess I 'd look at something like that
and I assume it's going to be 10 feet or 15 feet and double that so that
you have a minimum 100 foot depth of 20 or 30 feet . If you look at it
and you don ' t like it, I ' ll still probably recommend something like that -
next time.
Wildermuth : I think that ' s a good idea . I think Brian ' s comment is a
very good one. I think maybe the distinction and the criteria for a
canoe rack ought to be something along the guidelines that he was talking
about with the number requirements or just the sticker requirement . That
might be the way to describe that . -
Headla : I like what Pierce has proposed . I certainly support it . I
think the 200 foot and the 100 foot dimensions are purely arbitrary. I
think it ' s ludicrous that you should try to stop one fellow because he
doesn' t have 100 feet. You automatically stop him from getting a
beachlot . I have yet to hear any rationale , whatsoever , what ' s so magic _
about 100 feet? Why is 100 feet better than 50 feet? Why isn ' t it 200
feet or 300 feet deep? Until I hear that logic , you ' re cutting off
somebody. Pierce has to screw around with us for how long just because
we ' re using an arbitrary number of feet on the depth . I think that ' s
unacceptable. This isn ' t a day where we just arbitrarily put any number
and say, that ' s good , let ' s fly with it . I think we really got to take a
look at it. If you want to tie square foot per person per lot, I think
that has some value . I hear a lot of opinions on this but damn it , why
doesn ' t somebody go to somebody like Pleasant Acres and look at it .
They' ve got a big area , how much of it is really used? They ' ve got a
road down there and they probably use 30 to 40 feet of it and they've got
a volleyball court , they have a catamaran , a boat there , two satellites ,
that ' s the area that they really use.
Emmings : Two satellites?
Headla: 30 or 40 feet from the lake .
Emmings : Have they been there all the time because those are not
permitted on beachlots .
Headla : That ' s another thing , they should permit them. It ' s ridiculous
we don ' t have them.
Emmings : If I didn ' t know better I 'd think you owned land between the
road and the lake too Dave. You sound like those guys .
Headla : The requirement of no cars , I think that ' s an excellent
requirement and that ' s got to stay. That ' s going to stop a lot of people
from using it .
Emmings : The only comment I ' ve got is I think he ' s got a very nice plan
here. I like Brian ' s comment that the dock setback, at least the area of
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 53
47
the dock setback and maybe double ought to be the minimum area that has
to be 100 feet . That ' s something that we should look at. This plan I
think fits this property very well . I think it would be ridiculous to
wind up with a result here where we denied all the people living right
across the road from that shoreline , the ability to get down to the lake.
I think it ' s a very minimal impact on the lake. I look at this. I 'm
directly affected by it and it doesn ' t bother me at all . I think it' s a
good plan .
Conrad : It ' s a great use of a beachlot . It ' s a classic for what you want
to do .
Earnings : The problem with the beachlot thing to me is , if everybody
could bring in a plan and say, this is what we want to do, I think we
wouldn ' t have any trouble saying yes , this one ' s good and that one ' s bad
but we wind up with more litigation over beachlots probably than any
other issue for the simple reason that it ' s just impossible to try and
define a set of standards that we can apply. That ' s an objective set of
standards that we can carry from one beachlot to the next . That ' s the
problem. We ' re all bending over backwards trying to get this one
approved because it makes sense and we' re going to do everything we can ,
I think is what I hear and is the way I feel about it, to get this one
approved . Unfortunately we can ' t write a standard like that . We ' ll
approve it if we like it and we won ' t if we don ' t .
-L
Robert Pierce : The only thing is I am anxious in the economic climate to
start marketing them and I ' ve been a little hesitant to do that. It ' s
very hard to market them saying we ' re going to have a dock here . I 'm in
the process that looks good. People say, well call .me back later . I
guess that ' s where I 'm coming from and maybe we' re closer here .
Conrad moved , Erhart seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend Section 20-263 ( 6 & 7) of the Recreational Beachlot
Ordinance until the proper notification has been done. All voted in
favor and motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT
AND LOCATED ON LOT 5 AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT
PARK (JUST WEST OF MGM BUILDING) FOR BERNIE HANSON FOR THE FOLLOWING USES
TO BE LOCATED IN A 19 , 048 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING:
A. SMALL VEHICLE SALES
B. OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE
C. SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE
D. AUTOMOTICE SERVICE CENTER
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
n - P.
Planning Commission Meeting "
April 20, 1988 - Page 4
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Conditional Use Permit #84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot
37 of Shore Acres . All voted in favor and motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
4)i:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE _
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A
DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robert Pierce Applicant
Richard and Ann Zweig 3601 Ironwood Road
Annalee Hanson 6400 Greenbriar Avenue -
Zoe Bros 6631 Minnewashta Parkway
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive
Mr . and Mrs. Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway
Stephen C. Slag Lake Susan
Steve Burke 340 Deerfoot Trail
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report .
Zoe Bros : I 'm curious to know, someone has claimed that there is 50 feet
of property there . Depth . I live just a bit north of this property.
I 'm contesting the fact that there ' s no land there. • That there isn ' t any
beach area .
Emmings: I think the map that was presented to us showed a 100 feet on
the north end from between the lake and the road . I don ' t know whether -
it ' s there or not but that ' s what they showed us . I assume she ' s talking
about Stratford Ridge. What end wasn' t there a 100 feet?
Dacy: According to the half section maps that we have , this distance
from here to here is 100 feet . The property owner is here also .
Robert Pierce : I might just say that the survey that we had done are =
done by Schoell and Madsen who are a very reputable firm. They shoot the
elevations , the water levels , they know the mean water level and shoot
all that. I would be willing to say that their data is correct , probably -
within inches .
Dacy: It is not 100 feet all the way down . In one certain area it ' s a _
100 feet and then it tapers down.
Zoe Bros : How do you propose to get to this property? To this beach?
Robert Pierce : What we have here is a walkway. We' re planning on
putting a walkway, either steps or a slope down using timbers and we ' ve
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 5
designed it in such a way that we eliminate the need for removing any
trees . We ' ve put a lot of thought into trying to leave the bank and the
area along the beach there about as natural as possible and to work our
walkway around the trees. Our intent is to pretty much leave the
vegetation intact . Basically bring in a sand blanket because it shows on
the plan, I don ' t know if you can see but stretching from about here down
to here. Cleaning it up and just making it look nice and leaving the
majority of the front in it ' s natural state. We have roughly 550 feet
there and we ' re only using approximatley 100 or plus feet .
Zoe Bros : For 15 families?
Robert Pierce : Yes .
Zoe Bros : Well , I really dispute Schoell and Madsen. I was there today
and there' s no 100 feet.
Richard Zweig : We live on the north side of Lake Minnewashta . I haven ' t
been down there and measured. I drive by there fairly regularly but the
question that I would ask , and I 'm not necessarily going to doubt the
survey but what I will say is that measured 100 feet from where the slope
goes down and then goes out to the lake or are we maybe talking 100 feet
up to the road because there' s a big difference there. You ' ve got a hill
sloping away, you might be talking 25 feet out before you actually get to
the base of that hill and then towards the lake so that would be my
question . What does 100 feet really mean?
Robert Pierce: I would assume that it ' s taken from the right-of-way from
Minnewashta Parkway.
Richard Zweig : I think that ' s probably where you don ' t see the 100 feet
and I don ' t know that I would either if I went over there. I don ' t know
what that amount would be , I 'd have to go and measure it but that makes a
very small area then. You ' re not going to cut a bank straight down and
out.
Zoe Bros : Most of it is straight up and down.
Robert Pierce: You might say that the right-of-way that is .given to
Minnewashta , which the measurements have probably been taken off of , is
much wider than that. The asphalt that you see there.
Zoe Bros : I don ' t know what you ' re saying .
Richard Zweig : For further widening of the road, is that what you ' re
saying?
Robert Pierce : No . When you dedicate a city road , not correct me if I 'm
wrong, it ' s 50 normally but I 'm not sure, Minnewashta might be 60 foot
right-of-way?
Dacy: It ' s 66 feet wide , the right-of-way is . The 100 distance is a
horizontal distance measured on the map. You ' re absolutely correct. A
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 6
significant part of that distance is a sloped area . That ' s not in
dispute. We use the horizontal distance just as we measure lot width or
lot depth and that ' s part of the issue that the Commission will discuss .
Richard Zweig: I see that as a real problem if you ' re going to start
giving variances . If that variance was flat land , now you might be
talking one game but if you see that piece of property, you' ll know
exactly what she ' s talking about . There isn ' t very much that ' s down in
the slope.
Conrad : Let me just jump in a little bit . The reason we have a depth
requirement , there are two reasons . One, we want room for people to use
it. We ' re concerned with safety. If you put a bunch of people on 12 _
feet of depth , there are some problems . That ' s one of the reasons. The
other reasons we do want it buffered from any neighbors . We want
beachlots buffered so that you ' re not abutting a house and affecting
them. In this particular case , and we' re looking at the general issue ,
you' re obviously very interested in the specific and I understand that ,
we have to be real concerned with what this ordinance says in general
because other folks will want to take advantage of whatever we do. In
this particular case however , because you have the buffer of the street ,
we ' re really not impacting the immediate neighbors so that issue in my
mind is not there . The issue that is there in my mind is there really
enough room for people to be on that beachlot? Is there enough room to
satisfy their particular needs and uses of that? I think that ' s key.
That 's important here but it' s also important that we make sure that our
ordinance considers that aspect of use . We just want there to be enough
area for it to be an active area if there ' s a beachlot. Anyway, I just
wanted to jump in on that thought .
Ray Roettger : . . .has an excellent point . We come here and I think we
may be against something just because we look at the piece of property so
I think what could happen is it should be defined very well for us .
These people maybe are used to looked at this stuff . Are you talking
about the road right-of-way that Schoell and Madsen submitted . . .?
Robert Pierce : To be very honest , I couldn ' t answer that question.
Ray Roettger : You should know that is exactly what you ' re talking about .
The others , you drawing lines , as Barb confirmed , a horizontal line goes
from Point A to Point B but if that line is at a diagonal , you can have
100 feet and end up really with 100 feet along the property line and end
up with 10 foot of depth. The ordinance, is it 100 feet along the
property line or is it 100 feet of depth perpendicular to the this
particular line?
Conrad : Barbara , are you comfortable that when we say 100 feet , it ' s
obviously perpendicular to something. Do you feel we have that control?
Do we think we know the specifications well enough?
Dacy: The ordinance even states that the beachlot has to be 200 feet in
width along the lake frontage and the depth shall be measured 100 feet
back from the perpendicular line along the edge of the lake. Typically
p.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 7
how you would measure it , if this is the shoreline , we' ll measure 200
feet this way and 100 feet deep.
Zoe Bros : Are you talking the edge of the water or the high water mark?
Dacy: The ordinary high water mark as established by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources .
Zoe Bros: Because we have low water right now.
Dacy: Right , when they submit a survey they' ll indicate where that
elevation is . In the case of Lake Minnewashta I think it ' s elevation
945 so we look for that elevation and take our distances from that .
Ray Roettger : You see my point . The property line there is running at
quite an angle to that road and I 'm just saying if that 100 foot is taken
at an angle.
Conrad : No , it would be perpendicular to the water . Barbara , maybe you
better help. I guess I can ' t interpret what the ordinance says .
Dacy: If this is the property lines here , you can measure perpendicular
to here. That ' s how you can measure it. If there ' s a dispute as to
whether or not this is 100 feet or whatever , I determined that 100 feet
based on measuring from the half section map. The issue is , and not only
in this case but in any other case that might occur , is the Commission
and City Council satisfied with the 100 feet in depth? If you ' re not ,
then you have the option to change it .
Conrad : But for this gentleman, what you just said / we ' re not really
concerned with the lot line . We ' re not running it parallel to the lot
line. We ' re running it perpendicular to the high water mark. That ' s what
I understand Barbara to be telling us , right? So that should satisfy
your concern.
Ray Roettger : No , they' re really not the same question . We' re not just
talking about this property but we ' re talking about. . .and we' re talking
about changing the ordinance . I think how that is defined , the depth ,
if you could get the condition in there. . . I think there' s -a lot of
variation there . A lot of variation in depth .
Conrad : How would you respond to that? Do you still feel that the way
we measure that , how many feet is adequate Barbara?
Dacy: It ' s up to the Commission. That ' s the way we've been measuring
it. If you want to further define it in the ordinance , that ' s fine .
Robert Pierce: I feel like there is more than ample road down there for
15 families . I think when you ' re looking at 15 families using it the
likelihood on any given day that you have 15 families on that is really
would be very unusual . If it happens it would probably be on the 4th of
July and even then , I doubt you would have all 15 families down there.
There ' s a lot of room on that frontage. People who would be using it
Planning Commission Meeting R
April 20, 1988 - Page 8
wouldn ' t all be concentrated in one area either . They'd be moving
around. I think it will be a really nice frontage.
Richard Zweig: How many docks are you looking to build?
Robert Pierce: We' re looking for right now, one dock with three slips
that will be for Lots 3 , 4 and 5 of Block 1. The ones that face on
Minnewashta Parkway. That ' s the same useage for a dock that you would
have allowed by a single family home. You can have one dock with three
boats on it . We ' re asking for one dock with three boats . Three boats —
for overnight storage. We have roughly a development of around 9 acres .
We feel that 's a real light use of the beach. The useage of the lake
uown, the canoe racks , that type of useage that would be very easily
handled on the lake.
Richard Zweig: How many canoe racks and how many canoes?
Robert Pierce: What we ' re looking for is one canoe rack, which is what
we had requested , one canoe rack per lot which would be 15 canoes or
maybe 15 sailboats or something like that . Sailboards . —
Richard Zweig: But they would definitely be non-motorized. They could
not have a motor put on them.
Robert Pierce: That ' s the way I understand it .
Richard Zweig : There wouldn' t be a rowboat on the rack and somebody —
brings a 25 horse motor down and things like that?
Robert Pierce: That ' s what I understand . Also , I think that if I
understood it before that these are racks are designed to fit certain
sizes of watercraft .
Richard Zweig : The regulation is such that it is non-motorized . That ' s
what I want perfectly clear in my mind .
Conrad : That ' s right . —
Steve Slaq : I have some property on Lake Susan . The question I have is ,
what about the. . .
Robert Pierce : No building .
Steve Slaq: Because there is a qualification on a 75 foot setback.
Steve Burke: Are we discussing the recreational beachlot ordinance
amendment or discussing his particular one?
Conrad: Well , his particular one is bringing the amendment to the
forefront . We are talking the amendment .
Steve Burke: Okay, because most of the discussion is not germain to your
ordinance .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 9
Conrad : We' re using it as a case study to make sure that we can modify
the amendment properly.
Steve Burke : Let me ask a question then . As you know, I 'm with Sunny
Slope, why don ' t you leave the ordinance exactly the way it stands and
require them, this developer to come in with a variance request and let
the City Council determine whether or not they wish to allow a variance
to the 100 foot depth then it ' s not your decision , it ' s the Council
decision. The other part of your amendment is to change the canoe rack
and give the discretion to the City Council . Now when we made the
provision we were told, I was wondering , this recreational beachlot seems
to be amended every time a new developer comes in and instead of asking
that developer to come in with variances , I 'm just wondering what is
moving the Council to consider amending the whole ordinance rather than
requiring just a variance application and then letting the Council react
to that .
Conrad : I ' ll try to answer that . Variances are really tough to handle .
We prefer not to have variances because they' re hard to document the
why' s and the wherefore ' s . If you grant a variance to one , then pretty
soon everybody is there looking for a similiar type variance and you
really do need some good rationale to document that variance and the
reasons you granted that . When we see, as a Planning Commission, a case
where the ordinance can be revised because in concept the original
ordinance may not have been perfect and we can see some modifications to
it so we don ' t have to go through a variance process , we ' d much prefer
that . As long as the intent of the ordinance is being upheld , we ' re
going to modify that ordinance so that it can incorporate uniquenesses .
There are a lot of numbers in ordinances and we find that they tend to be
arbitrary in many cases but we do have some standardt , we do have an
intent of the ordinance that we ' re trying to uphold and if we can make
sure that that intent is still being upheld , we can see , like in this
particular case, where in my personal opinion, the intent of the
ordinance is being upheld . We are protecting the neighbors . We are
protecting the people that are using the land . There is plenty of land ,
when we talk about this , there is plenty of land for a recreational
beachlot . It ' s a classic case of a good beachlot. It ' s what beachlots
are intended to serve and in this case , the ordinance had some numbers in
it that may be didn ' t ever consider this type of situation. , I think in
my mind , I 'm setting a precedent if we , as a group, decide to change it ,
we ' re setting a precedent that I 'd feel real comfortable that we could
carry forth and have future developments come in and be acceptable under
this particular change.
Steve Burke : I don ' t disagree with your statement that that particular
beachlot is , I think is probably a good one. I 'm not contending that
it ' s bad but it seems to me that that one is a classic for granting a
variance in that you ' ve got the road and you can ' t make the lot any
deeper than what it is without realigning the road so if your variance ,
through the process you can say the reason it was necessary to grant a
variance for this one was we couldn ' t realign the road . But when you
have a developer that comes in and buys a whole bunch, if you change the
ordinance and if your intent is to have depth to beachlots and you have a
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 10
developer coming in and buying a large tract of land and placing his
road , now you ' re allowing him to have a narrower beachlot by just
changing the ordinance and he can realign his road wherever he wants it -
to be on undeveloped property whereas this developer , it would seem to me
that he should get a variance . If you ' re addressing that particular
one, if you don ' t change your ordinance, you ' re going to have to come in
with a variance and I would say that the City Council is probably going
to look favorably on it because they' re probably not going to require the
developer to realign the road because he can realign it on his property
but he can ' t . . .
Conrad : You make a good argument .
Steve Burke: My statement was , what you ' re looking at in your beachlot
ordinance and if you ' re allowing it to become narrower and narrower , from
my perspective, from Sunny Slope , the ordinance was established in 1982
was one thing and we' ve been trying to work and we ' re still trying and
everytime we turn around it seems that the City Council , for every
developer that comes in, is willing to modify, the Vern Gagne property
and you said they aren ' t putting very many people within 1, 000 square
feet so let ' s make a rural and urban beachlot and you expanded and
liberalized your language . Now another developer comes in and it seems
to me that a variance would handle this much better and you ' re ready to,
it seems from our perspective , at a drop of the hat , a new developer
comes in, sure we ' ll change it for you . I don ' t know if this is the
impetus for the City to consider a change to the ordinance , I would
recommend that the City Council not change the oridinance but ask the
developer to come in with a variance because I think the City Council
looks very favorably, . . . to meet the intent of the beachlot ordinance and
there ' s a real hardship .
Zoe Bros : I still maintain that there isn ' t 100 feet there .
Steve Burke: The question is not whether or not there ' s 100 feet .
Zoe Bros : He keeps on saying this is a good example , it ' s not .
Steve Burke: But they' re not ruling on his development .
Conrad : We ' re making a statement that 100 feet should be there , where
the dock is placed . That ' s what we ' re looking at . If there isn ' t 100
feet , their application would not be accepted . We ' re not ruling on their
application. We ' re looking at the ordinance in general .
Larry Wenzel : I kind of agree with the gentleman that this particular
instance, the fact that because of the road and the fact that the square
footage , even if he only had 50 feet , still is way in excess of the
ordinance as far as the number of square foot per house. It doesn ' t seem
to me that other than the fact , probably roughly four properties in which
there is going to be somebody, at least 100 feet away, as a buffer comes
into play in this particular instance because people don ' t , from a
practical standpoint, the use from the beach , they don ' t sit 100 feet
away from the water . They' re up high and if you went to the beach and
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 11
you can only get within 100 feet you wouldn ' t go there anyway so that
doesn ' t make a whole lot of sense. I guess , I had some other questions
that may not necessarily in relation to this particular property but the
ordinance . . .and that is with lake property and the way it meanders , when
you ' re working with a depth and then you come along and say well , the
dock is going to be at the deepest point of that lot at 100 feet and the
way lots are joined , it seems to me that what you ' re pushing is for docks
to be put in a specific position on a lot line where therefore you get a
concentration of docks from property to property more so than spreading
them out. The other thing is as those things , and I don' t think that
that ' s necessarily a good practical thing to have happen from a
utilization standpoint. The other thing is , if you ' re allocating where
that dock goes from the depth of the property in relation to where the
landowner or the people would want it in relation to what the beachfloor
is , the floor on the bottom of the lake, you might have to put your dock
up in an area that was marshy where you don ' t have a proper beach with
respect to x number of feet over where you ' ve got a bottom that ' s
beautiful so that doesn ' t make a lot of sense. The next thing is that ,
if you ' ve got the beachiot and there are x amount of dock spaces for
boats and I don ' t know the law today but it seems to me that property
will come into the water 10 feet from the existing water mark so that if
the water drops, the landowner can still go out 10 feet if the water
rises . You still have access to the lake . You can ' t lose your access to
the lake . Then enters another situation as to whatever that is , 5 feet
or 10 feet , whatever turns from private property to public water .
Whatever the state laws and who controls the mooring of boats if they' re
properly identified and requested in public waters? So if you say you
can only have two boats on this property, why wouldn ' t five people moor
their boats in public waters because you ' re restricting their normal
dockage? Just by putting it in public waters , you have basically no
control . That would create even a greater problem, it would seem to me ,
as far as the water useage of getting in and out . Especially if you ' re
in a restricted area . You could have a particular beachlot that would
have the 100 foot depth and 200 foot width and x number of people using
it according to the ordinance of 4 foot per home and the square footage
rate. All of a sudden you have x number of boats moored out in open
water in front of that piece of property and now you ' ve got another
problem.
Conrad : How do we regulate the rights for mooring Barbara?
Dacy: The ordinance regulates overnight storage . It says that no more
than three boats can be stored overnight at the dock. At any lake there
is a public, I shouldn ' t say any lake in Chanhassen but at Lake
Minnewashta , at Lotus Lake there is a public access . People can launch
their boats through that public access and yes , outside of the beachiot ,
maybe 100 feet on the lake, you could have 5 or 6 boats there skiing ,
fishing or whatever . The ordinance regulates overnight storage. The
ordinance also regulates the number of sailboat moorings that can be
located off of a beachlot . The term overnight is defined from a period
from 2 : 00 a .m. to 5 : 00 a .m. in the morning . The lake is public water and
people can operate their boats , if they' re licensed by the Carver County
Boat Patrol enforces the license as well as DNR so the key for the
P.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 12
beachlot ordinance is the overnight storage at the dock.
Larry Wenzel : You still haven ' t answered , who controls the public
waters .
Dacy: The DNR and Carver County Boat Patrol .
Larry Wenzel : I guess the question is , what is the rule on . . .
Conrad : If you didn' t own lakeshore , you could not moor your boat in the _
lake .
Dacy: And conversely, if you were a member of his subdivision and wanted
to use the lake, you would go to the Lake Minnewashta area , you can boat
around the entire lake . You could come to that beachlot dock. Play on
the beachlot but if he was not authorized to store that boat overnight ,
you ' d have to take it back out through the boat access . -
Larry Wenzel : Okay but how do they handle on Calhoun for instance?
Batzli : That ' s Hennepin County Sheriff that patrols Lake Calhoun.
Larry Wenzel : Who has the actual control over the public water and
that ' s what I don ' t understand . -
Conrad : The DNR does .
Larry Wenzel : Okay, what is their ruling as far as mooring a boat in
public water? Do you have to be a landowner to moor you boat in public
water? I don ' t think you do . I think as long as the boat is properly
identified as far as traffic hitting it , especially at night with the
reflectors , it can be moored .
Batzli : I don ' t believe that ' s right . I won ' t disagree with you because --
I don ' t know that ' s a fact but I 'm under the impression that there are
definite rules about where and when you can moor various objects and I
think that you can not just go moor a boat in public waters . I would _
wager small sums of money that you can ' t do that .
Conrad : I 'm sure you can ' t but what ' s your point? We' re not really
talking about mooring boats tonight . Is this relevant to anything?
Larry Wenzel : I 'm worried about if you regulate too constrictively what
people can store on the property. . . -
Conrad : We ' re generalizing tonight . We ' re not restricting . We ' re
opening it up.
Batzli : Your point though is that if we restrict it too far , they will
merely moor their boats off-shore and you believe have created a
different problem.
Larry Wenzel : Sure , why wouldn' t they and now you ' ve got a different
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 13
problem which is a bigger problem than the one you started with . I don ' t
know what the rules are .
Dacy: The City also has a water surface useage ordinance which applies
to this lake. I can provide a copy of that to you. That has not been an
issue during previous ordinance amendments .
Conrad: The moorings on a beachlot , we do have restrictions on how many
boats can be moored . Now I 'm going to say this tongue in cheek a little
bit but the DNR, I assume that ordinance has been reviewed and the State
finds it satisfactory so we are controlling the number of moorings on a
beachlot. However , there have been recent cases when we found that maybe
in the wetlands case where we didn ' t have authority.
Headla : I think that ' s the key thing there. We didn ' t have authority
and I really question on the moorings.
Conrad : Interesting to follow up, however I don ' t want to get hung up on
that one issue tonight . I think we ' re looking at some other things . I
think we will follow up your comments because they' re of interest and I
think we ' ll direct staff to help us struggle through that at some point
in the future. Barbara , can you do that?
Mary Jo Moore : I would recommend if you ' re going to make any adjustments
in the ordinance, that the 100 foot depth be useable land at a maximum
elevation . The property that has brought this before the Council is not
100 feet of useable land . It ' s not even 80 feet . There ' s a very steep
embankment with very little flat ground . I think there should be an
elevation requirement.
Conrad : But remember the 100 feet is really a buffer . It ' s a buffer and
right now you've got a hill and a road as a buffer so in this particular
case . . .
Mary Jo Moore : It ' s not a buffer , it ' s whether they can actually use
that land for a recreational beachlot which means a swimming beach ,
canoes .
Conrad : You ' re right . They have hundreds of feet on the lake where in
this particular case where they can use it.
Mary Jo Moore : You have to pin down that number too .
Conrad : It ' s something we have to resolve in our minds . Even 50 feet ,
how wide is this room? 50 feet? 60 feet? Is that enough to put 12
families? You ' ll never get 12 families down there at one time but, by
chance if they did go , is that enough room? More than likely.
Mary Jo Moore: If it was useable land .
Conrad : Let ' s say they only have 50 feet down there but I guess that ' s
something we have to resolve up here.
Planning Commission Meeting R _
April 20, 1988 - Page 14
Mary Jo Moore : . . . instance where we have this measurement of land , I am
next to an outlot, on this lot they' ve got 60 feet of lakeshore. However ,
the land is at an angle and 60 feet is out into the water . Actual
lakeshore is 30 feet. Now it depends on what measurements you use right?
If you ' re going to take Schoell and Madsen ' s with 60 feet of lakeshore ,
let ' s go out here . . . As far as a canoe rack goes , I think that should
definitely be restricted to the number of families that are using the lot _
as opposed to how many docks you can have. . .
Mrs . Wenzel : You ' re looking at this on a square footage basis and 400
square feet for each of the 15 houses, he could have a strip 12 feet wide
by his 550 feet long and it would still be adequate for those 15 houses .
It' s still that much square footage.
Conrad : And your point is?
Mrs . Wenzel : My point is that it doesn ' t make , if you ' re going to make
it 100 feet wide, then it could be less length. He has 550 feet in
length and it could be 12 feet wide by the 550 and that would meet the
requirements for 15, 000 square feet . -
Zoe Bros : Last spring there would not have been any property there at
all .
Robert Pierce : I guess I ' d have to totally disagree . Every time I ' ve
been down there and I have gone down there , I ' ve taken my kids down and
there used to be a dock there and there hasn ' t been for a period of time -
since they moved out and it ' s been used and all I can say is , on this
particular project and maybe some of the other projects coming along that
way, I don ' t believe that when they made the ordinance that they were
able to look at every type of useage. We' ve worked very hard to watch
the impact on the neighbors , the impact on the lake and feel that we' re
doing a good job and our request is extremely reasonable .
Ray Roettger : I live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and I know
exactly what she ' s talking about because it ' s a piece of property that ' s
defined by Schoell and Madsen Engineers . It was surveyed in 1960 or -
thereabouts . There is no more land there . It was surveyed , stakes
pounded in, dredged and it has it down something like 35 feet. I 'm kind
of , with my engineering background and I ' ve done some surveying , Barb ' s _
defined the horizontal marks but I can make you a sketch on that board
and I think you ' ll see what the problem is that I 'm talking about . If
you took a piece of property like this and there ' s a road there and you
took an exaggerated deal like this and the property just happens was laid —
out someway and you met these requirements but this dimension here is 10
feet . If this dimension becomes long enough or this dimension , depending
on how you measure it , along the shore, you can get a very minimum
dimension here and I think that ' s what your ordinance should take a look
at . What the minimum depth is perpendicular to this surface.
Conrad : Staff is telling us that that ' s how they do it . That ' s what
I heard our staff say. Staff is not saying we do that. Staff is saying
we measure it perpendicularly from. . .
Por
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 15
Ray Roettger : Can you tell us then what that minimum dimension is?
Conrad: That ' s what we ' re looking at tonight .
Headla : That really isn ' t pertinent now. We' re talking about the
ordinance, not approving that particular one.
Ray Roettger : But that should be put into the ordinance though .
Conrad : There are some good points being brought up and I appreciate
them all . Anything else?
Richard Zweig : What are we amending this to? If you' re talking about
amending this thing, I agree with this gentleman over here. I don ' t
think you should ever change the ordinance and that there should be a
variance but what is it being amended to?
Conrad : The beachlot ordinance .
Richard Zweig : From what to what? What size?
Conrad : Right now we ' re looking at two things . We' re saying the minimum
requirement depth wise is 100 feet all the way through the beachlot . The
recommendation or the thought that we ' re reviewing is , it doesn ' t have to
be 100 feet all the way through. Only at the dock. That ' s what we ' re
looking at .
Richard Zweig : So in other words, the amendment is up to the Council ,
it ' s up to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not the 100 feet
is necessary. You ' re not going down to 75 or you ' re not going down to ,
it ' s on a case by case basis?
Conrad : No . There are a lot of situations , if we change it , the 100
feet is an absolute. It ' s easy to measure. It ' s easy to look at. We
can always tell . If we change it , there are other situations where one
end of the beachlot could be 10 feet and where the dock is it could be
100 feet and that ' s the only place where we have 100 feet and we may not
have a good beachlot. That' s the situation that we'd have to consider
that might roll in . I 'm very confident that this particular ordinance as
we ' re looking at it and the changes to the language would , this
particular request that we ' re not looking at tonight but as an example ,
I 'm comfortable that this request is not abusing the ordinance and any
change that we ' re looking at wouldn' t have an impact . However , in the
future is what we ' re looking at . We' ve got to be real comfortable that
we' re not changing the language where we get a different set of
circumstances that we didn ' t anticipate. And maybe, as some people have
brought up, maybe the variance in this case might be the way to fly.
Mary Jo Moore: My understanding was that a variance request was put
through on this property and everything was approved but the dock.
Dacy: That ' s correct. The applicant filed a variance. The City
Attorney' s opinion was that the City should not consider a variance for
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 16
that particular case . The applicant consequently filed the zoning -
ordinance amendment application .
Mary Jo Moore : So in this case , his variance was approved except for the -
dockage?
Dacy: No , no variance was approved . His conditional use permit to allow
a recreational beachlot was without a dock.
Mary Jo Moore : Okay, so then because the dock was denied he comes
through on a request to change the ordinance so he doesn ' t need a permit _
to get the variance?
Conrad : He ' d like to have a dock and we ' re just taking a look at the -
ordinance to see if that ordinance was too hard and didn ' t consider all
the circumstances . We' re looking at this one but we' re really looking at
the ordinance. He ' s obviously interested in changing it so he doesn ' t _
need a variance and we ' re obviously not proned to having variances . We
really don ' t like variances because they' re hard to defend and we want to
make sure that if we change this ordinance that it ' s in the right
direction . -
Mary Jo Moore : But I don ' t think it should be self serving .
Conrad: It ' s not . We ' re not doing it for him. We ' re smart enough to
know we' re doing it for whoever comes in and applies and that ' s why we ' re
looking at it right now. We' re looking at it to see if our intent of the _
ordinance is being upheld and will be upheld in future beachlots that are
applied for .
Ann Zweig : All I want to say is what happened to the residential lots
that have been denied docks then? There are also those on the north side
and west side .
Conrad : It has nothing to do with beachlots . We ' re looking only at
beachlots .
Ann Zweig : This is a beachlot . Residental neighborhood group , 15 -
families that have a beachlot . Is that what we ' re looking at?
Conrad : If they have been denied and we changed the ordinance , they can
come back in and apply.
Richard Zweig : Don' t change the ordinance .
Ann Zweig: Then we get lots of docks .
Conrad : No . I think you ' re wrong on that . The ordinance is very
restrictive and you don ' t get lots of docks . You simply don ' t get lots
of docks . You may get one and if they have enough frontage you may get
two. What is it Barbara , after every 200 feet , for every 200 feet
additional you may be a dock? And that ' s less dockage than most
residential people have on the lake. That ' s less dockage so you ' re not
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 17
getting lots of docks . I don ' t want you to think that we' re out here
granting docks willy nilly. It ' s quite restrictive .
Batzli : How many beachlots are there anyway?
Conrad : On all lakes?
Batzli : On the lakes that they' re concerned about . How many beachlots
are there on your lake?
Dacy: There ' s at least 5 or 6.
Batzli : Do we know if we change the ordinance how it would affect those
beachlots?
Dacy: The existing beachlots would be grandfathered in as they are now.
Batzli : I know but if they were denied a dock before under the old rules
and if the rules are relaxed under the new ordinance , would there be any
additional docks?
Dacy: There has not been any other recreational beachlot request on Lake
Minnewashta since I ' ve been here so I don ' t know what ones they ' re
referring to that ' s been denied .
Richard Zweig : There are some there without docks . There are some there
without docks right now and that ' s why when you relax the ordinance ,
rather than keep the ordinance , I 'm don ' t know why, I 'm not a city
planner and I don ' t know why you don ' t give variances but it seems to me
that you would keep a rule sound rather than amending that and then go
for a variance . I don ' t have a problem with this plan . That ' s not what
I 'm having a problem with. I 'm satisfied here but I don ' t like the idea
of amending an ordinance rather than doing a variance because there are
some beachlots, I know one in particular and I know the people who do
this , that ' s on the northwest shore and they have no dock now and I 'm
sure they've got enough, I was going to maybe they' ve got 200 feet , I
don ' t know, but if the ordinance is changed , they may just come in and
say we had a beachlot before but now we want a dock with 2 or 3 boats . I
think that ' s a real problem.
Conrad : And why would that be a problem?
Richard Zweig : Because there are no boats there now and they were not
authorized to have any before. I just don ' t understand . I think the
rule that ' s up here is great that ' s set up now and I think that if he ' s
granted a variance, I can see where that makes sense but why amend what ' s
already there , which is very good and leave it that way and then have him
file for a variance on that? Like you say, I don ' t see a problem with
that . There ' s all kinds of square footage there . He ' s only asking for
three boats . Why is the City wanting to do that? I 'm at a loss. Like I
say, I 'm not a city planner but I don ' t understand .
r.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 18 —
Ann Zweig : What would be the language of the ordinance? What are you
changing it to?
Conrad : We don' t know. That's what we' re trying to decide . The concept —
would be, we maintain the 100 feet but only where the dock is placed ,
with or without some other comments . The current language says you have
to have 100 feet throughout the beachlot. We' re considering having that —
100 feet be maintained only where the dock is placed so the rest of the
beachlot could go down to less footage and depth.
Ray Roettger : Sir , I 'm going to have to insist on that location of that —
dock at a 100 foot depth, you can force someone to put a dock in the
worse possible location on that piece of property. I don' t think the
dock really would be significant as to where that depth would occur . —
Would it not be better to go to some minimum depth anywhere on the
property?
Conrad : Here' s what you have for a beachlot ordinance. You have 200
frontage feet. You've got to have the 200 feet and you have to have
30,000 total square feet .
Dacy: 30,000 for the first dock and 20, 000 for the second dock plus 200
feet of additional lake frontage.
Conrad : So you have those restrictions . That ' s giving us some kind of
control. Just generally, the 30, 000 is a good tool to use. Whether that
100 feet is a good tool is really. That 30 , 000 talks to me about buffers
and enough size. The 100 feet doesn' t say much other than it ' s an —
absolute rule and there are exceptions to that . 98 feet , 94 feet . Geez,
but we've got the 30,000 in there, we' ve got enough feet. There is
enough square footage with ct::cr ?arts of this ordinance to protect the —
citizens so I 'm really comfortable that there are those elements there.
We' re just debating whether that 100 foot is an absolute and whether we
should change it or whether we should communicate that we don' t want to _
change it and recommend a variance in this case because there aren' t that
many other alternatives and I don' t know what we' re going to do.
Anything else that' s new? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Wildermuth: Before you close the hearing I think maybe you shouldn' t
explain what the undesirability connected with variances is •and the
problems that the City has? —
Conrad : I tried to do that before.
Wildermuth: They seem to have a lot of interest in variances and
handling this situation with variances.
Conrad : Let' s close the public hearing and I ' ll mention that Jim. I ' ll —
go through it again and maybe Barbara can help.
Batzli. moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 19
Conrad : Basically, in terms of going through this again , and Barbara
help me if you can because I 'm not that astute on all the ramifications
of variances but basically our Attorney says variances are tough to deal
with. When you grant a variance you set a precedent and you really have
to document why you set that precedent really precisely. Really
precisely and many times that ' s not easy. Many times you use general
language to document that and most of the time , when you grant that
variance you have a lot of other people coming in and and taking
advantage of that same variance that you just granted because you haven ' t
totally documented that and Barbara help me out . I 'm sure if we had the
City Attorney here he 'd be killing me on this one . The other thing is ,
you try to make ordinances as good as you can . You grant a variance it
means hey, who cares about the ordinance , it must be lousy and we used to
have many variances in the old Chanhassen days 3-4 years ago and it meant
that the ordinances meant nothing . What we ' re trying to do now is make
sure that the ordinance means something . We can stand behind them. We
can tell people that they mean something and they mean something for a
real good reason. That ' s why we ' re looking at changing the ordinance
tonight is saying hey, does it make sense to change that ordinance and
that ' s what we' re doing . We ' re trying to make the ordinances the valid
ones that rule the City and you really don ' t like to rule the city by
variances . You really don ' t because it ' s real difficult . It ' s costly.
As taxpayers you spend legal fees , Attorney fees supporting it . It ' s not
only the one issue, it ' s the next five issues that come up and typically
they break down that ordinance . Therefore , our direction here on the
Planning Commission is to make sure that the ordinance is right in the
first place . There are times when variances make sense and they are
appropriate but we choose to make sure that the ordinances are right .
Batzli : There ' s a second aspect as well . I think he spoke mostly of the
precedence and the policy. There ' s also a city ordinance as to when you
can find a variance which has strict guidelines as well so you ' re not
only looking at it from a precedent standpoint but you ' re also looking at
meeting specifications on the ordinance to grant the variance in the
first place .
Emmings : With the 30 , 000 square foot area , minimum requirement and 200
feet of shoreline, if you ' ve got only the 200 feet you ' ve got to have an
average depth of 150 feet already so that does afford another protection .
Just the area and width requirement gives you some protection right
there. I ' ve got some real uncomfortable feelings about this for two
reasons . I guess the horns of the dilemma for me are, I feel like we ' re
reacting to one proposal and we ' re changing the ordinance to let in one
project here and I don ' t like that . That feels like spot zoning . It
feels like a bad thing to do . On the other hand , I like his proposal . I
think it ' s appropriate . I have no problem with what he ' s proposing to do
and I live on that lake and look at that shore too . Before I came here
tonight I had resolved in my own mind that there ' s nothing wrong with our
ordinance and that this matter should be handled through a variance . I
think that the comments of the gentleman from Sunny Slope are well taken.
I think he said everything that I thought of and then some . We did see a
survey done by staff as to what properties are left in the city which
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 20
could become beachlots and the only ones that would require a depth
variance are along that shore of Lake Minnewashta and it ' s Dave ' s
property, these folks back here have some property and this one and I
don' t know, there might be a couple of others. The reason they don ' t —
have the depth is because of the road which makes it to me a very clear
cut case for granting a variance because it ' s a thing that ' s there that' s
imposed on them. It ' s not something they imposed on themselves . I don ' t
think that granting a variance in this case would set a dangerous
precedent for those other cases where there ' s potential for beachlots and
I don ' t see any reason to dispense with the 100 foot minimum requirement .
The other thing about this one is that even if we approve these
amendments , he ' s still going to need a variance because he ' s going to
need a variance under Section 13that Barbara brought to our attention
tonight. We ' re looking at amending two sections that would get our
ordinance in shape for him to be allowed to do whatever he wants to do
but he ' s still going to run afoul with Number 13 isn ' t he?
Dacy: If the Planning Commission and Council wanted to change the
ordinance to reduce the lot depth , they would also have to amend number
13 as well .
Emmings : I know but all that ' s been proposed tonight , all that ' s been
proposed so far is the amendment of two sections and we really have to
amend three . Otherwise he ' s still going to have to apply for the
variance .
Dacy: Yes and I would follow that by saying that because we are under
lawsuit from the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and because the City
Attorney looked at this case and felt and went through the criteria and
said no, a variance would not be justified and said that the Council
should amend the ordinance rather than granting variances . That ' s why we -
went back and initiated this application .
Emmings : My own personal opinion on this , my position on this matter is
this. They should leave the ordinance alone . There ' s nothing wrong with
it. I want him to get what he wants and I think he should be granted a
variance for the dock. I don ' t think it creates any kind of a bad
precedent or anything else . The only other specific comment I have is —
just probably a lot more trivial , is that I think in the section of the
ordinance that ' s number 6 that we ' re looking at amending , there ' s a
sentence that starts , I think we ought to get canoe racks out of there.
In a couple of sentences it talks about racks and then in another
sentence it talks about canoe racks but we ' re really talking about
storing a lot of different kinds of watercraft on these racks . Calling
them canoe racks I think just adds confusion to this . I think there ' s a
sentence that begins with the word canoes and it ' s about the sixth line
down and I think what we ought to do is say that starting there it should
read , non-motorized watercraft such as , and then just pick up the
sentence where it starts , canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small
sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they' re
stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose and then just take
the word canoe out of the next sentence so it would just say, the number
of racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit
City Council Meeting ay 31, 1988
R
Mayor Hamilton: That a signed agreement between the Reeds and the developer be
signed so everybody knows who's paying it.
--Jr-
Councilman Johnson: The trail being built?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Roger Knutson: The development contract requires someone to do something. We
also require an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it gets accomplished.
Councilman Boyt: Now we need to understand what we're getting. We are talking
about a city trail. Right? It's 8 feet wide. That's our standard. Just so
there's no confusion. That's our typical trail.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the partial vacation
of West 64th Street conditioned upon the following:
1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare an analysis of all steps to be
accomplished prior to filing the vacation resolution including driveway
relocation expenses, reconstruction and relocation plans, filing of
appropriate letters of credit or escrow amounts, and retaining necessary
drainage and utility easements and any other iters deemed necessary by the
City Attorney's Office. This will be brought back for Council approval.
2. A left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed prior to the vacation of 64th
Street. Completed either by MnDot or the developer.
L 3. An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer fram the vacated portion of
64th Street to TH 41.
4. Vacation of 64th Street is contingent upon a development contract being
signed and that the development contract spells out that the developer is
responsible for the expense of constructing the cul-de-gac and construction
of the trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution 88-48
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE CITY CODE TO
AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RANK/
DOCK REQUIREMENT.
Barbara Dacy: Two issues, one issue is the lot depth requirement for a
beachlot in order to have a dock. The second issue is the canoe rack issue.
Currently as written you have to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. So
the Planning Commission acted to recommend that the Council amend the ordinance
to keep the 100 foot lot depth requirement for a dock but added a phrase that
said, inclusive of street right-of-ways. And as to the canoe rack issue, they
made the language on page 7 in the staff report, recommending that there be no
more than 7 racks per beachlot. Those are the two issues.
Councilman Johnson: Did they come up with the number 7?
11
-
230
City Council Meeting - Maj ,l, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: There was some rationale for that. Barbara, maybe you could
pass that on.
Barbara Dacy: The number 7 as a maximum was based on, staff looked at all of
the recreational beachlots in the City and looked at the maximum number of lots
that would be allowed under the 1,000 foot perimeter and that worked out to be
about 45 lots. If you assume that each rack has 6 slips per rack, that way 7 x
6 was 42 so that was a recommended maximum on the canoe racks.
Councilman Johnson: Do you know what the maximum is right now?
Barbara Dacy: On canoe racks?
Councilman Johnson: On canoe racks. What beachlot has 7.
Barbara Dacy: There is no language now which says that.
Councilman Johnson: 7 is just an ungodly number of canoe racks I think.
Mayor Hamilton: Why?
Councilman Johnson: That's a lot of canoes. I don't think everybody in a -
development owns a canoe.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is everybody
has a right to use the lake. If you use it with a canoe, how are you hurting
it? That would be, I would think, the ultimate use. We would want everybody to
use a canoe or a sailboat on the lake. If you say well, we're going to limit
canoe racks we'll restrict people from canoeing. I don't care if you put 100
canoes down there. What would happen to Lake Harriett and Lake Calhoun if they
said you can only have 2 canoe racks?
Councilman Johnson: I think you haven't even included that. I'm saying 7 is
too many. I'm not saying 1. I never said 1. I think l's too little.
Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with 10 is what I'm saying? I'm saying, what
difference does it make the number you have. You want to encourage the people
to use the lake and using a canoe is the best way to use the lake I think.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think we should put an unreasonable number down.
If you look at a 30,000 square foot beachlot, which comes out to have maybe
10,000 square feet of useable area, put 7 canoe racks on there, the beachlot's -
going to be aesthetically terrible.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe instead of saying 7 it should be the number of canoes _
because you can stack canoes in such like they do in the city so you hardly know
they're there and there are more than six on a rack.
Councilman Johnson: I think the number should be, is decided upon on the site
plan and how it will be visually in that and how many households there are. If
you get a group that has 42 homes and they've got an area where they can hide [7.7
the canoe racks to where they don't become a visual disturbance, there should be
some number. I think 4, 4 is one more than we've got at any other place. If I
12
S.t r
City Council Meeting - nay 31, 1988
was going to put a max on it. I think that 4 is more than every other house
owning a canoe and wanting it at the lake. A lot of people want a canoe at
home.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you have anything you wanted to present to us
this evening?
Robert Pierce: I think you've pretty much seen the plans for it down there but
I did draw up a little bit of a plan here showing the lake useage as I see it.
I'm just trying to show why I'm doing this. I guess by showing you this, just
visualize a little bit the idea. The reason I think there should be an
amendment is one, I don't think that the ordinance as it stands is taking into
effect the parcels on this portion of the lake and as hard as everybody has
worked on it, sometimes there are areas that can be overlooked. We have enough
here, breaking into 150 foot plus frontages, just saying that the possibility of
each one of these homes, three homes, just were inclusive of these lots. We
could have three docks and nine boats. Again, I think that's even a very
reasonable request but I think what we're doing here with the way we're trying
to use it is to minimize the impact of power boats on the lake, which I believe
was your number one concern. Be able to set the tone for a really top quality
development by using the lake to a lesser degree that everybody would be happy
with and just start this area of development. There's a lot more to come and I
think the way we're going about it, I think it's really a good way to use the
lake. A good way for the City of Chanhassen to have a high quality home and
it's a good way for me to market to produce a top quality development.
Mayor Hamilton: There used to be a dock in here. Where would the dock be if you
were going to put it?
Robert Pierce: Up in here and I would come out this way.
Councilman Geving: Where would you put the canoe racks? ,
Robert Pierce: I'm open to any suggestions but they could be put out in this
area here behind some of the trees something. .. I was down there this weekend,
I think you could almost hide 20 to 30 canoes down there and people would be
hard pressed to even find them.
Councilman Geving: If you had the ability to put in any number of canoe racks,
how many would you want? In your development how many? Three?
Robert Pierce: Yes.
Councilman Geving: So you need three racks?
Robert Pierce: I would like to see one per buildable lot. That may not have
answered.
Councilman Geving: The problem is, I recognize that we have to have some kind
of basis when we do something like this. Some basis for devising the. ..that
we've got a basis and we say if you've got so many lots, virtually every lot can
have a canoe. I know fully well that not every home is going to have a canoe.
Maybe 50%.
13
238
City Council Meeting - Mal J1, 1988
Robert Pierce: My quess is you're probably very right.
Councilman Geving: I think a rationale is more important in the long term.
Fl
Robert Pierce: It's no so much that I believe that everyone is going to have a
canoe down there. I don't believe that that will probably happen but what I'm
trying to do here is say, you have the opportunity to use the lake and that
gives value to the person. hZnether they're going to use it or not, that's their
perogative but it allows us to develop a nicer area. I really do think also, I
was out on the lake this Memorial Day weekend. I think too, if you have people
canoeing and windsurfers, I think in that area, I enjoy seeing than out there
for one but I also think that that type of useage will probably, if there's a
lot of canoeing, a lot of windsurfing and that type of useage of the lake, I
think it also curtails the high speed boats. Not to say that there might not be
some that would abuse it but as a rule I think people are somewhat courteous of
each other's ues of the lake and stay clear. I just think it's an excellent way
to use the lake and to impact it as little as possible.
Barbara Dacy: Just one clarification. I know that the Council is getting
involved in discussion about the number of racks but I just want to remind the
Council that the way that it's written now, in order to have any canoe racks you
have to have a dock first and I think at minimum it really should be amended to
say that canoe racks are a permitted use on a beachlot with or without a dock. -
The number is kind of...
Mayor Hamilton: Did you folks have a question?
Jeff Bros: I don't live on Lake Minnewashta but both our families do and we've
been very concerned with past activities by the Council. It seems like every _
time somebody is going to develop something near or on Lake Minnewashta, these
ordinances have been changed to suit whoever's going to develop. My mother
lives on Minnewashta Parkway. There is an access three lots north of her's.
There's not supposed to be any boats there. There are power boats anchored off
of that beach. We have a hard time believing that anybody's going to be able to
develop anything on the lake and not want power boats to be there. Now we're
not against power boats, we both have them and we're both avid skiers. We're
both avid sailers and sailboards. We're using the lake as much as we possibly
can. We're greedy about it but you start by saying you want canoe racks. I
can't believe you can have more than five homes in an area to develop that
somebody's going to have a power boat and somebody's going to have a sailboat
and they're going to want to keep that down on the beach becomes nobody on the
west side of the lake is going to drive all the way over to the park and' launch
their boat everytime they want to use it. We're concerned that it's going to be
abused like it's being abused now, the ordinance. We're scared that everytime
somebody wants to develop on Lake Minnewashta, the ordinance is going to get
changed to fit than. _
Mrs. Bros: Is there 100 feet on the section where you're planning on putting
the dock?
Mayor Hamilton: That would include the road.
[77
Robert Pierce: What you're looking at there too, if we were just taking lot
width into consideration, we have more than ample for lot width. This is the
14
City Council Meeting - clay 31, 1988
type of useage. We're looking for three overnight slips. One boat for those
three front lots. There are actually four but three that directly face. One
overnight storage and the canoe racks for the development for each landowner.
We feel that is an extremely light useage.
Jeff Bros: I think you're being unreasonably light in your useage. I don't
think anybody's going to buy a home with lake rights and not have a boat. I
mean it hasn't happened yet. Nobody's going to pay any price that you want for
a lake useage lot and now own a boat, and not just a canoe.
Mayor Hamilton: We have other developments in the community that are very
similar to this one. What we have told them is they can start out with three
boats, the same as what Mr. Pierce is asking for. We told the developer it was
up to him to decide who was going to have use of the three slips that were
available to them. We are totally out of it. However they handle it is up to
them. We have never heard a complaint and people are still living there so
somehow they've handled that within their neighborhood and their association.
That's fine with us.
That's their problem. That's the problem Mr. Pierce will have to work out.
Mrs. Bros: They can have 3 boats and 1 canoe on that strip of property? Have
you bccn out there and seen it?
Mayor Hamilton: I certainly have. I've walked the whole thing. It's a very big
piece of property. 30,000 square feet.
Jeff Bros: How about sailboats?
Councilman Geving: Sailboats are a permitted use.
Jeff Bros: Anchored out.
Mayor Hamilton: What's the number of those?
Councilman Johnson: Three.
Barbara Dacy: Three sailboat moorings. Three sailboat moorings shall also be
allowed.
Jeff Bros: What about sailboats on the beach like we've got at the other common
area? Are they allowed?
Barbara Dacy: Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be
stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks
specifically designed for that purpose.
Jeff Bros: It's being abused right now on the lake.
Mayor Hamilton: We have to rely on people like yourselves to call it to our
attention. We don't have lake patrols going around and looking at every
beachlot. If people don't inform us, they don't in all cases go on. We need to
rely on people who live near by or use the lake to let us know about it.
Jeff Bros: Could you please go over with me again, since I'm not completely
15
2d0
City Council Meeting - Ma• 1, 1988
P-
clear on it. Why can't this go through right now? What's restricting this from
going through now? Is it size or what has to be amended?
Barbara Dacy: The lot depth.
Mayor Hamilton: The Planning Commission reviewed this and suggested that the lot
depth be changed to include the road right-of-way in the depth measurement. In -
this particular case that would give the developer the 100 feet so he would be
allowed to put a dock in.
Mrs. Bros: And what is it without it? What's the depth without the right-of-
way?
Barbara Dacy: Between 40 and 80 feet.
Robert Pierce: In spots 115 but you're talking, the way the City has
interpretted it is they want, I believe 100 feet across the boat and I believe
on the very northern edge I believe we have about 115 feet and on the very
southern boundary we have about 80 and it gets narrower down to the slope
inbetween so there is an area of a lot less. We have the equivalent square feet
in excess of two buildable sites square footage wise and what the ordinance is
stating right now, without any change, there's 9 acres roughly. There's 550
feet of lakeshore and right now you could not put one home on 9 acres and put a
dock. That's how the ordinance says and I think that's not what the City or
anybody with a home for something like that.
Jeff Bros: We're concerned because obviously you bought this parcel of land
knowing that these lots were not buildable in this way. Did not meet the
requirements.
Robert Pierce: When I first started the process, no and that's why I came
through the Council. As I started to get into it, I had some contingencies on
the purchase agreement. I started to get into it and saw there .were some
problems. I started to go through the process to see what I was up against and
I felt that I had a lot of encouragement to continue. It was down a different
road at that particular time but I think for the city staff write an ordinance
amendment is, as I understand it, certainly protects everyone in the best -
possible way.
Mrs. Bros: So your dock, you're proposing putting that out there is where you
have the 100 feet deep? Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: Right. On the northern end. You've got to remember, when we
adopt ordinances we can't anticipate every possible scenario that's going to
come before us so I would certainly hope that this Council and future Councils
could be open to change at any time. We can't anticipate every possible change
that's going to happen in the world at the time the ordinance is adopted.
Mrs. Bros: But you do have ordinances set up for reasons.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true but they also can be changed for a reason.
[E7 Jeff Bros: This is our biggest concern is everytime somebody is caning in, it
seems like everytime someone is coming in to propose something to be able to
16
A
r-
City Council Meeting - i,ay 31, 1988
r— gain access to the lake, which again we're open to if it's done in a correct
manner. It seems like everytime it's done the ordinance gets changed. My
mother could not build the house she wanted on her lot because she could not get
a variance for how she wanted it on her lot but now this and change it around so
somebody else can develop more land and it just doesn't weigh out for us.
That's why we raise concern.
Councilman Boyt: A comment to staff. I think this is the beginning of the
process and not the end of the process. I think we're making a mistake if we
don't continue to clean up the beachlot ordinance rather than take it one blow
at a time. We're going to take a good hard look at it. There are some parts
I'd particularly like to direct staff to. Some of them are related to this
issue. One of than is, I think we need to very seriously look at the size of
the beachlot in terms of the number of people that are going to be using it. I
think that we need a different minimum actually. That may be impacted by the
number of boats. In reading the Planning Commission Minutes, they talked about
the inequities of someone who wants to put a beachlot in for 10 houses versus
someone who wants to put a beachlot in for 45 houses and how are minimum
standard is the same either way. I think that we already have a reasonable
minimum that we should contemplate looking at and that is, when we ask for park
dedication we work on 75 people per acre. 75 people per acre would mean that
basically 40 households would not work with our existing minimum. We would
require a bigger minimum for 40 households. I think the reason we need to look
at that is because the issue we're dealing with here is concentration of people.
Although I wasn't here when they originally wrote the ordinance, my assumption
would be that they tried to come to some sort of grips with how many people can
we put on 30,000 square feet or bigger? The gentleman tonight has a bigger lot
-L to deal with and he finds himself handicapped by our ordinance because I think
depth was an attempt to wrestle with this same issue of concentration of people
use. I think the second issue is separation from neighbors so we ought to have
some way when we deal with beachlots of saying, is there an appropriate
separation from neighbors. Now clearly in this beachlot we've got a great
separation from the neighbors. The lot's big enough to certainly handle park
use of I believe it was, did you say 15? 20? How many houses?
Councilman Johnson: 15.
Councilman Boyt: The lot is certainly big enough to handle park use of people
from 15 households if we assume the typical average of around 2.8 people per
house. So from the standpoint of the logic of can this piece of property
support a beachlot, I think we've agreed all along that it can, or at least I
have felt that it probably could. It's a matter of how can we approach it and
retain our ability to protect the lake from the people around it and the
concentration of use. I am in agreement with the Planning Commission that the
easy way out for this particular situation is to include the permanent roadway.
I happen to feel that that is a stop gap measure and we're missing the boat if
we don't take this opportunity to go back and look at the whole issue itself.
Then distance aside, I think that point 2 under the beachlot ordinance that does
not allow beachlot owners to maintain a Satellite needs to be corrected. It
implies that those people are not responsible enough, can not sign a contract
with the same service the City signs a contract with and I don't think the City
is any better qualified to maintain a Satellite than the people who own
beachlots and we're making a real mistake when we encourage people to make same
other provisions and don't allow them to use the best available equipment. To
17
42
City Council Meeting - May _, 1988
the canoe racks. It's real interesting as I look at this issue Tom because I
agree with you that it makes sense for people to be able to have a canoe. My
concern is, in having used and lived around city lakes for a good bit of my
life, Lake Harriet. I may be wrong but they don't, in my memory, have 7 canoe
racks and they service thousands of people who enter a drawing and if you're
lucky you get a canoe. I think the problem I have with it is the screening
issue. Now you mentioned in this particular situation the canoe racks are easy
to screen. On the other hand, the drawback to a screening issue is how do you
protect your canoe? If you can't see it and once somebody's down there, it
would be very easy for then to vandalize the canoes. Especially is a situation
where you're going to have a relatively small number of people using that
beachlot. I agree that limiting the canoe racks, one canoe rack for a 30,000
square foot beachlot is overkill. I'm concerned that 7 canoe racks is
conceivably too many and I'm interested in the comments from the rest of the
Council but the issue of putting canoes and other items on the lake, I guess I
don't have Mr. Pierce's confidence, having just spent a good bit of the weekend
out on Lotus Lake. I don't think people watch out for canoes or sailboats. But
on the other hand I don't think we have the right to deny reasonable access
either.
Councilman Geving: I'll keep my comment quite brief. I think that we always
have to be consistent in how we're dealing with developers and their perspective
developments. In doing that we have to also be fair. We've invested a great `
deal of money, we have a vision. can see the market and how it could be
marketed best particularly on lake lots that have some amenity and we shouldn't
deny them unless it's absolutely essential to maintain the consistency that
I mentioned. I'm not really in favor of amending the provisions for adjusting
our ordinances for each of potential developments that may come along.
Developments are all different and we have to have requirements. One thing that
has to stand however is our ordinance. It was built.. .with a great deal of
thought and the people spent a lot of time looking at the issues and they should
stand, for the most part, being successful a good deal of the time but it can be
changed and that's why we have an amendment process and the variance process. -
In this particular development I'm not really in favor of changing the
ordinance. I'm not in favor of it for the same reason that I mentioned, a
matter of consistency. I change this ordinance now and amend it, tomorrow or
next week, next year another developer will come in with something slightly
different with a little bit different twist but essentially they are same. They
want to amend the ordinance. In terms of the canoe area side, I really feel
strongly that if you have a development of 15 homeowners who can see the lake,
you can smell the lake and you bought your home to take advantage of that
amenity, to buy that to own lake property, it's kind of nice to be able to have
a canoe. At least a canoe if you don't have a motorized boat. But to be able
to go to down to the lake and utilize it. For that reason I think we should
build into our ordinance some provision where we have a recreational beachlot
where every homeowner should have at least the ability to buy a canoe to use the _
lake so I agree with the staff proposal here to break that apart from the dock
issue. I think we can provide the homeowners with canoe potential without
having a dock. That's really about all I have to say Tom. I think I've said it
all. I'm not in favor of amending the ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: I agree with Bill on all of his comments on looking at the [::
whole ordinance here. I also want to look at useable land. You've got a 30°%
grade on the beachlot and you've got a swamp along the front of the 30% grade or
18
i 2G
City Council Meeting - ay 31, 1988 - .r
20% grade on the back end of it. Sure you might have 50,000 or 60,000 square
feet of beachlot but how much of it is really useable and where are those people
going to concentrate. Are they going to concentrate on the beach which in this
case happens to be right on the edge. The beachlot issue, he's already got the
beachlot approved. He's got a reasonable use for that land. As a beachlot, I
almost laugh, I was talking to somebody on the phone today who did laugh when I
told them exactly what was going on here as far as, gee we're going to include
the road right-of-way. If you really look at that and start looking and say, in
order to make this fit we're going to include the city property in what we can
tell the people they can use. On the surface it looks pretty arbitrary. Now
what I do believe, if the purpose of the 100 foot was separation again, that an
ordinance change saying that at the point that the dock will be at, for 100 foot
makes some sense to me but to include road right-of-way in the 100 foot doesn't
make any sense at all. It's just ludicrous to me. Canoe racks, I can go two
different ways. One is enough canoe racks holding 6 canoes each to handle 50%
of the population. In this case he's got 15 people, that would be two canoe
racks so he'd actually be able to do 12. That's kind of a complex way to look
at it but this gives, I'd say at least half the people or just put an absolute
maximum, I'd put that at 4 right now because I don't think anybody's ever
requested 7. I know that Mr. Pierce is requesting 2 in this case. I do believe
canoe racks should be separate issues from the dock. It doesn't make sense.
Maybe sailboat moorings should be based on length of the property also versus
just arbitrarily 3 sailboat moorings. He's got 550 feet of property that he can
put 3 sailboats on where somebody else can put 3 on 200 foot of property.
That's interesting there. That's not on here either but I think the entire
ordinance does stand to be looked at again to see if it is still reasonable. I'm
still not 100% sure of the basis of a 100 foot. I have a feeling the 100 foot
depth is for separation purposes. If it includes road right-of-way in it, you
don't separate anybody because the road is still within 100 foot. I would much
rather see them say 100 foot at the point of the dock, in which case I would
have been halfway inclined to vote for this. As is, I'm not at all. I would
vote for 4 canoe racks and maximum of 50% of the houses. A canoe is one thing
you can carry down to the beach too. I wouldn't want to keep it at the same
lake.
Mayor Hamilton: Even if you have a canoe rack you can do that. I guess Bill
points out some good points. We do need to have some work done on our ordinance
and certainly the people who did the work on the last one, put it together, did
the best job they could at that time but times change and things change. Life
changes and everything is always in a state of flex so we have to try to keep
current with everything that's going on around us. To ignore and turn down a
person's request to change an ordinance seems ludicrous to me. , Since. times
change and if at the time the past ordinance was being developed we looked at
Mr. Lawson's property and said heck, this is going to be requested to be a
beachlot someday, we ought to take it into consideration, it probably would
already have been accomplished but who can know how a property's going to
develop who's going to request what. So I feel very bad that the comments I'm
hearing that some people aren't willing to change ordinances on a sound request.
I do also feel and agree with Councilman Boyt that we should look at the entire
ordinance and probably do a significant changing of the ordinance. Redrafting
of it. Separating the canoes and docks makes a lot of sense and perhaps coming
L up with sane more concrete reasons why we are attaching numbers that we are
attaching but that isn't going to help Mr. Pierce at this time in his
development. We're all in agreement in separating docks from canoe racks will
19
244
-
City Council Meeting - Ma_ sl, 1988
help some. I think if you are familiar with the property, if you go out and
look at it, you can see the nice piece of property that it is. It has 115 feet
of depth not including the street right-of-way at one end. You could put a dock
in there for only 3 boats, I think there is more than adequate room and depth
and length and to deny it, I would- think that Mr. Pierce would have an awfully
good case in court and I'd be inclined to back him up. I think it's an
unfortunate thing that we're doing to a developer to a nice development and when
you look at a piece of property that is being proposed for one dock, 3 boats is
not a very intense use and could handle that use very easily.
Councilman Boyt: I think that if you look at the piece of property and then you
go along Lake Minnewashta and look at where the other docks are. Where the
house is separated by the road. Now have we had any reported trouble?
Barbara Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta, no.
Councilman Boyt: And we're looking at something when we talk about impact on
the lake, there's quite a bit of frontage there. When we talk about impact on
Chanhassen as a whole recognizing that maybe this is same way to, it's easy to -
think of it as a way of just penalizing the developer but it penalizes all of
us. Instead of him having houses that are a quarter of a million dollars and
paying, I don't know, $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 in taxes a year, it helps us all to
bring taxes down. We're saying to him, you can't do it. As you said, homes
with lake rights are very expensive homes right now and what we're doing, we're
taking a lot that, forget the road. Nobody can get within 100 feet of there
living wise. Of where the dock is going to be. We've got plenty of square
footage. This is a situation that cries out for sone kind of a reasonable
solution that doesn't overwhelm our ordinance for future consideration. I would
like to see us state to this fellow and to others that are going to be in very -
similar situations, this is a fairly low impact. It's a chance to develop the
city. Yes, it helps the developer but that's minor. It's what does it do for
us? I think we ought to pass this. I'm not comfortable with the canoe racks _
situation and maybe we ought to hang on to a part of that for when we review the
whole ordinance but you guys, there's something about this that says it
shouldn't be turned down.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess to make a comment that we're just doing something for a
developer whether it's Mr. Pierce or somebody else, what if somebody who had
been on the committee who developed the first ordinance came in here and said, -
I've been studying the ordinance that we passed several years ago and I feel
that it's deficient. We've missed something in here and brought up a similar
case like this without even having Mr. Pierce here. Would we then say, well _
you're just a citizen. We're not going to listen to you just because you were
on the committee that passed this thing. That's what you're saying now. You
don't want to do this because you don't want to change something for a specific
developer but if somebody came in here and said I think we missed something in
our ordinance. I think it should be changed. Does that make a difference?
Let's be fair about it.
Councilman Geving: Has any member ever done that?
Mayor Hamilton: I'm making a scenario. You know I am. I'm making a scenario.
[77
Councilman Geving: Well, you are but you might be making an unfair scenario.
20
� A
City Council Meeting - .,ay 31, 1988 -
r You might be talking about people who don't exist. I don't know of any member
11 that would come in here and say to review this ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm just making a scenario. I can't say it's going to happen or
not happen. I'm just saying what if. It's a what if situation. What if's
happen every day.
Councilman Johnson: I think one of my biggest problems on this one is not only
how it's done where it looks like it's, it's including road right-of-way, it is
so obviously pointing at this one piece of property. There is only one piece of
property in the City of Chanhassen, according to what I was told, that this will
really affect because the other pieces of property along Minnewashta are too
small. They're going to be thrown away because they're less than 30,000 square
foot anyway. When we make this, it's going to, future people are going to look
at it and say obviously this ordinance was revised specifically to allow this
one thing in. If the purpose of 100 foot is separation, we should say 100 feet
at the dock. If there's a different purpose for the 100 foot, then we should
have, street right-of-way just doesn't do it.
Mayor Hamilton: Without the street right-of-way you have 115 feet at the dock.
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Robert Pierce: I thought that the separation too was to keep the beachlots away
from single family home dwellings and the closest to this particular dock,
roughly we're looking at about 180 feet to the lot line then you take the
setback. There's probably 200 feet to the closest house. As it is right now,
the property to the north, I don't know how many acres it is and there's a house
on it and the lady is an elderly person. She can't put her dock in anymore
because she hasn' t had it in for the last couple years. There's something
drastically wrong with the ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: She can't put a dock in?
Robert Pierce: No, she can not put a dock in.
Councilman Geving: Why can't she?
Robert Pierce: Because she is elderly and has not had a dock. If we would have
had a dock on our property, if the Lawson's would have stayed there, we wouldn't
be arguing about a dock because it would have been grandfathered in. At any
point that there's not a dock put in, for whatever reason, you lose your rights
to the lake.
Mayor Hamilton: For how long a period of time Barbara? Is it a seasonal thing
if you take the dock out? When do you lose your rights to put your dock back
in?
Barbara Dacy: I'm not familiar with the case that you're talking about.
Mayor Hamilton: If you had a dock in on your property continuously and you
continued to put it in there, those that were grandfathered in when the
ordinance was passed remain to be grandfathered in. However, if
you take it out
and leave it out for a period of.
21
City Council Meeting - May ., 1988
_
k
Barbara Dacy: The ordinance section says it's a non-conforming use.
Mayor Hamilton: Is it one year Roger? Do you recall?
Roger Knutson: I'm double checking.
Mayor Hamilton: Because the Lawson's had a dock on that property last year at
this time.
Councilman Johnson: But once you subdivide and you change this not to an
individual homeowner's lot but a recreational beachlot, it's under a completely
different ordinance and you're no longer grandfathered in at all. Even if he
had a dock there last year.
Robert Pierce: What I'm saying is, the neighbors themselves, she's going to be
moving out to a home and I will guarantee you that the person who buys that
houes will not bother to call the City and ask if he can have a dock. It
wouldn't even cross my mind and they can not put a dock in under your ordinance
period and they probably have- 200, maybe 300 feet of lakeshore and multiple
acres and your ordinance states, it's the green house to the north of the
property, they can not do it. According to your ordinance. It's just beyond
comprehension to me. The idea that the dock on this size parcel, it's just
beyond.. .
Councilman Johnson: .. .can't he put it back in? I'm not familiar with that
ordinance. This is getting a little off the subject but it still is docks. A
riparian homeowner can not put a dock in if they weren't grandfathered
previously in?
Roger Knutson: Does she own a home there?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: She lives there.
Roger Knutson: She's not under the recreational beachlot ordinance now.
Robert Pierce: We have a home but we can't put a dock in there.
Roger Knutson: You don't have a home there now?
Robert Pierce: We burnt it down because it was abandoned.
Roger Knutson: A recreational beachlot is one thing. A dock, an accessory to
a single family home is something else. If you can have a single family home
there, you can have a dock.
Robert Pierce: I don't believe that's right. That's not what I was told when I
came to the City.
Roger Knutson: It's an accessory use.
Robert Pierce: Even if it doesn't conform?
22
City Council Meeting - y 31, 1988
Roger Knutson: It's a non-conforming use.
{ Mayor Hamilton: Roger, perhaps you could make comment on this beachlot. I guess
I'd appreciate your input at this point.
Roger Knutson: Everyone who has come in contact with it, that I've boon aware
of and I'm not saying, it's certainly been a controversial ordinance for you.
Whether that makes it good, bad or indifferent, I'll let you decide but it has
generated a lot of heat, a lot of discussion as to whether it's appropriate. I
think what you're talking about is all the other lots.. .and how many people are
using it. That kind of examination which...
'Mayor Hamilton: Should this particular case be tested? I know what you do about
it. What would your view be? I think it's quite important that we know that.
Roger Knutson: The standards of whether, in regards to the City Council acted
arbitrarily and capriously and that's a matter of opinion. Your opinion would
be that it is. Other people would say that it's not. I guess that would be up
to the court to decide. This is not a great place to do an analysis. .. The
first day you hired me Tom, remember you told me one thing. Whatever you do
always win. Remember that?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think you'd have a hard time on this one.
Jeff Bros: I'd just like to speak. We're not concerned about having a dock if
they want to have a dock where the property meets the 100 foot setback but I
certainly think that is being one-sided and showing a certain amount of
unfairness to the rest of the homeowners and property owners on the lake to
include the street and the roadway right-of-way to make roam for his dock. I
think that's being just ridiculous.
Mayor Hamilton: He has 115 feet without the roadway.
Jeff Bros: At that one point. If he wants to put the dock in where it's 115 •
feet, that's fine but for the City Council to change the ordinance for this
instance to include the street as his property to make room for a dock, I think
that's being very selfish and I think it's showing favoritism... I think it's
being abusive to the homeowners on the lake who are paying the $7,000.00.
Anywhere from $5,000.00 to $8,000.00 a year in property taxes. Who had to get
variances to put houses that they wish to build on their lots that they paid a
premium price for, to be able to arbitrarily change it to include now the
street. Somebody else comes in, they get the other side of the street. I don't
understand how you can show this kind of favoritism.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think there's any favoritism being shown. It's the
recommendation from the Planning Commission that the street right-of-way be
used. I don't know why they recommended that but it. Whether it was
specifically directed at Mr. Pierce's development. It would be used for
anybody's development, not just Mr. Pierce's so it's not for just one person.
Jeff Bros: I think they're going to want to add another two car garage to my
mother's house.
23
2A0
City Council Meeting - May , 1988 -
Councilman Boyt: As we look at this, one of the reasons that the road
right-of-way becomes attractive is that it's so limited. It makes a change to
the ordinance but it's very narrow in it's impact. You may think of that as a
liability. It's actually a strength in that it doesn't open the ordinance up to
other abuse. Let's take the possibility of having a dock built where the lot's
a 100 feet deep. Now what we've done is we've given somebody out there the
opportunity to construct a beachlot that looks like this. Sure, we'll give you -
100 feet but then along the two sides we're going to have it be about 5 feet
deep. There are probably worse case scenarios with every event and I think what
was appealing to the Planning Commission is that this was so narrow in focus
that it would actually apply to only a couple of potential beachlots. I don't
know quite what your issue was a year or two ago or whenever this came in. I
think you raise the question of is the City going to be fair to everyone? It's
awfully hard. I think the City is going to try to be but clearly you don't
think the City has been. When we change an ordinance we certainly have to be
careful that we create a situation that we think is going to have as little as
possible impact. I don' t think this has a lot of impact. It has a lot of
impact on our ability to get some tax money to this town. I guess I can't say
anymore.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to see that we take that canoe one separately.
The whole issue of the canoes.
Councilman Boyt: What's your magic number going to be?
Councilman Geving: I have several suggestions. It could be based on the
number of lots in the development with a maximum number of four.
Mayor Hamilton: I suggested that there wouldn't be any number established but
each request would be evaluated during a conditional use permit approval.
Councilman Geving: I like that idea. Here he's got three.
Councilman Johnson: With guidelines written in, here's the normal guidelines.
We can put guideline whatever and say our guideline is canoes for 50% of the
households and some situations might warrent more. Some situations might
warrant less.
Councilman Boyt: We can do that but I don't think that makes sense. We've got
to fight the issue out as clear as we can tonight such that I don't have any
trouble separating the canoes from the other issue but I think if we say we're
going to let this just float with whatever the situation is at the time, as soon
as we make our first decision about it, we set the precedent then that, let's
suppose the first person comes in and they want 12 canoes because they are going
to have 12 houses. You approve that. The next guy has got 40 houses and wants
40 canoe racks, we're going to be in, I think a difficult position. Anyway, I
would argue that why not put it out there like Dale said with four racks max and
look at the whole ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: But we can review them when they come in for a conditional
use...just because you allow 15 here doesn't mean that you have to allow 40 for
the next one. [7-1
24
•
(7)A!-N
City Council Meeting - L•,ay 31, 1988
_ Councilman Boyt: I think that we have to make our decision based on some fact
and I think this will open it up to, it just makes the whole ordinance harder to
resolve each time if we don't have a clear statement.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see us say a maximum of 50% of the
households. Canoe racks able to hold 50% of the households or a total maximum
of four.
Mayor Hamilton: That means he gets to build another rack.
Councilman Geving: No, four. Four would give him 24.
Councilman Johnson: He's got 15 households so 50% would be 7-7 1/2 so it's
over 6 so he gets 2. You can't build a rack with only one. He gets 2 racks
with that.
Councilman Geving: I guess I would go the other way. Recommend that every lot
have the possibility of getting a canoe.
Councilman Boyt: How are we going to make that decision at the time?
Councilman Geving: Base it on the number of lots that are being proposed in
the development and you condition it. Make a condition that if in the judgment
of the Council that particlar recreational beachlot won't hold as many as there
are for that particular development, you'd say let's cut it down to 2 rather
than 4 but the maximum would be 4.
Councilman Boyt: When you get into those situations then we create an area
where Jeff could say you're not fair. I think we open ourselves up to that.
Why don't we just come to grips with it. If we want 1 canoe per, then let's
see if that passes.
,
Councilman Geving: There's nothing wrong with it. That's a good place to
start. At least you've got a basis for your intention and then you're not going
with 50% or 75% or whatever.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see 1 per with a max.
Mayor Hamilton: We've already put a maximum of 1,000 feet so you've limited the
number of homes that could use the outlot.
Councilman Johnson: Until you start putting like this PUD that they have up,
what's that one call with all the condos?
Barbara Dacy: Red Cedar Cove.
Councilman Boyt: What about 1 per with up to 4 as a place where we can start.
We can leave the whole ordinance out and figure out what the reasonable logic is
here. If it comes out that 1 per household up to whatever.
Barbara Dacy: That's the way the proposed language is written now. One per
household. The Planning Commission recommended 7. If you want to change it to
4, that's fine too.
25
956
• City Council Meeting - Ma_ 31, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I'll move that. One per with a maximum of four.
Councilman Geving: I'll second that.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's being near sighted.
Councilman Geving: It still gives you 24 though Tom. -
Mayor Hamilton: I don't care. Still the useage you want to have on the lake if
you want to clean up your lakes, and not allow people to use than unless they. ..
I don't know that we're ever going to get to a maximum of 42 or whatever.
Councilman Geving: A practical maximum number of users is probably close to
half. If you tood 42 homeowners, my guess is that no more than 15 or so would
have canoes.
Mayor Hamilton: But we're kind of limiting it for the people who do.
Councilman Geving: I'm just taking it frau a practical standpoint of knowing
how many people live on a lake and what kind of boats they have.
Councilman Boyt: If we go back to 1 per household but provide some sort of
provision so that people don't. Suppose I had 2 canoes, there's an open spot on
the rack so I store my canoe down there. I don't know, are we after a place for
people to store their canoes or a place where people are going to use it? If we
had someway of preventing...
Mayor Hamilton: You're park of the Sunrise Hill's Association right?
Councilman Boyt: Right.
Mayor Hamilton: They have two racks.
Councilman Boyt: Two racks and I don't know, 45 homes.
Mayor Hamilton: I've never heard anybody complain about that. Those who don't
have it on the beach probably don't even have a canoe.
Councilman Boyt: Oh yes. What happens and maybe this wouldn't happen if there _
were more racks, but what happens is if one of those spots becomes open and it's
open for a few weeks, if somebody has a notion, they'll move their canoe off
their rack at home and put it up there. Get it out of the yard. That's not all
bad. It kind of cleans the neighborhood up. There's a whole lot to this issue
and I guess if we could strike something, I just have difficulty looking out on
this lot, it's fairly narrow or any other lot and seeing 7 canoe racks. It's a
forest.
Mayor Hamilton: There aren't going to be 7 here. You've got to keep that in
mind.
Councilman Boyt: Well, as I've said all along, the thought of having everybody
who is a part of the beachlot who wants a canoe or sailboat to be able to have
it makes a lot of sense.
26
City Council Meeting - .y 31, 1988
Barbara Dacy: But the motion was for a maximum of four.
Mayor Hamilton: I still don't have see the problem with having a maximum of 7 as
long as you can control that within your conditional use. You're saying if in
the future some, and I don't think we're ever going to have that situation, but
if something came in and they had a huge outlot and wanted to have 7 canoe racks
on this huge outlot. The potential is there but Mr. Pierce doesn't want 7. -
Councilman Geving: How did you arrive at 7?
Barbara Dacy: That was based on existing examples of largest subdivision in an
urban area was Lotus Lake Estates which had 44 lots so if you say 1 per lot, 6
on a rack would be 7.
Mayor Hamilton: They can have how many right now?
Barbara Dacy: Canoe racks?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: No more than 3.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, how about the Kurver's property that's
being developed? They had a recreational beachlot.
Barbara Dacy: They received approval for two docks and I believe it was 3
[ canoe racks also. There were 36 lots.
Councilman Johnson: Seven just seems to be too high.
Councilman Boyt: It seems like the thing we're saying to somebody, if you have
a beachlot you can put up a canoe rack. We're taking that ,4way from the dock
issue so that's a good point.
Mayor Hamilton: I kind of agree with Tom. I think I'd rather go back to the 7.
There is that practical possibility. There's nothing wrong with a 7 as a
maximum.
Councilman Boyt: Once we go there we can't come back down.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to do 4 right now and then like Bill says,
there's a lot of issues to look at with the beachlot and we might want to put a
beachlot group back together, look at the whole thing including the numbers
instead of sitting here tonight and figuring it out. We've got a reasonable
compromise here between the 1 and 7 that will fit every application we know in
the City. There's nobody asking for anything near the number we're proposing.
It should be kind of non- controversial.
Councilman Boyt: I sense that 4 will pass. Let's take a vote on 4.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded the first reading of Zoning
.,_ Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263 (6) to read as follows:
27
252
n
City Council Mooting - May i1, 1988
No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or
overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft
per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat
moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any
recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that
purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number
of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack
slip per lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be more
than four (4) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
permissible at any time other than overnight.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: This will be separated from the need to have a dock, correct?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Just the canoe rack issue here and we're not tying it to docks
or anything else.
(Councilman Horn arrived at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Hamilton: We are wrestling with the issue right now of the dock to be
allowed on Mr. Pierce's outlot and have the use of three motorized boats for
overnight storage. We have just voted favorably to change our ordinance allow,
the first reading, to allow four canoe racks, a maximum of four canoe racks per
beachlot, six canoes per rack as a maximum. That brings you up to whatever
happened. We seem to be fairly split on the issue of Mr. Pierce's use of his
property to put a dock on and to allow him to have three boats. He has 115 feet
of depth on his lot without the use of the road right-of-way.. .
Councilman Horn: He still needs a variance though?
Councilman Boyt: ghat he's proposing is to change the ordinance.
Councilman Horn: The proposed location would include the. ..?
•
Mayor Hamilton: That's the Planning Commission's proposal to us. There seems to
be sane disagreement on whether or not you want to continue with that or cane up
with something different.
Councilman Johnson: My disagreement Clark is that including road right-of-way
appears that we're changing our ordinance specifically for this project and I
believe that we can draw our position anyplace that we try, buy your property
and go for it and get your ordinance changed to where you can get what you want.
These guys they'll come up with some creative ways to do this. Include road
right-of-way. If the purpose of the 100 foot was for separation, he's got 100
foot where the dock is, then that makes sense to change the ordinance to meet 71
the purpose of the 100 feet. Include road right-of-way into that to meet the
confines of the ordinance to me :,toms fairly arbitrary. I have a problem with
28
/ -
City Council Meeting - 31, 1988
that. I don't think with 500 feet or whatever of lake front here with one dock
will have a huge impact on Lake Minnewashta. I will be more than willing to go
the other way. I'm not moved much by the argument that we're going to get all
these huge taxes. We don't get that much taxes by the time the County and
everybody else takes our their whack but that helps all of us too I guess.
These are going to be some fairly good sized homes. Even without the rights to
have a boat on this dock, I don't suspect you're going to put $60,000.00 homes
on those four lots without a boat there. They may not be $250,000.00 homes. It
might just be $200,000.00 homes but to me that's not a huge difference. I'm not
going to vote for changing our beachlot ordinance on the fact that this change
will generate more tax revenues to the City.
Councilman Horn: That's the argument?
Councilman Johnson: That was one argument that we had earlier was that geez,
look at what this would do for generating money but I don't like the road
right-of-way part. That's my argument against it is including road right-of-way
, in measuring your setback and this is essentially a setback type of thing to me.
It's kind of silly.
Councilman Horn: It's unique to this property though?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: It will affect one other property on the west side of
Minnewashta also.
Councilman Johnson: What would you say, 100 foot at the point of the dock.
How many properties would that affect do you think?
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission struggled with that because how wide of
an area do you have that 100 feet? Do you keep it at 20, 30' or 40? And they
felt uncomfortable that that was being just as arbitrary as anything else so we
wanted to try to establish a consistent means of creating a guideline in the
ordinance to avoid a situation like this, as Mr. Boyt pointed out. Yes, they
looked at the map and saw that there was one other property, the Ziegler's south
of the Lawson property on the west side of Lake Minnewashta that this would
affect but separation was a big issue. The rationale being that that road
right-of-way does serve a purpose as a buffer and the Planning Commission
chairman really explained that they felt that that should be included as part of
the buffer between a beachlot and a group of single family homes. Also, it
provided an easy mechanism to enforce the ordinance because again, look at that
area. He's got maybe 30 feet of the beachlot being 115 feet deep. Is that
really what you're trying to separate from adjacent single family homes?
Councilman Johnson: The other one would be a 100 foot depth with an average
lot depth of the entire length of the lot of 75 feet, 90 feet or something to
where that, obviously that type of "T" shape, your average lot depth is going to
be way low or flag lots or some wording there.
Barbara Dacy: Again, it still doesn't affect those beachlots that do not have
road right-of-way. You still have to have 100 feet of lot depth no matter what
in this case so they felt that you're acheiving both objectives. You're setting
an established minimum with or without the road right-of-way.
29
54
City Council Meeting - May -, 1988
Councilman Johnson: What about the people who, they want to add a two car
garage in the front of their house but they're too close to the road
right-of-way to do it and they say we'll just include the road right-of-way in
our setback. They did it for the beachlots.
Councilman Boyt: Whole different issue.
Councilman Johnson: Similar.
Councilman Boyt: No. Much different issue. When we talk about a garage and in
putting traffic on the road, we've got a safety issue. What we're talking about
here isn't a safety issue, it's a concentration of useage.
Councilman Johnson: We're putting pedestrians across it.
Councilman Horn: Can you distinguish, in your November 12th memorandum you
said you couldn't differeniate between lot depth and lot size. Can you do that
now in terms of intent of ordinance with what the Planning Commission
recommended? Or do you think, the impression I'm getting here is that the
Planning Commission feels that their proposal meets the intent of the ordinance.
I don't think there is anything that meets the intent of the lot size. You —
looked at this in terms of depth... If you look at it in terms of if we allow
the road right-of-way as they would get the total area, there seems to be lots
that would change their compliance based on the area.
Barbara Dacy: The Commission's intent was not to include the road right-of-way
as a part of the lot area.
Councilman Horn: So how do we differeniate that in terms of arbitrary and
capricous?
Barbara Dacy: The difference being is that the Commission was looking at this.
Councilman Horn: So it was intent of the ordinance?
Barbara Dacy: I don't know.
Councilman Horn: That's the question to the Attorney.
Roger Knutson: You're changing the ordinance.
Councilman Horn: As I got your issue the question could go backwards. Why
would you change the ordinance for depth without changing it for lot size?
What would be your rationale?
Roger Knutson: Do we think that the ordinance is fine. It helps you...in the
depth part of the ordinance shall we change? Are we talking about changing the
depth as a buffering and by including the road we accomplish the buffering. —
Councilman Horn: You could argue that lot area is a buffer.
Councilman Johnson: Now we could use the lot area, the 66 foot of road
right-of-way to get some of these below 30,000 square feet up to 30,000.
30
955
City Council Meeting - i,ay 31, 1988
-Ir-
Barbara Dacy: No.
Councilman Johnson: That's the next request. They'll use the exact same logic
to get it.
Councilman Boyt: It's a different issue.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have another question Clark?
Councilman Horn: No. I'm still trying to sort out how that's a different
issue. In my mind I can't differentiate that.
Barbara Dacy: If clarification of the intent needs to be solved, we can easily
add a sentence that says, however, road right-of-way shall not be used in the
calculation of lot area for the beachlot. That can be added. Roger assessment
of the distance and the depth issues is exactly right there. For whatever
reason in 1982 100 feet was set as a minimum lot depth, so what they were
looking at is well, we do have narrow stretches between Minnewashta Parkway and
Lake Minnewashta and the Commission felt that including the road right-of-way as
far as that lot depth calculation was, was appropriate.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Clark?
Councilman Horn: I'm still having trouble with it. I can't differentiate
between 30 and. ..
Barbara Dacy: The other criteria for area is that you have enough area for
canoe racks and play areas, swimming beaches, volleyball nets and so on. So
supposedly the ordinance already says 30,000 square feet and then 20,000 square
feet for any additional dock so there's a relationship there between docks and
useage.
Councilman Horn: So one is strictly related to a dock issue and the other is
related to. ..?
Barbara Dacy: I guess, yes.
Mayor Hamilton: There were some comments made by some of the Council members
that they were relunctant to change the ordinance for a specific developer. I
guess I still ask the question, we're not going to change it for a specific
developer, what if the staff, another what if, what if the staff had looked at
the ordinance and said look, ...and brought this same issue before us to change?
Would we be sitting here, ...in mind to deny it or would you...? That's
certainly an issue for me because I know the...just to use it can make a
difference.
Councilman Horn: I agree with you Tom on that. I think obviously when you
get new uses and new circumstances that come in, that's usually what the problem
is. Take a look at the ordinance see if it still makes sense. I don't have.. .
Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to make a motion to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment
for a recreational beachlot to allow. How do you want to do this? Section
20-263.
31
Council Meeting - Ma• 1, 1988
Barbara Dacy: It's on Page 7. 20-263(7) .
Mayor Hamilton: To adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission as
outlined on page 7. Do you want me to read it? Is there a second to the
motion? -
Councilman Boyt: I'll second it.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there further discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'd like the City Attorney to look at something. In
the existing ordinance it states no dock shall be permitted on a recreational
beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at
least a 100 foot depth. In our definitions, in our Zoning Ordinance
definitions, we never define actually, we define the lot depth but here we did
not say 100 foot of lot depth. We just said 100 foot of depth at this point in
this ordinance. Can there be an argument that he does not need lot depth or
have we used it every place else in the ordinance? What I'm trying to say is,
is this even necessary in this case?
Roger Knutson: It's a good point and I think it is somewhat ambiguous but from
my understanding is that they're talking about lot average and he did not have
100 foot average lot depth.
Mayor Hamilton: The ordinance amendment would clarify that where it says 100
feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the the ordinary high water mark
to the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. It's
more specific than what's in there currently.
Roger Knutson: I suggest so we're all very clear that usually the word lot
depth, actually lot depth is defined in the ordinance and what the means is an
average depth.
Councilman Johnson: Lot depth is defined. Here we're just saying depth. He's
got 100 foot depth laying perpendicular from the ordinary high water mark to the
first intersecting lot line period. He's got that right now without including
the street right-of-way. With the street right-of-way he has 180 feet of lot
depth at this point. There's no need to include the street right-of-way here in
this case, the way they defined it.
Barbara Dacy: He doesn't have an average lot depth of 100 feet. He has' a
point in the lot that's 100 feet.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't say average lot depth.
Barbara Dacy: That's defined.
Roger Knutson: That lot depth is an average.
Councilman Horn: So if you cut in, pulled in the sides of the lot, take out
the area that don't comply to pull it under the mean, could he come out with a
lot that we would? ,
32
- 25'1,
City Council Meeting - .y 31, 1988
Councilman Boyt: He'd lose square footage.
Councilman Horn: Would he lose it in the square footage then?
Councilman Boyt: I think so. He's only got 40,000 square feet.
Barbara Dacy: No, he's got 31,500. -
Councilman Boyt: Then he definitely can't.
Councilman Horn: When we originally changed this ordinance, the argument was
brought forth that we should not be more restrictive on a beachlot than what a
private individual could do if he had riparian rights on a beachlot. That time
the argument made sense to me that we should use that in making the decision to
change because that argument was sound. I don't think that requirement in true
in this case. I don't think we have a buildable lot and I don't think there's
any way that this mean average thing will work out to where it would comply.
Barbara Dacy: When he first applied, our interpretation was that the ordinance
was saying that you had to have a consistent depth of 100 feet all the way
throughout the beachlot. That's what we required every other application to
do. If he had a spot that had 100 feet so I agree with you kind of. It's
ambiguous and there is an advantage to amending that to clarify how we measure
lot depth.
Mayor Hamilton: Since we're arbitrary on everything else, we can be arbitrary on
the width be at the 100 foot depth to give you a minimum. I would think we're
arbitrary. You pick 100 feet out of the air. There's no reason why 100 foot is
so.
Councilman Johnson: As I go through the Zoning Ordinance, every place else in
the Zoning Ordinance that talks about depth of the lot, it says lot depth. This
one point it says depth.
Roger Knutson: The easiest explanation for that is that often the Zoning
Ordinance, you're looking at was drafted by the Planning staff of a consulting
planner. The recreational beachlot was drafted by a committee and I think the
difference is the style that we're talking about. A slight language variation
are a result of that rather any intention on the part of the draftsman to draw
attention.
Councilman Johnson: If the people who drafted this were thinking that they
were looking at an average lot depth at the time or they were just looking for
100 foot at any point.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend Section 20-263(7) of the City Code to read as follows:
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least two
hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred (100)
feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to
the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No more
than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two hundred
33
4Iy Council Mccting - Ma 1, 1988
(200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand I=
(20,000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three
(3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot.
Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman
Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion
and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Robert Pierce: Can I say something?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure.
Robert Pierce: I guess at this point, you put this into a, I was encouraged by
your Planning Commission. I've been encouraged here and there. You leave me no -
choice but to start legal action. We will get more use on that lake than what
we asked for. I don't fight unless I'm pushed in a corner. I don't ask for
unreasonable things...but I guess as far as I'm concerned, the people around
your lake has lost. The City has lost. The whole tone of that whole area out
there is going to be $100,000.00 less per home. We will come back and maybe do
something there with the lake frontage but I can't believe it. You throw the _
baby out with the bath water and you're losing all the way around. We'll be
back and we'll get it. I just can not understand. Thank you.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth •
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
34
. I TY Q F P.C. DATE: April 6 , 198
Gr CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: April 25, 1988
j CASE NO: 88-3 ZOA
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-263
( 6 & 7 ) of the City Code to Amend the Lot Depth
F.._ Requirement for Installation of a Dock and One
Z Canoe Rack/Dock Requirement.
a
V
LOCATION:
APPLICANT: Pierce Construction
Q 3915 Farmhill Circle
Mound, MN 55364
I
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
V
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
S— kej r-
Q E- • �-
-IIL/1
WATER AND SEWER: _37 q
67-073-Er
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
1990 LAND USE PLAN:
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6 , 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-263 ( 7 ) of the City Code requires at least 200 feet of
lake frontage for a recreational beachlot and requires at least
30 , 000 square feet and 100 feet of depth for any recreational
beachlot to have a dock (Attachment #1 ) .
Section 20-263 ( 6 ) of the City Code permits only one canoe rack
per dock (Attachment #2 ) .
BACKGROUND
On February 22 , 1988 , the City Council reviewed a conditional use
permit for a recreational beachlot as a part of the Stratford
Ridge subdivision (Attachment #3 ) . The property proposed for the
recreational beachlot is long and narrow with less than 100 feet
mean depth . The applicant received approval for a recreational
beachlot but was not permitted a dock since it did not have the
required 100 foot depth. The applicant had also requested three
canoe racks with 15 slips . Since the recreational beachlot was
not permitted a dock, the canoe racks were not permitted either .
The Planning Commission and City Council commented that the
variance was not justified but that the applicant should pursue a -
zoning ordinance amendment (Attachments #3 and #4 ) . It was com-
mented that the proposed site had adequate area and lake frontage
( 31, 000 s . f . and 550 feet) to support a dock and related activi-
ties and that review of the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has applied for a zoning ordinance amendment to
permit a dock on a recreational beachlot without a mean depth of
100 feet and to permit more than one canoe rack per dock. -
Dock
The Zoning Ordinance requires a mean depth of 100 feet for a
recreational beachlot to have a dock. The intent of the 100 feet
of lot depth requirement for a dock was to maintain adequate area
for the intensity of use related to a dock. Staff reviewed
existing parcels around the city' s lakes which could be applied
for conditional use permits for recreational beachlots
(Attachment #5 ) . The majority of the remaining parcels will be -
able to provide the required 100 feet of lot depth. Only along
Minnewashta Parkway does the potential exist for recreational
beachlots without 100 feet of lot depth. This is a result of the
location of Minnewashta Parkway near Lake Minnewashta.
Staff feels the 100 feet of lot depth is important to maintain in
the proximity of the dock because this usually is the area of
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6 , 1988
Page 3
higher use . To accommodate the sites that do not have the mean
depth of 100 feet but have enough lot area and lake frontage to
support a dock, staff recommends that the following language be
included in the Recreational Beachlot Regulations :
Section 20-263 ( 7 ) - No dock shall be permitted on any
recreational beachlot unless it has 200 feet of lake frontage
and the lot has at least 100 feet of lot depth where the dock
is proposed to be located.
The above language would permit docks on recreational beachlots
that meet or exceed the lot area and lake frontage requirements
yet have a portion of the lot that is very narrow resulting in
less than 100 feet mean depth. As a part of the conditional use
permit process a site plan will be approved which will ensure
that the dock is located where there is 100 feet of depth .
RECOMMENDATION - Dock
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
— "The Planning Commission recommends amending Section 20-263 ( 7 ) of
the City Code to read as follows :
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless
it has at least two hundred ( 200) feet of lake frontage and
the lot has at least one hundred ( 100) feet of lot depth
where the dock is proposed to be located. No more than one
( 1 ) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two
hundred ( 200 ) feet of lake frontage . In addition, thirty
thousand ( 30, 000 ) square feet of land is required for the
first dock and an additional twenty thousand ( 20 , 000 ) square
feet is required for each additional dock. No more than
three ( 3 ) docks , however , shall be erected on a recreational
beachlot. "
Canoe Racks
The Zoning Ordinance currently ties the number of canoe racks
permitted with the the number of docks permitted on a
recreational beachlot. The code states that no more than one
canoe rack shall be allowed per dock. Staff feels the number of
canoe racks permitted should not be dictated by the number of
docks permitted on a recreational beachlot. There may be
situations where a canoe rack is appropriate where a dock is not
permitted or more than one canoe rack is acceptable.
The number of lots which have use of the recreational beachlot
normally dictate the number of canoe racks ( slips) that are
requested. The applicants typically request a number of canoe
Stratford Ridge ZOA R
April 6 , 1988
Page 4
rack slips equal to the number of lots proposed ( six watercraft
are permitted per canoe rack) . Therefore, it is difficult to
regulate a maximum number of canoe racks for all recreational
beachlots . Instead, staff recommends that canoe racks be a per-
mitted use on a recreational beachlot and the number of canoe
racks be determined as part of the conditional use permit review.
This would permit each site to be reviewed separately to deter-
mine the appropriate number of canoe racks .
RECOMMENDATION
"The Planning Commission recommends amending the fifth sentence
of Section 20-263 ( 6 ) of the City Code to read as follows :
No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over-
night storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3 )
motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a -
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one ( 1 ) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three ( 3 ) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes,
windsurfers , sailboards , and small sailboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks specifically designed for that purpose . The number of
canoe racks shall be determined as part of the conditional
use permit process. No more than six ( 6 ) watercraft may be
stored on a rack . Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight . " -
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 6 , 1988
The Planning Commission tabled action on this item until lot
owners of all lakes within the city were notified. The notifica-
tions for this public hearing were mailed on April 11 , 1988 .
Staff has received a number of phone calls regarding this item,
the majority of which are to clarify that the ordinance change
does not affect individual lot owners their ability to install a
dock.
The Commission ' s comments as to the first issue of consideration,
the lot depth requirement, ranged from having no minimum require-
ment of lot depth to establishing some type of standard either
for the entire beachlot or for just the area where the docks are
to be located. There is a need to have some type of minimum
standard. As the ordinance requires a minimum lot depth for a
single family lot or creates a minimum setback, the intent of
that provision is to provide some separation between adjacent
buildings , streets or uses to prevent overcrowding of the land
and safe access . In the case of recreational beachlots , some of
them are located directly adjacent to major streets , others are
located within the subdivision. The beachlot activity, as any
other use, should have some type of minimum separation. The
problem is how to establish that standard.
.,r
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6 , 1988
Page 5
In existing cases , the lot depth issue has not been a problem.
The majority of the beachlots are at least 100 feet in depth .
Most of the issues pertaining to the older beachlots were lot
width and area. For future beachlot requests , the lot depth
issue would arise only in the area where the Stratford Ridge sub-
division is proposed between Minnewashta Parkway and Lake
Minnewashta. Other potential beachlot requests are located in
areas where there is not a road in the immediate vicinity of the
lake. In the Lake Minnewashta area, the lakeshore varies to as
small as 25 feet and to as deep as 200 feet .
The Planning Commission also suggested that the dock setback zone
of 10 feet be doubled or tripled so that the area where the dock
is to be located is at least 20 to 30 feet wide and 100 feet in
depth . In the Lake Minnewashta area, the following properties
could not survive even a minimal amount of area for the 100 foot
lot depth : the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla properties ( see
Attachment #7 ) . Reducing the lot depth to 75 feet would still
prevent the Wenzel and Ziegler property from meeting this
requirement. The Wenzel and Ziegler property at its narrowest
point is approximately 40 feet. At its widest point it is about
80 feet with an average depth of 50 feet. The Headla property is
about 80 feet deep. The Wenzel and Headla properties have
approximately 250 feet of lake frontage and the Ziegler property
approximately 450 feet. Both these properties cannot meet the
lot area test also. It is questionable then whether these sites
would be considered as beachlots .
Potential language that the Planning Commission could use is as
•
follows :
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless
it has at least two hundred ( 200 ) feet of lake frontage and
the lot contains at least one hundred ( 100 ) feet of lot depth
for at least thirty ( 30 ) feet of width where the dock is to
be located.
The Commission can reduce the 100 foot lot depth requirement. It
is recommended that at minimum 50 feet be maintained, in order to
provide a picnic area, sand blanket, storage of canoe racks , and
allowing other park activities . The 30 feet of lot width recom-
mended for the area where the dock is to be located is based on
twice the dock setback from a lot line ( 10 feet) plus 6 feet in
width for a typical dock.
As to the number of canoe racks , the Commission wanted to
establish some type of standard either a maximum number of racks
or a maximum number of slips per rack. Some beachlots could con-
tain at least 30 to 40 single family lots ( for example, Kurvers
Point subdivision on the east side of Lotus Lake) . One slip per
R
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6 , 1988
Page 6
home would mean that if a rack contained 6 slips for storage ,
that anywhere from 5 to 6 racks could be located on a beachlot.
The largest number of lots permitted within 1000 feet of a beach-
lot would be approximately 40 . Seven racks at six/rack would —
allow storage of 42 boats .
It was also suggested that distinction for the type of boats to
be stored on racks would be the ones that are licensed by the
state. Canoes and sailboats do need to be licensed by the state
as well as small row boats . Inflatable rafts do require a —
license. The intent of the rack is to be able to store the non-
motorized watercraft in a neat and safe fashion. Further, the
intent of the ordinance is to permit overnight storage of these
types of boats and to provide guidance as to the number of racks
stored on the property. Therefore, based on the Commission' s
discussion, the following is recommended to be included as part
of Section 20-263 ( 6 ) : -
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over-
night storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3 )
motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one ( 1 ) dock,
however , the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three ( 3 ) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes ,
windsurfers , sailboards , and small sailboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than
six ( 6 ) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of
racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to
permit one ( 1) slip per lot served by the beachlot; however,
in no case shall there be more than seven ( 7) racks per
beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is per-
missible at any time other than overnight . "
NOTE: Remember that the racks do pose a visual impact , but if
properly designed, the site plan during conditional use permit
review can address this issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended the ordinance be amended as
follows :
Section 20-$.63 ( 6 ) —
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight
storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3 ) motorized or _
nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is
allowed more than one ( 1 ) dock, however , the allowed number of
boats may be clustered. Up to three ( 3 ) sailboat moorings shall
also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes , wind-
surfers , sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight
- rr
Stratford Ridge ZOA R
April 6 , 1988
Page 7
on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifi-
cally designed for that purpose. No more than six ( 6 ) watercraft
_ may oe stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed
the amount of storage necessary to permit one ( 1 ) rack slip per
lot served by the beachlot; however , in no case shall there be
more than seven ( 7 ) racks per beachlot . Docking of other
watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than
overnight.
Section 20-263( 7 )
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it
has at least two hundred ( 200) feet of lake frontage and the lot
has at least one hundred ( 100) feet depth measured perpendicular
landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first inter-
secting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No more
than one ( 1 ) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every
two hundred ( 200 ) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty
thousand ( 30 , 000 ) square feet of land is required for the first
dock and an additional twenty thousand ( 20 , 000 ) square feet is
required for each additional dock. No more than three ( 3 ) docks ,
however , shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. "
Headla was opposed the amendment to ( 7 ) ( see minutes ) .
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the recommendation
made by the Planning Commission .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Section 20-363 ( 7 ) of City Code .
2 . Section 20-263 ( 6 ) of City Code.
3 . City Council minutes dated February 22 , 1988 .
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 6 , 1988 .
5 . Map showing potential recreational beachlots .
6 . Letter from applicant .
7 . Detailed location map of Lake Minnewashta lots .
8 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 6 , 1988 , and April
20 , 1988 .
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES Ar•
NOVEMBER 6, 1989
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Ursula Dimler
STAFF PRESENT:
PIERCE APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS
Staff presented the report to the Board.
Peter Beck stated that the general concensus of the City Council
during the last discussion of this item was that the dock would
be okay but that an amendment to the ordinance should be pro-
cessed rather than granting a variance. By the time that the
Council reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment it could not be
agreed upon how to amend the ordinance and the ordinance amend-
ment was denied. During the City Council review, the question of
interpretation of the ordinance was brought up by Councilman Jay
Johnson. Jay Johnson questioned if the applicant did not already
meet the regulation since it stated that they must have a 100
foot depth, which the recreational beachlot does have.
Watson stated how can they appeal if we don ' t know what it means
and it seems like we are putting the cart before the horse. The
City Council should make the determination of what the ordinance
means and that is not a determination of the Board of
Adjustments .
Elliot Knetsch stated that the Board of Adjustment' s purpose is
to review the ordinances as they are written right now and the
applicant' s appeal is to the interpretation of how the ordinance
is stated and that the ball is in the Board of Adj`ustment' s
court.
Dimler questioned how the applicant would determine who uses the
recreational beachlot .
Peter Beck stated that there would be a homeowner ' s association
and only the front three lots along Lake Minnewashta would have
use of the dock.
Johnson stated that there is 95 feet of depth at the area where
the dock is being proposed and that he feels the interpretation
of the ordinance could be seen as only requiring 100 foot depth
which the recreational beachlot does have and that the dock
should be permitted.
Dimler stated that the recreational beachlot does have a 100 foot
depth which is how it is stated in the ordinance. The applicant
is requesting an appeal to staff interpretation of the ordinance
and feels that the Board of Adjustments must review the way the
low
BOA Minutes
November 6 , 1989
Page 2
ordinance is written today. The ordinance states that a
recreational beachlot must have a 100 foot depth and again, that
they do have a 100 foot depth and that she recommends approval of
the 100 foot depth interpretation.
Dimler moved, seconded by Johnson to approve the interpretation
of the 100 foot depth for recreational beachlots as stated in the
zoning ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson moved, seconded by Dimler to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989
_ _ rr
Mayor Chmiel : To negotiate with the school district to see if something can be
resolved with it and I don't see any reason, they have specific rules and
regulations and those rules and regulations are not cast in concrete either. I
think they'd have to show due cause as to why, just what Don said because if
there's a vehicle in there and they can't make that turn, if there's someway
they can make that within those cul-de-sacs. They're large enough. More
specifically that one, you're not going to have cars parked on it.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to direct staff to meet with the
Minnetonka School District to see if a resolution can be worked out for a school
bus to turn around in Curry Farms. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT OF 100 FOOT LAT DEPTH FOR
A DOCK ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, OUTLOT A, STRATFORD RIDGE, ROBERT PIERCE.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments approved the appeal to the
interpretation of the ordinance. It was unanimous approval and it can be
discussed.
Mayor Chmiel: It can be discussed by Council but having unanimous approval the
action is to review that.
Councilman Workman: So we'll look to amend the ordinance? There wasn't a
variance?
Jo Ann Olsen: No variance.
Councilman Workman: So they can build a dock now?
Jo Ann Olsen: They were given an appeal to that decision, correct and also as
part of this, then we will process an ordinance amendment to clarify exactly
what the intent is. They agreed that the way the ordinance is written right
now, it's not clear that they have to have that lot depth. They do have a 100
foot depth as it is stated so they meet the ordinance.
Councilwoman an Dialer: It was my understanding that Council would have input onto
the clarification?
Jo Ann Olsen: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to have the Minutes because I was just getting
back from the airport so I wasn't able to'get here to hear it. I'd like to have
the minutes as quickly as possible. There's a timeframe upon which, I forget
how many days it is before it can be appealed but I'd like to see the minutes
first.
Jo Ann Olsen: The ordinance states by either the owner or somebody within 500
feet. I don't know what the past policy has been.
Councilman Johnson: There's something else in there because we can do it too.
31
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 = =
Councilman Boyt: Any citizen can do it.
Councilman Johnson: Any citizen can do it and that's how we've done it in the
past is a member of the council saying we're also a citizen and we are appealing
it.
Mayor C oriel: Don, you're shaking your head yes.
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: We don't have the minutes though do we?
Councilman Johnson: No, it just happened at 7:00 tonight.
Councilman Boyt: They don't take minutes.
Jo Ann Olsen: I write them down. They're not verbatim.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see this appealed. As a citizen I would
challenge that decision. Minutes or no minutes, I think it's a decision that
bears investigation by the Council as a whole. And personally, I think it's the
wrong way to go about changing an ordinance. If we want to change an ordinance,
we ought to put it through a public hearing and change it. We shouldn't have
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals writing ordinance changes for us. All you
have to do is read the minutes from the first time the Council made this
discussion to see that Barbara Dacy, Roger Knutson and virtually, well that was
the staff that spoke on it at the time, made it real clear how they were
defining that lot depth issue. So to come back now and say that the City
Attorney and the senior planner did it wrong is and given that was a Council
action, not a Board action, I think the Council ought to review it. If we're
going to change the ordinance, let's change the ordinance. Turn the thing down.
Change the ordinance arra do it right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well Bill, you're right. The City Council is the only one
that can change the ordinance but what the Board can do is act on the
interpretation and that's what we did tonight.
Mawr Cmiel: Tom?
Councilman Workman: I don't have any comments.
Mayor Criiel: The only thing I went back to Jo Ann was your letter of November
12th of 1987 and in there you indicated, the question was if the Commission
wants to be able to permit the applicant to have a dock on a recreational
beachlot and how can they do it. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals has the
ability to grant a variance. The better approach would be to amend the
ordinance. I think I agree, we should probably have the public hearing to amend
the ordinance and go from there.
Jo Ann Olsen: That will still be done. What the Board did tonight was the way
the ordinance is written today, that it still can be interpretted differently.
And they agreed that it was not interpretted correctly.
32
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 Z•
Councilman Boyt: I think that it's amusing that an appointed board can say
that, officially say that the City Council's decision was wrong and that's what
they're saying.
Mayor Chmiel: Everyone has an opinion.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, we didn't say the opinion was wrong. The
interpretation, the way it was written, it was left open to a different
interpretation. Maybe Elliott could you address that please because you're the
one that gave us that direction.
Elliott Knetsch: I think what the question was, the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals is the- proper board to look at an interpretation of the ordinance that
has been made. Interpretation was made that since the ordinance did not
specifically say lot depth, it was somewhat vague or ambiguous and the applicant
did appeal that interpretation. So the ball was in the court of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals and they looked at it and because it does not
specifically say lot depth, they felt that since the lot is 100 feet at some
point and at a point close to where the proposed dock would be, that that does
meet the way the ordinance is written. They were not trying to say what the
original intent of the City Council was and� I don't think it's their job to say
what the original intent was. They were looking at how the ordinance reads.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right and now we can, like you say, the Council can
decide the new wording but at this particular time, the way it's worded, the
interpretation could be different from the intent of the former Council.
Councilman Boyt: I'm sorry I got upset about it. There will be plenty of
opportunity to discuss it so.
Elliott Knetsch: Certainly it's within your rights as a citizen and a council
memtber to bring up the Board of Adjustments and Appeals decision for review by
Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think the Council does have to handle the new
ordinance wording. That was not the intent of the Board to do that. We didn't
try to do that. What we were doing was interpreting the loopholes so to speak
that the present wording leaves.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Beck, it looks like you want to say something.
Peter Beck: The only thing I wanted to say was...the Council basn't..ever been
presented with this issue before tonight. They haven't decided... During the
discussions, the last time Mr. Pierce requested a variance and everyone kind of
agreed the document made sense but they preferred it be allowed by means of an
ordinance amendment instead so then he requested the ordinance amendment and
there got to be different versions of it. Because there were different versions
of it, the prior City Council didn't adopt any of them and the result was no
dock. During that discussion on that ordinance amendment, Council a ober Johnson
pointed out that he probably complied but that issue wasn't before the Council
so they didn't really decide on it. All we really did this time was say
Councilmember Johnson has a point. Let's present that issue to the City and the
only way we can do that is through the Board to decide if the lot complies and
then the dock can go ahead in with the conditional use permit. It hasn't been
33
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989err
�_ s
to the Council before. If the Council wants to take it up, by all means they
can. We can do it tonight or any other time.
Mayor Chmiel: What is total lot size?
Peter Beck: It's over 31,000 square feet and 550 same feet of frontage on the
lake. The general consensus I think of all the public bodies has been the dock
isn't, the only question has been how to put it there and really the right
answer was an ordinance amendment but the prior Council just couldn't get 4
votes for one particular version of the ordinance. We just present this as one
way, fairly simple way to resolve Mr. Pierce's problem so he can go ahead and
sell those lots because the homeowners...and then we couldn't agree more that
the Council should take that opportunity after that to clear up that language in
the ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does that clarify?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Are we going to have a motion?
Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I know what Bill's getting at other than the
ordinance, doing sa+tething against an ordinance. Do you feel there's something
wrong with this dock?
Councilman Boyt: Well, I think what we're doing here is we're talking about,
we're setting precedent in terms of how we're going to write this, rewrite the
ordinance. And I think rather than set precedence on this one issue, we should
not do that. We should go through a public hearing. We should give people a
chance who want it, to have input on this and then we should resolve it in a
reasonable fashion. All you have to do is read the Minutes frau May 31, 1988 to
see that apparently there's been quite a reversal in the part of our Council's
thinking about what we meant here because Roger Knutson very clearly says, it's
my understanding that they're talking about lot average and he did not have a
100 foot average lot depth. Councilman Johnson says, it doesn't. say average lot
depth. Barbara Dacy, that's defined. Roger Knutson, the lot depth is an
average. Now for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to turn around and say
well, they didn't get it right. I think that's a big decision.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jo Ann, would you address that please?
Jo Ann Olsen: As far as the lot depth, it doesn't under the regulations for the
recreational beachlot does not state lot depth.
Councilman Johnson: It just says depth. `
Councilman Boyt: I understand that and I don't dispute that.
Jo Ann Olsen: I know but that's where the discrepancy lies. I'm the one who
wrote the first report, the variance report and that's how we did define it and
interpret it. I guess you read lot depth or 100 foot depth, when you really
look at it, it doesn't say that.
Councilman Boyt: There's another issue somewhat related to what we're going to
do with the ordinance. I think that a case could be made that this is not a
buildable lot as it sits so it doesn't have, when we came around to discussing
34
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 — --111
this for an ordinance change, I would suggest that we do not want to create a
situation in which a recreational beachlot is entitled to water rights that
wouldn't be there if that was a private home. And so, I think the issue is more
complicated than we want to plow into as a Council and make a binding decision
tonight on. And if we overturn, if we go along with the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals, then we have in fact given these people the right to put their dock in
and said you're grandfathered and then when we look at the ordinance itself, we
no longer have an opportunity to control this.
Councilwarian Dialer: Would you explain why that's not a buildable lot?
Councilman Boyt: It doesn't have the depth.
Councilwoman Dimler: For a beachlot?
Councilman Boyt: I'm talking about, can somebody put a private home on that
lot?
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. Before Mr. Pierce purchased the
property and subdivided it, this property was part of a larger lot that had the
right to a dock and it had a dock and boats and that's exactly why we limited
our request to only what the property would be allowed if it was still in a
single lot which is the 1 dock and 3 boats. lied like to have 4 boats because
he's got 4 waterfront or Lake Minnewashta Parkway front lots but I told him
let's keep it at the 3 boats because that's what it always was allowed as a
single family property. Now standing alone, just the portion that is the
beachlot, is you' re right, is not buildable as a single family lot because it
doesn't have,+it couldn't meet setbacks and a number of things wedged between
the parkway and the lake but when it was part of the bigger single family
property that went back to the west of Minnewashta Parkway, it was allowed and
did have a dock.
Councilman Boyt: But as I recall, that dock was removed an8 wasn't replaced
until, it doesn't have a dock now.
Peter Beck: It does not have a dock now, that's right.
Councilman Boyt: And when it was subdivided, it wasn't created as one lot on
two sides of the road, reasonably enough. The ironic thing Mr. Mayor is that
May 31, 1988 I argued for giving Mr. Pierce his dock. I'm just saying now that
I think the way to do it, as you've indicated, is to change the ordinance and I
don't think given that we're talking about almost 2 years, well a year and a
half later, that the couple of months it's going to take to rewrite the
ordinance is going to be that critical. I'd rather see us do it that way. I
guess I'm through debating.
Councilwoman Dimler: But I think the fact remains that they're here before us
now and we're acting on the ordinance as it's written now. That's all we could
do.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: This dock isn't a permanent dock? It's not going to be
built now right? It's a permanent dock but it won't be built until next spring?
35
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989
Peter Beck: It will be a seasonal dock just like any other dock in the
community.
Mayor Chmiel: Not a boardwalk?
Peter Beck: No, no. It's not a concrete pylon, no. It will be just a regular
like any other homeowners dock with roam for 3 boats on it.
Elliott Knetsch: Before they put in the dock, they would need to came in for a
conditional use permit and you can see the proposal in more detail at that time.
Peter Beck: It's not a matter of that it would go in this season of course but
the subdivision is developing now and has purchase agreements on a couple lots
and they depend on whether there's a dock or not. What kind of a spec house he
builds on the third lot depends on whether there's a dock or not. That's part
of the reason but really the main reason we went this route is because we tried
- everything else. We tried the variance. It was denied because he should get an
ordinance amendment. We tried the ordinance amendment and Council just didn't
- click on a version that they liked so really there wasn't much else to do except
to look at what the ordinance said and as staff and the Board said, when you
read it, it appears to allow a dock on a lot like this so that's why we went
this route.
Councilman Boyt: When was the ordinance amendment discussed by the City
Council?
Peter Beck: That was that May 31 meeting that you were reading to the Minutes?
I'll get my notes.
Councilman Johnson: It's where we argued to get the right wording in there.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. What we did pass there, I knew we passed something, was
canoe racks and then discussed at great length this issue about lot depth. I
didn't sense that we turned anything down there. I just throught we passed part
of it.
Peter Beck: The ordinance was not amended as recommended by the staff and the
Planning Commission that would allow a dock. That part of the ordinance
amendment was not adopted so the dock still wasn't allowed and still isn't
unless this appeal is upheld.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I don't see in here, the ordinance where there was
even a suggestion about lot depth in the proposed ordinance.
Peter Beck: There wasn't. It dealt with it in a different way. I'm trying to
remember. I think the staff recommended one approach and I can't remember
exactly what it was but the Planning Commission came up with a different
approach and I believe that was to include the right-of-way in the lot depth and
the Council had both of these suggestions and, well you can read the Minutes
yourself but the end result was that none of than were adopted that would allow
a dock on this particular beachlot. But in the meantime, nobody had ever really
said that would it be inappropriate to have a dock in this situation. It just
- never got to a solution that implemented it.
36
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 :111
Councilman Workman: Peter, can you guys be patient until we got our ordinance
amended with the intent that that's the direction we're heading in?
Peter Beck: You know, you'd have to talk to Bob about that. He's been that
route before but be it with a different Council but it takes 4 votes and I think
it will be easier for the Council to consider it and discuss it without carrying
the baggage of this particular project along with it. I just think you would
find it an easier task to deal with it on a more city wide scale than in
reference to this particular project.
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, who was public noticed on this variance?
Jo Ann Olsen: It was in the paper and then all the property owners.
Councilman Johnson: There was a Lake Minnewashta Homeowners Association? I
mean they're the ones that were in here yelling about the dock in the first
place. Were those people, was Jeff Bros informed? -
Jo Ann Olsen: It was all the same list as before.
Councilman Johnson: Did you give us a list in here of who?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. It's not in the report.
Councilman Johnson: Because I'm surprised that they weren't here. Were they
here for the appeal?
Jo Ann Olsen: NO. They were sent a notice. No, they weren't.
Councilman Johnson: Well what exactly was decided by the Board?
Jo Ann Olsen: They agreed that the interpretation using the lot depth
definition was incorrect and that the way it's written could mean that the
recreational beachlot had to have 100 feet in depth and it does have 100 feet in
depth.
Councilman Johnson: So they agreed with what I said a year and a half ago but
the rest of the Council didn't agree with me?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. That wasn't being discussed at that time. They weren't
discussing the appeal of the interpretation, which is what they did tonight.
Councilman Johnson: Who made the first interpretation?
.Jo Ann Olsen: Staff did.
Councilman Johnson: But then the Council affirmed that when we told him he
couldn't put in his dock? Now he has to came before us for a conditional use
permit?
Jo Ann Olsen: He would still have to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
37
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989
9-
Councilman Johnson: How long does that take?
Jo Ann Olsen: A couple months.
Councilman Johnson: So we've got a couple months to change the ordinance one
way or another. When he comes before us with a conditional use permit, the
ordinance could be different one way or the other. So the time's there?
Peter Beck: But in the meantime if we get into this log jam on the ordinance,
at least he could proceed.
Councilman Johnson: He can advertise his property any way he wants to advertise
his property but he does not have a conditional use permit for a dock. If he
wants to advertise his property as having dock rights, you might want to do
that. But when it canes the time he gets his conditional use permit, he better
be ready or the ordinance might be firmed up to say average lot depth at that
point in time and he won't get his conditional use permit. That's a
possibility. Then again, I argued the other way last year. But I'm pointing
out the possibilities. I'm pointing out the possibilities. I'm not pointing
out what I'm going to vote for because I probaby made it pretty clear what I
thought the purpose of the 100 foot was last year.
Peter Beck: And I think really we are proceeding because it did appear that all
the public bodies didn't think the dock was unreasonable. The real hang-up was
how do you accomplish it. The Planning Commission has recommended it a couple
times. The Board of Adjustments and the City Council discussion, it wasn't
really an issue that they didn't think a dock should be on this 31,000 square
foot beachlot. It was only, how do you amend the ordinance to accomplish that
and it didn't agree on an amendment.
Councilman Johnson: I think what really happened was we never got around to
really getting at that issue. The issue just kind of.
Peter Beck: The 100 feet?
Councilman Johnson: The 100 feet issue.
Peter Beck: Absolutely. That's why we brought it up tonight. You brought it
up but it wasn't really decided.
Councilman Johnson: At that point it wasn't. They didn't want to talk about
the racks and not the...
Peter Beck: That's why we brought this request to focus people on that as a
clean way to resolve this particular piece of property and recognizing you would
probably want to go ahead...
Councilman Johnson: If you looked at the development pressure that was on staff
at that time, the amount of work they were doing and our consistent 1:00 in the
morning meetings that we were having, you can tell why something like lot depth
change on this ordinance slipped through the perverbial crack. I think that's
probably enough for this issue. Vie can go on and if anybody wants to appeal it,
they've got their 5 or 10 days, whatever it is to appeal it.
38
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 9"
w
Councilman Boyt: I intend to appeal it. I already have indicated my intention
to do that.
Elliott Knetsch: It's 10 days. Filed with the zoning adminstrator.
Councilman Boyt: Can I borrow a piece of paper and I'll make it easy.
Elliott Knetsch: It doesn't say written notice so.
Councilman Johnson: So the zoning adminstrator is here tonight and Bill has
said he's doing it so it's filed with the zoning adminstrator. That will be put
on a future council agenda.
Councilman Workman: So we don't have anything to do? No motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any.
Councilman Boyt: If you guys want to vote on this, you're welcome to vote on it
tonight.
Councilman Johnson: I'd rather wait.
Councilman Boyt: But I'm just saying that I want the Council to vote on it
and I'd really like the Council to do an ordinance amendment process. I think
we've got the couple months to do that.
Councilwaman Dimler: We're going to do the ordinance amendment if possible.
Councilman Boyt: Well we should turn this down and do it through an ordinance
amendment.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think there was any affect on this because he still
has to care in for a conditional use permit.
Councilman Boyt: Can't turn it down Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Wny not?
Councilman Boyt: If we agree with the appeal, he's got the right to a dock and
we can tell him maybe something about the conditions of potting it in but we're
not in a position to turn it down.
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Councilman Boyt: Okay? We support the Staff and Council's previous position
and deny the appeal. Now we consider a zoning ordinance. We change the zoning
ordinance.
Councilwoman Dirtier: But this staff had a different position this time Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Sure. I read the report.
Councilwoman Dimler: They were in support of approval.
39
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 - r.
p..
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm looking at either entertaining a motion or go on your
intervention portion for the 10 days and appeal that accordingly.
Councilwoman Dimler: You mean uphold the position of the board now and Bill can
still appeal.
Mayor Chmiel: If you uphold the position of the Board.
Councilwoman Dimler: He can still appeal it.
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think so.
Councilman Johnson: Once the Council votes on it, he can't appeal it.
- Councilwoman Dimler: I thought you said any citizen has 10 days to cane in.
Councilman Johnson: That's because the Council's been doing it wrong for a
number of years. I argued this point 2 years ago with the prior Council. We
cannot hear the appeal the night of the Board's decision. We have to wait to
the next Council meeting as far as I'm concerned. We should not be affirming or
denying the Board's position at the same night that the Board hears it because
that's the way it was done when we were a township and it's always been the way
it's been done. That was another interpretation of the ordinance that when I
came on the Council I said I didn't agree with the interpretation. I think that
we should get the Board's Minutes before we decide. I'm not going to decide on
what the Board said when I wasn't there and I don't have the Minutes of the
meeting or anything. I have nothing in front of me to confirm or deny. How can
I do that? Was I there to listen to you? No, I was on an airplane.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're not going to get verbatim Minutes anyway.
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to get sane kind of Minutes. The official
Minutes.
Councilwoman Dirider: But I will tell you what the motion was if you want to
know what it was.
Councilman Johnson: No. I want the official Minutes approved by you as a
member of the Board. You approve your Minutes every time. Then I'll hear this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Elliott, what do we do?
Councilman Johnson: What's the hurry?
Elliott Knetsch: Briefly I think, to summarize what your options are, number 1,
you could tonight vote to affirm, reverse or modify the Board of Appeals
decision now that an appeal has been filed. Or, you could wait to a subsequent
Council meeting to have a hearing on the appeal at which time you will vote to
affirm, reverse or modify the Board's decision.
Councilman Johnson: You see somebody else can appeal tomorrow?
40
Pr-
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 f"
Elliott Knetsch: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't make sense for us to affirm an opinion before
the 10 days has expired. We'll just have to do it again in 10 days.
Elliott Knetsch: I think the purpose of waiting to a subsequent meeting would
be so that others who may feel aggrieved by the decision would have a chance to
come to the hearing and present their ideas. We already know that there is an
appeal filed so there will be Council action either affirming or reversing the
decision.
Councilman Johnson: What's the hurry?
Councilman Boyt: Well, let's decide something.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any.
Councilman Johnson: I move we just close the discussion and move onto item 8.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess we could.
Councilman Boyt: Whatever you want to do.
Mayor Chmiel: - I'm sort of twisted inbetween here. I can understand the
position of the applicant as well. Wanting to proceed with his lots but on the
other hand, I also feel that we should review and change the ordinance as per se
and go through that process I think of a public hearing aspect and getting the
input frau the other people within the community.
Councilwoman Dialer: I agree 100%. My only point is that they are before us
now. The only ordinance we have right now is the one that we have interpretted.
More loosely perhaps than the intent was but that was the decision of the Board
and that was the right of the Board to make that decision. Now, when Council
goes back, and they should have the benefit of the timing here that they're here
before us. That's my argument. When Council gets together now and we interpret
the wording any way we want to. We can change it. We can leave it the same or
we can make it looser or whatever we do with it, they would no longer be
affected by that because the benefit of the timing that they're before us now,
that's the ordinance and the interpretation that we're using.
Councilman Workman: One question. How is that to our advantage?
Councilwoman Dialer: It isn't. But are we always here to benefit ourselves or
do we want to benefit our citizens?
Councilman Workman: I think when I say us, I mean...
Councilman Johnson: The citizens he's talking about.
Councilman Workman: I agree with Jay on that. I think we can wait and finish
this up in January and then we can do it.
Councilman Johnson: See if there are any other appeals filed.
41
6.
City Council Meeting - November 6; 1989
Councilman Workman: I'm not worried about that. I'm just saying, let's get...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, proper action for this would be?
Elliott Knetsch: TO schedule the appeal hearing for a subsequent council
meeting.
Mayor Ctmiel: Okay.
Councilman Boyt: I would ask that staff begin pursuing the ordinance change
along the lines of the discussion we've had tonight. Start that at the Planning
Commission at the next agenda and see if we can't make progress on this thing.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know if staff can go ahead because they don't know
what our, my intent is not to have it uniformally 100 feet. I don't+know how
everybody else feels. I mean we don't have a consensus on that.
Councilman Johnson: We can take a straw poll right now. I believe at the point
the dock is at you should have at least 100 feet.
Councilwoman Dialer: But not uniformally throughout?
Councilman Johnson: Or even the average.
Councilwoman Dimler: .. .lots are just not that perfect.
Councilman Johnson: No. I don't think the average should be in there. I think
at the point that the dock is at, you should have at least 100 feet at that
point.
Councilwoman Dialer: And they would meet that. They could meet that.
Councilman Johnson: They could meet that by putting the dock in. the proper
position. That's my opinion.
- Councilwoman Dimler: And I agree with you.
Councilman Johnson: Well that's 2. It takes 4. 3.
Councilman Boyt: I want public input. This is one of the most contested
ordinances in our city.
Councilman Johnson: I agree. •
Councilwoman Dimler: That's because we make it so.
- f
Councilman Johnson: No.
Councilman Boyt: We're granting rights to a beachlot that we don't now grant to
a single family residential lot on a lake so I'm just saying, what we've talked
about, I think+you can draft something. If nothing else, start where you ended
up last time and let's get this thing in the hopper and see what comes out.
42
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989
Councilman Johnson: I think we have 3 out of 5 members of the Council saying
that at the point of the dock we need 100 foot. Bring that forward to
the Planning Commission.
Mayor Chniel: I guess that's basically where we're at.
Councilman Boyt: Sure. That's sensible.
Councilman Johnson: So there's same kind of direction at the end of this.
I move we put the appeal on the next Council agenda.
Mayor Qrmiel: Is there a second to that?
Councilman Boyt: You can't do that. I would prefer you not do that. I can
tell you, I'm going to be out of town on the 20th. You can hold that over until
the next meeting in December or I can wait 10 days to file my appeal.
Councilman Johnson; I'm going to be out of town on the 20th too but I'm flying
back for the meeting.
Councilman Boyt: I'm impressed.
Councilman Johnson: Just because the schedule worked that way. I only have to
be there until noon.
Mayor Qrniel: I'd just like to keep this moving.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would like to keep it moving. Let's do the ordinance
amendment. That thing in a month and a half will be up here in front of us and
we can straighten it out and get it done.
•
Jo Ann Olsen: So you don't want me to continue the appeal?
Councilman Boyt: Well yeah. You have to continue the appeal. I'd prefer you
to do it to the first meeting in December.
Elliott Knetsch: The action of the Board of Adjustments is vacated pending the
outcome of this appeal. The City Council will have the final decision now.
Mayor Ctviiel: That's right.
Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move that the appeal is heard the first meeting
in December.
Councilman Boyt: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to place the appeal hearing
for the interpretation of Zoning Ordinance requirements of 100 foot lot depth
for a dock on a recreational beachlot until the first City Council meeting in
December. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
43
-- " r P.
r
e • .l. nuu s_ !, !. _ "7 ■ ��r S ��...-r. 1 .'rr':4iD ...c / - , 111 .e:
;
1i0r � rlalii= n1i.N/I `=is:1111
p1 E.R ii= ■ 1. a =-»:-g4 -1; ,01it R l��s0t � • ,y � � ,�1�� L111.�aLP7iC� w_ � ■• �
Apiliillvtl:,.....vg
,,,,;•-.*,,, • /ilk EMBEllara
:;;;::i--...ilii, "V.,41 .-,:.z.:-,,p,) — I
iii
�� �: S. , ;►.�/�L� CIMEV1Iih14/ *r �' ~ �n��Ei' .9.,.,/n._��• J.,y_i
1♦�N I �` �• fie.. J.t• -•,A pyt` ,�'M
- ""1":21:.:Ir. �A II/Y/
A.
_ yl
n r _- .I !Al al www. ^``7�1`��i h: , I� E . : w
J y �� a. I� LAZE..I ��,n',••�`.- ::.i ���
I
_ . imr4. • .;-,-. fb • bl- r
i'`.p� OZ'' --' ® s thil.ice iz 's,• .q �t 1�€4,:,.,:...,..„. ,...fa I {
4gle
et
4 11111:i Mr ii l':4,;#104-.b"4. -' -Ar
atior .-- #... IIII illt. I a rill I i 1 I 1_LT'Firlit•i::::::.4, ,, ,; Id IL,
— % . ir_
,, ,,_. ummil pm 'WV/ Or.,$10,,,,,P11 .11,,triprow tilI CO• � .
�!` r... I _ . .
"IP IIIA jr7,17.,::,;.',
..-,.
vii. _ ., ...61.;:;3..e 're''''t LAlf BMW ALI 11.11111"
;;.i• PPL r
radlilleli
Will i 1 II i L. AZ!- lit Al .iii,,-,1
.. i - lull .1 7111 ,_:„..,„,
drY OF
�■•� 4
7
CHANHASSEN '
e I LEES
suerb
[IF. -
: --1,44,..4„,s0..iL...,„ i_ ,
eareA,41--,44-. ReceeArna-a- EL_
8.4 reit
-
1111
��I . ■iboT .r► �.441111 � ��
1‘ 5
_ rtvwo n: �� i—
; —
CAMtEN t6MEIAB CPT It*
�
., ppp
KgKO MM,IM. ea - .r. fltilikilLA •••
r �t_�� ,, 6
r
___ 2.r.,_ L �, 7
•
ilfil""ill I I 111111 !
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONUNIEq
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 1989 �'°�'' + .2 r
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli
and Jim Wildermuth
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning , Todd Gerhardt , Asst .
City Manager and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BOARDWALK ALONG THE
EDGE OF A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 7280 KURVERS
POINT ROAD, WOODDALE BUILDERS .
Public Present :
Don Begin - Wooddale Builders
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order .
Conrad : Is the applicant here?
Don Begin : Yes .
Conrad : Okay, any comments?
- Don Begin: No . She explained it. . . The berm is pretty much of a natural
berm there. . .through the natural berm. . .
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
- Conrad : Just a quick question on filling next to a lake. That just is
real intriguing . What governs filling next to the lake? Who' s governing
that? Basically we don' t allow construction within 75 feet of a lake. It
seems real interesting that we can allow filling going in right up to the
lake.
Krauss : It is being handled on the wetland alteration permit and it is
regulated by us in that manner . The area that ' s being filled, Chairman
Conrad , is an area that' s above the wetland and lake elevation now. It is
high ground. All they' re doing is adding enough dirt onto the high ground
to make it firm enough to use. We didn' t see any impacts on the
surrounding area because it ' s basically lawn area now. It' s in sod .
There' s no wetland vegetation . There will be no fill into the lake or into
the wetland so we were comfortable regulating it under the wetland
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 2
alteration permit .
Conrad : And the DNR or Fish and Wildlife or the Corps of Engineers , they
have no, they don' t have any regulations on filling right up to the edge of
a lake?
Krauss : We showed this to the Fish and Wildlife and they didn ' t have a
concern with it .
Conrad : I 'm real surprised . It just , and I don ' t know. The wetland , I 'm
not concerned about the wetland ordinance. I 'm just real surprised that
people can change or add to elevation right up to the lake even though we
have regulations that say you can' t build within 75 feet . That ' s just real
surprising Paul . f
Krauss : DNR regulations start at the ordinary high water and this is all
above that. We can put in some extra calls to confirm that but I believe
all those agencies have been contacted on this .
- Conrad : In 10 years I 've never seen anybody fill right up to the edge of a
lake and I ' ve been around . First time. Not that I know that it ' s wrong .
I ' ve just never seen anybody do it . We' ve always kept construction and
- construction is different because we' re building stuff but that ' s been
monitored by other things . That' s a surprising feature. Well anyway, I
don ' t believe the wetland permit process has much to do with that fill
_ there but I sure thought something else would. We' ll go around. Jim,
comments .
Wildermuth : What ' s the distance between the retaining wall and the
- wetland? Is that within 75 feet?
Al-Jaff : It ' s over 100 feet . No , I 'm sorry. It is approximately 100
- feet.
Krauss : The retaining wall itself to the Class A wetland?
Conrad : Yeah .
Krauss : Is probably within the 75 feet . Jo Ann and I had a discussion on
- that tonight and in the past retaining walls have not been considered
structures in that regard . In fact they' re , in talking to Fish and
Wildlife and DNR, it ' s deemed as somewhat beneficial . ' If you had a graded
slope, you would have a gradual slope going down in there ,+ there would be a
tendency to sod everything down beyond the wetland elevation. With the
retaining wall , you have a distinct break and we ' ve put a stipulation in
there that the area below the wall be kept natural . But your point ' s well
taken . We do have a lot of problems frankly with the wetland ordinance and
how it handles these kinds of items . Jo Ann and I are probably going to be
putting out a position paper on the wetlands ordinance sometime in February
- citing what the pros and cons are with it in it ' s entirity and looking to
propose some changes to it . This would be one of them.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 3
Wildermuth: What happens when the next lot to the west of that is -
developed? Is that individual going to come in for an application to fill
too I would imagine?
Krauss : As I recall , the next lot to the west has a more distinct wetland
as you go, or to the south . As you head in that direction the wetland
spreads out . I mean you don ' t have that known situation down by the lake
that we have on this lot . It would probably be handled differently. This -
one as well , you have a way of crossing to that area of high ground without
intruding at all into any wetland area . You could not do that on the
adjoining lot. That ' s not to say we wouldn' t recommend approval of it if
we saw it if it was done well but it would have different issues .
Wildermuth : I guess I really don ' t have any problem with a retaining wall
and I don ' t have any problem with a boardwalk. It ' s adding fill next to
the lake that just somehow doesn ' t seem in keeping with our wetland and
shoreland requirements .
Krauss : We looked at the fill , if I could speak to that a little bit . The
fill is not really creating a substantially different situation out there.
It ' s not very deep.
Wildermuth : Yeah , it ' s not very deep. 8 inches is not . . .
Krauss : The reason for it is just to provide, I mean the soil right now is -
rather squishy. It ' s high but in a normally wet year it may be difficult
to get any kind of use on it even though it is high and above the ordinary
high water . The fill is being proposed is merely designed to firm it up. -
It ' s not really going to raise it up significantly.
Wildermuth : The ordinary high water mark is 896?
Krauss : Yes sir .
Wildermuth : It looks like the difference in elevation , at least in one . -
area of that where in the dark shaded area it says 896 . 2 and the ordinary
high water mark is 896 . 4 or is it 896 . 6? LL
Emmings: It ' s 896. 6 on mine.
Wildermuth : It ' s . 2 of a foot difference. Wow. How are you going to get
down there to put fill in there? Go across the ice? Because to the east
is that retention pond right?
Don Begin: Right . -
Batzli : And to the west is the wetland .
Wildermuth : Yeah, and to the west is a wetland. Unless you can get a
Bobcat down the berm. That ' s going to be pretty slow going .
Don Begin' s comment couldn' t be heard on the tape. -
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 4
Wildermuth : That is a beautiful area down there . I hate to see it
altered. Although there has been some alteration with the building of that
retention pond .
Conrad : Well , they can do what they can do . I 'm just really surprised and
that ' s what intriguing is I ' ve never seen anybody being able to fill right
up to the lake .
Wildermuth: To the ordinary high water mark.
Conrad : That ' s real strange. Anyway, Brian?
- Batzli : I guess I see that differently than setbacks from the house . I
think you ' re trying to accomplish a lot of different things with that. In
part you' re trying to maintain vistas and I think a lot of other things .
Yeah,+ I found that interesting . My question also was going to be, how are
you going to do this with wetland in one direction and retention pond in
the other .
- Wildermuth : Well there is a berm there. He could probably drive a Bobcat
down there or as this gentleman suggested , going in when the wetland ' s
frozen but that is going to create a haulage path down through there.
That ' s probably going to have to have some correction done in the spring .
Batzli : Well with that in mind I guess I would recommend that we add a
condition and I don ' t know really what to say about it yet other than , if
you do go down the berm or they somehow alter the whole+ area , that they
will put it back in it' s original condition. Almost like it ' s some sort of
performance bond . That might be, I assume they' ll need some sort , do they
need to get any type of permit before they do this? Do they need to submit
grading plans or do anything like that? Or once we give this approval , are
they. . .
Krauss : Once we give this approval , they would be authorized to do it .
Now if you want a condition about a performance bond, we could do that .
Batzli : I don' t know. Does that make sense?
Krauss : I think it does . You know you' ve got 2 issues there. On the one
hand if it goes through the wetland , you want that restated . On the other
hand, if they use the berm which is protecting a city owned retention pond ,
we' d want to make sure that that wasn' t destroyed either .
Wildermuth: I liked the preclusion where there' s no sodding allowed
between the retaining wall and the wetland . I think that ' s a good
stipulation.
Batzli : I don' t know. Maybe that can just be handled , I think we shouldy
say something about that. Monly other question was , this proposed fill
area . If I 'm looking at the+ scale on this correctly, I don ' t really have a
good ruler but in the description they talk about it being 30 feet between
the knoll area and the ordinary high water mark . It appears to me that
it ' s closer to 80 on this map. The portion that ' s shaded in. I 'm curious
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 5
about that . If you take one of the numbers that they have off of this
house, I assume those are feet.
Emmings : There' s a 40 foot drop at the top there too . . .
Batzli : Well that ' s much mote than 30 feet this proposed fill area . I
would prefer not to approve it according to the plans if the plans show 80
feet, approximately, and in the application we' re talking about
approximately a 30+ foot area that ' s going to be filled . Maybe the
applicant could actually shed some light on that .
Don Begin : I think probably they had . . .and I 've walked it and I work with
a good deal of builders , not as a superintendent but in other capacities
and I think what ' s happened possibly is that they' ve shaded this whole
thing but the actual fill won ' t go to what you 'd+ call right to the water .
I think the fill area to stabilize that useable area what they called out
30 feet. The feet from the knoll area out . As far as the way I read this , _
that there . . .that berm is about 30 feet . . . . scale although it is surveyed .
Batzli : That ' s what troubled me . The fact that it was a survey and so
this appeared that they were going to be filling 2 1/2 times what .
Krauss : I don ' t know what the anomoly' s being caused by but I know when
you' re standing out there on that knoll , it does not appear as though it ' s _
80 feet back from the shoreline. It ' s considerably closer .
Don Begin : No . It ' s pretty close .
Batzli : I guess then I ' d just like to have staff check into that before.
Ellson: I don' t have anything to add . —
Emmings : Can you tell me what these lines represent here?
Al-Jaff: That ' s an easement. An utility.
Krauss : There ' s a sanitary sewer line I believe that runs through there.
Emmings: Okay. Right through the wetland .
Krauss : It ' s the lowest point .
Emmings : And there must be sewer in place there now right?
Conrad : Yeah .
Emmings : I once asked about putting sand on my beach and I was told I had
to call the DNR. My beach is at king of an angle up from the lake, up from —
the high water mark. I was told that I wouldn' t have any trouble getting
an approval but I did have to call and check . Can you tell me why and the
beach, it ' s pretty long right now but in other years it ' s kind of short but
can you tell me why I 'd need to get something from the DNR for something as
innocuous as that and why they wouldn' t have to go to the DNR when they' re
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 6
talking about a filling?
Krauss : As I understand it , the difference would be that beach sand is
typically placed above and below the ordinary high water .
Batzli : They also probably don ' t know where the ordinary high water is so
they' re doing it as a safety check to make sure that when you' re applying
the sand , I doubt someone' s out there taking a survey to determine where
the ordinary high water is .
Emmings : Nobody and I guess it' s the kind of thing , they said you could
call up and they'd say go ahead but you've got to call otherwise they' ll
come and visit you. f
Batzli : I ' ve come to understand though. That ' s an interesting point
because for instance on Lake Minnetonka you can' t rip rap, you can' t do
anything on the shoreline without getting a permit to do it and I don ' t
know who' s controlling that. Whether it ' s the LMCD or who it is but you
can' t touch anything near the shoreland . y
Em1Lings : Well , this seems like a reasonable thing to do to me. I guess
I 'd be very concerned , when they talk about how you ' re going to get there ,
- I think that the condition that Brian wants to have is an important one
because I don' t know if we ' re going to be satisfied with saying if they
disturb the wetland , they' ve got to repair it . I don ' t think they should
be allowed to disturb it+ in the first place so they' re going to have to do
it when it' s frozen if they' re going that way and I assume that won' t do
any harm but I don ' t even know that for a fact . But other than , it seems
like a reasonable thing to do to me if it will provide them with use of
- that area down by the lake . I don ' t have anything else .
Conrad: Okay. Thanks Steve. I have no problem with the retaining wall .
The boardwalk . I do question the fill simply because I have never seen us
allow that before so specifically in what ' s before us tonight, I think the
fill process has to be defined in this permit . How do they do it? Do we
accept them driving over the wetland? I don' t believe we accept that but I
think we do have to identify the process by which they can fill that . I do
think we have to identify how they stabilize that so it doesn' t wash into
the lake . I think that' s a glaring deficiency in this . You just don ' t
fill and assume that it ' s not going to run into the lake, with. the next rain
that occurs . We need a way to decide that . We require every builder in
Chanhassen to put up the barriers around their building site so that it
doesn ' t flow someplace else yet here we' re right next to the lake and we
haven' t required that. That ' s why this whole thing of filling next to the
lake seems kind of strange . Nobody has said put up a barrier and I can ' t
believe that. That' s just really a unique condition that nobody has a
regulation that says you can do that. We' re talking about dirt . We' re not
talking about sand here. So anyway, the stabilization process . How we
take dirt and make it grass or whatever it is that the developer ' s doing , I
think we have to have some kind of review of that. Restoration to the
original condition . If we don ' t allow disturbance of the protected areas ,
then we don' t need to worry about that and then I buy Brian' s comment on
the map that says 80 feet or close to it versus the application which says
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 7 —
30 and I think we just need better definition on what we' re really talking —
about . So specifically, whoever makes the motion, I think there' s some
things that staff can check out and maybe , I don' t know if they' re in the
part of the motion or not but specifically to make sure that there aren ' t -
any regulations regarding this that we ' ve+missed and the fill process that
I particular care about and stablizing the fill after it ' s in there. I
think those are some important things that I do care about in the motion.
Emmings : When you mention that , just to pick up on your point, if we want
them to go in there in the wintertime to do the filltoprotect the wetland
when it' s frozen, that means they' re not going to be able to stabilize that
with any type of cover .
Conrad : That ' s right . And then that will wash down . •
EmPLings : Before a spring rain so that ' s why I think it' s particularly
important .
Don Begin : Mr . Conrad , I believe under the recommendations on number 1
here you did recommend erosion control .
Krauss : That was specifically to the wetland . . .
Don Begin: Could we use erosion control along the lake there to keep this _
fill from. . .
Conrad : I think you ' ve got to do something like that but here we are .
Yeah, you've got to do something like that but I don ' t know what it is that
you ' ve got to do. Maybe that ' s the right way to do it.
Don Begin : Possibly. . .along there or something to keep the whole thing
stable .
Conrad : Literally you' ve got to make it , we have force on this particular
lake, we have forced developers and cities and what have you . We've had
all sorts of problems of filling in Lotus . Incredible number of things
we ' ve forced people to do so we just have to make sure that when this gets
filled in that there' s some way that prevents the rain water from washing
it in.
Don Begin : I 'm sure we can work that out .
Conrad: I 'm sure you can . I have no doubt that you can. Anything else?
Is there a motion?
J
Wildermuth : I ' ll take a stab at it. I propose the Planning Commission
recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-10 as shown on the
site plan dated October 20th with the following conditions 1 thru 5 as they -
stand but with changes to item 1. Instead of the sentence ending with
improvements made on the site it would read , and between the ordinary high
water mark and the altered or filled area . I think that would take care
of the erosion control between the shoreline and the filled area . Then for
item 6. I would add performance bond must be posted with the City to
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 8
guarantee that any overland haulage path to the fill area be restored to
it ' s present condition.
Conrad : Say that again Jim.
Wildermuth : Performance bond must be posted with the City to guarantee
that any overland haulage path to the fill area must be restored to it ' s
presentorpre-existing condition.
Conrad : In terms of your first amendment to number 1.
Wildermuth : The first amendment' s going to add erosion control .
Conrad : Erosion control . It didn' t specifically deal with stabilizing the
soil afterwards .
Wildermuth: That' s true .
Conrad : Do you want to address that?
Wildermuth: How do you do that though?
- Conrad : I think staff can just say, if it ' s your choice to do that is just
to say that staff will word it so that the soil is stabilized . You don' t
have to word the ordinance.
Wildermuth : Okay. Well , I 'd like to add something there to 1 then that
the fill would be stabilized after placement.
- Conrad : Is that taking care of the concerns?
Emmings : I 'm just sitting here thinking there' s a performance bond that
says that they have to put anything back that they disturb or they have to
restore it but do we even want to allow them to go through the wetland?
Wildermuth: I think they' re going to have to. Either that or go across
the ice.
Emmings : But they could go through it at a time. I don' t know, from some
of the talk I ' ve heard, I don ' t know if we want to rely .on restoration to
put the wetland back. I think they should have to go through, if they' re
going of use a path that ' s through the wetland , it seems to me it should be
at a time when they' ll do minimal damage to the wetland such as when it ' s
frozen. That ' s probably the only time. The only thing that makes me say
that is . . .
Wildermuth : I don' t think you can go through the wetland without filling
it unless it' s frozen.
Batzli : What would happen if we made the filling and the path through
there, they have to get staff ' s approval to do that so as to cause minimum
amount of damage to whatever because we don ' t know what the best way or the
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 9
best time to do that would be but I think they should be able to work with
staff .
Ellson : To work with them to get whatever plan they have okayed?
Earrings : Yeah, I like that . One thing that makes me hesitant to even
bring it up is obviously they put the sewer right through there and I
wonder what the city did in terms of. . .
Wildermuth : Well they tore it up pretty good .
Emmings: In terms of doing damage and restoring it. Probably nothing but
nevertheless , yeah I think that ' s a good suggestion Brian .
Krauss : If I may, before you act on that, it just occurred to me that
possibly one waytoensure+ that this is all done in a timely manner , is to
add a stipulation requiring that they get a grading permit approved by
staff before starting the work . Then we actually have a permit that we ' re
going to release to them and before releasing it we can make sure that the
conditions are met and it gives us a mechanism to then go back out and
check up that it was done right .
Batzli : That sounds great .
Wildermuth : Okay, I 'd like to make that item 7 . That a grading permit be
obtained.
Krauss : Specify though if you would approved by staff so it doesn ' t have
to go back to the City Council .
Wildermuth : Approved by staff prior to beginning work.
Batzli : Can we so add in that number 7 that the crossing over or the
filling will be done with minimal impact to the wetland areas? —
Wildermuth: Sure, why not .
Batzli : Okay. Then I ' ll accept that .
Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-10 as shown on the Site Plan
dated October 20, 1989 with the following conditions :
1. Erosion control shall be installed between the proposed grading and the
Class A wetland and between the Ordinary High Water Mark and the
altered or filled area prior to any improvements made on the site .
Also , the fill area shall be stabilized after it ' s placement .
2. The applicant should be made aware if the city or utility company needs
to use the utility and drainage easement . The city or utility company -
shall not be responsible for any damages to the boardwalk or
restoration costs .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 10
3. The area between the boardwalk and the wetland shall be maintained in
it ' s natural state .
4. The area between the retaining walls and the wetland shall be
maintained in its natural state with no sod .
5. The boardwalk north of the Class A wetland up to the ordinary high
water mark of Lotus Lake shall be of permanent construction.
+
6. Performance bond must be posted with the City to guarantee that any
overland haulage path to the fill area must be restored to it' s present
or pre-existing condition .
7 . A grading permit showing minimal impact to the wetland shall be
submitted and approved by staff prior to any work beginning on the
site .
All voted in favor and the motion carrried .
AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN MODIFICATION NO. 9,
TODD GERHARDT.
Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad : Any questions? Todd, what' s the purpose of the property
acquisition? I can see the parking lots in downtown but the Empak, what ' s
happening there? Why are we doing that?
Gerhardt : The Housing and Redevelopment Authority as it' s incentives
requested or gave approval to Empak, an incentive program that would
provide a land write down as a part of their incentive to locate in
Chanhassen. The facility was one of 98 , 000 square feet that generated
approximately $200 , 000 . 00 a year in taxes so from that they had enough
— money, 3 years worth of taxes , not different than any of the other
incentives provided to any of the other businesses that located in the
industrial park but left over that much increment that you could also write
down a portion of the land . And to do that , the tax increment plan must
make notice of that land acquisition or write down .
Conrad : Questions? It looks consistent to me with the goals , at least
from a planning standpoint that we' ve looked at for downtown .
Gerhardt: All the documents are brought , or site plans are brought through
the Planning Commission so you do review those prior to any approval given.
Again , this is a State law requirement that we bring it to+ you and pass
resolution.
Conrad : Good . Thanks Todd .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 11
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No . 89- finding Modification No . 9 consistent with the plans
for development of the City of Chanhassen . All voted in favor and the
motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE MODIFYING ZONING
RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS .
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried .
Emmings : I read through this and I ' ve just kind of burned out on this a
little bit . What we did before on this seemed reasonable to me at the time _
and what they put together now seems reasonable to me and I have a feeling
they could put it together in a different combination and I think that was
reasonable too . I really don ' t have any comments . The proposals that
Paul ' s put together this time around seem fine to me .
Ellson : I got a little confused when I read it . By saying that we have a
conditional use permit, what does that gain us? -
Krauss : Conditional uses indicate to me that you have a use that is
permissible in the district but because of characterigtics associated with
it, it requires additional review. If we say a use is permitted , you' re in
a much more difficult position to establish .
f
Ellson : To add anything on if you want that . . . -
Krauss : Special conditions, right. And in this instance with auto related
uses , we' re able to set out , specify what those conditions are that we want _
to have met before we would allow that use to exist .
Ellson : Okay. So we could actually do it on a case by case basis?
Krauss: Yes . I don' t wish to give the indication though that conditional
uses give unilateral control to the City to create conditions as they come
along. I believe that when you do make� a use condition, you have an
j
obligation to establish those conditions so you can see if they' re met or
not and not to just develop them on the spot.
Emmings : But you do have some flexibility there because there ' s a public
hearing associated with it and if there' srperculiarities in the
neighborhood for example where this thing is and the people come in and
talk about it, you can address them. -
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page
12
Krauss : Right and the conditional use permit ordinance does allow that as
some general guidelines .
Ellson : Okay. I like that . It ' s just one of my pet peeves so I 'm glad to
see it being resolved once and for all .
Batzli : I guess I don' t understand the rationale for the difference
between convenience stores without gas and convenience stores with gas
pumps . Is that the same , Council ' s feeling was that it was the gas pumps
that were the problems and not the fact that you' re being flooded with
convenience stores?
Krauss : Well we got into that a little bit and it took, I don' t know that
they actually came out and said that but that was what I defined that it
was coming down to . We talked a little bit about convenience stores these
_ days and basically convenience stores are rarely proposed as such without
gas pumps . But a� convenience store without a gas pump is a little corner
market .
Batzli : Is that a Kenny' s?
Krauss : Yeah .
Ellson : Or a Tom Thumb. Most of those don ' t have gas pumps .
Krauss : In which case it really isn' t , it' s a consistent retail use and it
belongs in a lot of these things without any special review.
Batzli : So you' re not going to allow any gas in the CBD?
Krauss : No . That ' s the way that was originally proposed . There was some
discussion about it being inappropriate within the dense CBD area .
Batzli : So what do you do with the current ones in the CBD?
Non-conforming uses?
Krauss : Yes .
Batzli : When would those ever be extinguished? If someone bought that
parcel , a different gas company bought the parcel , would they. then still be
allowed to . . .
Krauss : As long as the use is continued . The grandfathering is a good
question. As long as the use is continued, there' s no problem regardless
of who owns it.
Emmings : It' s either the use has to be given up for a year or it has to be
destroyed. More than 50% destroyed .
Krauss : But if there was a wish to avoid that , I personally wouldn' t
object to an ordinance that permanently accepted those uses which existed
at the date of the adoption of the ordinance .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 13
Batzli : For instance the Amoco . They' re going to rebuild that . What
affect does this ordinance have on that?
Krauss : It ' s already been permitted . We issued a building permit on _it a
few weeks ago .
Ellson : What about someone like a Brooke ' s that right want to expand or
something like that? They'd have to maintain just where they are because
that ' s what ' s considered grandfathered?
Krauss: It would be grandfathered in. There wouldn' t be an issue really
unless they wanted to expand the gas pump aspect of it . If they wanted to
expand the store itself say into the next retail space , it ' s not something
that we would review.
Ellson: But if they wanted to put a few more islands in?
Batzli : I actually find it somewhat of a convenience to have a couple of
gas stations downtownish personally so I just don ' t know that I necessarily
totally agree with your clumping of the areas . I agree it would be better
handled with a conditional use permit . The only other thing that I wanted =
to touch on was your measurement from gas pumps . I assume that ' s what
you ' re doing in these various sections . You ' re actually measuring it like
gas pump to gas pump?
Krauss : Yes .
Batzli : Why are you doing that rather than parcel to parcel?
Krauss: Parcel to parcel , I ' ve written some ordinances that are parcel to
parcel and what you get is a city that has no auto service. Parcels are
often quite large and for example , if you have a multiple tenant site as
where the Brooke' s is , you ' d measure it from the nearest point of that
entire property to the nearest residential property and you'd never had a
gas station in any kind of proximity to residential . Even though the gas
pumps are 400 feet away.
Batzli : But here we have a 100 foot lot , or 120 foot lot . Your gas
station could abut the residential .
Krauss : Physically yes . The station could . The pumps could not . —
Batzli : But does the entire station with parking and the traffic and all
the problems you' re trying to avoid , could abut the residential as long as
they put pumps on the far side of the lot .
Krauss : The most intense part of that use , yes .
Ellson: I pictured it that there 'd be like a building between where all
the driving is going on and like the residential area .
Batzli : Not necessarily.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 14
Ellson : I know but that ' s kind of.
Batzli : If it' s going to be fronting the street . In any event , other than
a couple of typos and I think we should say something about in the
definition of motor fuel station and . . .gas� purmps we talk about air and oil
dispensing . It' s also required that they collect oil now too if they
dispense it . You may want to look into that. I ' ll listen to what Jim has
to say.
Conrad : Jim, what do you have to say?
Wildermuth: Well , I 'm standing by my guns being basically a free market
advocate . I guess I could find some arguments that this+ agree with some
of the P' s and C' s and X ' s in the little matrix here Paul but I think we
could probably find as many different opinions on that matrix as we have
people here tonight. There' s just one thing that does bother me a little
bit . If we' re going to say that gas pumps have to be 250 feet apart , why
are we going to allow gas pumps and residential parcels to be so close as
100 feet?
Krauss : You ' re getting at two different situations with those setbacks .
The 250 foot separation is to avoid the clustering of , the Council ' s fear
was that you' d have 4 gas dispensing operations on an intersection.
Wildermuth: That would bother me less than seeing a convenience store with
gas pumps within 100 feet of a residence . If they can all survive, fine .
Chances are I don' t think 4 convenience stores onJ4 corners out here in
Chanhassen would survive .
Krauss : I wouldn' t dispute that and we discussed the ,free market taking
control of these things at the Council meeting but they seem to want the
reassurance of having a separation requirement .
Wildermuth : Is that legal?
Krauss : I had the ordinance reviewed by the City Attorney.
Batzli : What' s the difference between this and requiring a mile distance
between contractor ' s yards?
Conrad: It seems the same. Anything else Jim?
Wildermuth : No . Other than the fact that I 'd like to see that 100 feet
increased .
Conrad : The logic for 250 . Does that basically eliminate , what does that
really do? What does 250 feet do to, the typical stereotype is 4 gas
stations on a corner . I don ' t know if we have many corners that that' s
ever going to happen to but what does 250 foot do to let ' s say a typical
intersection where that ' s protential?
Wildermuth: It precludes 4 gas stations .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 15
Krauss : It precludes 4 gas stations .
Conrad : But how many can we have there? Probably kitty corner huh?
Krauss : Even then , probably not because the right-of-way is only 60 to 80
feet wide typically and TH 5 might be up to 100 feet now. You would be
able to have one on the corner and another one down the block is the
closest.
Batzli : Then you put them in a row instead of on the same corner is what
you ' re going to do with this . -
Krauss : They' d be staggered , yeah .
Wildermuth: I just had the feeling that we ought to switch those numbers
around. Put that 100 feet between gas pumps and 250 feet between the gas
pump and a residence .
Batzli : I think just add a 0 after the 100 feet .
Conrad : So that 250 feet basically says only 1 gas station per
intersection . No two gas stations side by side basically distributes gas
stations throughout the buildable zones .
Wildermuth : Is that desireable?
Batzli : I don ' t think gas stations , most gas stations wouldn' t do that .
Nowadays they' ve got all their numbers and they' re going to plug them in
and they' re going to go for the right traffic volumes and everything else .
They' re all franchises and I think you' re going to basically allow a first
come, first serve situation . J
Wildermuth: But convenience store with gas pumps are a lot like car
dealerships. They seem to work better when they' re in close proximity to
one another . There ' s this energy. I don ' t know.
Conrad : I don' t know about that . They do tend to cluster but that' s
typically based on traffic volume and limited number of intersections . I _
really do care about that intersection.
Wildermuth: I really would not have any problem with convenience store
with gas pumps on adjacent corners of an intersection.
Batzli : Well when we both vote against it then , the City Council will know
that won ' t they. -
Conrad : A couple things. Basically I don' t believe in the 250 feet . I
don ' t mind the separation from residential parcels . I think that ' s _
important. I don' t know if 100 is right but I like that in there . I like
your final observation Paul on what ' s appropriate. When you reviewed the
highway business district I think you' re absolutely right there. Back up
to conditional use, I couldn' t accept a conditional use process until
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 16
I knew what the conditions were that we were looking for and I don' t see
them.
Krauss : Mr . Chairman , they' re in there in Section 3 and 4 on page 2.
Conrad : So those are the conditions for the conditional use process?
Krauss : Yes . That plus the general purpose conditions that are applied . . .
Conrad: Have them treat those as conditions .
Krauss : The ordinance is a little difficult to read because it ' s taken out
of context but the sub-heading for those sections relate to conditions .
Conrad : So when a neighborhood came in and complained that something was
too close, what condition are we going to use to guide us? Actually the
condition is they can ' t be within 100 feet period . What is it that ' s going
to tell us that we ' re going to impose 150 foot? What tells us that we can
go up? Not a thing . The 100 foot is the absolute so we really don ' t have
a guideline , on that particular condition we don' t have a guideline to
increase the number of feet between the use . It would be subjective .
Krauss : You may have some ability under general issuance standards to
apply a more severe guideline . If you can justify it based on that
particular site and there' s 12 general issuance standards that would apply
to all CUP ' s that would allow you to do that . On the other hand , you ' ve
- got to be careful to a point. You know, what we' re looking at is
establishing tougher than usual conditions for these types of uses . If
you' re going to go beyond that, you need to have a rationale to support it
based on that particular site orf else you' re being arbitrary and that ' s the
tightrope that has to be walked .
Conrad : Right . I understand that but I don' t understand the conditional
use process . If we have the specifics that we' re looking for right here ,
then what other conditions? What gives us leverage or flexibility to
review the thing and apply a little bit different standards? Those would
be things that would say what the intent of this ordinance is really to
protect the individual neighbor from having a particular nighttime traffic
or whatever and therefore the 150 foot mark might be different . The 100
foot setback zone would be different. I 'm looking for those and I don ' t
see those and typically then we get caught into the fact that this is the
ordinance and that' s what we can apply and therefore I don' t know what the
conditions are that we' re really looking for to have the flexibility. I
don' t want to see stuff that I don' t have control over . As long as you ' ve
got definitions in here for what staff is looking for , I don ' t need to see
it because you can apply those things real clearly and it takes no input on
my part to make sure that you' re applying those specifics .
Batzli : But the conditional use permit process would allow you to reject
it if it didn' t fit in. If 100 feet wasn ' t appropriate , you could reject
the application.
Conrad : Based on what though?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 17
Krauss : The conditional use permit process itself gives you exordinary
latitude. More latitude than you would if it was a permitted use under a
site plan . _
Conrad : Well it sounds arbitrary to me though.
Krauss : It is to an extent but you' ve got general issuance standards here —
and I won' t read all 12 of them but one of them is will be designed ,
constructed , operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance
with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character . Won' t be hazardous to planned
neighboring uses . It goes on and on. It ' s kind of the mom and apple pie
things that give it some discretion.
Conrad : I won' t drag this out . I just basically have a personal
preference. I don ' t want to see something that I really don ' t feel has
some guidelines to it and basically I have a problem. Unless there ' s an
intent statement associated with what we' re really looking for to alter the
conditions , I can ' t do it . Anyway, those are ray comments on this
ordinance. There ' s some good things in here and some things that are maybe _
not my favorite things and I would accept a motion . Annette , these seems
like one. . .
Ellson: I 'm trying to figure out how you 'd say it . . . I move the Planning -
Commission recommend approval of proposed ordinance revision regulating
convenience stores . Would that work?
Conrad : Yeah. Is there a second?
Emmings : I ' ll second it.
Ellson moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code modifying -
zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores , gas stations and
automotive service stations as presented by staff . Ellson and Emmings
voted in favor . Conrad , Batzli and Wildermuth voted in opposition and the
motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3 .
Conrad : Is there another motion?
Ellson: Can you send just a failed motion?
Krauss : Sure . It would help if there could be some statments as to what
the issues were.
Wildermuth : Yeah , why don' t we just state our positions .
Ellson: Do you guys just want to add your 2 cents?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 18
Conrad : We can do that . Is there not another motion that somebody finds
to make this acceptable?
Batzli : I ' ll make a motion and see what happens . I move that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance revisions
regulating convenience stores set forth in the packet dated November 8 ,
1989 as set forth except that the word "on side" shall be deleted and "on
site" shall be inserted there for wherever it is throughout this document.
Oil dispensing and the words "and collection" shall be added . After the
seventh line in the definition of motor fuel station , in Section 3 ,
paragraph 7 , 100 shall be changed to 250. Section 4 , paragraph 6 , 100 feet
shall be changed to 250 .
Conrad : What did you just do Brian?
Batzli : I just changed it so the gas pumps are within 250 feet instead of
100 feet of residential sections .
Conrad : Okay, that was your first one .
Batzli : There were both .
Conrad : Did you make them both 250?
Batzli : Yeah . I think that ' s the only two areas where that is . And as
much as I 'd like to do it , I ' ll leave the 250 foot requirement in there .
Conrad : Is there a second?
Earrings : I ' ll second it .
Ellson : Okay, what ' s the base difference? This residential neighbor part?
Batzli : Basically we ' ve increased the distance that the gas station has to
be away from the residential neighborhoods so that in theory at this point ,
you have to have a mighty big lot. Basically at a 250 foot minimum, you' re
going to have to have at least one parcel , hopefully, between the gas
station and the residential section. 250 foot lot would be mighty big to
comply with all the setbacks .
Conrad: Any other discussion?
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the proposed ordinance revisions regulating convenience stores
set forth in the packet dated November 8 , 1989 as set forth except that the
word "on side" shall be deleted and "on site" shall be inserted there for
wherever it is throughout this document . Oil dispensing and the words "and
collection" shall be added . After the seventh line in the definition of
motor fuel station, in Section 3, paragraph 7 , 100 shall be changed to 250 .
Section 4, paragraph 6, 100 feet shall be changed to 250. Batzli and
Emmings voted in favor . Ellson, Conrad and Wildermuth voted in opposition .
The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 19
Conrad : Is there another motion?
Batzli : What me to take the 250 feet?
Wildermuth : Take the requirement to the gas pumps out of it . . .
Batzli : Between parcels or you just want to take it out completely?
Wildermuth : Right .
Conrad: Is there another motion?
Batzli : Well I ' ll do that .
Conrad : We can send it forward without a positive vote . We don' t have to
compromise.
Emmings : And I don ' t think that ' s a particular bad idea . We already sent
something to the City Council that we thought was alright and they sent it
back with a bunch of directions that Paul ' s taken into account and he ' s
done some more on his own. They' re basically, to me it didn' t do a lot to
send it back here this time. They' re going to wind up, they seem to have
some fairly strong notions on how they want it to be and iftheylike it ,
they' re going to do it and if they don' t , they' re not . I don' t see any
reason to prolong this .
Conrad : Okay. Is there another motion that somebody would like to make or —
should we send this forth with a negative vote and the reasons set forth?
Any motion?
Batzli : Why don' t we send it on with the negative vote .
Conrad: Okay. Those of us who voted negatively for both motions , Jim _
would you detail the reasons that you voted negatively.
Wildermuth: I can live with basically everything in here and I
particularly like the way you cleaned+ up the problem with the zoning Paul
but I 'd like to strike any reference to distances between gas pumps . Other
than that , and I would be+ in favor of increasing distance between gas pumps
and residential residences .
Conrad : My feeling for the reason I voted no was I think the 250 feet is
really restrictive and although I haven' t taken an inventory of the
intersections in town , I do believe that that ' s going to prevent gas
stations from moving in here and therefore in the end I think there will be
a lessening of competition and I don ' t agree with that . I think somebody
could persuade me where if there were opportunities , multi opportunities
for
gas stations to exist I might pay attention but in this particular
case, I don ' t see any way that a couple gas stations could exist on the
same intersection and therefore I don' t believe we ' d have a competitive
situation in Chanhassen. The other thing that I don' t like is a
conditional use process where the conditions aren ' t clearly defined in
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 45
Conrad : I just have a situation where I can stay a few more minutes but I
don' t know that it would do it justice.
Krauss : We could hold it over .
Conrad : I think that' s my preference. So what do we have?
Ermiings : We have number 5 and number 7 . Interim uses .
Conrad : Okay. Is that controverial in anybody' s mind? Will there be a
lot of discussion tonight? I ' ve got some comments on it .
Batzli : I have one comment .
Conrad : Maybe we could try to get the interim uses taken care of tonight
and just hold the one item over .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE REGARDING REVISIONS TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TERMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS .
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Ermings : We ' re going to be amending this one a lot . With every proposal
that comes in, we ' re going to have to do an ordinance amendment which seems
sort of funny to me but maybe it ' s the only thing we can do .
Ellson: It also gives us the chance to say no to them.
Conrad : It solves a particular problem right now. It ' s real incomplete
but on the other hand it does solve a particular problem and I think there
are needs for interim uses . I really don' t mind interim uses at all . I
think that ' s pretty good .
Krauss : And the context of interim rather than temporary is a better one.
Interim implies that something ' s going to happen to change it . Some cities
that have had temporary conditional use permits basically have had ad hoc
changes to the ordinance and so they just keep delaying -when this temporary
use has to disappear .
Conrad : I 'm going to open this up to the public. Is there any input from
the public?
Wildermuth moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Emmings : I already made my comments . I think it ' s something that we need .
It ' s a hole in our ordinance now. We need something to plug it. I 'm not
real happy about it because I think we' re going to be amending it when
something comes up and I don' t like that but I can' t think of any other way
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 46
to do it.
Ellson : The only thing that I thought about and you kind of answered it
was I didn ' t like the idea about it could be extended or something like
that. In other words , this could be tied to something that we 'd see
following or an end. Do you know what I 'm saying? That ' s why I was so
hesitant with the bank . He looked like he had an end but I was just not
sure that it could actually be tied to an ending point I guess .
Krauss : Right and one of the conditions of approval here is that the
applicant has to demonstrate that the date of event that will terminate the _
use can be identified with certainty.
Ellson: Right so that makes it better .
Conrad : I ' ll get out of order here but it implies, there was not a method
for an extension. Now things do change. Zoning change. Land uses change .
Comprehensive plans change so when those changes , I think there may be, I
think there should be a methodology of applying for an extension.
Krauss : There would be . Basically you could come in and ask that the
approval be revalidated based upon� a new set of conditions .
EmrLings : Or just ask for a new permit . If my permit expires on midnight ,
Jnauary 1, 1992, I can come in and say I need a new permit .
Conrad : Okay. Are you comfortable with that?
Ellson: I don ' t like that they can extend it , that ' s for sure. If the
bank comes in .
Emmings : That' s not what he' s saying though. He ' s saying that they'd
have to come back and apply anyway. It ' s kind of the same thing . f
Conrad : It ' s the same thing only different .
Batzli : My problem with this is the same problem I have with the
conditional use permit and that is, it ' s fairly vague as to termination.
The conditional use permit , we really have a hard time trying to decide
whether it ' s terminated or not . This reads fairly clearly that the minute
that the violation occurs it ' s terminated . What normally happens is the
City is you write a letter and you tell them to change it back and then
that doesn ' t happen and then 6 months later you write another letter and
then somebody goes out to visit the site and then you decide whether you' re
going to have a public hearing or not. By this time you don' t know, You ' ve z
allowed the supposedly terminated interim+ use to proceed now for a lengthy
period of time. That ' s really the problem with the conditional use permit
and one that I see here also is that if it said that upon a violation
occuring or coming to the attention of the City, a public hearing will be
held and the City shall vote on whether it' s in violation and it shall be
revoked, I 'd feel a lot better than what ' s there right now personally.
That ' s my only comment . In other words, there ' s a definitive process for
this is what happens and if they rule on it, you ' re vapor fella . That ' s
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 47
what I 'd like to see but I ' ll still vote for it because I think there ' s a
hole that we need to fill .
Wildermuth : I like what you said Brian. I was comfortable with the change
to begin with but then I agree that I think any motion ought to reflect
something like that .
Conrad : I don ' t mind that either . Anything else? The only other thing
that I wrote down here , and I don' t know how to apply it but when you allow
a temporary use , do we want it to meet the intent of the district ' s use or
is that contrary by definition?
Ellson : That ' s a philosophical thing .
Krauss : It ' s not philosophical . It ' s just the discussion that Roger and I
had . My approach would have allowed you to consider anything anywhere but
Roger pointed out some good reasons for not doing that . First of all it
completely undermines the whole intent of structuring an ordinance the way
traditional zoning ordinances are structured . If anything could be allowed
anywhere on a temporary basis , why prohibit it on a permanent basis? Plus
he said that he felt there were some real problems within the context of
the State enabling legislation for how you would regulate something like
that . It also tends , frankly, to lead to arbitrary determinations by
cities that could affect future development and neighborhoods and on and
on .
Conrad : You could make that point . I can make the contrary point . It is
more specific. If you 've got the intent of the district in mind , you do
have some guidelines . That' s again these intent statements that we talk
about all the time are real important. Once you understand the concept
behind an ordinance or a zone , then I don' t have a problems making rulings ,
as arbitrary as they may be because I 'm trying to match that intent
statement so that ' s why, I think I could counter Paul your argument on that
one but it basically, you ' ve persuaded me that we can ' t do this . But it
still hasn' t set the right guidelines. You 've persuaded me we can' t put an
intent in there .
Emmings : Why?
Conrad : Because if it met the intent of the district , it would have been a
permitted use in the first place.
- Emmings : Well what about saying it should be compatible with other uses in
the district because see that will give some guidance too when you come
around to amending . Because you' re going to have to amend the ordinance
just about every time, you ' re going to be able to look at that but I think
- it would be good to have something like that .
Krauss : I asked Roger that exact question again because I had drafted
something that did say compatability and he said well that ' s all taken care
of, as a lot of things are, by when+ he referenced that an interim use has
to meet the standards of the conditional use permit. So when we went back
- to that discussion earlier tonight , the 14 standards of a CUP section that
Planning Commission Meeting •
November 15, 1989 - Page 48
get to mom and apple pie , those all apply here .
Wildermuth: Except that it ' s got some kind of a time limit right?
Krauss : Yeah .
Emmings : I 'm going to make a counter argument to Brian' s point that you
guys all jumped on down there. Rather than trying to figure out a specific -
system for enforcement , the event that triggers enforcement is very
specific here and I think enforcement is just a measure of the will and
determination of the City and the availability of resources and energy and -
commitment and all those things. What happens , and what' s a little bit
different about the CUP than this is with the CUP, first of all it runs
with the land and it ' s embedded a little more than this ever would be
because this has an event or a time that terminates it . With a CUP there ' s
always some interpretation. They say he' s violated a condition of his CUP.
Well , have I really violated it and you get into a big argument over that
and I don' t think you' re going to have those kinds of arguments with the
interim uses just because the ending point is going to be very specific .
Otherwise it will never be allowed in the first place. Then whether or not
the City chooses to enforce it , the tools are certainly there already. So
I don ' t think you have to design the system for enforcement. I don' t think
it will add a thing . If the City doesn ' t have the will to enforce it , it
won' t do it and if it does , it already can so that 'd be the other side of
that one to me .
Conrad : Okay, the one who makes the motion has the power on this one . Who
wants to make the motion?
Emmings : I do . I 'm going to move that the ordinance , amending Chapter 20
of the Chanhassen City Code by adding provisions concerning interim use
permits as presented in the staff report , November 6 , 1989 be approved .
Recommend approval to the City Council . You all know what I mean.
Conrad : Is there a second to that wishy washy motion? -
Batzli : I ' ll second it .
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code by _
adding provisions concerning interim use permits as presented by staff .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Conrad : Do we need a motion to defer the item 7 , which is a public hearing
to the next meeting? We do need that motion?
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to table item 7 , Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend the City Code, Division 6, Site Plan Review to revise
the procedure , expand on development standards and require financial
guarantees for landscaping and other site improvements be tabled until the -
next meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 49
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 1, 1989 as
presented . All voted in favor except Annette Ellson who abstained and the
motion carried .
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Krauss : November 29th we' re going to hold the next special meeting .
Emmings : See no one called . I thought they were going to call around. No
one called me.
Krauss : Were we going to call on this one?
Emmings : That was my understanding . I was a little surprised to see that
in here because thatwasmy recollection . That ' s what it said in the
- Minutes also. That ' s alright. I 'd prefer getting a call though .
Conrad : How many applicants for Dave' s position do we have right now?
Krauss : I think we' re up to about 8 or 9. Would you like to schedule it
for the next meeting?
Conrad : Next meeting , yes .
Krauss : And is the process that you have all of them present here?
Conrad : Yes . Sit outside. We' ll invite them in. We give them 10 minutes
each . 10 or 15. Probably 15. If they' ve been here before, that doesn ' t
take too long .
Ellson : 8 times 15 minutes?
- Conrad : Yeah . That' s 2 hours . They won' t all make it .
Krauss : Why don' t we turn it back a little. To give a little snynopsis of
- themselves? • j
Ellson : I remember when I care through you had questions on the board .
- Conrad : Basically we all ask questions and see. If you think that each
question that we ask is one minute and we have 6 people here , that' s 6
minutes right there and usually at least 6 minutes . Is 10 minutes fair or
- should we keep it at 15 minutes?
Emmings : Well one thing we might do is try to decide ahead of time what
common questions we have for all of them. That would speed things up like
we did that time when we had so many. That was a good system.
Ellson: In other words you' re judging them all on the same questions?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 50 -
Emmings : Well , and then ask them individual questions if you want to .
Conrad : That ' s probably the best way to do it rather than us repeating
them and looking like jerks . So yeah , let ' s bring them in Paul . We ' ll
give them 12 1/2 minutes each.
Emmings : Why are there suddenly 8 when there was only 1 or 2? Is anybody
beating the bushes? Is there any stacking going on here in terms of anybody
interest groups?
Krauss : Not that I 'm aware of.
Ellson : Concerned Citizens for the Future of Chanhassen I bet have one or -
two.
Krauss : We had approximately 3 or 4 based on the notice in the newspaper . _
We had asked our secretary to mail out renotifying past candidates
and I had thought that itwasdone but apparently it wasn ' t so when we
asked her to do it, we got 4 or 5 more.
Conrad : I knew there were some interested people that I was really
surprised didn' t apply. Anything else?
Wildermuth moved , Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 50 p.m . .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Director of Planning -
Prepared by Nann Opheim
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 20
terms of our flexibility and the intent of what we' re trying to do.
Anyway, we ' ll forward this one and see how the City Council wants to deal
with it .
PUBLIC HEARING:
- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXIV, OFF STREET
PARKING AND LOADING, TO PROVIDE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING
REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED BY SITE PLAN REVIEW AND TO REQUIRE ENCLOSED
PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
Public Present :
Dean Johnson - Cenvesco
Hal Pierce - Architect , Design Resource Group
- Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
Dean Johnson: Obviously we ' ve been in front of each other before . I have
a project that you know this does affect . I guess you know the part of the
change that I 'd like to talk to is the double attached garage with the
double , 2 parking stalls per multi-family unit. I guess the way in which
I 'd like to talk about it is in the factofaffordable housing . We feel
that in Chanhassen you have designated land R-12. The different multiple
family zonings . Some of the reasons for doing this I 'm sure in your minds
are for affordable housing . We also feel there is a market for it in here.
Obviously I wouldn' t have been in front of you with the PUD in the R-12
zoning if I didn' t feel that there was a market for it . Just thinking of
the new businesses that are coming in with Rosemount and McGlynn Bakeries
and now I believe there' s another one that you talked about earlier that ' s
coming in on the industrial site over there. You' re going to be bringing a
lot of people in with this and these people don' t all make $40, 000. 00 a
year to afford a single family house or $35, 000. 00 a year to afford an
upscale multi-family house. I guess I want to get into those types of
- things here so you know when you do this and you raise this , that you
realize what' s happening and what you' re doing to the construction and what
you' re doing to a segment of the population that now works here in
Chanhassen or now is going to work here in Chanhassen. I guess we should
talk about the product a little bit . With the ordinances you have, when we
chose a building to put on this site and as others are going to do after
me, we chose a unit where the garage was partially tucked under the unit .
-- When you have your 35% impervious surface restriction that you do have, it
kind of requires that . If the garage is now outside , even if it ' s just
attached like a house is off to the side of the house, you have not only
the house area that you' re dealing with but you' re having a garage area .
So when you throw a 35% impervious surface , it' s hard to get within that
area with your design unless you ' re going in lower density. If you ' re
going to take the R-12 in the case that I have and you' re going to start
doing those types of things, it means your density is going down . If your
density goes down, the price per units going to have to go up because your
ground costs are there and your development costs are there and all the
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 21
types of things that come with developing go along . We were also, and
I know I ' ve said this 100 times to you, is that we were trying to, in this
particular project and in any project that anybody' s going to bring in
affordable housing , is try to give alternative to rents . We found in
study of this and doing what a developer does to see if a project' s
feasible, that we were given an alternative for people instead of renting .
We found that we could build this unit and it would be slightly more per
month to own the unit but by the time you got the tax incentives figured
out and the homesteading all the other things , that it was actually
considerably less . We feel that the double car garage standard is going to
make both townhouses and especially apartments just cost ineffective. I
guess at this time I know an architect by the name of Hal Pierce, I 'm going
to introduce here and I 'd like him as an architect to talk about the
different types of things that are going to be required in the construction _
and the types of costs that you' re going to get into for doing this and I 'd
like him to show you what his thoughts are and what types of impacts
they' re going to have on that market and how it ' s going to affect the
prices in that market . So if I may, I 'd like to introduce him now and
then I 'd like to talk after that if that ' s okay.
Hal Pierce: I 'm Hal Pierce. I 'm an architect with Design Resource Group. -
I 'm also on the Planning Commission in Plymouth so I sympathize with your
dealing with some things tonight . What I would like to talk about tonight
is basically how it affects the design of the building from the architects _
point of view and the cost and basically we' re looking at, there' s 2 types
of units . One that Dean has proposed and another is the typical type of a
multi-family unit . If I could use your overhead . Basically this is the
typical tuck under type townhouse unit . Basically with single car garage , -
we' re at about 763 square feet. To add a double car garage in this type of
a design would add about 38% increased to the size of ,the ground cover and
add probably $10, 000. 00 to $15, 000. 00 to the price of the unit. Because of _
the tuck under , not only the garage is bigger but also because of the
configuration , the unit would have to get bigger also. Again, there could
be some other designs and this has been a very cost effective type of
housing design. The other type of design, I think they all 3 . . .are typical -
3 story tuck under garage. I 'd say 90%% of the multi-family is built like
this . 3 floors, a garage is underneath the units . Usually it' s precast
concrete for the 3 hour fire barrier and we go wood frame on top of that .
Now these units that I 'm using are just a very standard , typical unit with
the building with around 750 square feet for a 1 bedroom, abocit 1, 000
square feet . . . Take a look at the parking and garage and I ' ve kind of
dashed in where the units would go above it . Basically a 1 bedroom
apartment would cover about 2 1/2 spaces of parking below and a 2 bedroom
would cover about 3 1/2 spaces . Now with 3 floors , we've got with the 2
units , that ' s 6 spaces so we' ve got 6 parking spaces we have under the -
units . We have 6 parking spaces , this comes out 1 to 1. To increase this
to what your ordinance standards propose , we 'd have to go 2 spaces for the
1 bedroom unit and provide 9 parking spaces . The only way we could do this -
is basically eliminate the top floor and go to a 2 story apartment building
which would then increase the ground cover like I say to get the density
that is allowed in this zone or we could enlarge the units of course and
make those luxury units so we cover more garage space. We could attach the
garages above the ground . I ' ve only known of one that ' s done this and it
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 22
isn ' t very handsome building . It makes some very large above the ground
garages if they have to be attached or maybe go to a 2 story underground
parking garage which I haven ' t seen done but I know it 'd be very, very cost
ineffective. So what I tried to do with some of the actual physical
restraints would be on the typical types of buildings that are being built
today. Are there any questions?
Conrad : Yeah , go back through this particular one again.
Ellson: Did you say if we had a 1 bedroom, you could have a 1 car garage?
Krauss : That ' s true . We did consider Mr . Pierce ' s comments on this and
there ' s probably some validity to it. Yes , 1 bedroom only does require
1 stall , however it takes up a smaller area so there ' s more of them and
conceiveably there could be a problem in cramming enough stalls under the
building unless the building footprint was enlarged because you had some
amenity room or something else that pushed out the first floor larger than
just the footprint that was required for the apartments themselves .
Hal Pierce: Just in response to that. I haven' t really gone into some of
the other things that go into . . .storage possibly, also trash compactor and
elevator . Mechanical rooms and stuff and also access with garage doors
usually take 2 spaces at each end . But usually it averages out with the
common spaces , we usually get a 1 to 1 ratio.
Emmings : Did you say that you' re on the Planning Commission in?
Hal Pierce: In Plymouth, yes .
Emmings : What does Plymouth do with this issue?
Hal Pierce: Plymouth has a 1 parking stall and 1/2 parking stall outside
at the present time for a multi-family which would be an R-4 zone.
Emmings: What about do you have something like an R-12?
Hal Pierce : Well that ' s what would be our R-4 zone .
Emmings : Okay, and there you have 1 enclosed and . . .
Hal Pierce : And 1/2 parking stall outside. So that ' s 1 1/2. They like to
see more but that ' s their number . I usually try to design so there' s
probably 1 . 7 , 1. 8 parking spaces . One inside and over the minimum because
sometimes , depending on how many 2 bedroom apartments there are. They
don' t have , 2 bedroom apartments require 2. I have worked in some
communities where they require 2 for a 3 bedroom apartment but that would
actually, if we looked at a 3 bedroom, we'd add one more parking space .
Emmings : The thing that interested me about this is whether you have 1
bedroom, 2 bedrooms or 3 bedrooms , if you have a married couple that are
each , or the man and the wife are both working , you've got the same number
of cars regardless of the number of bedrooms . Why would we relate it to
bedrooms at all?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 23
Krauss : There are statistics that demonstrate that the number of bodies
per unit is related somewhat to the size of the unit.
Emmings : But if it ' s parents and children , the children aren' t driving for _
the first 16 years or whatever .
Ellson : Well even if it was parents and children that ' s 2 bedrooms , that ' s
definitely 2 cars but 1 car could especially a lower price place could be
easily bel a single person that couldn ' t afford a house unless they were
married so they' re buying something like this . I would think there ' s a
higher probability of an individual in a lower priced home than vice versa . -
I would just think there'd be more of a chance of it but you ' re right. If
there ' s a couple, there ' s probably 2. f
Batzli : To really ruin their statistics , I think I lived in that apartment
building when I first got married and we had 3 cars .
Hal Pierce : I guess it comes down to, in trying to get that amount of
parking on the site and still stay within your 35% impervious surface area .
Krauss : I think there really is an issue there with the hard surface
coverage but the issue may relate more to the hard surface coverage
requirement than it does to the parking requirement . We haven' t come to
you with any kind of proposals to change it but based on a lot of
ordinances that I ' ve worked with , 35% hard surface coverage is pretty
tight . That ' s a very tough standard to adhere to. Possibly that warrants
some reassessment . But you may have a cart leading the horse type of
situation here. What do you think is a valid design standard and then can -
vou build that within the ordinance . I think Your decision should first be
is what ' s the valid design standard in terms of the number of stalls that
should be required and then if the ordinance needs changing to accommodate _
that , then consider that.
Batzli : I think the issue is really, if in fact that district is designed
to have a higher density and lower cost housing, the question is really
then what is the change+ in the affordability of that housing due to what
we' re requiring here tonight . We' re jacking up the price $10, 000. 00 per
unit. Maybe that ' s a value judgment we make. If we' re talking about
doubling the price of the developments by doing this , then maybe it ' s
something we don ' t want to do but that ' s really their paint is that by
doing this , we are pricing the type of housing that we are supposedly
promoting in the district out of the range of the people that would buy it . -
Ellson: Or change the hard surface or whatever .
Krauss : Well there' s nothing though as far as the density relates to
value. We have a developer here that wants to build to the low end of the
market segment and that ' s fine but you could have another developer before _
you that was working to hit another segment and it ' s not the same kind of
requirement .
Emmings : We have the townhouses we approved just before Cenvesco first
came in down here and they were, all of their units had 2 car garages and
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 24
they just did that so that obviously was directed at a different segment of
the market I suppose.
Krauss : In the not too distant past I worked on a number of townhouse
projects that were designed to sell for $300 , 000. 00 a piece and apartments
that rent for $1 , 200. 00 and up. Now I don ' t know if they' re going to ever
see that in Chanhassen but you can see different market segments and that ' s
not related to the density..
Conrad : Well you' re coming on impervious surface . In the more dense
districts, the+higher density districts , a 35% impervious surface right?
65% hard is allowed .
Krauss : No . You' ve got a 35% hard surface coverage .
Conrad : In R-12?
Krauss : Yes .
Emmings : That ' s what they' ve been struggling against with this project on
top of the hill . That was my understanding .
Krauss : In our recent analysis of the Cenvesco project , you had a lot of
the lots at 34% , 34 . 5% .
Conrad : 34 what? Coverage or open?
Emmings : Impervious. 34 impervious . Hard .
- Conrad : In residential for sure we ' re talking 35% impervious .
Krauss : The maximum lot coverage is 35% so you' re looking at 65% green
area . Which if you think that you' ve already got setback requirements that
create open area . That you ' ve got wetland protection that creates open
space . You' ve got drainage that creates open space . You' ve got oftentimes
steep gradings that preserve open space . That doesn' t leave a whole lot to
- work with . It ' s another issue than what we' re discussing tonight but it ' s
a tough standard.
Conrad : That' s business that we' re allowing 70% or 65% coverage right?
Krauss: Industrial , yeah.
Conrad : Industrial , commecial goes up to that? Okay. Anything
residential is the opposite? Okay. Any other comments? Do you want to
come back up?
Dean Johnson: You guys touched a lot on what I was having trouble
designing with that building and a lot of the reason. It is hard to stay
within the 35% and build affordable housing trying to stay within that
thing . If you did increase the impervious surface, then there' s more
flexibility with design. It ' s easier to give things and still build
affordable housing so I agree wholeheartedly with Paul there. I guess you
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 25
know where I 'd like to go and I 'm going to use the projector here some, if —
I may, is get into showing you the types of people that you have working
here. Showing you what types of qualifying it take to get these and show
that some of these people are making fairly good money. I 'd like to show, _
I ' ve got a lot of statistics on single parent families . On single people .
I have a project that I did in Plymouth that I 'd like to show you what the
numbers actually turned out on because it ' s a finished product in Plymouth
so if I may.
Conrad : Sure , go ahead .
Dean Johnson : The first one here has to talk about occupations in the
metropolitan area . These are the different kinds of income that you see in
the metropolitan area .
Eramings: Where are the developers?
•
Dean Johnson : They' re so far off the scale Steve, you can ' t see them.
Emmings : Which end?
Dean Johnson : The low end of course. These numbers , just to give you some
qualification, come from Minnesota Salary Survey 1989 . These same numbers ,
now if I can find the brochure, there' s a brochure that ' s put out . I don ' t
believe it ' s by the City of Chanhassen but it is put out for the City of
Chanhassen by the Minnesota Department of Human Resources is it? Economic
Development. These same numbers are in that pamphlet that was put out .
The items such as secretary, 2, second division. Punch press operator . —•
Electronics assembly. Welder . Machinist . Tool and die maker . Those were
the items we took directly from that brochure that was put out for
Chanhassen . The reason I� wanted to do it is I wanted 'to show you what
kinds of wages they make and what type of annual wage that works out to.
I 'd like to talk a little bit about the median range in Carver County. The
median wage in Carver County is $21, 112. 00. Median wage in Minneapolis-
St. Paul is $22, 385 . 00. These are from again this survey and the U. S .
Census Bureau. I 'd like to also show you this transparency. A lot of this
data came from the Metropolitan Council . This is a . . .Metropolitan Council .
It shows that 40% of the people are upper income. I believe on that they -
consider upper income over $27, 000. 00 . The numbers are , they use the
dollar numbers from 1979 to 1980 because that's when the. last- census was
taken. What they' ve done for this circle is to analyze what cost of living
increases and that are and this . . . is what they' re projecting , what the Met
Council is projecting from 1986 to 1995 . So what ' s happening is 40% of the
people have incomes that can afford single family houses . The other 60% of
the people cannot afford them or would have a hard time affording them.
I 'd like to go to then, let' s see here. I 'd like to go to what it would
take to qualify for the units I have before you. My particular units .
These are the 2 bedroom, single car garages we were anticipating. We ' ve _
gotten our bids and these numbers again you've heard before . We were
expecting to sell these at $55, 000. 00. Now if we were to put a double car
garage on it , it turns out I ' ve estimated a little low. Hal has figured
that they'd be in a range from $10, 000. 00 more up to possibly $15, 000. 00
more depending on the style of unit . Let ' s take the lower end . If you up
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 26
it to $65, 000 . 00, my price range, qualifying income for the single car
garage would need $26,400. 00. Principle and interest payment would be
$501 . 00. Principle, interest , taxes and insurance would be $638 . 00. What
you would be doing if you required the double car is you 'd be requiring
$10,000. 00 more against some in units . Some in the double car itself. If
you ' re putting a double car garage on a unit and you' re doing it in a
townhouse , you have to attach it somewhere. You ' re going to end up having
to spread the unit on just to even find a place to put that double car
garage on that so you' re going to gain in the living space and in the
garage but you may require the qualifying income to be up to $30, 556 . 00 and
principle and interest $598 . 00 and PITI of $738. 00. Our 3 bedroom unit
that we had anticipated was $68 , 900 . 00 and these people would need to
qualify at $31 , 442 . 00. Obviously we' re up over median incomes already.
Now we' re up over what the average person can take .
Batzli : When you ' re qualifying , what are you doing? Paying 10o down?
Dean Johnson: 10% down and also figuring in a car payment because most
everybody coming in to buy one of these are going to , and I guess I use car
payment somewhat loosely. They' re going to have some long term debt
probably along the way so we added in some long term debt . Just general
experience in business tells you that every time you qualify, somebody has
one type of loan or another . Most often a+ car .
Emmings : So to the extent that you' ve got , these are all examples of types
of units that you planned into Oak View.
Dean Johnson : These are what I planned into Oak View.
Emmings : And all these are aimed at the 40% .
Dean Johnson : No . Some of them are . The $26, 000. 00 is in the median .
Ertmings : So it was $27 , 000. 00?
Dean Johnson : That was $27 , 000. 00 and then usually what happens is you do
have some down money so you do pick up some of the+ low. . . We realize we' re
not Section 8 housing . I 'm not trying to say that we' re Section 8 housing .
What I am trying to say is we do pick up a category of that housing with
this project . I guess at this point I ' d like to show you what happened
when we went into the Creekside project. I don't know, were you people out
at the Creekside project? Did you people go out there?
Ellson: In Plymouth?
Dean Johnson : Yeah . •
Ellson: I think we did .
Dean Johnson: This is what happened when I sold these units . This is from
going back through the files and determining who we sold to . We sold to
47% married people. I didn ' t go back and actually get ages in this . We
sold to an awful lot of elderly. We sold to an awful lot of just starting
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 27
out single couples . Not a lot of inbetweens . It was either end of the
spectrum was more empty nesters or just starting out. To give you an idea
of that , in the married people, only 4 families had children . There was 5
children total . One family had 2 children and the others each had 1 child
so 5 children went in with that and that' s why I say there was such a wide
range. Either they hadn' t started having children or left .
Emmings : How many units there?
Dean Johnson : 128 . So we ' ve got a fairly good sampling . We ' ve got 4
years of selling . 22% were single people male. To give you an idea of
children again . Of the 22% there , 4 of those had children , 1 each so there
were 4 children generated by those people. The remaining was made up of
31% of single female households . Of the single female households , we had -
10 that had children , 2 had 2 so we gained 12 children there. So we ended
up with a total of about 21 children in 128 units in this particular
project. These sold in a price range when they started out from $55, 200. 00
up to $60, 000 . 00 when they started out and ended up in the 60 ' s range, in
the upper 60 ' s by the time the 4 years had lapsed and building costs had
gone up and the different things that happened . I guess the conclusion I 'm
drawing from this is well , maybe we should go to one other transparency.
Not to transparency you to death but this is a transparency that was again
this was out of the Met Council ' s book. According to the Met Council in
the next years , single parent households , not single people but single _
parent households is going to be 18% of our people that are going to go
into these types of units . I guess what I 'm saying to you is you' re going
to end up with a large influx of people that divorced or whatever the
reason is , have a child or 2 but there ' s only 1 parent . Consequently the
need for 2 garages is going to be a burden to them. They' re going to need
the 2 bedrooms but they' re really not going to need that extra garage . The
other thing is in showing you at the Creekside project is we had single
females and single males buying into this project . Most of them wanted the
extra bedroom for like an office . What were some of the other reasons that
were used in that case? Sometimes a guest bedroom. Sometimes an extra den
or a place to store things . They wanted that but they didn' t really need
the garage . Okay? So you ' re going to get those types of people that come
into this thing . I guess at this point I feel that I ' ve shown you that
there are going to be people that are going to go into those 1 story units -
that are going to end up you know being in that price range that you know
to cut all 2 bedroom, 1 car garages is going to be a burden to these
people. I guess from there what I 'd like to do if I may is go into what we _
found when we searched through Chanhassen for availability. We went to the
multi listing computers. This is the 1989, it ' s a little small but
everything that was bought and sold and listed through MLS . This does not
represent every house sold but in other words , most builders do not put -
every house they build on MLS . If they sold it to a client , there' s no
reason to put it up for sale so it doesn ' t make this . This is some new
houses and then some used houses . As you can see in the housing end , the -
single family homes , you have one house that ' s in an affordable range or in
a range where these people can afford it . $54 , 000. 00. The house was built
in 1930 and it ' s a rambler on Hickory Avenue . I 'm not sure where that is _
but the majority of your houses are up in the $90 , 000 . 00 range and more.
When you get into multi-family homes, . . . 54 ,000. 00. The lowest is
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 28
$64, 900. 00 and then it automatically goes up into the 70 ' s and 80 ' s and so
again, you ' re that step above . When you talk about the other project that
you approved before we came in, you ' re talking about South Lotus . I know
the gentleman that' s developing that . I ' ve known him for a couple of
years . He is building to a little upscale market than I am. In his market
I would go to a 2 cat garage also but he is going towards that market. He
keeps bringing himself out of the affordable housing range and going to a
little more upscale townhouse. So I guess what I 'm saying to you is with
these, the availability of this house in this price range is next to none .
You don' t really have affordable housing . I think another point that I 'd
like to bring up, I don' t know how many of you ever read the Council report
when I did go in front of the Council for the PUD but at that point Jay
Johnson relayed a story about a Korean family that through his church he
was trying to place in Chanhassen and he made the statement that he found
absolutely no housing that this Korean family could go into in Chanhassen .
None of any kind and I know that ' s in the Minutes so if you want to go back
through and read that . I know that he has a personal thing with it or
personal contact with it . I guess the other thing is when we get into
rental property because so far all I ' ve been talking about is townhouses .
In Chanhassen right now as of 8-89, August of ' 89 , this comes from the
apartment guide . The organization called the Apartment Guide . Of the 354
units that you have that rent in Chanhassen, you only have a vacancy rate
of 6. 2% . 22 units is all that was vacant at that point . I believe also
that in your rental units , I don' t believe any of them have attached
garages . In fact some of them I don' t believe have garages at all and I
don ' t believe any of them are attached. None of them are 2 car garages so
right at the moment you don' t have any of that and you' ve got an occupancy
rate or a vacancy rate of only 6 . 2% . JYou could stand of that type of unit .
In other words , low end unit . When you have a vacancy rate of that little
at that time of the year . That shows to me and to other people that are
knowledgeable that there is a need for that type of housing . I guess I was
going to read some excerpts out of the housing guide that the Met Council ,
it ' s part of this booklet right here . Housing and Development Guide . I 'm
assuming you people have this . If you want, I certainly can give you a
copy of it or see that you get one.+ It talks about affordable housing in a
number of places and I guess I don' t want to read the whole thing . I think
this should be read before you review this thing because some of the things
in here it does . . .are being done in Chanhassen and it might be good ideas
that you do want to do . But a couple of the things I will read . One of
them deals , it says several policies deal with ways local governments and
developers can facilitate production of affordable housing . They recommend
modifying zoning ordinances for housing size, lot sizes and garages . Then
we get farther back in this thing where it talks about ways to do
affordable housing . It says the policy plan. The main heading is housing
affordability. In that on page 13 it says eliminating garages . A garage
can add several thousand dollars to the cost of a house. Many people
consider one a necessity but garages are not essential for basic living
needs. Eliminating a garage can substantially reduce the price of a house .
Market demand should dictate whether garages are constructed . These with
other comments on here you might want to look over . I guess the last thing
that I want to do is , well . . . transparency here is where Chanhassen falls in
affordability. Some of these have, these are alternative types of houses
other than single family. What do these people have? Do they have other
Planning Cornission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 29
alternatives for this? Chanhassen has only 23 . 8% of it' s housing is
alternatives . As you can see the goal that' s set up by the Met Council ,
they would like to see 41% so the Met Council would like to see an increase
in this so it has recommended an increase. I guess for conclusion one,
I guess I feel that in Chanhassen there is a need for affordable housing
that more could be done and there could be more affordable housing . Two ,
you would be reducing , if not eliminating , affordable housing in going to
these garages . You'd be adding $10, 000. 00 minimum cost a townhome unit
which is the means in which you can get affordable housing and you ' re
certainly not going to get it in large lots and single family homes so your
multi-family method of doing it is about the only way open to you. Three, -
you are cutting out a large group, well again these are all kind of parts
together . There ' s a large group of people that can ' t afford housing that
right now the housing is not being planned for or allowed for . With this
type of restrictions it would make it even harder . Again , getting back to
you know the public that you are serving is, I 'm not saying that you ' re not
trying to think of affordable housing but there ' s a large portionofthe
public that is not being served that could be looked at. I guess the fact -
of going to the garages would again stop anybody from being able to build
on R-12 unless it was in the luxury and larger category. You wouldn ' t be
able to use your R-12 for affordable housing sites which, not that that' s
the only reason for R-12 but it certainly is one of the reasons for R-12.
I guess if you were to ask me for recommendations, obviously I 'm a little
impartial here so I don' t know how much weight you put to what I say but in
looking at it as a person as well as a developer , if you change apartments
to having 2 car garages , you ' re going to force it to only be luxury
apartments . I think that other communities have probably thought of what
you' re thinking of now and not gone to it. I can' t imagine that parking —
issues with apartment buildings is for the first time being brought up in
Chanhassen. Every community that I ' ve ever known has struggled with
outside parking in apartments and the junkiness that can somewhat cause and _
towing the cars away and all that type of stuff . I 'm sure that they' ve
thought about having more underground parking , more enclosed parking but
realized that the cost effectiveness would just stop that and you'd lose
that flexibility of even being able to build anything but a luxury
apartments. And as far as the multi-family townhouse type, I guess my
recommendation is that if you need to raise it , not that I 'm saying it
needs to be raised but if you need to raise it , 2 is a bit steep because
there are those people that do not need that extra stall which you would be
putting a burden on. Maybe the alternative is to go to a 1 1/2 stall .
Require half the project to be 1 car garages and the other hand to be 2 car
garages. I think there' s a lot of basis for that and I think there ' s some
good thought in that . If you see a need for doing it , don' t across the
board do it because you are going to be hurting some people and causing
them to bear an unfair burden . I guess that ' s all I have .
Emrmings : Can I ask you a question Dean? Getting back to your project over
here, we saw on the graphic 2 and 3 bedroom units . Did you have 1 bedroom _
units in that? Any at all?
Dean Johnson : No but I think I ' ll have to admit , after doing some of this ,
some of this surprised me and I think there is some room for 1 bedrooms . `-
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 30
Emmings : In Plymouth in that development , were there any 1 bedroom
apartments in that or townhomes?
Dean Johnson : In Plymouth , they were all 2 bedroom. There were no 3
bedroom. They were all 2 bedroom. Oh , we had one unit that had a 5 course
basement in it and in there You could finish a third bedroom, that ' s right
but the basic unit was 2 bedroom.
Ellson : Didn' t some of them have 2 car garages in Plymouth? I thought
I remembered seeing 2 car garages .
Emmings : Some of them do here too .
Ellson: It ' s been a while but I don' t think so .
Conrad : Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public
hearing?
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Conrad : Okay folks , we ' re reviewing the whole ordinance and it ' s more than
multi-family and parking spaces issue and it' s not a Cenvensco issue. It' s
a real broader issue and some interesting thoughts . Jim, we ' re going to
start down with you .
Wildermuth : Dean , you did a nice job in your presentation . I guess I
started after reading this packet last night , I thought that 2 garages
stalls per unit was a desireable thing but at this point I 'm thinking
something less than 2 with an average blended figure df 1. 6 or 1 . 7 or
something like that might be appropriate . As far as the standards are
concerned, I don ' t know where you dredged these up Paul but they look good .
Batzli : Can we get the drawings in the ordinance too?
Krauss : I can put more of them in. I ' ll be the first to admit that
ordinances are typically plagerized from one another and I plagerized
heavily on one that I wrote a few years ago.
Wildermuth : The other thing I liked about your proposal Paul was it' s
pretty broad. It looks at not just residential or apartment construction
but it ' s pretty comprehensive except parking requirements in general .
That' s all I have.
Batzli : In general , I agree mainly with what Jim said . Not knowing really
how many parking spots are adequate for any given activity, obviously we' re
looking to you Paul for guidance and I don' t know whether� 2 is too many or
1 1/2 is enough. It' s worked for Plymouth . Maybe that would work here. I
don ' t think that we should necessarily impose some heavy burden .
Hal Pierce: 1 1/2 total . One parks in the drive. . .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 31
Batzli : Right . 1 1/2 total parking spots for each unit . But the point
being that I don ' t know if 2 is actually required or needed. I don ' t know
what the statistics really say whether how many people have 2 cats and are
they going to load up their garage with junk because there ' s no place to
store stuff so they end up putting their one car outside . I think that was
the original intent of why we started looking at having larger garages
because of the storage problem. They' re going to put their snowmobiles and
whatever in their garage. Suddenly they' re going to have their car in the
driveway and then if they' ve got 2y cats , they' ve got 1 out in the street .
I think it kind of escalated from there and I don ' t know necessarily
exactly anymore what the problem is that we' re trying to solve to be quite
honest with you. If it takes a 2 car garage , then I 'm in favor of a 2 car
garage and I+don ' t know any better if that ' s what it takes or if that ' s not
what it takes . If it ' s a requirement that you make the garage over sized
and that handles it because then you can put your car in there and the
junk, then it' s all the same to me. I don' t care you know to be quite
honest with you as long as there ' s enough parking so there ' s not a public
safety hazard where everybody' s parking on the street and you can get the -
police cars and the ambulances and fire trucks through. To nye it makes
very little difference. If there' s enough parking so it' s not a public
safety problem and there ' s enough space in the unit that you don ' t end up
with every car parked outside and I think those were the two initial
problems we started to solve and given this ordinance , I trust you
implicitedly that this is what ' s required but he ' s presented things today
and it sounds like Plymouth has a little bit different angle on it and so I -
don't know that I can make up my mind given that information. Comments, I
think you did a really good job . I had 3 minor questions . One was in the
first section, paragraph 2 , it talks about required parking. Loading areas -
shall not be used for storage, display, sales , rental , repair or motor
vehicles or other goods or for the storage of inoperable vehicles of snow.
Wildermuth : Or snow I think it is .
Batzli : Is that inoperable vehicles or snow?
Krauss : Or snow.
Batzli : What' s an inoperable vehicle or snow?
Wildermuth: It ' s for storing snow.
Ellson : It ' s so you don' t just push it there and leave it there.
Batzli : Oh, for the storage of snow. It all becomes clear to me now.
Conrad : Were you born in this area?
Batzli : There' s just too many or ' s in there I guess . That was about the
15th or . Okay, I see where that goes back to. One other thing that I just
thought was really interesting was in the 75 degree angle on page 3. Do
you actually require more space between the 2 curbs than a 90 degree angle?
I tried for the life of me to figure out why you 'd need more space when
you' re parking at an angle then when you' re+ at a 90 degree angle and I ' ll
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 32
trust you there again but I couldn ' t figure that out for the life of me .
Krauss : If you' re looking at me for a good answer for that , in all the
years I ' ve worked with this ordinance , I ' ve seen this standard in other
places . I ' ve never had anybody propose 75 degree angle parking .
Batzli : Well at least there ' s an honest answer . The asterick before the
45-60-70 degree angle .
Krauss : What do they refer to?
Batzli : Yeah , what are those?
Emmings : Is it to put one way aisles? That ' s all I could figure out .
Batzli : Are those one way aisles?
Krauss : Those are one way aisles , Yes .
Batzli : Okay. My final question is , when you measure the stalls , are you
measuring it� like� center line to center line? Stripe center line or how do
they normally measures these things? Do they just do a total square
footage and then divy it up according to the plan that they have?
Krauss : Basically what you do is if you have a parking aisle , you divide
it by 8 1/2 and that ' s the number of stalls you can fit in that aisle .
Batzli : But when you ' re requiring a minimum surface area for each stall ,
that' s how you endupdoing it then is you take the overall area and then
divide it by your number of stalls to see if you have that minimum number
of square footage for each stall?
Krauss : Which section are you . . .
Batzli : Let' s see . I lost it now. Since this is such a fun question, why
don' t we go on and I ' ll find it .
Ellson : I thought it was pretty detailed too . I liked how thorough it
was. I liked the idea that no change of use can be made without coming
back and looking at the parking again. I thought about ,, we' re saying that
they cannot use the parking for any kind of storage. In other words , we ' re
saying we don' t want people to have boats sitting on the side and things
like that and you know, there ' s a fine line. They are an eyesore but there
is very few people in residential neighborhoods that don' t have a boat on
the side of their garage and things like that and yet we' re penalizing
these people even more so to say, go to a A-1 Storage or something because
now we ' re not even going to allow you to do that so I 'm not quite sure that
I 'd want to penalize them more on something like that . I kind of question
that. I don' t think bicycle parking should be a requirement for multi-
family_ type dwelling . I� think that those people will in their garage with
their bikes and I see a bike stand thing at a school and public facilities
and things like that but I don ' t think it should be a requirement for a
home area . What' s the reason behind one way aisles?
Planning Cornission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 33
Krauss : What ' s the reason behind it?
Ellson: Yeah .
Krauss : When you use angled parking in one way aisles , in most cases
except for the 75 degree , it allows you to shoe horn in a parking aisle in
a much narrower space . The reason is that sometimes when you have a site , -
you need to design in one way parking just simply because of how you have
to access it . The bicycle parking , I don ' t have a strong feeling about the
bicycle parking but this ordinance also applies to shopping centers and
everything else . Frankly I don' t have a strong preference for that . You
can require it under a site plan review I would think if you thought it was
necessary in a shopping center .
Ellson : I like the part about you shouldn ' t design any parking to back
into the street. All parking lots shall provide islands for traffic
control . Is that going to be as per determined by staff or something like -
that?
Krauss : Yeah , that will come out during the site plan review procedure .
Ellson: Okay. I also thought that the presentation you had was pretty
nice and it made me feel like Chanhassen is a bunch of snobs . We don ' t
allow anybody in without incomes over x or what have you. I don ' t like
seeing us being something like that . I think that a garage is a must if
you live in Minnesota . I think in some states you can cut back on housing
and things like that because of garages but I don ' t know, people that live
up here, I kind of think it ' s a mandatory type thing . I guess I 'd be open
to persuasion on two things. One, taking ajlook at the impervious surface
percentage. If it would give me the garages that I wanted, I might be able _
to look at something between 1 and 2 parking spaces . The other couple
things were just questions. As I looked through this thing , bowling
alleys , 7 spaces for each lane . That ' s seems like a lot to me. I was just
thinking churches , I said 1 parking space for each 3 seats plus 2 per
classroom.
Krauss : We did not change any of those standards except for the multi-
family. All the other ones are contained in the ordinance now.
Ellson: I ' ve never really had a good look at it until something came in
front of me like that andyI just wondered , well where did that come from?
That ' s everyone driving themselves to one of the bowling alleys . I keep
thinking we' re putting these standards on people that are more than they
need .
Krauss : There' s different ways of getting at that particular one . Bowling
alleys not only have teams showing up that share lanes but they also have
bars and bars generate very high volumes of parking demand .
Batzli : And a league typically will have at least 5 people per lane . At
least 5 cars and then if anybody else shows up you start adding up people.
So on league night you' ve got a.minimum of 5 people per lane.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 34
Ellson : I thought it was really well written and I appreciate the
presentation that we had also. I don' t agree that we need to have, I don ' t
mind the strip garage look . I know one of the things you didn ' t like the
use of a free standing garages but that doesn' t bother my quite as much if
it' s done I guess tastefully or whatever . If the unit is like toward the
street and the garage is in the back or something , isn ' t that similiar to
what is on Kerber right now and that doesn ' t seem to bother me at all . . .
Krauss : Yeah . I differentiate between the low rise type of duplex or
townhouse or quad type of development that has free standing garages and 3
story apartment buildings that have free standing garages . With all due
respect to Plymouth , when you go up on 494 and you see that the multi-
family buildings that have strings of garages up against the freeway and
typically they' re not maintained very well . They tend to look rather
trashy. It depends on the project and it ' s always been a personal kind of
peeve I guess . I ' ve never particularly cared for them. In the years I
worked in Minnetonka , well Minnetonka has a requirement for 2 cars for
multi-family, one of which must be enclosed . Some projects provided a
little more than that because of who they were trying to address and then
we had a visitor parking requirement that we sometimes added to that
outside . But all the multi-family parking , all the large multi-family
buildings , that was required to be underground . f
Ellson : Well those are my comments .
Emmings : I always have trouble , I get a little spacey when I look at
something that ' s this long because it ' s hard to imagine how to apply it
always . It changes completely when you try to apply to any project that
comes in. I like the ordinance because it ' s just huge so it kind of
doubles the size of our ordinance and that really. . . Apart from those
general comments , I 'm going to look at the multi-family because that' s one
I can get my hands around . My comments really are not much different . I
think we seem to have some agreement up here. Like Jim when I read this , I
came in here tonight as a 2 car garage for every unit man and I had , I
think Dean ' s comments kind of opened my eyes tosomeextent . While Dean
talks about affordable housing , he ' s talking really about just kind of a
next small increment down from where we seem to be now according to the
numbers he put on the board . Where Chanhassen has a lot of units available
in the 60 ' s or mid 60 ' s and up and doesn ' t have much below that. He ' s
really addressing a population that ' s between 55 and 65 but I guess the one
thing he put up that really impressed me is that over 50% of the units in
his development in Plymouth were purchased by single people. I think that
is , that was very meaningful to me . I think that ' s an important market
that probably that $10, 000 . 00 in difference might mean a great deal to . I
don' t know. So I guess I would be inclined on this to do something like,
to say something like 50% of the units . Or no more than 50% of the units
can have .
Ellson : Single car .
Enmiings : Garage. See and I think part of the problem to me here is that
these places , they are cutting some corners in order to get them down to
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 35
the price range they want to sell to and they don ' t have basements and I
think Brian mentioned this . They don' t have+ the basements and they don' t
have the storage places and the storage has to be somewhere or it ends up
in the garage and everybody winds up parking outside but I think if we' re
careful , and where I would+ in particular be willing to maybe look at the
impervious surface thing is on the visitor parking. Or maybe it ' s not even
visitor parking . Maybe it' s extra parking that ' s outside but I don ' t think
there' s anything particularly bad in Minnesota about parking outside . I
think there should be one enclosed garage. There' s no question about that
but if there ' s a second car , I guess I don ' t mind if it' s outside. I know
in my own neighborhood there are a number of homes , just as I drive down
the street that I have to drive down to get down to my house, with double
car garages where the garage is entirely full of things and not one car can
get in there. I think it' s a very common snydrome and I don' t know why. I
think it happens everywhere . I don ' t think it will just happen in this
segment of the market . I think it kind of happens everywhere but if in
these developments there were adequate extra outdoor parking to account for
visitors and to account for a place where these cars can go so they' re not -
just on the streets . I don ' t like them on the streets . I don ' t think they
should be there . I think they should be in the garage , in front of the
garage or in an extra parking . Some kind of an overflow parking area .
That would satisfy me.
Batzli : Let ' s say you included your no more than 50%% has less than 2
stalls? 2 enclosed . Something like that right?
Ernings : Whatever the number is .
Batzli : Then are you also going to impose a minimum of for instance . . . or
something like that for the ones that merely have a single enclosed garage?
Emmings : You know when they bring them in here, they count the space in
front of the garage as a parking space. The driveway that goes into the
garage as a parking space so they always , I know for example when Dean
presented his project he said each one has 2 places to park. If it ' s a
single car garage , it has 2 and if it ' s a double car garage it counts as
just 4 so I don ' t know what we' re counting exactly. When you say 1 1/2.
Everyone' s , even if it' s a single car garage , it ' s already got 2� so I don ' t -
know what the 1 1/2 means . Unless you ' re not going to count that space .
Batzli : Well that' s the question . Are you comfortable counting that space _
and then merely having like for instance, not to base the whole ordinance
on his project but merely have 3 or 4 other spots per unit seemingly for
overflow parking if you will . In other words , for those spots where if the
spot in front of the garage is filled , where do you park? Do you have
these limited number of spaces available?
Emmings : Yeah , I don ' t know and maybe you'd say if you have a 2 car
garage, for every single car unit you ' ve got to have at least 1 overflow
parking place somewhere else or something like that . I don' t know.
There ' s probably 100 ways to do it but like I say, if I was going to get
adequate extra parking and visitor parking , I ' d be willing to look at
impervious surface. I wouldn' t be willing to look at impervious surface to
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 36
put up a garage I don' t think . A strict garage or something like that
because I 'd rather encourage people to park in their garages in the units .
If they want to battle the weather and scrape the windshield like Ladd
likes to, hey, more power to them.
Batzli : If in fact I think if the spots in front of the garage are really
parkable, then I kind of like your idea of having a minimum number of
additional parking spots based on single car garages or something like
that. That would make some sense then .
Emmings : That ' s all I 've got .
Conrad : Okay. The general standards Paul in this ordinance , I guess some
of the things do fly out like the bike rack, number 5. I feel it does have
a place in commercial but it doesn' t have a place in residential as far as
I 'm concerned so do we need, well I guess what would you recommend on
that? What would you recommend? And I 'm just talking for myself now. I
don' t know what the other Planning Commissioners are thinking but I do
think there should be some standards for commercial and downtown but I 'm
not sure I really want to apply them any place else so if that were the
case , what wouldyousay we should do with that standard? Take it out of
the general conditions?
Krauss : I wouldn' t be opposed to deleting it entirely and if we ever felt
that a bike rack was needed , just . . .
Conrad : Well , Market Square.
Krauss : That would be , and unfortunately we didn ' t do it there .
Conrad : That ' s right and that' s a mistake .
Krauss : The alternative would be to say that this only applies to
commercial or retail developments over 15, 000 square feet in size .
_ Conrad : On the other side of things , I think the retailers who move in
there will want to have bike racks so whether we. . .
Ellson : I think so too . Even a Dairy Queen would like . . .
•
Conrad : We don' t need an ordinance to tell them stuff that they' re going
to do .
Batzli : But they didn' t design in where they could put it conveniently.
Just in the parking lot somewhere.
Conrad : I ' d be real tempted to delete that in total . When you build a
project , there' s a lot of factors that go into the cost. You' ve got land .
You' ve got building . You' ve got profits and you ' ve got amenities and I
guess some of the things , as you set standards for how we build here . . .
problems that we ' ve seen other places or problems that we ' ve seen in
Chanhassen. I don ' t know that the $10, 000. 00 is the additional cost to a
unit. I don' t think that' s an accurate number but obviously it is going to
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 37
cost something . I guess I would change what I see in front of me however
and Steve, I 'm really not persuaded on the impervious surface issue. I
still think as you cram more people into less space , you still need areas
to be for people so I guess I don' t know if I can solve personally the
problem that way but I can relate to the number of enclosed parking spaces
that we have and I think rather than the 2 that the ordinance has, I
believe I need to accomplish 2 things . One, to have a place , inside place
to store a car and stuff and I don ' t know how to do the stuff. Unless we
have a building standard that requires basements and storage areas . That ' s
another way to solve some of our problems . It ' s not in front of us tonight
and it' s going to be hard to form a linkage between storage and this issue •
but it is a fact and it' s something that has to be taken care of. I can' t
get my car in my garage because I ' ve got junk in it . That ' s a fact . I
just don' t have+ enough space. But, the bottom line is , I think we should ,
I would sure be amenable to reducing the enclosed parking to 1. 5 versus the
2. I don' t believe we ' re a singles haven based on the research that I ' ve
seen and I ' ve seen a lot of data on Chanhassen . I don ' t think we ' re maybe
the same type of singles community. It ' s a pretty family oriented . Those
charts aren ' t Chanhassen . I ' ll guarantee you that .
Emmings : They may not be today but what about tomorrow?
Conrad : Well , they' re not today so .
Ellson: Well , here' s one of the reasons why.
Conrad : Could be . Anyway, I think I would reduce the requirement for
enclosed parking .
Emmings : I don ' t mean to interrupt but if you say it ',s 1 1/2. Does that
mean it' s for the project or for each unit?
Conrad : For the project .
Krauss : It ' s on a gross basis .
Emmings : Then you get a question, do you want all your 2 bedroom ones
clumped together or all your 2 car garages? -
Conrad : I don' t care . •
Emmings : 2 car garages or don ' t you care? Do you want to mix?
Conrad : That ' s up to the developer . I don ' t know that 1.5 is the right
answer . The 1. 5 in my mind speaks to some of the situations that were
presented today. I think it ' s compensates for singles that might move in.
Emmings : It ' s more variety.
Conrad : I think it ' s more realistic . It probably gives , is not as
economic a hardship to a developer who wants to put in an affordable
dwelling here so .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 38
Elison: You' re saying the 1 . 5 has to be completely enclosed?
Conrad : 1 1/2 on a gross level .
Elison : Or everyone has to have a 1 1/2 enclosed garage?
Batzli : What about the additional parking?
Conrad : I think each unit needs 2 stalls . Each unit needs totally 2
parking spaces of which 1 1/2 has to be enclosed .
Krauss : One of the things we tried to do in the ordinance is separate out
the ability to require visitor parking based on our review of the site
plan . Since Dean was relating a lot of this to his project , I know the
last time you reviewed his project we were concerned that while the project
met the letter of the law, that while you had for example one private
driveway was 500 feet long and all it had was the 1 car garage plus the 1
car out in the pad in front of it . We said 500 foot of that is just too
long, is there ' s 2 people there to have a party on a Saturday night out of
the 30 units that fronted on it , I can guarantee you that the fire truck ' s
not going to be able to get through . Therefore, we should have the
authority to require some visitor parking . I think it might be preferable
if you specifically relate this requirement to what you think the dwellings
are going to need and let us handle visitor parking as a separate
requirement .
Emmings : How would it work now? With what we have in front of us . The
section on page 5 there . That' s the one you go to right now to ask for any
project , what you need for visitor parking .
Krauss : Right.
Eru'tings : And now just to , how would relate this for example to Dean ' s
project? Could you work that through for me because I couldn ' t figure it
out .
Krauss : If in fact we went to the 1. 5 gross , we would ask Dean to show us
how that' s satisfied on a gross basis . Then we take a look at this site
plan and we ' d say well you' ve met the requirement as relative to the number
of dwelling units but we go to the paragraph, the lead in paragraph for the
required number of on site parking spaces that says the City may increase
the requirements beyond this minimum based on findings due to the proposed
design that additional parking is due to be anticipated. Dean' s particular
site plan , or the one that we last reviewed was one that it was clear to us
that some sort of a visitor parking was appropriate on that extra long
private driveway because of it' s design and that ' s not something that ' s
easv . to set down specifically in a standard because it is site plan
peri i.c .
Ellson : So this allows you to may increase if deemed necessary?
Krauss : Yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 39
Batzli : Interestingly enough though, I guess I 'm having the same problem
maybe that Steve was having .
Ellson : What page are you on?
Batzli : On page 5. That ' s where you' re reading from that the City may do
so if they find that additional parking demand is anticipated. For
instance , do you go through criteria for a multi-family dwelling? Maybe I
missed something here but then you just go to G?
Ellson : 6 (B) .
Batzli : 6 (B) or 1 (G) , excuse me . Is that where you' re going to go to to
up the number? Is this going to be this whole one that you ' re going to
look at?
Krauss : No . 1 (G) would be used if there wasn ' t a standard provided in the
ordinance at all .
Emmings : Well there isn ' t . For visitor parking at a multi-family.
Batzli : So you' re looking at 1 (G) .
Krauss : No . I would interpret the 1 (G) specifically applies to if there ' s
no listing for that category for use . What I would refer back to is
basically the purpose section of that sub paragraph on page 5 that says
here' s the minimum requirements that we ' re establishing for that district .
Batzli : Following standards or minimum criteria , right . You don' t give a
minimum for visitors do you? Okay, well you say on site parking areas of
sufficient size to provide parking for patrons ,� custorier.s , suppliers ,
visitors , you don' t even say residents, and employees shall be provided on
the premises of each use . You' re going to have 2 parking , both of which
must be enclosed and then additional parking for visitors shall be provided
in accordance with the findings of the City so you don ' t have any criteria -
on which to base that .
Krauss : And there' s a reason for that . Let ' s take for example that Dean
came in with a project that had 2 car garages for all these units and had
over width driveways . With the 2 car garages per unit , you have 2 cars
parking out in front of the garage doors and with the oversized driveways ,
you may have some latitude to say we can afford to have a car to park in
there . It ' s not going to cause us a problem. Without having a
specifically designated visitor parking area .
Batzli : Okay, but now that apartment has a party. They have 10 people
over . What are you going to do? Start parking in the neighbor ' s driveway?
Krauss : If we had a large enough drive aisle, if these were accessed off a
private driveway. If it was constructed to a large enough standard as for
example a city street might be , that could absorb parking on one side and
still allow vehicles to pass , yeah we might accept that .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 40
Batzli : You ' ve got curb cuts all the way up and down . Are you going to
allow parking on the street?
Krauss : But see those are all design issues .
Batzli : I know but these are the things you' re going to hit the first time
you try to implement this ordinance and then what are you going to say?
Krauss : All I can attest to is . . .
Batzli : It ' s probably workable somewhere else but I ' ve never had to work
with it and you have so you ' ve had the benefit of having to interpret this
thing . That ' s just my question is how do you go through this and where
would you come down on something like that?
Krauss : It ' s really site specific and that' s the problem I have with it .
I think you need some latitude to view what ' s being proposed in the context
of how that design works on that piece of property and a hard and fast rule
for something like visitor parking is kind of tough to apply. It ' s not to
say, I ' ve seen ordinances that do it . I would prefer to have the latitude.
Batzli : I think with latitude the problem you' re going to get into is it' s
going to be, the developer comes in and you say we want 20 stalls of
visitor parking and he says, well what do you mean? The last guy that came
in , you didn' t give any. + Why are you being unfair to me? Then you ' re
going to have to come up with some rationale. You' re going to have to have
all these findings of why did you do this in this case and not in the other
and eventually you' re going to have standards anyway or else you' re not
going to haveanystandards at all . Then you' re going to end up with a
sliding scale like you wanted earlier .
Conrad : Sure , bring me into your mess . Any other comments? Is there a
motion?
Batzli : I guess I don' t know, I heard what Ladd said about having a
minimum of 1 1/2. Your 50%, is that the same thing in your mind?
Enmings : I guess when I was talking about 50% , I was thinking that it
ought to be distributed . That it ought to be , each unit ought to have ,
some ought to be 2 car and some with 1 car to kind of spread this out in
the project . That ' s why I asked Ladd the question I did . Did he care and
I guess he persuaded me . I guess I don' t care anymore .
Conrad : The ends will take the 2 car garages and the middle will take the
1.
Batzli : Or just make them all 1 1/2 to show us .
Emmings : If it was Annette' s motion, then they put storage in the other
half.
Krauss : Yeah , I think you want to specific on that . If your goal is to
provide parking stalls, it should be on a gross basis for the project.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15 , 1989 - Page 41
Emmings : So each unit should have 2 parking spots and of the ones which
are enclosed, the project has to have an average of 1 1/2 or more. We
don ' t care if it ' s higher . We only care if it ' s lower . A minimum of 1 —
1/2.
Conrad : Dean , you have a question . We' re struggling with this . A quick
one?
Dean Johnson : What occurs to me when you talk about the 1 bedroom units .
It 's just more information. Is the 1 bedroom unit . . . 1 bedroom units . Is
that just going to be the 1 stall like we did in the . . .multi-family
townhouses or multi-family. . . I guess what I 'm saying is , I see a� little
bit of a possible conflict there . How does that figure into these things?
Krauss: The ordinance accepts 1 bedroom and efficiency apartments .
Emmings : Yeah, but we ' re talking about the project .
Dean Johnson: What happens to the total number then?
Ellson : Does the project need 1 1/2 even though some are 1 and 1 would
have been an exception before .
Krauss : I would anticipate having to do some playing around with a
calculator so that you only had 1 stall applied to those smaller units but
then all 2 bedrooms and above had that 1. 5 requirement .
Conrad: See I don ' t know. I have to let some expert tell me but even on a
1 bedroom, a married couple without children will have 2 cars so I
guess I 'm not totally sold on a 1 bedroom only needing 1 space . They'd
still need 2 spaces in my mind so I don' t know. f
Krauss: Well , they would still have 2 spaces but only 1 of which would be
the enclosed one .
Conrad: Versus the 1 1/2 .
Emmings : So if the whole project is single, one bedroom places?
Ellson: You could run the risk of having all married couples in there and _
none of them. . .
Krauss : If you had 100 one bedroom units , a project that had 100 1 bedroom
units, you would have 100 enclosed stalls and 100 on the outside. -
Emmings: And 200 cars parked outside.
Krauss: That ' s something else . I didn' t put that in the ordinance but I
had a few projects over the years where you required that they have 1 car
enclosed and then they said in the lease that that ' s an additional $45. 00
or $50. 00 a month and nobody wanted to pay for it so there was a shortage
of parking on the outside so I got to stipulating that they have to give
- Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page 42
one stall in the rent with each unit .
Conrad : I don ' t know. I think the City Council can wrestle with this just
like we are. I still think we have anissueof storage and parking and
we' re kind of solving the 2 with this parking deal but I 'm not convinced
we've solve storage problems really but anyway. I 'm still waiting for . . .
Emmings : But I think there' s a dramatic increase in the amount of stuff
people have and need to store when you move into a house as opposed to when
you live anywhere else . That' s my own experience . You accumulate a lot
more crap when you have a house .
Conrad : It makes sense but these many supposed affordable units have no
basements and we ' ve gone through this problem before in Chanhassen and it ' s
been a complex problem. When you have no basements and limited garages ,
you end up with problems . It ' s just an absolute thing . That ' s where I 'm
trying to solve that problem and I think there are multi ways to solve it .
This is one way to do it.
- Emmings : I don' t think that a 1 bedroom , under the thing we ' re proposing
now, I don' t think there' s any reason to treat a 1 bedroom different .
Conrad : Is there a motion?
Batzli : I ' ll make it . I don ' t know that I understand what you ' re really
going for Ladd but we can just find out . I move that the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the amendments to Article XXV, Off Street
Parking and Loading set forth in the memo dated November 6, 1989 as set
forth except with the following changes . In Section 20-1117 , A( 2) , the
- word "of" shall be changed to "or" . In Section 20-1118, paragraph A (1) ,
this is by the way on page 2, after the word 18 feet a paranthetical which
reads , (except parallel parking shall have minimum dimensions as set forth
- below) .
Conrad : You didn ' t touch bicycle parking .
- Batzli : Delete bicycle parking, I 'm sorry. That' s paragraph 5 of Section
20-1117. I had that on my list . I wasn' t there yet . In paragraph
20-1124, the third line after the word visitors , insert the word residents .
Then in paragraph 6 (B) of that same section, we ' re going, to change the
first sentence to read , actually make it two sentences. The first sentence
would be, Two , (2) parking spaces . A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of
units shall have 2 parking spaces both of which must be completely enclosed
in a garage . Make sense to do it that way or do you like your 1 1/2
better?
- Enmings : Isn ' t it the same?
Conrad : I think it ' s the same . I understand mine but I think yours is
probably the same .
Elison : A minimum of 1 1/2 enclosed .
Planning Copnission Meeting
November 15
1989 - Page 43
Batzli : Well this reads 50% of all the units shall have 2 parking spaces ,
both of which are enclosed in a garage. I think that does the same thing .
And those are the only changes I have . That ' d be the extent of the motion .
Conrad : Is there a second?
Krauss : Would you mind if we also deleted the 75 degree angle parking? I
don' t think we' ll ever need it .
Wildermuth : I would rather see the number of the staff than put it at 1. 5.
Something less than 2 per unit .
Batzli : I guess what I would propose , if it' s been seconded , is that we
make it the number that it is but that obviously staff should take a look
at that number and see if it ' s reasonable and make a recopnendation to the
City Council as well . I think we should put a number in there but you' re
right . I don ' t know that our number is any better than the number • that was
in there before we started tonight .
Epmings : Well maybe check in with some other local municipalities .
Krauss : There are no other municipalities to the best of my knowledge that
require more than 1 enclosed stall .
Emmings : Plymouth. Oh no , that ' s right. His is 1.
Batzli : So we ' re requiring 2 per unit and at least 50% of the units shall
have the 2 spaces enclosed .
Erunings : It still contains an exception for efficiencies and 1 bedrooms .
Conrad : Is there a second?
Ellson : Second .
Conrad: Discussion .
Ellson : I just had a question on if anyone thought about may point about
the first page . I know no one ever mentioned it except me but , required
parking and loading area and the driveway, inoperable vehicles or snow.
We' re saying here that a person can' t put a boat or another car or anything _
else out there? I mean I agree that you shouldn' t display, sell , rent or
being repairing stuff out there but I�don' t know if it ' s fair to tell
somebody that either they can ' t have a boat or they can' t keep their boat .
Conrad: See I read that . It didn' t say boat. Is the word boat in there?
Emmings : Other goods .
Ellson : Maybe this doesn ' t apply to that but I know we saw those at the
other one .
Conrad : See I paid attention to what you said .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1989 - Page
44
Krauss : It doesn ' t say boat . I probably should say boat but I think the
intention here is that+ it ' s not prohibiting you parking a boat . It ' s just
prohibiting you parking a boat in the required stall . If you want to allow
outside parking of these sorts of things on a project, you 've got to
provide some additional spaces for it.
Batzli : Well the key word there then is required right?
Krauss : Yes .
Batzli : But I think in the nuisance ordinance or somewhere else there is
something that says you can' t park a boat in front of your house and it has
to be on the side+ of� your house . I think that ' s covered someplace else in
the Code.
Conrad : Right . I know we ' ve talked about that .
Ellson: But this isn' t saying you can' t do it .
Conrad : You can do it.
Elison : That ' s it . I didn' t want to take that possibility away. I ' ll
just leave it as it is .
Batzli moved , Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the amendments to Article XXV, Off Street Parking and Loading
set forth in the memo dated November 6, 1989 as set forth except with the
following changes : In Section 20-1117, A (2) , the word "of" shall be
changed to "or" . In Section 20-1118 , paragraph A ( 1) , after the word 18
feet insert , (except parallel parking shall have minimum dimensions as set
forth below) . Delete bicycle parking in paragraph 5 of Section 20-1117.
Paragraph 20-1124 , the third line after the word visitors , insert the word
residents . In paragraph 6 (B) of that same section, change the first
sentence to read , Two , (2) parking spaces . A minimum of fifty percent
(50%) of units shall have 2 parking spaces both of which mustbecompletely
enclosed in a garage . Also delete the 75 degree angle parking. All voted
in favor and the motion carried .
Conrad: Brian' s got to go and I ' ve got to go real quickly.
Ellson : Well we' ve only got one more thing .
Conrad : Well we have 2 don' t we?
Krauss : You have 2 more . I guess one of them is fairly involved . It ' s
the site plan review ordinance. I guess if it wasn' t controversial , we' re
looking for ammunition in terms of handling projects as they come along . I
think that ' s the more important one but I could understand it. You 'd want
to discuss it more at length than the hour permits .
CITY of
104 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
l�lc�
FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning
DATE: November 30, 1989
SUBJ: City Council Update
At the November 20, 1989 , City Council meeting, the following
actions were taken:
1 . Preliminary plat approval was granted for the Market Square
subdivision. The action is a follow on request to the recent
approval of Market Square PUD. The developers have indicated
that they would like to shoot for breaking ground sometime
around February or March of the coming year. An unused por-
tion of the West 78th Street ROW was also vacated.
2 . Preliminary plat approval was granted for the Ersbo Addition
located off of Lake Lucy Road. The City Council discussed
the access issues pertaining to this subdivision in much the
manner as the Planning Commission did. Staff presented addi-
tional information indicating that as the MUSA line is
expanded in the future and adjoining lots are developed it
may well be feasible to bring in a new public street on the
south side of the plat. Staff provided an illustration of a
road loop that drops south from Lake Lucy Road on the west
side of the wetland curving east back to Powers Boulevard
south of the Ersbo plat . Consequently, this subdivision was
approved with the condition that at such time that this road
exist the driveway to Lake Lucy Road which serves the
existing home shall be removed and access shall be provided
to the south. The accompanying wetland alteration permit was
also approved.