04-20-88 Agenda and Packetf.. C,-
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 1988r 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I Conilitional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot with
canoe rack and a dock with three overnight storage of
watercraft on Lot 37, Shore Acres, on Lake Riley, Sunny
Homeowners Association.
a
SIope
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend
the RecreaEional Beachlot Ordinance
requirement for a dock and the one
ment, Robert Pierce.
a. Subdivision of 3.5 acres
b Wetland alteration Permit
Class B wetland
Section 20-263 (5 & 7) of
Lo amend the lot dePth
canoe rack,/dock require-
into 7 single fanilY lots
to develop within 200 feet of a
ITEM #3 HAS BEEN TABLED
3. R & R Land Ventures' property zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family and locaEed on the south side of Woodhill Road,
approiimately i mile east of Nez Perce (LoEs 2773-2803 and
2810-2847, Carver Beach) :
4
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OPEN DISCUSSION
5. Business Fringe DistricE Discussion'
ADJOURNUENT
Sign Permit Var i a ri,--'3
Heritage Inn Motel,
i.i) place an off-Premise sign
Donald Krueger.
for
2.
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I,{EMORANDUU
TO: Planning Commission
FRoM: Barbara Dacy, City PI
DATE: April 14, 1988
SUBJ: Sunny Slope Beachlot
anner
Request
After the last Planning Commission meeling, I discussec lvith my
staff the process for the Sunny Slope property owners requlre-
ment. My ataff Promptly reminded me that the property ovrners
"i""g L.i" Riley in ihanhassen rrrere notifie6 and that I misread
the iffaaavit. In any case, lake property owners were notified
again of the proposal-. We have recopied the Sunny Slope beachlot
r6port if you have not retained your other copy'
CITY OF
EIIAIIHAESTI[
STAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE: April 6, 1988
C.C. DATE: April 25, 1988
CASE NO: 84-5 CUP
Prepared by: O1sen,/v
Fz
O
=LL
ko
hJF
U)
Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational BeachlotPROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Lox 37, Shore Acres
Sunny Slope Homeowners Association
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
WATER AND SEWER:
PEYSICAL CEARAC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
RSF, Residential Single Family
5,500 sguare feet
,/
N-
s-
E-
w-
RSF, s ingle
Lake Riley
RSt'; s ingle
RSF; s ingle
.i!
f ami 1y
v-4-8r rbnr
f ami Iy
family
Sehrer is available, water is not availabl
The site is
Res idential
level and is a riparian lot.
Low Density
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
="{5ll
I
\c R 18 )
_.--89OO
9000
9too
9300
_-9400
9500
z.d--960O
lrJ
z
9700
8OO:O
t,
I
P-l
Fzloo
tr-l
_
-2OO 300
400
il
c-3
500
u
u
'\
RD
L AKE
RILEY
_\
,l
o
'l
?*4!)q
?1q
kt6
IF
POHO
R_IA
R-l
It
-
-
S L
600
1". loco'
q
@.
(
,_92O0
roo
/v
li;
I
Sunny Slope HOA CUPApril 6, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIOIIS
Sections 20-263 of the CiEy Code requires a recreational beachlotto have at least 200 feet of lake frontage. No more than onedock may be erected on a recreational beachlot for every 200 feetof lake frontage, 30r000 sguare feet of land and I00 feet ofdepth. No more t.han three motorized or non-motorized watercraftper dock sha11 be allowed to be stored overnight. No more thanone canoe rack shal1 be allowed per dock with no more t.han sixwatercraft stored on a rack (Attachment #1).
Section 20-1022 of the Citto have a maximum height o(75 feet from the OHWM).Iot may have a maxj.mum heifences require a building
BACKGROUND
y Code permits a fence onf 3i feet within the rear
Any other fence on a singlght of 6l feet (Attachment
permi t .
riparian lotsyard setbacke family
*2). A11
The applicant most recently requested a conditional use permitfor a recreational beachlot and a variance to the RecreaiionarBeachlot ordinance in the spring of 19g6. The conditionar usepermit request in 1986 was for i recreational beachlot *itr, tr,"f ollowing improvements :
I. One 32 foot dock2. Overnight storage of four watercraft3. Tr{o canoe racks (6 canoes each)
!. Front and side yard fencing5. A 20 foot sand blanket6. A 12' x 21, storage building
The requested irnprovemenEs to the recreationar beachlot resultedin the following iEems needing variances lo the RecreationalBeachlot Ordinance:
l. One 32 foot dock2. The 12t x 2l' storage building3. Overnight storage of four watercraft
On February 26, L986, the planning Commission recommended denial.of the conditional use permit request (Attachment *3). On March17, 1986, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed thevariance request,s and. moved to have tne -ity Council act on E.heproposal (Attachment *4). On April 2L, L996, the City CouncilmoveC to table action unt.i1 the City Attorney providei findingsof fact for denial for the City Council to aaopt (Attachme;t #5).
On May 5, 1986, the City Council reviewed the findings of fact t.orecomrnend denial of the variance and conditional use permit
Sunny Slope HOA CUPApril 6, 1988
Page 3
request for the recreational beachlot. At this meeting, therepresentative for tshe Sunny Slope Homeowners Association, StevenBurke, requested that the application for the conditional usepermit and the variances be withdrawn (Attachment *6). Theapplicat.ion was formerly withdrawn prior to t.he City Councilacting on either the variance or conditional use permit request.
ANALYS I S
The applicant has submitted a new applicat.ion for the conditional
use permit for a recreational beachlot and for variances to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to receive a final determination
from lhe City Council (Attachment *7). The applicant is
requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot
with the following improvements:
The installation of one dock adjacent to lhe lot of such size
and shape as to conform to the requirements of the Recreational
BeachIoL Ordinance.
I
2
3
Allow the overnight to
of
three lratercraft.
storing six canoes onConsEruct trdo canoe
each rack.
Install front and sicle 1ot fencing on the property to provide
security and privacy.
storage of up
racks capable
4
5 tandscape the north side of the
of the lot in line with that of
soil erosion onto the 1ake.
property to bring
any neighbors to
the contour
minimize
The City Code requires a lot Eo have a minimum of 200 feet of
lake frontage to receive a conditional use permit for arecreational beachlot. The City Code requires a minimum of 200feet of lakeshore, 30,000 square feet and 100 feet of lot dept.h
for a recreational beachlot to have a dock. The proposed
recreational beachlot has 50 feet of lake frontage, J-I0 feet of
lot depth and 5,500 square feet of lot area. The regulations for
recreational beachlots permits one canoe rack per dock.
The Planning Commission and City Council are responsible for
reviewing the conditional use permit request for lhe recreational
beachlot. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City council
are responsible for reviewing the variance request to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance requirements.
The proposed site does not meet the minimum requirement of 200feet of lake frontage and therefore, would not be permitted acon<iitional use permit for a recreational beachlot without avariance. The dock and canoe rack would also not be permitted.
The applicant is proposing to provide fencing and landscaping onthe site. The Zoning Ordinance requires shoreline fences to havea maximum height of 3l feet in the rear yard (lakeside). Therear yard setback for a riparian lot is 75 feet, therefore, theapplicant could install a fence within 75 feet. from the ordinaryhigh water mark at. a maximum of 3l feet and any fence beyond thatcould have a maximum of 6I feet. The installalion of a iencerequires a building permit. The zoning Ordinance does not haveany specific regulations for landscaping on individual lots.
RECOMMENDAT IO N
The Planning Commission denied the conditional use permitrecreational beachlot in 1986 for the following ,."!on",
The site proposed for a recreationar beachlot does not meet theminimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for it to receiverecreational beachlot status or to permit a dock and two canoeracks. The appricant would have to receive variances to the cityCode to receive a conditional use permit and make ttre proposedimprovements. The fence and landslaping is permitted.' S'ftoufathe Planning commission prefer certain improvemenrs to the siteif the necessary variances are approved, Lhey should state thesein a recommended condit.ion.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
for the
s ees
the
no change in the intensity of thePlanning Commission may adopt the
Sunny Slope IIOA CUPApriI 5, I988
Page 4
Sec t
Sec t
P Lan
Boar
I The use of trrrelve households with friends andis too intense a use for such a small Iot.acquaintances
2. The ordinance is valid and a variance $ras not justified.
If the Planning Cornmi ss ionproposal as now presented,following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional UsePermit #84-6 for a recreational beachLot on Lot 37 of ShoreAcres . "
ATTACHI4ENTS
]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CityCity
LetL
Appl
ion 20-263 of City Code.ion 20-1022 of City Code.ning Commission minutes dated February 26, l-9g6.d of Adjustments minutes dated March j.7, 1996.Council minutes dated April 2l . L996.Council mintues dated !4ay 5, 19g5.er from applicant.ication.
(
ZONING $ 20-263
d. one (1) percolation test per drainfierd site where the land slope is between
thirteen (13) and twenty-hve (28) percent.
(2) Areas where the land srope exceeds twenty-five (2b) percent shal not be considered as
a pot€ntial soil treatment site.
(
(3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article rv.
(4) school and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless
approved by the city council.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-r(7), 12-1b-86)
Sec. 2Xl.2l;0. kivate gtables.
The following applies to private stables:
(1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article Itr.
(2) Stables must be located a minimurn of two hundred (200) feet from wetlanal areas.
(Ord. No. 80, tut. V, $ 9(5-9-1(8), 12-15€6)
Sec. 2G,261. State{iceased day car€ cent€rs.
The following applies to stateJicensed day care centers:
(1) The site shall have loading and drop o{f points designed to avoid interfering with
traffrc and pedestrian movements.
(2) Outdoor play areas shall be located aud designed in a manner which mitigates visual
and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas.
(3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
(Ord- No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(9), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G262. Hospitals and health care facilities.
The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities:
(1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the
comprehensive plan.
(2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from aay
residential use.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(10), 12-15A6)
Sec. 2G263. Recreational beach lots.
The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach lots conditional use in
addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit:
r{. (l) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (2fi)) feet of lake frontage.
\1r.75
Pt
s 20-263
(3)
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recrea- C
tional vehicle or shelter shal be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot-
No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles,
motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon orparked upon any recreational beach lot.
No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping.
Boat launches are prohibited.
No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnightmooring of more than three (B) motorized or nonmotorized watercralt per dock. If arecreational beach lot is allowed more than one 0) dock, however, the allowednumber of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also beallorved. Canoes, windsurfers, sail boar.ds, and small sail boats may be stored over_night on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designedfor that purpose. No more than one (l) rack shall be allowed per dock. No more thansix (6) rvatercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking ofother watercraft or seaplanes ispermissible at any time other than overnight.
No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least trvohundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a one hundred_foot depth. (No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot
"r,"ry a*o Lhundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feetof land is required for the first dock and an additional trventy thousand (20,000)square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks,horvever, shall be erected on a recreational beach lot_
(8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dockshall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distancenecessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The width (but not the length) of thecross-bar of any "T" or ..L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation oflength described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall notmeasure in excess of twenty-five (2b) feet in length.
(9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set_back zone, provided, however, that theowner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock withinthe dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the commondock is the only dock on the two (2) lakeshore sites and ifthe dock otherwise conformswith the provisions of this chapter.
(10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreationar beach rot unless it has atleast t\vo hundred (200) feet of rake frontage. No more than one (r) sa boat mooringshall be allowed for every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage.
(11) A recreational beach rot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for thesubdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms
ll76
)
(4)
(5)
(6)!t
s (7)
e
ZONING $ 20-280
shall mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban) or oukide (rural)
the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the com-
prehensive plan.
a. Urban recreatinnal beach lot At least eighty (g0) percent of the dwelling units,
which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be
located within one thousand 0,000) feet ofthe recreational beach lot.b. Rural recreationar beach rat: A maximum of lifty (50) dwelring units (including
riparian lots) shalr be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreationar
beach lot. Upon extension of the Metroporitan urban service boundary into the
rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply.
(r2) All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to
February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming
areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the united states
Coast Guard standards-
(13) Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured both at the ordinary high
water mark and at a point one hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high
water mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling unit which has
appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot accruing to the owners or
occupants of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner association
or residential housing developers.
(14) overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted
to watercraft orvned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access ro the recreational beach lot.
(15) The placemen! of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall
be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council.
(Ord. No.80, Art. V, S 9(5-9-1(11), 12.15-86: Ord. No.80-A, is 1,6-15-87)
*c. 2b2M. Electrical substations.
Electrical substations are subject to the following conditions:
(1) The substation must be served by a collector or major art€rial street as desginat€d in
the comprehensive plan.
(2) The substation will not have sanitary facilities and will not be used for habitation.
(3) The substation will be located on at least five (S) acres of property.
(4) A six-foot high security fence shall surround the substation-
(5) A Iandscaping plan shall be submitted for city approval.
(6) Substations shall be a minimum offive hundred (500) feet from single-family residences.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, 5 9(5.9-1(13), 12-1.5-86)
Secs. 2G265-20-280. Reserved.
Lt77
(
(4) Animals being kept as part of the Minnesota Zoologicar Garden,s or st. paur como,ao's docent programs are in arowed use in all zoniig districts. Before such animarsare allowed, however, the participant in the program must receive the approval of thecounc regarding participation in the p"ogra- arrd identis the ""i.rii"i"a t"oi.'"(5) Animals may only be.kept for commercial purposes if authorized in the zoningdistrict were the animals are located_
(6) Animals may not be kept if they cause a nuisance or endanger the health or safety ofthe community.
_ - (D Other animals may be allowed by conditional use permit.(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 9(6-9-t), 12-tEA6)
Sec, 2G,1fi)2. Car€ atrd treatment.
Animars kept within anv zoning district shall be subject to the following requirements:(l) The size' number, species, facilities for and location of animals kept shalr [6 rneil_
li:*:.
* not to constiture a danger o" ooi"rr,." by means "f "d";, ;;;;;
(2) Facilities for housing animals shall be:
a. Constructed of such material as is appropriate for the animals involved.b. Maintained in good repair.c' controled as to temperature, ventilated and lighted compatible with the healthand comfort of the animals.d. Of sufficient size to allow adequate freedom of mrbe indicated by evidence or mun,t ition];;,. ,[",1j,'Ti:Tffi::r::"T:labnormal behavior patternse. Cleaned as often z
therein and to m;lffi:HJ ffi;[:"Jiffi:i,tr ::the
animars conrained
(3) Animals shall be provided whoresome, palatable food and water free from contamina-
ir:ffi:,
of sufiicient quanrity and nutritive "ufo"io *"iot.in all animals in good
(4) Animals kept in pet shops or kennels shalr be kept in accordance with regurations forpet shops and kennels in adtlition to tt u ."eu,;io; provided by this division. petshop or kennel owners shall receive , 1i.".";;;;;red by the city.(Ord. No.80, Arr. VI, $ 6-9-2, 12-15-86
Secs. 2G.l0Og-2Gt0lE. Reserved.
DIVISION 5. FENCES AND WALLS
$ 20-1001
Sec. 2O.1016. Intent.
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
C
The intent of this division is to provide standards for fences arong the perimeter of rotsthat act as boundaries and,/or barriers.
(
e(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ t2(6-r2_t), 12-15-86)
1240
l+*2
(
ZONING $ 20-1021
Sec, 20.1017. Permit.
A building permit shall be obtained for any fence installed for any purpose other than anagricultural purpose prior to installation of same. A site plan showing location of the fenceshall be submitted with the permit apprication. The buding ofrciar may require a fencepermit application to provide a registered land survey establishing property lines.(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, g L2(6-12-2,6-t24,6-t2-S), 12-15-86)
(
Sec. 2Gl0l8. Commercial and industrial fences.
Fences for screening or storage purpcses installed on prop€rty used for commercial orindustrial uses may have a maximum height of eight (g) feet. When commercial or industrial
uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses, a fence at lea.st six (6) feet in height shall
be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial property. said r"uc.
must be one hundred (100) percent opaque. Commercial or industrial fences over eight (g) feet
shall require a conditional use permit.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 12(6-12-10), 12-1b€6)
Sec. 2Gl0l9. Location.
All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unress the owner
of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the property
line ofthe respective properties. such an agreement shall be submitted at the time orl"iiai"g
permit application.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 12(6-12-3), 12-15-86)
7247
t
Sec. 2G1020. Construction aDd maintenance.
Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material
reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall
be maintained in such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore, or public or privat€
nuisance. All fences shall be constructed so that the side containing the framing supports and
cross pieces face the interior of the fence owner's lot. Any fence which does not comply with
the provisions ofthis chapter or which endangers the public safety, health or wefare shall be
considered a public nuisance. Abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper city
ollicial after fifteen (15) days notifrcation, if the owner of such fence has not undertaken the
necessary repairs to abate the nuisance. Link fences shall be constructcd in such a malner
that no barbed ends shall be exposed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 12(6-126), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2Gl02l. Swimming pool fences.
All in-ground swimming pools shall be protected by a fence not less than four (4) feetin height. All gates shall have the latrh installed on the pool side of the fence. All in-found
pools installed prior to February 19, 1g87 shall comply with this chapter within one hundred
eighty (180) days of such date. Subsection (a) does not apply to pools inaccessible from adjacent
properties or which are located on property completely encrosed by a perimeter fence four (4)
feet in height.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, S 12(6-12-?), t2-r5-86)
$ 20-1022 CHANHASSEN CTTY CODE
Sec. 2G1022. Shoreline fences.
Fences to be installed on riparian lots shall have a maximum height of three and one-half
(3%) feet in the rear yard flake side).
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 12(6-12-8), 12-15€6)
C
e-
Sec. 2Gr0B. Height.
Any fence over six and one-half (6%) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The fence
height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 12(6-12-9), 12-15-86)
Secs. *,102.1-20-l(X0. Resen ed
DIVISION 6. WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS)
Sec. 2Gl04f. Purpose.
The purpose of this division is to establish standards aad procedures by which theinstallation and operation of WECS shall be governed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, S 20(6-20-1), 12.15-86)
Sec. 2G'1042. Ornamental wind devices.
ornamental wind devices that are not a wECS shal be exempt from the provisions ofthisdivision and shall conform to other applicable provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 20(6-20-8), 12-rb-86)
(
Sec. 2G1043. When allowed.
wind conversion systems may be allowed as a conditionar use subject to the regu-rationsand requirements of this division, provided the property upon which the system is to belocated is zoned agricultural, commercial or industrial and is constructed and maintained onany parcel of at least two and one-half (2%) acres in size.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. .\II,
$ 20(6-20-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20,1(M4. I)eclaration of conditions.
The planning commission may recommend and the city council may impose such condi.tions on the granting of wECS conditional use permit as may be necessary to carr,r out thepurpose and provisions of this division.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, S 20(6-20-8), 12-15-86)
1242
X
Sec. zlll(X5. Site plan.
All applications for a wECS conditional use permit shal be accompanied by a detailed
site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned, displaying the following information:
(1) Lot lines and dimensions.
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGUIAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 1986
Vice-Chairman Conrad ca11ed the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Iadd Conrad, HowardNoziska and uike Thompson.
MEMBERS ABSENT
BiIl Ryan
STAFF PRESENT
Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot and toconstruct a storage building on 5,500 square feet of property
zoned R-I and located at 9241 Lake Riley Boulevard, Sunnyslope
Homeowner's Association, appl i cant
Public Present
.,/
-).L
Steve BurkeBilI Boyt
Eunice Kot tke
Rudy & Lucille Remus
Mairan DewittPaul & Suzanne o]son
Joy Tanner
Don Sitter
appl i cant
7204 Kiowa Circle
9221 Lake RiLey BIvd
9245 Lake niley Alvd.
9225 Lake Riley Blvd.
9239 Lake Riley B1vd.
9243 Lake RiJ.ey elvd.
9249 Lake Riley BIvd.
Olsen stated that the Sunny SLope Homeowner's Association pre-
viously applied for a conditional use permit to allow the 1ot to
become a recreational beachlot and have an existing dock cornplywith the zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission consialeredthe request on August 8, L984 for the beachlot which also
requested permission to:
Olsen stated that the request required variances to theRecreational Beachlot Ordinance to allord overnight storage offour watercraft and a dock on a 1ot with less than 100 feet intridth. She stated that the Planning Commission voted 5 to I todeny the conditional use permit request for a recreational beach-lot.
1
2
3
4
t3
Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planne! and Vicki Churchill , Secretary.
PUBLIC IiEARING
t
. Install a seasonaL dock.. Install two canoe racks.
. Install a privacy fence.. Al1ow overnight storage of four watercraft.
Planning
February
Page 2
Commission Minutes26, L986
One 32 foot dock.Overnight storage of four watercraft.
Two canoe racks (5 canoes each).Front and side yard fencing.A 20 foot sand blanket.
A 12r x 21r storage building.
C
She stated that the conditional use permit and variance requestswere withdrawn by the applicant before it was reviewed by [freBoard of Adjustments and Appeals anal the City Council. Strestated that ttte applicant stated that DNR allowed the dock, forstorage of four hratercraft, without the need of a permit. Shestated that the City replied that a dock could not be a principleuse of a property and ordered the dock removed.
olsen stated that the applicant is again requesting a conditionaruse permit for a recreational beachlot with the foilowingimprovemen ts :
1
3
4
5
6
olsen stated that the zoning ordinance states that a recreationalbeachlot must have at reast four lineal feet for each dweliingunit that has access to the recreational beachlot. She statedthat sunny slope addition has 12 dwerling units which resuiis ina. minimum requirernent of 48 feet for a recreational beachiot.she stated that the ordinance also states that there must be atIeast 100 feet at the ordinary high water mark and at a point I00feet landward for a recreational beachlot to have a seasinaldock. She explained that the 1ot has enough width to le usea asa beachlot, but 100 feet is required for a seasonar dock and thusthe need for a variance.
orsen also explained that the appricant is proposing to construct.1?'* 21 | storage building, approximately 70 feet from theordinary high water mark. She itated that Section 7.04 (9 tAI)states that no structure shall be erected on a recreationalbeachlot and again a variance will be required for the stoiagebuilding.
Olsen explained that a third variance is required for the over_night storage of four watercraft in which section 7.04 (9t;i)prohibits the overnight storage of hratercraf t. She stateA ihatthe same section does allow the storage of canoes.
Olsen stated that these variances are scheduled forBoard of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council on1986.
by the
L7,
Olsen explainedthe DNR and the
that the proposed sandapplicant will have to
revi ew
Mar ch
is regulated
DNR approval .
blanket
receive byL
She stated that details of the proposed fencing have notsubmitted, but staff is recommending that it not exceedin height to reduce screening the view of the lake fromresidences.
beensix feet
ad jacent
Steve Burke stated that the Homeowner's Association is attemptingto develop its lot into a recreational beachlot. He stated thatthey have looked at this in a number of ways with their attorney
and their attorney indicates that they should request one more
time from the City, to have the lot designated as a recreational
beachlot with the improvements indicated which are slightly clif -ferent from the previous request. He stated that the Homeownerrs
Association has attempted to look into the future and ask for
what they feel will accommodate them at that time. He statedwithout access to the lake, the lot holds very little value to
them. He stated that their attorney has told them that they have
a couple of options. He stated that one is to come back and see
if they can get the recreational beachlot as submitted. Ee
stated that if they can not get approval of the request, the
other option would be to build a single family home on the pro-
perty. He stated that the lots next to the subject lot received
variances to construct a single family residence and felt that
they coutd also receive those variances. He stated that if they
built a single famiJ-y home on the lot, they would automatically
be allowed a dock with up to five boats to be stored overnight.
Ile stated that what he is looking for is feedback from the neigh-
bors Lhat are present tonight to find out if their preference
would be to clnstruct a home on the property. He stated that the
Iot, even though it is undersized, has the riparian right to
install one dock and keep five boats overnight on it. He stated
they i.ntend to obtain that and start using that. He stated that
at this point they want to get input from the City and neighbors
anci determine if a single family home or if tney should go with
the recreational beachlot with the improvements.
Joy Tanner stated that she is located on the opposite side of the
lot from the Olson's. She stated that she is opposed to the
recreational beachlot. She stated that based on the ordinance,
everything they are proposing is contradictory to the spirit of
the R-I zoning. She stated that she thought she was assured. in
1978 when A11en Gray requested a beachlot, that the because of
the R-I zoning and because of the ordinances, there hrou.Ld be no
chance that anything but canoes would be used, no motorized traf-
fic over the 1ot, no RVrs, no trailers, no snowmobiles and no
overnight boat storage. She stated that last year when the dock
was in the r.rater, there were boats stored overnight. She stated
that boats were launched from the Iot. She asked Mr. Burke if he
could see the lot from his home?
Mr. Burke stated that he could but not very wel1.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, L986
Page 3(
(
L
Plann ing
February
Page 4
Commission Minutes26, l-986
C
Joy Kanner stated that it would be very difficult to monitor theIot and she has seen people driving by the area looking for aplace to launch their boat
Mr. Burke stated that they did have a dock on the 1ot for a whileuntil we got a notice from the City. He stated that the Lot iszoned R-I , and it allows for a dock, boats, the Launch of boatsand motorzied vehicle parking on the lot. He stated thateverything they were cloing ditt not apply at the time the Citysent the notice. He stated that they understand that if therequest is approved for a recreationil beachlot and improvements,they will not be able to launch boats over the 1ot. HL statedthat when the city indicated in their letter to them that untilsuch time that proper use of the 1ot, which would be a home, thedock-can not be put out. He stated that they did not say a'dockcould not be there- Ire stated to the neighb6rs ttrat onc6 ihehomeownerrs assocation has put up a house] they can put theirdock out, put their boats out, plrk the traileis on it" liop"rty,drive across and launch the boats as the lakeshore p;;;";ly"owners can. Ite stated that he would hope that they uniersiandthe benefits of making it a recreational beachlot instead ofhaving a home constructed on the lot.
Don sitter stated that he lives a few br-ocks down from the 1ot inquestion and r^rondered how the planning commission r..r"-t".ir."Mr. Burke has been honest and stated lnat it he does n"t-g.t ti,ubeachlot, they will construct a home on the lot? ite asxed wnatthe Planning Commission's opinion was on building u tor"-ti,.."owned by an organization, a communitable propert! home? He askedif there were ordinances or are there precedents?
steve Burke stated that he thinks the answer to that is in theordinances as a definition of a person. He stated that a defini-tion of a person is an individual-, a corporation, p"rtreist ip,trustee, a homeownerts association, and i person his the right toconstruct a home.
conrad stated that he is not going to ask the planning commissionto directly respond to thati however, you will hear tieirthoughts after the public hearing is closed. He stated that weare to react to the request. He stated that it is the appli-cantts property and he can do vrfratever he gets permissioi' to do.He stated. that the appl_icant rrants to see if the city is going togrant variances to do that. He stated that he is coirect-insaying that if he receives variances to build a home, he can putout five boats, however, those boats are not typicaliy ourned Lyanyone other than who lives in the home. He stated tLat cn^rnersof lakeshore typically use one boat at a time.
Iot. He statednot see how the
instances whi le
Paul Olson stated that he lives next door to thethat he is opposed to it mostly because he doescity can al]ow more people on the lake in these
(
t
they are holding them off at the launches everywhere e1se. Hestated that the idea of four boats on 50 feet, there is not goingto be much more room to move. He stated that they will be npvingover into my area or my neighbors beach area. He stated that heis opposed to the safety outlook because there is not room forfour boats on the lot.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, L986
Page 5
Marian Dewitt stated that she is opposed to it in that if accessis granted to the lake for Sunny Slope right between two homes,all of the protection and security of the R-l zoning is 1ost.
She stated that all the problems and traffic with a group ofpeople would have to be contended with instead of just one famiJ.yfor which it is zoned. She wanted to read from the zoning
department standards for the granting of conditional use permits,
which she said some are debateablei however, one just hits it.
"That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted. Not to essentially diminish andimpair property values within the neighborhood." She stated that
there was no doubt in her mind that it has already happened to
the neighbors on either side of the lot have had their en joyment
impaired. She stated that she felt if they were to try and sell
their property should the conditional use permit be granted,
there would be nnrked loss in property value. She stated that
when granting conditional use permits, the Commission should keep
in mind that the permit goes with the property, not the indivi-
duals, and once granted it is there for life. She asked about
what would happen if the homeowner's association sold the 1ot to
a big corporation from Chicago. She stated that they could rent
it out or do anything within the regulations, anci then the city
has lost contro.L. She stated that csnditional use permits should
be handed out very carefully. She stated that as for the argu-
ment about the one family home and having five boats, she stated
that they will meet that when it comes. She stated that she
would not object to a single family home, but with a number of
owners of one horne, yes she would object.
M. Thompson moved, seconded by Bnmings, to close the publj.c
hearing. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
M. Thompson stated that some of the members on the Planning
Comnission established the Beachlot ordinance to controL $rhatproperty ovrners who did not live on the lake could do on lhe lakehtith a beachlot. He stated that the idea i.ra s not to necessarilyallow unconditionally people that lived off of the lake but had
some access or common lot. He stated that the Planning
Commission has abided by the ordinance as wriLten. He statedthat there were amendments proposed to the ordinance and they
r.rere denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Hestated that he does not see the Commission swaying from the deci-sion of one year ago.L
Planning
February
Page 6
Commission Minutes
26, 1986
(
Tim Erhart stated that he did not feel
threat. He stated in reading what $rascurrently paying taxes. He asked whatto the subject 1ot were.
Steve Burke hras making a
presented, they are
the sizes of the lots next
Olsen stated that she did not have the sizes; however, thought
they r,rre r e approximately the same size. She stated that they
both received variances to build a home.
Erhart said to the applicant that he did not hear him say thatif a home was built the title would be orvned by the homeowners.
Burke stated that the title of property would probably remain inthe name of Sunny Slope Homeownerrs Association.
Emmings asked how many lots were in there and how many homes?
Burke stated that presently there areconstructed in the spring. He statedthe plans for the other lots.
seven and one will bethat he does not know of
Emmings stated that the use of that lot by twelve households andtheir friends and acguaintances on any given day is much too muchuse of that smal1 of a piece 1and. He stated that he rraspersuaded most by the people who live close by the beachlot thatwould be opposed.
Conrad stated that he still feels that the ordinance is valid.
He sLated that the Iot could be used as a recreational beachlot
could under certain circumstances. He does not see this request
as being appropriate. He stated that he feels there is good
rationale in the ordinance and does not see anything to persuade
him to see it differently. He felt that the request as presented
would be an overuse of the parcel .
Emmings moved, seconded by M. Thompson,condiLional use permit as proposed. A1I
motion ca rr i ed.
They should not be allowed to have a
storage of watercraft, or a building
to recommend denialvoted in favor and
of the
the
Emmings felt that should the City Council approve the conditional
use permit, they should take the following points into account:
1. The canoe rack and sand blanket
it meets the DNR requirements.
should be allowed as long as
2 dock, or overnight
on the lot.
Siegel stated that he also feels there will be an over usage ofthe area. He stated that the association would possibly seekto do something else rrith the property as far as its investment
as an association and seek other methods of use.
(
Planning Commission Mlnutes
February 26, 1986
Page 7
3 He also stated that there should be some negotiations withthe neighbors and city staff on fencing as iar as materialsand size.
Barbara DacyCity Planner
Prepared by Vicki Churchill
March 3, 1986
(
f
BO ARD
MARCH
OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES
17, 1986
{CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Johnson call-ed the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m
MEMBERS PRESENT
Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Dale Geving.
STAFF PRESENT
Jo Ann O1sen, Assistant City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING
Shoreland Setback Variance Request , 9235 Lake Riley Blvd.,Craig Halverson
Olsen explained that the Halverson variance was withdrawn by theapplicant.
PUBLIC HEARING
I
Variance Re uest to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance r.oL 37
Shore Acres, Sunny Slope ilomeowner I s Associat 10n
Public Present
Steve Burke Sunny Slope tlomeownerrs Pres ident
Olsen stated that the applicant is requesting a conditional usepermit for a recreational beachlot. She noted that the Planning
Commission reviewed the conditional- use permit request on
February 26, L985 and unanimously recomrnended denial of the use
as proposed. She stated that the City Council will review the
conditional use permit request on March 17, 1986.
Olsen stated that the applicant is also requesting the following
three variances to the Recreational Beachlot ordinance:
1. Variance to Section 7.04 (9 [F]) to al-low one seasonal
dock on a recreational beachlot having a width of less
than 100 feet .
Variance to Section 7.04 (9 [D]) to all-ow the overnight
storage of four rratercraf t.
Variance to Section 7-04 (9 [AI) to a]-Iow a structure on
a recreational beachlot.
2
3
Steve Burke slated that this was not athe Sunny Slope tlomeowner I s Association
new i ssue.
intended on
He stated thatusing theL
h4
+(
Board
March
Page 2
of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes17, 1986r{
property as either a beachlot or a singte family residence andthat they would prefer a recreational beachlot. He al,So statedthat he felt the neighbors would prefer a recreational beachlot.He stated the lot has riparian rights for five boats withlaunching and overnight storage.
Watson asked if they could have theresidence on the 1ot?
dock without a single family
Olsen answered that a dock is not arequire a single family residence.
principle use and would
Burke stated that theysingle family residenceditional use permit foron the property.
are willing to give up the right for afor a more restrictive use. The con-a recreational beachl-ot puts restrictions
Geving asked Burke if there was anything in the documents i{henthey bought the property that stated they had rights to use it asa beach.Iot or gave Sunny Slope rights to use the lake?
Burke stated no.
{L Geving stated his ovrn preference tosingle family residence. Ile stated(boat house) is new to the previous
Burke stated that they
coming in again.
are asking for everything now rather than
have the property
that the proposed
requests.
used as a
bu iI ding
Geving stated that the three variancesasked if the applicant understood thatwould not act on this tonight, that itCity Council.
complicated the issue. Hethe Board of Ad justments
would be [Essed on to the
Burke stated that he understood.
Geving moved, seconded by i{atson,All voted in favor and the motion
Geving moved, seconded by Watson,City Council for their decision.
seconded by Watson, to approveas written. A11 voted in favor
to close the
carr i ed .
public hearing.
to pass the proposal on to the
Geving moved,
I9 86 minutes
carried.
the
and
February 24,the mot ion
{
Wat son
p.m._moved, seconded by Ceving, to adjourn the meetingA1l- voted in favor and the motion carried.at 7:00
Council lleeting, APril 2I' 1986
Counc i I man Geving: 0ne of
any reason for making that
the colll0ents
statement?
Councilronan liatson roved to app'ove the folloring:
To accept the bid fror Volk Irucking and Excavating in the arount of $199'818'05 for the
Chanhassen Lakes Eusiness Park 5th Addition'
-3-
Sonetioe ago the City received a petition froo 0pus Corpo'ation concerning a replot of a portion of
the busineis plot into the 5th Addition. I believe council nerbers arc quite fariliar rith the redesign
of a cul de sac to rake the lots rore usable' The City has nov vorked through the public inproverent
Li6...esstotheDolnErnereyehaveso]icitedbidsandfourbidsrerereceivedasshornonthebidtab.
I it"-i"r"" bid i. f"o" Volk Trucking and Excavating in the arount of $I99'8I8'05 and based on the contents
I ;;"r;;;';".*.,., ,r,., is recooncnding that the arard be nade to the Ior bidder in that anount. If there
a.e questionsi I'll try to ansrer ther' I donrt rant to drar this out'
that ras Dade here by the lCt{' tentative
usually they let out recon endations' 0(
araad. Do Hc have
. l{o corrent.
llotion ras seconded
llatson and Srenson '
llay or Hami I ton: The nex
iConditional lJse Pern it
I rould like to call on
heard pre v iouslY, PIease
vi th it.
Steven Bu.ke: Thank you, [lr' liayor'The coup Ie q uestions and points I rant to bring up' I knor rerve
been goi ng a fter this for tro years. lhat re rant ed to do at this point tas resolve this situation
before this sur!fie. cotltes about and itrs our hope t hat the Council rill tonite approve the Recreational
EeachIot rith the variances necessary for the inpr ovements that re are talking about' I do rant to
point out in the packet that ras sent out' there r
for a boathouse. I think that ras in Adjustoent o
as reference to a boathouse. At no time had re applied
f Appeals.It ras risinterpreted. The structure
that ras indicated ras a storage shed for life preserve's' c anoe paddles, etc. It Has indicated that
th at typ e realize that. lie are looking for rhat
storaqe building, one of these things that you can buy from Se ars.l{e are not looking for
by Councilran Geving. Ihe folloring voted in favor: llayor Harilton' Councilroren
Councilren llorn and Geving. l{o negative votes' Iotion carried'
t iter is the Sunnyslope Homeorners Association' Steven Burke is r€questing
for a necreational Beachlot and Variance to a Recreational Beachlot Requirenents'
Steve. If you have anything additional you rould rant to add that re havenrt-present it-nor. I think rerve gone ove' this so rany tires' re are all fariliar
i
e of structure re rould not be able to store gas' ll
I call a
for. A couple of q
a boa thouse to store boats in that and so I knor that you r on't be thinking that's rhat re are looking
uestions I ao looking at are that re have been g iven a nuober of conflicting reports'
te have been told bY the City that the City has jurisdiction over t hat lake and thatrs rhy re had to pull
the dock Iast sunnerr Y et about three nonths ago I asked the city to en force their right to have docks
pulled out of that lake for the people Hho left in those seasonal docks and I received a Ietter fron
the City inforoing us that the CitY has no jurisdiction over that Iake and the refore cannot require
any one to Pull seasonal docks' And the only jurisdiction on that lake eas the OtlR ordinance, rhich
sas yhat re said rhen re reinstalle d it. And, Barbara is ara.e of thi s because she responded to re
after havinq to check that' The ot her thing that I knor You all knor is rhat Roger gave You his legal
opinion on regarding hor he felt th e Recre at ion aI Beachlot 0rdinance ras not going to be dePendable
in court and re donrt rant to 9o to the court syste!, but I Roger sh aking his head. Barbara knors Irve
seen it, but that's sorething is a corrunication'Earbara can add.ess that if you rant'
Councilnan Geving: I donrt knor hor you rould have seen that'
of the files upstairs. I asked for a copy of it' She
have that.Steven Bunke:
care b ack after
It ras acc identlY Ieft
nak i nq calls saYing I
1n one
canrt
Roqer Knutson: I think rhat he is
Steven Burke: AnYYaY, rhat se rere
ititJa-J.6". ue feel that as an R1
referring to
hoping that
lot, if re
is I did not say it
t_you rill take a look at rhat ee are asking
put a structure up, re could havc that dock
for and as I
and re could
c.,*
Council lleeting, April 21, 1986
Tor llari lton: Counciloen have any questions?
Counc i I nan Gevinq: Has
Steven Burke:Yes,
Counci lnan Gevi ng: You
your hooeotners association evet been assessed for a sever?
have.
are paying for that nor?
-4-
have the boats stored overnight. te think the neighborhood lould prefer not to have us build a housedorn there or have any house on that rot, but have a lot that is a Recreational o"".r,ior-i"irr r""a u,neighbors, not people ray out. Itrs not rike a Lotus Lake Hith lots ".a r"tr-rr-p""pi]. r. r"r" tr"tr"and re are a little bit short' re knor re are. fe are asking for the variances ,o-"iio, ,n",
"na r.think re knor re are rilling to fall under the Recreational Eeachlot ordinance and al.l of the restrivtiveguidelines that go ,,ith that if you rill let us becooe a Recreational Beachlot rith that one dock andrith only four boats' re rill deterrine hor re rhich four boats go out therc. fe looked at a lot thathas a right to have a dock and five boats and rith a house, and re are rilling to qir. rp .,,. house, theability to launch across the property, park on the p.operty, etc. If you riti leale us ihc right to havethat dock and four boats and re rill then fall. under the Recreational Beachlot 0rdinance. Thank you.
t-
Steven Burke:Yes, te are.
Councilnran Horn: I rould aova denial of the Sunnyslope Conditional t se perrit and Va.iancr request,
liats on seconded. Roger Knutson:
be to direct the ci-iy A--i-i-;; .
of Adjustoent Appeals as in the
S te ven Eurke:llay I ask you
and the Soard of Adjustrent
donrt find basis for denial,
fi ndi n9s?
Roqe n l(nutson:
nry findings at
agre eDent, ok.
Based upon your discussion on the packet laterials.office rith their findings based on discussions before
Pl annerr s report.
Ihe
y0u
Councilroran
moti on rould
and the Eoard
Steven Eurke: yes -
Ior Hari I ton: Ihe
Chasl a Rotary.
advantageous
The decision is not oade by ne.
the next neeting and if they agree
ner t i ten
upon findings before this groupif you take a look at it if youis the decision lade on you.
and has attended sevcral reetings ofof that club and I fclt it rould b!of the Rotary, to have input frol
Council.oan Horn:
Councilromen llatson seconded. Ihe folloring
and Srenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. llo
voted in favor to deny: llayor Harilton, Councilroren
negati ve votes. llotion carried.
l{atson I
said the recomnendation ras for denial basedAppeals. I guess that ny question that thenat this point, has the decision been arade or
Ihe decision is rrrade by the Council. and they rillrith ry findings, re rill stop ther, if they are not in
To. Harilton Does that clarify it for you?
Clark Horn:Page lI, ch eck
Yes.Don Ashrorth:
Clarl Horn: Is this a nandatory.equi.enent of his
Io. Ha!i I ton: l{o
on the age.da is the bill dated April 21, 1986.
no. 26444. Rotary Club oerb€rship fo. Ji! Castleberry.
position?
re that Jir join
aetbea s
a.erber titrs not. It ras
They have sevcral
for Jir or soreone
a sugg€stion by
ci ty officials rho are
elsc on our staff to bc
the
veay
I arend ry lotion to include specific findings for denial
'i(}
itsns listed r,"ere inplications for the City of Chanhassen. She stated tlEt t}leCity vnuld need to establish a recycling progr.m, ontinued operation of yard
iiaste [xogEams, @peration and participation with tie &unty and looking atfuplerentation of all tlrese solid r,Este stlategies as !,re11 as participaLing in
research for resource recrc\rerlt facilities, p:blic education or reclzcling,
backyard orposting, paper reduction and even an officre recjrcling progran for
Chanhassen City Offic-es. She stated that the planning DeparurEnt is to
establish a slid r,iaste advisory ormittee to assist the Ouncil in fuplanr:nting
sone of the programs. She rDted that a target date of 1987 for a dropdf
recrycling cnte! is anticilEted, nith a cr:rb side co[ection p.oqram b4, 1990.
l4ike Lien stated that the 6unty is IF-ry serious about the r*role solld rasteaffair and 95t d his job is sliit lraste abatsrEnt. E presented the draft. andornented that he has been attend.ing 6unci1 neetings arourui the 6unty. IEstated tlrat there is always a reed for a drop off rec,ycling @nter and strongly
recrmEnded the City lursr:e the issue.
l€yor llamilton stated that he r,ould like to see a ormittee forrrEd frcrn the
Gnmber of &rnerce, hrsiness omrnity, etc. and realy investiggte theprograms. Ee also suggested advertising for rnlunteers to help see-k loca]'financing in arrdi ds1 to the state funding.
Granhassen City Ouncil i'tinutes - t4ay 5, 1986
l.Io action r,as taken.
SINNY STOPE IIf\,IEO{NM.I S ASSGIMICIT , SIIEVEI BURKE:
a. regtEst for onditional IJse Ernit for RecreatiorEl Beachlotb. \hriancre Re$.E-st to Recreational Bactrlot RequirsrEnts
l,byor tiamilton: At. the OounciL IIEeti ng on /qpri1 21, 1986, the buncil npved to
Steven Burke: ltren r.e nade our application for the recreational he chlot.I just have tlree qestions. If the Guncil eEre to approve and nrake tlnt a
recreationaL heachlot tonight, at tiis point, it is o:r intention to
to file for a hrilding pennit application rrariance to & tiat, brt if r.ve allcnrthat it. be nade a recreaEional heechLot and util- such tine as r,e apply for that
rariance in order to hri1il a strucEure &wn there, will by alloring it to be
made a recreationaL beachlot, have an1' t"e..ing or affect on our application, at
such tirre as rrre IIEke it t.l ha\re the structure hdlt? ff it does, we do rDt r.]antit dranged to be desigrnated a recreational beachlot. So that hDuLd be my firstqrEstion. IE itrs ping to nake rp difference on tie application at whatever
tine r.te file an application, then !€ rould let it becune a recreational heach-
lot because I think r,rhat, lie can & then, $hich I lol ive re canrt do rur, is prt
t4> t}te canoe racks. ltre other qr-estion is as a vacant R-I lot, what, can happen
qDn a vacant R-l lot in this city? Is it better for us to just leave it
'acant? Itpse are the ts^ro $Estions I have. I lrros, h,hat, recreational beachlots
<an & because it. is detailed in your beachlot ordinance. Gn r€ have a house?
I
L
deny t},e reqrEst based on the findings of tre city Attorney wtrich nas based on
@mrEnts nade [r t}le City 6unci1. I€ have suctr findings of facts presented tous. I think if the ouncilnsnbers have any qrEstions about this, we can &that. !ftat r,e can do, our action for this evening, is approve of tl:e applicant I sreqrest for onditional use for recreational beachlot with five conditions.
There is also a variance to &^l with and I suggest that this be denied.
frg
E
-10-
'i3
t-
City 6unci1 Minutses - !,lay 5, 1986 -11-
Can vE store a boat trailer &wn there? 6u1d r.e [xtt a storage brilding &m
there? Ibvr, when le sary lrE are talking within the entire dllnl.rrity on al.l orr
crrn lots untiL a house is built, can a trErson store firq|Dod or store a boattrailer, or rrDre fuportantly for use rtre have tllat cbck tlEt r€.re talking about
ncw. Gn r.e leave tiat there rrrithout being in violation of scnre ordinancre?
Roqer Knutson: If you prt l4) a boat shed, or hfiat have you, it €n only go in
as an acc€ssory use, rDC as a principle use. Ib be a principle use you harrc to
Ert a touse or it.
Ste\ren &rrke: ldlat lrcu Erre saying thel is that all lotss in the City, regardlessof just odned by hcnEcto ners, a tDuse has to be there before bats can be stored,
before storage sheds can p an. Qecifically, the $Estion I reed to find outis if !e leave it just a \racant lot, rE fesently have the &ck cn the properby.
Are re going to be cited in being in violation of that that ordirEnc€?
I(nutson: Just sitting or the land? At scrrE point, the City has to nake a
s on as to rdrether violations are ocrurring. In try point of visr, if
Steven Eurke: Irm ejtain tiat. because itts gone this far, r,e uay have soe
crrtq>Iain-ts=rcrn the reighbors an either side r.*ro rrEry sary r {ourrE beer told }roucEnrt [xrt a &ck out. ltly are they being alloded to leave this structurethere?r' Ard, if thatts going to be in violation of the ordinance, if tE rrDve itacross the street onto one of the lots tlEt aren ' t on the lake that isnrt hrilt
on yet, v,e're stil1 in violation of the ord.inance. tre on.Iy thj,ng it se€[ut r.E
can & is nove it across onto a hdlt lot and so rdtnt & rc & rrittr the tlring?
Roger l(nutson: In IIV crrn mind, a lot of t]rose things probably rrculd be fourrt tobe and that wculd be a prosecution.
Steven Burke: I gRress tlat ansvJers the second qr.estion, b.rt. I need to ore back
sorrEone has sane miror things dl an sl[)ty Iot, it probably mn't dE to
anyoners attention. lbthing illegl is &ne, rce have a lirnited hrdget to rEke
sure tD one &esn't have anything sitting aryrplace. As far as rfiether tJlat ibckthat is rDt being used sitting on a lot, I guess I i.Du1d gobably say it is a
technic. t violation.
L
to t-he first qrestion and that is if r€ allon it to beccfIE a recreaLional
beadtlot at this tine, if at anyti[te in the future be it a r+ee] or firo yearsfron rnw, r.te crrre foruard and say that le ;rre trr^' naking application foivariance to hrild t-tlat structule &nn tlere, is it ping to Ue affeceea ryal.lclling it to be dranged to a recreationaL bactrloi? -
ryqgJ Knutson: Gte of the things tlnt you might very rreLl onsider is that oneot the basis for rrariance is ro other uses for the property rrithout therariancre. ocnceiv'abry, if you already had a recrealiornr leac*rrot approved andrururing, t}at gives you the use of your property.
Steven Blrke : trat being the case, it appears to us that rre should leave itslnce lte do intend on hrilding as a ',,acanc R-l lot and it agpears that rte ouldtheoreticF'l1y leave tre &ck fu^rn trere untir such tilre that- r."e nere cited andat that Line r"e r"puld have to flove it to sns place ttrat it rpuld rnt get citedor seIl it.
L
Granhassen City Council t4inutes - ltay 5, 1986 -]-2-
Roger Knutson:If I an hearing you right, you r+ish to withdraw your a$iication?
qbven Brrke: Yes, r.e &. !{e will leave it as it o<ists today. Gn I ask onefurther qEstion? the adjcining property o^rners have crnplained that rre haverDt had sufficient security do*n there to prevent people ircrn launctring. !\Ehave grt in a oupre of fenceposts. rt is ny beu& ttrat ve are rDt ii viora-tion of an ordinancre as an R-1 Iot crmer to ience otrr property for the securityand safety of ilre neighborhood.
I
rcqer Ioutson: Ihat strould rtct be in violation.
SEeven Burke:
SKEICII PIAN REVTEI^I FDR 126 Sf,NGLE FA,IILY rctrS CHANHASSEN WSTA SUBDTW SICIIEAST OF KRBER rcULEVARD ENIERPRTSE PROPERrI ES, rl{C.
Ilani lton :hb asked staff to dne back this eveni ng and girre us a synopsisthe ccnnrents that had been rade at the ous Suncil ueeting so the devel-prevr
oper i.rculd have a clearer idea of what the 6unci1 ts position r.as on sore ofthe najor issues dea'l ing with this subdivi sion .
Cor:nciLnan Horn: I think Barbara pretty rcIl overed the issue and I think
err, decisions to be rmde. hle shouLd rDte that l{r.unber 5 isf reacmrsldation. I &nrt hot ieve tie Guncil has giveat}te developer.
g:re if r,.e reed to at tiis tirE. Vhen you have arcre1y tryl,ng to point out the areas of greatest @n_
l.4) to tjte developer to go back and either inorSnrateIeave thsn out. An I @rrect?t
there
sr.i11
clear
are still a fp:rely a staf
direction to
!,layor Hamilton: f am rrctmicf-pian revie$, lrE are
cern to us and then it is
those into his plan or to
SEryg-BEj__ Yes, the sketch plan revis,c is o<act1y ttrat.. Esardinq t.IreFrontier rtail @nnection and the saratoga connectioir t" Ke.b..'Br;;; ;believe that t},e applicant has stated trrit trrey rrould be anrenable b-;ith".recqnrendation of the buncil - either to onnect it or cul-de-*" -it. -urrr".r".,
staff rernains firur on it's reccnrnerdaLion that these @nnestions L-lraae anathus the reason he inclded the nerp fron ttre n:blic s.reiy Di;."t".:--ir.Engin-l has prepared s.,re additional info'nation regarain! uJii.-putL"",etc.- .le.you wrnt to o<plore each of trese issues in-furth& detail,'tne appri-cnt is here.
l'hvor Ha+ilton: rhat's fine. r guess iE was my feeling that v,e did rpt havethrs on the agenda to erqiore anything further other than to nake ertain thatthe onnerrts that vplre rnade on tiis iisue at the Last ouncir neeting ras ueingrepresented in your nano. r &nrt want to look at a rul pran. r reEr we strouidjr:st pa.ss on our @mEnts and at tllaE point it goes back -to ttre efa"ni"tcqtmission aI*i _its w to th9 de\reloper- at ttrat point if tney lEnt to i"&rpo..t"any of these ideas r+etve had. tre Flanning oridssion w.il1- then ueke-a-reqrrendation to us as to tnw thql see it and fhen proceed. rratrs tE' r see thisparticuJar issue.
P! asttrP4li rt is a sl<etch plan and the city co,ncir need rrot take any 5peci- Ific action. Ihe itqns in fronl of you repres.i.rt U," stai;G-yo";;;'b"i;;; trand you nay u.ish to ard or a-r ete to ttrosi. tr_
!\b rculd then fornally like to w.ithdraw the aSrplication.
Association
Surrrry S1<pe Horrrer-'wners Assc,ciat i i--,rr (SSHA) hereby rnakes ap-plicatic,n tc, the City c.f CharlhesEer, fc,r a Cc,nditic.rral U=e F,errn i tarrd Variarrce tc, permit the fc,I lr=wirrg j. rflprc,verner,t s tc, Lc,t J7 Shc.re
Acres :
- tc, desigrrate this prc.perty as e recreatic.nal
lc,t fc'r Sunny SlEpe Hc.mec,wr,ers nssc,ciat ic.n.
beach
- tc, al lc.w the instel lat ic,rr c.f c.rre dc.ck ad jaeent tc. thelc.t c,f such size and shape as tc, cc,rrfc,rrn tc. the require-
rnent s af the recreati<rral beach lot c,rdinarrceo in the
that regard-
- t,--,
bc,at s
al lc,w the
--.verrr i ght
- ta irrgtal l frc,rrt
tc, prc,vide secur i t y
- tc. corrstruct twc, (g) cer,c,e
si x (5) carc.es --,rr each rack.
aind
arrd
racks, capable c,f st c.ri r,g
Gverrright storage c.f up tc, three (3)
c.rr that dc.ck.
sj,de lc.t ferrcirrq c,n the prc,oerty
pr i vacy.
- tc. larrdscape the rrc.rth side c,f the prciperty tc. brirrg
the cc,rrt.:.Lrl C.f the lc,t irr l ir,e with that c,f the ira-
rllediate neighbc.rs tc, roirrirnize sc,i I erc,:i i c.rr into the
lake.
tJhile Lc,t 37 Shc,r-e Acres is substandaFd in size, it repl^e-serrts a bui 1dable lc,t with the ripariarr right tc, irrstal I crre dc,ckarid stc,re three (3) bc.ats c.veFr.ight c,rr that dc.ck- SSHA, thec.wrrer c,f that lot, is reguestirrg that the lc.t be desigrrated arecl eat icr'al beach lc,t f,=r the assc.ciat ic.rr as lc.ng as theripariarr right t.-, instal L a dc,ck arrd keep b<ats overr,iqht is rlc.tlc,st c,r dilnirri=hed irr arry way.
This lc,t Eerves the twelve (19) faroi I ies of SSHtr arrd its Selfeet r-rf shc,relirre is cc,rrsistent with the regulatic,r, per-tairring tc,lineal feet per hc.rrsehc,ld set.ved- The lc.ts tc. be served alsc.rrreet the prc,xirrrity l.eq u i i.er,rerit s fc.l- a recrreat ic.rral beach lc.t.
A variarrce is neqlrested fc,r the installatiorr c.f the deck andc,verrright stc.rage C.f Lrp to three (3) bc.ats since rreither cf theirrtrnediate adjacer't prc,perties are fc,r. sale c,r are I ikely t.:, be
t'rat'ket ed in the fc.l^eseeable future. There is alsc. rc, vacarlt
Prc,perty avai lable which wc,u!,d ,oeet the cityr s r-equireroerrts fc.r a
''ecreat ic,nal beach ltrt with a dr:ck arrd bc,ats without a variance-
SSHA therefc,re rnakes thie appl icatic.r' befc,re the City c,f Charrhas-
.rnd respeetfully requests that the Cc,nditiclnal Use FeFroit ar'd
Variarrce be grarrted as eppl ied fc.r^.
Sert
the
|+1
Slope
\
/lsre
Trze/
f
&AiX
/-,4,c- R/tEl BLV6
//c'
*"; -'
<- to'--)'-
CAr,6
Pa<'<s
/or 37 {*a<c ,{c,q€s {u,rr,vy {trc r4ut€ocu,ue.<s zksoenno,J
I
CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC.
)
p.o. Box 106, '121 wEsT 4TH STREET, CHASKA, MINN. 55318 (612)44&5570
Dale B. Kutter David E. Moonen
March 8, 1988
Sunny Slope Hone Owners Assrn
c/o Steve Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Accordlng to the 1988 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers 0ffice the
following persons are listed as owners of the property which lies within 350
feet of the following described property:
Lot Ihirty-seven (37), Shore Acres, Carver County, Minnesota.
I
4
5
Daniel & Adele Colich
9217 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55 3I8
Dennis R. & Ann Baker
9 219 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chaska, ltN 55 318
Eunice Ellzabeth Kottke
4441 l.Iashburn Ave. S.
Minneapolis, IIN 554I0
Alan & Karen Dirks
331 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
George & F, Marian Dewitt
3127 4rh st. SE
Mlnneapolis, MN 55414
6 Ronald Ytzen
9227 Lake Riley B1vd.
Chaska, MN 55318
John W. Ardoyno
14150 Guthrie Ave.
Apple valley, MN 55124
Paul Kent Olson
4735 Lakeway Terr.
Excelsior, UN 5533f
Sunny Slope HoBeowners Assn.
c/o Steve Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
72
3
8
9
10.
CARVER COUNTY
ABSTRACT E TITLE
q
Frederick Potthoff III
& Judirh C. Potthoff
9231 Lake Rlley B1vd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
r ll.
I3.
lt .
Joy A. Tanner
9243 RiLey Blvd.
Chaska, llN 551l8
Luci,lLe Louise Renus
9245 RiJ.ey Lake Blvd.
Chaska, ltN 55 318
Secretary of Housing &
Urban Development
220 So- 2nd St.
Minneapolis, I.lN 55401
Vince A. Beacom
300 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Michael R. 6 Jody L. Schepers
320 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55 318
Steven F. Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, I{ll 553I8
Richard L. & Linda C. Nelson
160 Deerfoor Trail
Chanhassen, llN 553I7
Kevin H. & Linda Sharkey
380 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
DouBlas 6 Katherine Aamold
400 Deerfoor TraiI
Chanhassen, ttN 55 317
20.
2t.
22.
24.
25
26.
Richard 6 Ji 11 Hadore
381 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, ltN 55318
Ernest 6 }Iary Bundgaard
aka A11en Gray
Pequot Lakes, MN 564 7l
Ken 6 Kathy Wol ter
341 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN 5531 7
Jaoes Henderson
7108 2nd Ave. So.
Rlchfield, l{N 55423
Dale 6 Diane Kutter
301 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Donald 6 Kathryn si r rer
9249 Lake Riley Btvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
Robert & Doris Rogers
4917 Diane Drlve
tllnnetonka, l,lN 55343
Peter Peorick, Jr.
9251 Klowa Trall
Chanhassen, MN 55317
15.
I6.
t7 .
18.
19.
Carver County Abstract &
LRP: nls
itle Co., Inc.
IL This conPany does not assune any liability for Ehe accuracy of this report.
LAND DEVELOPI{ENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CEAIIEASSEI690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassea, MN 55317(612) 937-1900
Appl,rcatr: 5rev; B of.(e SUttt{ 3are It**rr.",k,o
ADDRESS ',4D Ie ADDRESS ,/o S, Brere 3to la6pa.r-
Cmsr*553i(O*rc*zi p code zip codETELEPHONE (Daytime )9qt-t ts4 TELE PHONE ?{/-l ts''l
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change
zoning Appeal
Y Zoning variance
Zoning Text Anendment
Land Use pLan Amendment
V Conditional Use permit
Site plan Review
Planned Unit Development
;sVj
_ sketch Plan
_ preliminary plan
_ Final plan
Subdivi sion
_ Platting
_ Metes and Bounds
Street,/Easement Vacation
Wetlands permit
PROJECT NAME PeftnDr/,l L Dea,,+ Lo- fr* Suro (u-tb ,4,n
REQUESTED LAND USE pf,AN DESIGNATION 1i]er.*u*nu,Ber*t* /
PRESENT ZONING Ri
REe[rEsrED zoNrNG R i
USES PROPOSED n
SIZE OF PROPERTY bDx ltOt
rocArroN l.ar 37 5 (6 llc
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST TD FILLY UnL)zE
LEGAL DESCRIpTION (Artach legal if necessary I l$T 31 {*oea ACBxs
OYINER:
PRESENT r,AND usE pLAN DEsrcNATroN l'Lur- /*r,)
t,{AR i ,1 lggg
L:I TY OF CHANTTASSEN'
City of Chanhassen
Land Development ApplicationPage 2
FTLTNG INS TRUCT IONS:
FTLING CE RTTFI CATION:
Signed By
Signed By I
The undersibned reoresentative of the applicant hereby certifiesthat ire is farniiiai rdirh the procedural-;&;i;;.;;i."lt-Iii.applicable City ordinances.
DateApplican t
The. undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has beenauthorized ro make rhi.s application ioi -tt"-i."p"riv;;r;i;"
desc r i bed
/t/r-'lV€iscQ€X Date J
Fee Owner
Date Application
Application Fee
city Receipt No.
Recei ved
Paid
?t4
\.1)
a3la\
* This Application wi 1IBoard of Ad j us tmen tsmeeting
be cons idered
and Appeals at
by thetheir Planning Conmission,/
This applicaLion must be completed in fuII and be typewriLten orclearly printed and must be iccompanied-by aII infornation and
Firi:: !!ii':$nfr":Ei:i:.ii: :iii,:;:im::""1#i;i:u,,"rk:,to determine the soeci ti.'"ia in"i;; ;;;'p.""edura1 requiremenrsapplicable to your application .
-- - - *'-
CITY OF
EHANHISSEI[
*
P.C. DATi: April 5, 1988
C.C. DATE: April 25, 1988
CASE NO: 88-3 ZOA
Prepared by: olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
Fz
o
=LL
ko
hJta
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
mendment to Amend Section 20-263
y Code tso Amenai the Lot Depth
stallation of a Dock and One
quirement.
Pierce construction
3 915 Farmhill Circle
tlound, IlN 55364
Zoning Ordinance(6 & 7) of the c
Requirement for
Canoe Rack,/Dock
Air
In
Re
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY :
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
V
:de*-
+b -68
: rtr n
WATER AND SE$IER:
PEYSICAL CEARAC.:
I99O LAND USB PLAN:
N-
s-
E-
w-
.t!ts $JUr' l-rd td '
Stratford Ridge ZOAApril 6, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-253 (71 of the City Code requires at least 200 feet ofIake frontage for a recreational beachlot and requires at least
301000 square feet and 100 feet of depth for any recreationalbeachlot Eo have a dock (Attachment *1).
Section 20-263 (6) of the City Code permits only one canoe rackper dock ( Attachment *2).
B ACKGROU ND
zoning ordinance amendment tobeachlot wit.hout a mean depth ofone canoe rack per dock.
On February 22, L988, the City Council reviewed a conditional usepermit for a recreational beachlot as a part of the StratfordRidge subdivision (Attachment *3). The property proposed for therecreational beachlot is long and narrow with 1esi than 100 feet.nean alept.h. The applicant received approval for a recreationalbeachlot but was not permitted a dock iince it did not have therequired 100 foot depth. The applicant had also reguested threecanoe racks with 15 s1ips. since the recreational 5eachlot wasnot permitted a dock, the canoe racks were not permitted eiLher.
The.P1anning Commission and City Council commented that thevariance iyas not. justified but Lhat the applicant should for"r. .zoning ordinance amendment (Attachments f3- and *al. -ii-wii-"o._
T:?.:*,,.1": the,p:?po:ed sire had adequare area and lake fronrase(J1,uuu s.f. and 550 feeE) to support a dock and related activilties and that. review of the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate.
ANAf,YS I S
The applicant has applied for apermit a dock on a recreationalL00 f eet. and to permit more than
Dock
The Zoning Ordinance requires a mean depLh of 100 feet for arecreational beachtot to have a dock. the intent of the 100 fset9f 19! depth requirement for a dock was to maintain "a"qr.i. ur..for the intensity of use related to a dock. stuir ,""iJr"J-existing parcels around the city's fafces "f,i.t
-.o"fa-U.'.iili"a
for conditional use permits for - recrea t. ional- beachlots(Attachment #5). Th6 majoritV "i
-tt .-i"mai ning parcels will beable to provide the requirea ioO eeei "i f"t depth. only alongMinneq'ashca parkwav does rhe p"runiiir-Jxist foi i".r".Ii"il:.beachlors wiE.hour io0 feet "r'i"r"J"Jinl rhis is a resulr of rhelocation of Minner,rashta parkway n""i'iif. Minnewashta.
maintain in
area of
Staff feels the 100 feet. of 1ot depth is important Eothe proximity of the dock becaus" Lni" usually is the
Stratford Ridge ZOAApril 6, 1988
Page 3
higher use. To accommodate the sites
depth of I00 feet bu! have enough lot
support a dock, staff recommends that
included in the RecreationaL BeachLot
that do not have the mean
area and lake frontage Eo
the f ol loeri ng language be
Regulations:
Section 20-263 (7) - No dock shall be permitted on any
recreaEional beachlot unless it has 200 feet of lake frontage
and the lot has at least 100 feet of lot deptsh 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 frontaie requirements
yet have a portion of the Iot that is very narrow resulting- in
less chan 100 feet mean depth. As a part of the conditional use
permit process a site plan will be approved which will ensure
Lhac the dock is located where there is I00 feet of depth.
RECOMMENDATION - DOCK
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The planning commission recornmends amending section 20-263 (7) of
the City Code to read as follows:
No dock shall be permittsed on a recreational beachlot unless
it has at least tio hundred (200) feet of Iake frontaqe and
the lot has at least one hundred (I00) feeE of lot depth
where the dock is proposed to be located' No more than one
(I) dock may be erlct-ea on a recreational beachlot every two
hundred (2ot)) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty
thousand (10,000) square feeE of land is required for the
first dock and an additionat twenty thousanil (20'000) square
i.ut i= required for each additional dock' No rnore than
tshree (3) docks, t","""t' shaI1 be erected on a recreational
beachlot. "
Canoe Racks
The Zoning Ordinance currently ties the number of canoe racks
oeimittea-with tshe the number of docks permittsed on a
;;";;;;i;r;i-u.""trot. rhe code states that no more than one
canoe rack shall be "if","a pei-aocx'. Staff feels the number of
I"r"" ii"r= permittel-stt""ia'not be dictaEed by the number of
aoci" p..*itled on a recreational beachlo!' There may be
situations erhere a canoe rack is appropriate where a dock is not
p.i*iii.a or more than one canoe rack is acceptable'
The number of lots which have use of the recreational beachlot
""it"iiiv
-alctate the number of canoe racks (sIips) that-are
i.il."tla. The applicants typically request a number of canoe
Stralford Ridge zOA
April 6, I988
Page 5
Pot.ent ial languagefollows:
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 $rere lotwidth and area. For future beachlot requests, the lot depthissue would arise only in the area where the Strat.ford Ridge sub-division is proposed betlreen i,Iinnewashta parkway and LakeMinnewashta. Other potential beachlot requests are 1ocated inareas ..rhere there is not a road in the immediate vicinity of thelake. In the Lake Minneirashta area, the 1akeshore variea to assmaLl as 25 feet and to as deep as 200 feet.
The Planning Commission also suggested that the dock setback zoneof 10 feet be doubled or tripled so that the area erhere the dockis to be located is at least 20 to 30 feec wide and I00 feet indept.h. In the Lake Minnereashta area, the following propertiescourd not. survive even a minimal amount. of area toi i:tre- 100 footIot depth: .the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla properties (seeAttachment #7). Reducing the lot depth to 7S ieet would stillprevent the Wenzel and Ziegler property from meeting thisrequirement. The llenzel and ziegler pioperty at iti narror.restpoint is approximaEely 40 feet. 'at its wiaeir point ii is iuout80 feet with an average depth of 50 feet. the ireadla prop.ity i=about E0 feet deep. The Wenze1 and Headla properties irav!-approximately 250 feet of_lake frontage and-t.he Zieglei piop.rtyapproximaEely 450 feer. Both these pioperties ".n.r5t *.!i-in.Iot area test also- It is ques t iona-ble- then hrhether these siteswould be considered as beachlots.
t.haE the Planning Commission could use is as
No dock shalr be oermitted on a recreational beachl0t unlessit has at reasr' tilo hundred tzooi -ie"i-Jt r.t. frontage andthe lot conrains ar leasr one hundred tiool teec "i-iit a.ptt,for-at reast thirty (30) feet of *iJtn'rrr"." the dock is tobe located.
The Commission can reduce the 100 foot lot depth requirement.. Itis recommended rhar at minimurn ao i;;; ie maintained in order roprovide a picnic area, sand. bfantei, -storage of canoe racks, andall0wing other park activit.ies. -itr6 ld't."r of 10t width recom-mended for the area where the aoci is-io oe l.cated is based ont'wice the dock set.back from " i"i -ri".-iro reet) plus 6 feet inwidth for a typical dock.
As t.o t.he number ofestablish some typeor a rnaximum numbertain aE least 30 toPoint subdivision on
to
of rackscould con-
Kurvers
slip per
canoe racks, the Commission wantedof standard either a maximum numberof slips per rack. Some beachfots40, single family 1or.s (f". .*i*1i",the east side of Lotus Lake). -One
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6, 1988
Page 4
rack slips egual to the number of lots proposed (six watercraft
are permitted per canoe rack). lherefore, it is difficult toregulate a maximum number of canoe racks for aI1 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 vrould permit each site Eo
mine the appropriate number of
be reviewed separately to deter-
canoe racks.
RECOMMENDATION
nThe Planning Cornmission 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)
notorized or nonmotorized watercrafts per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (I) dock.
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three (3) sailboat moorings sha1l also be allowecl. canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards, and small saiLboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks ipecificatly designed for thaE purpose. The-number-of
canoe ricks shall be determined as part of the conditional
use permit process. No more than six (6) watercraft may be
stor-ed on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight. "
PLANNING CO MI{ISSION MEETING -APRIL 6, 1988
ThePlanningCommissiontabledactiononthisitemuntillot
orn.." of ai1 lakes within the citsy were notified' The notifica-
ii""" t". this public hearing were mailed on April 11' 1988'
Staff has receiireC a number of phone calls regarding lhis. item,
In"-.uj"rity of which are to clirify that the ordinance change
;;;"-;;i ariect individual tot owners rheir abiliry Eo insrall- a
dock.
The Commission's commentss as to Ehe first issue of consideration'
a;; i;t-e;pitr requlrement, ranged from having no minimum require-
*""t of fol aepttr to establishing some type of standard-either
ior ttre entire beachlot or for just the area i{here the docks are
tsobelocated.tnereisaneed-tohavesometypeofninimumstandard. As the ordinance requires a minimum lot depth for a
"i.gf" family lot or creates a minimum setback, the intent of
thai provisi6n is to provide some separation between adjacent
buildings, streets or uses to prevent overcrowding of the land
and safe access. In the c"s" -of recreational beachlots' some of
iii". ".. located directly adjacent to major streets' others are
located within ttre subaivision. The beachlot activity' as any
"ii,.i-o"., should have some type of minimum separatsion' The
problem is how to establish Ehat standard'
Stratford Ridge ZOAApril 6, 1988
Page 6
home !.rould mean that i f athat any$rhere from 5 to 6The larEest number of lots1ot would be approximatelyallow storage of 42 boats.
rack contained 6 slips for storage,racks could be located on a beachlot.permitted within 1000 feet of a beach-40. Seven racks at six,/rack would
It was also suggested that. distinction for the type of boats tobe stored on racks would be the ones that are ficLnsed by-a;.state. Canoes and sailboats do need to be Iicensed by tire stateas well as sma11 row boats. Inflatable rafts do ,"qoir. i -
license. The intent of the rack is to be able to siore the non-motorized watercraft in a neat and safe fashion. r"iln.il-tn.intent of the ordinance is.ro permit overnighi itoril.--"i ' tiesetypes of boats and to provide guidance as to the .rum5er of racksstored on the property. Thereiore, based on ttre Cornmissionisdiscussion, the following is recomrnended to be included is -part
of Section 20-263 (6) t
"No recreational beachlot shal1 be used for purposes of over_night. storage or overnight mooring of more ahan three (3)motorized or nonmotorized watercrift per dock. If arecreational beachlot is allowed more than one (I) dock,however, the allowed number of boats may be .f""ie..a.'- Up tothree (3) sailboat moorings sha11 also 6e a1lowed. Ci"o"!,'windsurfers, sailboards, ind smatt sailUoats may be storedovernight gl_any recreational beachlot if they "r.-"ioi.J-onracks _specifically designed for that purpose. No more thansix (6) war.ercraft may 5e stored "" u^ iiii.. ttre nomuei-oi"'racks shall not exceed the amount of siorage necessary to?:.iit_?i: !])-:rip per. 1or served uv irre ueacnroi;-rr6rJi..,l.n no case shall rhere be more than leven tz) ricii ;;;--'-,beachlot. Docking of other wateiciait-lr seaplanes is per_:nissible at any time other tt.n "".inight.,,NOTE: Remember that. the. racks do pose a visual impact,properly designed, the site pfan aiiiing conditional usereview can address tnrs rssue.
ATTACHMENTS
but if
permit
I
2
3
4
5
5
7
Section 20-363 (7) of City CoSection 20-263 (6) of City CoCity Council minutes dated fePlanning Commission minutes dMap showing potential ."..".iLetter from appl icant.Detailed locaE.ion map of Lake
de.
de.
bruary 22, L988.ated January 6, 19gg,ional beachlots.
Minnewashta Lots.
(
(
ZONING $ 20-263
d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is betweenthirteen (13) and twenty-five (25) percent.
Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five (2s) perceat shall not be considered asa potential soil treatment site.
(3) Trre sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 1g, articre tv.
(4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unlessapproved by the city council-
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(S-9-1(Z), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G260. hivate stables-
The following applies to private stables:
(1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article m.
(2) stables must be located a minimr"" of two hundred (200) feet from wetland areas.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-261. State.licensed day care cent€rs.
The following applies to state-licensed day care centers:
(1) The site shall have roading and drop off points desigrred to avoid. interfering with
tralhc and pedestrian movements.
(2) outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual
and noise impacts on adoining residential areas.
(3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 9(5-9-1(9), 12-rb€6)
Sec. 2G262. Hoepitals and health care facilities.
The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities:
(l) The site shall have direct access to colector or arterial streets, as defrned in the
comprehensive plan.
(2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or locat€d across a street from any
residential use.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(10), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G263. Recreational beach lots.
The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach rots conditionar use inaddition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit:
*(. (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage.
(2)
rl75
s 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(-
(
e
(2) No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice lishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recrea-
tional vehicre or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreationar
beach lot.
(3) No boat, tra er, motor vehicre, incruding but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycres,
motorized minibikes, alr-te*ain vehicres or snowmobiles shall be driven upon orparked upon any recreational beach lot.
(4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping.
(5) Boat launches are prohibited.
!6 (6) No recreational beach lot shal be used for purposes ofovernight storage or overnight- moonng of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If arecreational beach lot is allowed more than one (l) dock, howe*,er, the allowednumber of boats may be clustered. up to three (3) sair boat moorings shair also beallorved. canoes' windsurfers, sail boards, and smal sa boats may be stored over-night on any recreational beach rot if they are stored on racks specifica y desigrred
for that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed per dock. No more than
six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seapranes ispermissible at any time other than overnight.
6F (?) No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least trvohundred (200) feet of rake frontage and the lot has at least a one hundred-foot depth.No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot every two
hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) squaie feerof land is required for the first dock and an additional trventy thousand (20,000)
square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks,
horvever, shall be erected on a recreational beach lot.
(8) No recreational beach rot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in rvidth, and no such dockshall exceed the greater of fifty (80) feet or the minimum straight-line distance
necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The rvidth (but not the len$h) of thecross-bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation oflength described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall notmeasure in excess of twenty-frve (2S) feet in lenglh.
(9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that theowner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one q) common dock rvithinthe dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common
dock is the only dock on the two (2) rakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conformswith the provisions of this chapter.
(10) No sail boat mooring shatl be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has atleast two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one (l) sail uoor.*.ingshall be allowed for every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage
(11) r' 1sg1g311snal beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the' subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms
ll76
ZONING $ 20.280
sha, mean those beach rots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural)
the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the com-prehensive plan.
a. Urban recreational beach lot At least eighty (g0) percent of the dwelling units,which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall belocated within one thousand 0,000) feet of the recreational beach lot-b' Rural recreatianal beach rot A maximum of flrfty (s0) dwelring units (including
riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational
beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into therural area, the urbau recreational beach lot standards will apply.
(12) All recreational beach rots, incruding any recreational beach lots established prior toFebruary 19, 1987 inay be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming
areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the united states
Coast Guard standards-
(13) Each recreational beach rot shall have a width, measured both at the ordinary highwater mark and at a point one hundred G00) feet landward from the ordinaav highwater mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling unit which hlsappurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot accruing to the owners or
occupants of that dwe[ing unit under applicable rules of the homeowner association
or residential housing developers.
(14) overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is resrricted
to watercraft otvned by the owneloccupant. or renter/occupant of homes which have
appultenant right of access to the recreational beach lot.
(15) The placemenr of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks. and other srructures shall
be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council.
(Ord. No.80, Art. V, S 9(5-9-r(rt)), 12.15.86: Ord. No.80-A, .s 1,6-18-82)
Sec. 2G264. Electrical substations.
Electrical substations are subject to the follorving conditions:
(1) The substation must be served by a collector or major arterial street as desginated in
the comprehensive plan.
(2) The substation rvill not have sanitary facirities and will not be used for habitation-
(3) The substation will be located on at least five (E) acres of property.
(4) A six-foot high security fencc shall surmund the substation.
(5) A landscaping plan shall be submitted for city approval.
(6) substations shall be a minimum offive hun&ed (s00) feet from single-family residences.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(13), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-265-2G280. R.eserved.
(
Lt77
t'-LL
City Courcil Meetj.ng - Fsruary 22, L988
Department, r"e'd like to award you witlr this plaque Chad ard thank you
personally for your act.
l,tayor lbmilton: I'd like to congratulate Chad ard certainly thank you for your
showirg outstard j.ng crourage ard tjmeliness in an incj dent like this. The world
and our crcnmunity and others like it can certainly use more people likeyourself. Thanks again.
A VARIAT,ICE TO TttE RECREATIOIiIAL BEACHTOI ORDINAI\EE FOR toT DEPIII AND NIiMBER OE
BOAT SLIPS.
B. COTIDITIONAL USE PERMIT EOR A RECREATIOI{AL BEACHLO,T.
!,layor Hamilton: This i tsn was discussed at the Board of Adj ustnents ard Reviefl
and it s,as voted by a 2 to I vote to not issue the variance. Consequently, the
appL icant rould like to have the Council consider this itgn. The reason givenfor the vote was both Carol and WiIIard did not r,Jant to issue a variance to the
l0g foot lot depth. l,ly feelirg is that it's one piece of property. It's urder
one PID nr.unber. It is one parcel ard I'm not convinced that the 100 foot lot
depth exists even though there is a roadway passirg through the property. Itis one parcel. Itrs not tl,.o. You can't build a house on the lake portion ofit. Itrs all connected. It $ras sold as one. Itrs urder one ownership.
Perhaps Barbara could give us just a brief overview of this item. I think roe
reviewed it previously but you might want Eo show us t"rhat our alternatives are
here.
Barbara Dacy: the applican! is requestj.ng in essence three variances. Ttrefirst variance is tire depth requirernent of l0g feet. In order to have a dock
you must Yave 2U0 feet of Iake frontage, Lgq feet in depth and 30,000 square
feet of area. The subj ect site does not }lave consistent lot depth of I00 feet.At the northerly part of the protrErty, it does measure I15 feet. !lor.,,ever, the
narrowest portion does measure 46 feet. Fifth, the variances granted to have
the dock ard tien the next request is to have four boaE slips j nstead of the
required three boat slips. Thirdly, the nunber of canoe racks in the ordinarceis t.ied to the nunber of docks. One canoe rack js permitted per dock. Ihealplicant is requestirg tr.ro canoe racks for the storage of 11 canoes. Thestaff's recormerdation is based on the City Attorney's opini.on wtrjch is
included in your tEcket. That recomerdation is to deny the varj.ance request.
The Attorney's suggestion js to amend the ordinance rather than issue avariance. If the Council is going to approve the request, ttre following
surmarizes a proposed motion. Again, the variarce shoul-d be issued to the lotdepti requirsrent first in order that the applicant can receive the dock. Thenthe Cruncil should decide on r.rhether or not a variarce should be grantd toallov, one additional slip. I'inally, a variance Eo ttle number of canoe racks.Again, tr.ro being proposed and none bei.ng permitted. !€rd also suggest that if
a motion of approval is made, that the motion contain reference to ttp plan
stamped "Received February l-8, 1988'r. Finally, in regards to the secord itsn
on the agenda, even if ttle variances were denied on alL of these itents, the
applicant still has the right to petition for the use of a beachlot in a npre
t-
L
t
t
+3
STRATEORD RIDGE ST,BDIVISION, TOCATM AT 6830 MINNET{ASHTA PARKI,BY ON PROPERTY
ZONE) RSF, RES IDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE:
T
City Courcj.l lEeting - February 22, lgg1
passive manner. That beirg a swinmj rg beach, recreational area, etc..
l4ayor llamilton: I^tre have members Lere in the ar-dience that r think would liketo speak to this issue. Did you want to c.oment again?
l4ary Jo l4oore: r rive on Dartmouth Drive in Chanhassen next to an Associationthat has a dock. rtrs gotten totarly out of hard. r think this ordinance that(tnnhassen came lr) with, it was after a 2 year. study based on t}le fact tllat re
have too many of these associations arourd the take. They get out of hard ardtheyrre not rnaintained. It's a good ordinance and I think rde shouLd abide byit: I.have no objection, because of the size of this pro[Erty, I have ncobjection to a swinming beach, volleyball, l*utever, canoes, but I don't thinkthey should be allowed a dock. Thank you.
Ray Rrttger, 3221 Darthouth Drive: I guess my cqlment vras relative to tlre
access road which has a dock on it. Was loaded with 6 boats at one time ard
then 5 and after a lot of hassle the City became involved in it. Itre neigtrbors
becane angry at us. Essentially, they had not rnaintained it. TlEy doabsolutely nothing to naintain it or rsnove the dock or Frt a painting on theside. There are cans out there. Iihatever maintenanc.e is required in the dockarea. then they became r4>set because they couldn't g-lt boat Iifts out therebut it wasn't just the 3 boats or the 4 boats or 5 boats, but youtre talking
about large pontoon boats. Ttte last lErson $,ho parked the big pontoon out
there became upset kause the reaL tor told hm that tle could put any ard all
boaEs on the property. So r,e kird of indicated that he better check it out
\^rith tfle City. th better check it out with the Ord inance before you go ahead
and buy a piece of property. I think v*rat Ird Iike to do, I feel like t4ary Jo
that the beachlot j.s fine arri it is a good size piece of property. I rtrculdlike to see the City have sqne nice develolment, ssne well done hones,
expensive hones. Irm looking for a larger tax base but I think it should be
pol iced ard I thj.nk if, as Ton j.ndicated, 9o along with 3 boat slips. that it
should rernain at 3. Be cast in iron ard the people that buy the protErty or
the Iots know exactly wtro is to be allor'rcd to [xlt a boat at the dock. that it
should be very carefully pol iced because, I don't know if you want me to say
this but I didn't think tIrc develolment to the south is really maintaining what
theyr re sulposed to be. There are boats out there tied to floats to get by the
additional dockage. Irm talkj.ng about the condorninj un develo[rnent.
Counci lman Bo).t: I feel that what staff ard the Attorney recormerxled that we
not grant thj.s ard my position lrould be, if r.e need to look at the ordinance
again, let's look at the ordinance again. Irm not convinced we do ne€d to but
I em crcnvined tJnt uer ve got to live with the ordi.nance r,re have.
@uncilman Horn: I think vre've already c-omprqni sed our beachlot ord inance in
one case. 4)tErently vrith sdne bad re[Ercussions. I thi.nk in this case, the
reason that we did that $ras, r.re said that the beachlot was entitLed to the same
rights as a riparian homeowner rculd have if they r,rere to build a house on a
piece of property. If I heard ttE staff report correctly' this is not a
developabJ-e lot for a tsre. lterefore, it rrculd not have a hglle arrl be a
riparian hqneowners situation. Therefore, I don't think itrs necessary for us
to compromj.se beyord wtnt we have already done in our ordinance and I would
suggest that !{e go along wit}r staff's recomerdation.
Courci lman Geving: I think that this is certainly a large piece of property
1
I
r
ard by denyirg the variance he vrDurdn't be denying ttlgn reasonable use of theland. they can stirr use it for a beachrot, f6r swinming ana priying uut itcertainly doesnrt meet our ord inancre ard r think r rrould not le in iJvor orgranting the variance sirnply because it is precedent setting. !€ do have amsnorardun frcrn tlre AttorrEy wit]1 his recrcnmeniations art oi ttrat uasis, rr.Jould stay with the staff and the Attorney,s opinions that the var iance snoulanot be granted. That's tle erd of my collment.
l,layor Hamilton: I erould just call lrour attention to one of ttre questi.ons thatthe Attorney, Roger Knutson, addresied. r fert that he asked .oi.-q,r;stio",than he ansrrered. rhat eras the issue of the 100 feet. r fert that his anssprI tlrt question, tErt of it is that you could cpunt both halve. 0f the r.ot.9. lo! size requi renrent. vtEt about setbacks, coverage ard.rot frontage? sor think there are sc.'E unansrt ered questions here yet. rf it is in fact asingle parcer, and rrm not sure hoi r"e determine that. !6]fue Elliott can t.rpus with that question.
Elliott ltletsch: rrd be haF[rr to. r guess v*lat you.re referring to there inRoger's retter is that urder the existing ordinance the road, beirg where itis, the proposed beachrot is one rot and- the portion "".o"" tr,"-ioia"i" uselErate lot urder the existirg ordinance =o it c..r,t be counted to meet thedepth requirement of the beachlot ord inarre.
l6yor tlarnilton: Urder our existing ordinance?
Elliott Knetsch: {Jnder ttre Cityrs Zoning Ord inance. It reguLates thebeachlots as well. as the. Zoning- Ord inancre in general. The 6xistinginEerpretation is that that rc;rd not be considered alr one rot. ihat you didmention earrier at the prior meetirg that he raised more qu"iii"n= a[- i,.ansqiered. r think, as Barb mentioned, he was being rhetoficar ttrere. --rr youstart gettirg a different interpretation of what trre tot is, Ehen alr vourother zoning requirsnents zuch is setbacks ccme into questi;n ioo. --r,*r1..
youmeasure fron. That beccrnes a question where you starC to put your setbacks.The size of a ror and 1or coverLage. A1r tho3e tnings com!-i"i;-il;;i;..
l4ayor Hamirton: r don't have a problen with it. r think qre shourd probablyaddress those questions.
Elr'iott l(netsch: r think the basic recc,ftnerdation here is, if it,s Ehe feelingon the @unc that scmethiru |ire this is alr)ropriate, ti,. ,*v-t iiiress tnatis rnt through a variance buf through un *.it"nt to the ordinance. (rnder theexisting ordinance you havg our opiiion that ia doesn,t.."i-tE--t.=t io.granting that variance. rf the ciuncil's uncomrortaure ,itr, ti,ItE"iii"",what they shourd do is take another rook at the ordinance. onoe the ordinarceis on the book, it should be for lorred u.,o ir v", donrt rike the ordinarce, itshould be charryed.
l,layor tbnilton: Ito go back to the point that Clark made too, I donrt thinkitrs riqht. There can be riparian iiet t" tr"i"-if the deverotEr decided to serlfive rots on the rake, those five rots t"oriJ-LJe riparian rights and you ieurdjus.t de+ that part of the property on the i"i"=to." to those five owners thathe has plotted out on tl. fioni of- tlrat. *"" ryrlu h."" il; i."I,-i"-ttrt or.ordinanc€? LOO feet of lakeshore? What's tti .rnr.,_z
City Courri I t4eeting - February 22; LggS
t
F
I
I
t
'-:zl,-a
City Courci I l,teeting - Eebruary 22, Lggg
Barbara Dacy: Of lot width alorg the lake?
l4ayor tlamilton: Yes.
Barbara ttacy: 75 feet.
Mayor tlarnilton: So he cluld have even flpre than that.
tIt
'j_
-r
{
Barbara Dacy: But based on our current ordinance, you would in essence have to
grant alnost 5 lot area variances for those 5 lots betereen the road and theIake. Again, because the current ordinarrce defines if you have a parcel that'ssplit by a road then each piece is a separate lot.
I'layor Hamilton: I disagree with that. Then by doirry that, in my opinion, *e
are taking his protErty. l{e are in fact forcing a bardship on him and the City
better buy hj.s protErty because r^rhat werre tellirg him is we're not going to
allow you to divide that property into five lots and let hjm put five docks out
there ard the use of the lake for those people. He canrt do it ard I think
that's a taking. I rrculd cErtainly see it that r€y. Irm rEt an attorney
though.
Elliott Knetsch: l,ly response to that is, the city has the oPPortunity to
impose reasonable regulations. obviously, the word reasonable is not a clear
cut stardard and I'm not sure I could tell you i,,hat a Court rrculd say. In our
opioion, this ordinarrce, this does not amount to a taking. I think he does
have reasonable use of his property.
l,layor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce' did you want to make sone corments?
Robert Pierce: Originally, wten I drove by this IErceI I looked at it and r
thought, How, look at ttle lakeshore r^re have- Therers got to be a vJay to have
scrne lakeshore, at least 3 or 4 lots across there- l€ have 5qg feet. So I
went into jt a little further ard I checked it out ard talked to the city
planner then I went to the Planning conmission meeting and at thaE Point, at
the planning Conmi ssion meetirg I went there for one reason. l'lul tiple reasons
but Ehe one najor reason vJas I wanted Eo see the feell.ng and get scrne direction
at that point because lr€ were j.nto a contract to Plrchase ttrc Property, ard see
what they r,rould have to say. At that neet j ng , -it' s in the l"tinutes, it was
pretty ciear cut that, scn* Iung,-ge to that- effect, that to deny us a dock
wittr -ttrat tlpe of useage certainly r"ouldn't be reasonable' Thatrs the
direction t-hey gave us. I bel ieve r,E calne jn with a really light, light useage
ior-tti" p"..if. Again, like I stated earlier, I have talked to the nei.ghbors
that are iirri.rg on Lhe north and I had quite a long discussion tday wj.th the
neighbors to tie rear of ttle proPerty, to tE west ard to the south ' Each one
of ifrern, I think, excuse rne I shoutd make reference that the one to the north
really dj.dn't care what went on. stre just said, whatever I.Jerd like to do is
fine ;ith tler but the others I think r."ould definj.tely like to see a develoEmeot
with a higher grade of hcrnes in there. Wi.thout the docks itrs just not
i.."iUf..' pi"i" ."a simple. I^le're looking at 15 1ots. In my way of thinking,
r.re can reduce the valuation on each hcnre by about $106,00g.gg per package which
j.s a million and a tELf dollars to thj.s single subdivision. In tax revenues, I
don't knovr rrhat that vrould exactly cqne out to for the city but if '"le could
start this out, in this develoSrnent, and lie could flt together a. nice packaqe
of high quality hanes, it would nrake sense to IrE that the area thatrs
City Courci 1 tteeting - February 22, ].g1g
developed, ard there i.s a lot of lard in that area that i.s goirg to develop ata higher quality. r think that is certainly in the minds oi trre neigrrrors is arear plus. r q,ould think that also in the mirds of the city r.lould have to be areal, plus to get more revenue out of it. Arso, there are beachrots r know upard donrn this road ard r know at sqneti.mes there has definitely been scrneprobrerns. r urderstand, but very few of thern have the width that l,e do and thetyIE of screening. !$e've been realry cautious to try Eo meet the needs of theneighbors - !'tre've vrorked with the ci.ty extensivery trying to just nEet everycriteria. that they rrlould have. t€ r,,,ould like to worf it for everybodyr sbenefit but re need the docks. rt'|s an irnportant part of tl.is deirerofinent.otherwise it.just changes it. TLe neighbors r think are for it. To ire, theuay rerre going right now, I canrt even have a dock on 9 acres. Itrs onep:rgel. The taxes orE [Ercel. It's been taxed as lakeshore. It's just kirdof beyord my thinking that rie can't put this one dock in there. Iheneighborirg property, Mrs. cairpber. just to the north, r talked to her todayand they have not had a dock on their [Ercel. Itrey don't have the width. tt.ydonrt have tte areas that re do. At this point, wi thout a variance, thatrs not
e. ven Lakeshore anymore because the ordinance tns corcluded that. r think thereis -sonethirg wrorg there. rn order for us to do this project, $e need thoseard we will do a good job. r think it wilr be an asset to chanhassen. rt i{irl
+ pn as:et to the neighbors. If werre denied that, ard vre must go alongt'rithout it, then it's going to be on a rm:ch ress of a scale. prain and iimpte.
@uncilman Bolt: r guess r $Durd suggest that there is a certain anount oflogic. to vrhat you say abou! having a- iong strip of rake frontage and rot navinga. dock-on it. Itts just that, my opinion is tirat v€ don't hav6 an ordinancethat allor"rs you to do that and to give you the variance to that orainance ls tobasicarry throw the ordinance out. r don't know wtut the ansvrer is. r canrecognize the problan as being certainry a legitimate probJ.en.nd i-"oic..nthat I r{Duld have if r r,ras in your posilion. r think nrayue r"e ".J to i-x uttlE. oridnance. I agree, you mentionea during the appeats situation that thatmight.be a rather Ieng thy task. I suspect i[ w.uld- be because i.trs such avolatile issue.
Rober t Pierce: rf r cour.d make a suggestion. r don't know how long. rf thereyyra u. sqne liEry to take a rook at ii, r'. sure it ;s voratiie. -i'aonit x,or.r have this deverognent - rt's going to go forr.iard. !€rve ""." to-. point, thedock issue. . There,s a period oi tir,= beiore re can get the proj ed i; theground. and. there's a period of time before constr""tion u"giis.'-i r"rra bemore. than happy to work with the City any hray possible, to
-r*f" .ontu"t o.anything, but at tlp point tl't tlre iirst nouse goes in there, tn o,t or" tor.of the deverognent is taken. rf 6 nonths later we get ttre docks, it doesn,Ematter- rt just doesn't matter. rt maybe will briig the varue of tto"" q rot"on the front but the rest of it has already been set. I don,t have thewearathol to get into a year - r just don't. r plain .na-"i*pr" .ur,
-n'Jt .trorait. lve're in an econcrniE sitrnti6n rdhere this property right nord can bedeveloped. It can be done rather qr:ickry r berieve. rt can get it up and getit back to.a finished product rather soon. rf re wait ^ y"^ri,* j"t'into tt=economic situation can stop..- r've had that happen uerore- ana'ii-:Gi "it=. rIErsonally just can not gamble on tha.. r doni i have tle uUifiiy'to g"rbf" *that.
courci lman
'*orn
: nhere did you get the impression that a dock r.ould not be aproblsn on this piece of propertya It cou-Idn. t tnve Gen v.ri J"iii.q it
t-
t-
E
r
I
City Council l,teeting - February 22, L988
ordinance?
Robert Pierce: !do, frcm the Planning Ccxnnission $,hen I went there. they
talked about reasonable use. They said that, I think if you'd look in the
Minutes I think you'd see that it ras cl-ear tnat they said, letrs give it to
the Attorney. There must be a way to do this without jeopardizing ourselves. I
know that you have had problans in different areas ard I believe you're even in
litigation on one on a di fferent lake, or there has been scmething in that
order, but the tbo projects are totally, totaLly different. therers not
anythirq in cc[mon to i!. I{e're talking 50 feet ard then we're talking 500
feet. 50 feet in width and I just feel like Ehe rrord reasonable is tie key
here ard r think r"e havd a very, very, verlr reasonabre request before you'
Hor,Jever it needs to be done but I think time is a Problsn. Also, we do have, I
don't know if you want to go through it but r,re have a planner frcrn schoell ard
!,tadsen here ard he did do the project ard he will explain r*Iat i,€ ! re planning
to do down there in a littLe more detail. It might be worth looking at.
Mayor Hamilton: Does anlfuody erant to see it? I guess r,e still have the
concern. You've got 31'400 square feet which is wer tno-thirds of an acre,
550 feet of lakeshore ani roer re saying he canrt use ttre lake. I think thatrs a
little bit lr:dicrous. That just isn't right in my opinion. To put 3 boats on
there with one dock. I guess the other c6rcern I have is, the request eras for,
I guess Iooking at the ordinance, it says r4e can only iEve one canoe rack for
each dock. It lrould sesn to me that ve certainly hant to review that in our
ord inance. It sesns like thatrs the tlTe of thirg vre ought to be encourag ing
more places to tnve rather tlnn discouraging and r would see if there vlasn't
any dock down there, I certainly can't see any reason why they canrt tEve two
caioe racks. As Iong as they're used for canoes and that's the p:rpose for
thsn, canoes or sailboats on the Lake is what you want to enclurage PeoPIe to
use thsn for.
Counci lman Ceving: I would have a terdency to agree with that Torn. I do agree
that this is a fiirty large lot. It doesn't meet ttp depth requiranents but on
the other hard, r.e'vE got other situations rikrere it hasnrt rpt the total area
requiranents. I think they' re reatly the sare thirg. But as far as reviewing
thd ordinance to provide for the additional canoe racks and for sailboaling, I
think that r.puld be a terrific enterprise in this particular develolment
because it would Iend itself to that. You've got a nunber of lots ard any time
you get a dock with 3 or 4 boat slips, you're goirg to have contention for
ino"". Brt on the other hand, if you could have, let's say 2 canoe racks with
12 canoes potential, you'd have errcugh for your neighborhood that yourre
proposing llr. pierc". I agree with Tom, I thj.ok that has to be looked at-
iv.n tf,o,lgt I'm o[posed to grantirg the variance, I thj.nk ttre ordinance itself
could be revised to reflect sctne new condrtrons.
counci lman Horn: I agree. I think that sta!.s within the rrrpose of tte intent
of tie ordinance. I thj.nk r,re could make an exception to lot area size to the
one canoe rack. Tte problan alt,ays c.qnes in wLren you start tEvirg perr&arnent
dockage of boats. canoe racks typicarly are rlot a lake congestion issue- That
rrculd be worth takirq a Iook at but I agree, 1€ shouldnt t do it as a variarrce.
Mayor }iamilton moved to approve the variance to tlle Recreational Beachlot at
68iO l,tinnewashta partc.,ay for lot deptlr requi ranent of 100 feet. To allo, a
i\oi)9
City Courcil t'Eeti ng - February 22, :.:gga
dock to be constructed with three (3) boat slips and allor., tr,,o (2)
There lias no secord ard motion failed for lack of a secord.
Erriott ltretsch: t'hy r make.a sright anren&nent to that and suggest that youmove to have staff prelEre Firdirgs of Fact consistent with deiiar of thevariarce and ttre actual decision reuld be nrade at the next meeting nt"n yo,have those Firdirgs of Fact.
@urEilman BoF: Ird like to ask utry rNe need that?
Blliott Klretsch: There's a requirsnent that you have Firdings of Factsupporting your decision stating contenporane6usly with your-aecision.
canoe racks.
IE have it. Iitrat rpuld you call the Attorneyrs letter if notCounci lman BoyE:
Findings of Eact?
Counci lnan Geving: It r.rould be just a restateoent of tttat.
councilnan Bol&: r donrt urr:lerstard wtry re have to put that off until ne:(tsession if qe have all ttre facts e€'re going to have.
Elliottt lgEtsch: rlbe letter doesnr t address all the specifics that he nnyr',ant to include to support your Firdings. I€ haven't risted exactry wtrat youwant on there.
Councilman @ving: Ihis is not unusual.
@unci lrnan -ceving moved, oounci LI,an Horn secorded to d irect staff to prepareFindings of Ebct oonsistent rsith denial of the variance request to thlRecreational Beachlot Ordinance at 6930 uinner*ashta earnrali ard to direct staffto review ttre ordinarce for tl. change in the potentiar foi a greater nunrer ot
::na_f?:t for this particular lor. AlI voted in favor e*cepf rayor Hanitton$,txo opposed and motj.on carried.
CONDITIOI\AL USE PEEI"TIT FOR A REREATOI{AL BEACHTSI.
courciln'n Boyt: Gary t bel ieve you mentioned int he tEcket that Minner,rashtar*as being, at least in the distant future was looking f,t four rinesi----'
cary thrren: !€ said eE hEre rooking to lr)grade possibtities. subsequentinformation, the 66 foot right-of-way out ifiere rrourd be sufficient ioi-trr"t.
Councilman Boyt: glhen I looked at the map of the beachlot, I remqrber thestatement about tirnbered eralls. rihere were the r,rarrs going to G E*o"i"a *the beachrot? r didn r t see ttrat on the rnap or r didn, f piir, it-"oi-o?--*" ,*nif it was theEe.
BaEbara Dacy: you mean the steps dor,nr to t}le pathrdaf
councilnan Boyt: Tlrat a tirnbered warl would be built. TtEtrs the referenc€thaE I have.
L
t
L
!nJ_ ii
I
City Council lheting - February 22, LgBg
Robert Pierce: It's the steps going down.
discussion about...
Steps or a ramp. Therer s been scrne
Barbara Dacy: This issue came q) witn tlre Kurvers point recreational beachrotard r think the applicant can look at a design vrhere you reould have a ramp plusa longer set of steps so you rrouldn't have a straight slolE down to the beacharea. r think the main intent frqn the Fire Department eEs to make sure tiatthe steps weren I t designed so that they could easily roll stretchers or
wtEtever down tlrere. I{e've got the best of both vDrlds on both options. Ihe
one to control erosion ard the other to facilitate access.
Courci lman Bol,t : I know r.re aII have our points of cpncern here and that erasjust an issue that I wanted to brirg r4l. The last issue is that I feet we
should nake scine effort to preserve the shoreline where you,re not having a
beach area. I would propose that one cordition of approval r.ould be ttrai itrgnain natural all along the shoreline except !*lere the sand beach isinstalled.
Robert Pierce: I think thatrs hrhat my proposal had.
l,layor Hamilton: I think al,org tlle beach not there are trees that have falleninto the lake and there is a lot of garbage along the lake.
Robert Pierce: I'lhen I mean natural, I think we want to clean up ard irnprove itbut ertEt r.re want to do basically is leave intact anything thatrs alive arriflourishirry ard holds our bank in.
l4ayor Hanilton: I think wtrat Bill may be referring to however is to keepi n9
the weeds growirg near the lake. I donrt know if that l|ould inhibit the use of
your lot down there or not.
RoberE Pierce: ltre sand blanket area that r,€ have there is probably tlle area
that $Ie use for swinming mostly. Ttre rest of it I hadn't really planned ontrying to change it much other than clean i.t up.
!4ayor Hamilton: You may have a volleybal-I court or scrnething.
Robert Pierc€: It r.tould probably be on tle sand area.
Dave Prillaman: I live on Red Cedar Point for 25 years. Noo, I just heard
sfiething that really bothers ne. You're talking about a 4-lane highway
on Minnewashta earl<way. You can forget then the beachlot ard an1*hirg to dowith it if you're going to have 4 lanes going down there.
Crunci lman Bo!.t: I can urrlerstand the reconmendation by the fire people tolook at a rarp. r raould think a ramp might create scrne erosion probrsns. Aresteps less of an erosion inducer tlEn a ramp Garl4)
cary Warlen: Anything that rmuld minjmize the rate of runoff tlpically helpsto also minimize erosion. rhe faster the water goes over the l;nd, th6 nrorepotential there is for erosion so the rarU), as 16ur re saying fron ihatperE)ective r,rrculd be more an erosion hazard.
1_
City Oouncil },teeting - February 22, 1:ggg
l'tayor tlamilton: Therers no proposed 4 lare highway on uinrEwashta earkuay.
Dave Erillaman: fsrrt that wtEt I just heard?
l'tayor lbmilton: sqneHy just askeil the question. rhey said, rn, there is nota proposed 4-Iane higtnay.
Dave Pril}anan: yourve got 66 feet for right-of-lay? tlow srride lsas that road9oin9 to be?
Gary ghrren: That road rnurd be maximun 44 foot road section that couldul tiJnately built.
Eve trillaman: tl]I, wide is it rpr/?
Gary Warren: That rod no* is maybe 3l-32.
Dave Pri llalnan: I guess all Irm saying is, if rerre going to have thisfreeway, lrou can forget all the Eest oi it. AlI that- rod needs is to bemaintained. rt doesn't neeal to be any wider. ftre speed liurits are not adheredtg ther: now. -t€t's. just don,t, I knor this is besides what you, re talkingabout, but you're going to have an anfur big argr:ment witn nre- ir you widen ttratroad.
l,tayor Hamilton: I{et re not ptanning on any widening. yourd probably have an
?rgurcnt with me too. r don't have that either. tty motion r.rould iicrude thefive coniitions by the staff also.
CounciLnan Bolrt: What about keepirg the shorelire natural?
Courci lman Geving: ...wi11 be pretty rEtural anlrr.ray BiU. I think theyrretryirg to rnake this a receational area but I think they want to clean i-t r4r,not destroy the natuEal beauty of it. I have no problan witll amending mysecord to include that-
lhyor rbmi rton moved, councirman ceving seconded to approve conditionar usePermit *87-u for a recreational beactriot subject to -tire fouowirq .;;itio*,
L. the recreationar beachlot shalr not trave a dock or canoe rack (s) unl,ess avariance to the lot depth requiranrent is granted by the noard'oiAdjusunents ard City Courcil.
2. the proposed dock sharl not have 4 overnight slips unress a variance totte umitation of orernight storage is grinted uy tte aoara of Adj ustmentsard City courcil.
3. Ar1 additional standards establ ished for a recreationar beachr.ot in theZoning Ordinanc€ must be met.
4. A tree rqnoval plan m.rst be suEnitted to the City and DNR for apgrrovalprior to any alteration to Oltlot A.
I
t
City Council tEeting - February 22, lggg
5- The applicant shall provide a detaired grading anl erosion control pranfor Elp recreational beachlot for staff approval.
6. The at?licant shall keep the shoreline natural except where the sard beachis installed.
All voted in favor ard motion carried.
ltayor Hamilton: I llDuld hope that you i.rould meet lrit}l staff as soon aspossible to discuss the possibility of requesting a change in the ordinance andI'd be hapgf to work with you on it also. If you donrt want to request it, Iwill. I think itrs sqnething r.e should be reviewing and getting on with.
Robert Pierce: Ir11 catl thsn tqnorroer.
ST'BDIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES INTO EIVE SINGLE FAMILY TSIS ON PROPER,IY ZOND RSF,
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEIITIAL ATD TOCATD EAST OE AlD AD]ACE}II TO ITINNETTASHIA
PARK9AY APPROXIIIATEtY L/2 UILE floRTH oE 11{ 5, scHlBBA-wINc[tELL, APPLIcAtfrs.
Barbara Dacy: The property is located east of ard adj acent to MimEwashtaParkway. the property is zoned RSF, Singl-e Family Residential. Ttre parcel isoutlined in green on this overhead. The Planning Conmission discussion focusedon two rnajor issues with one of the rnajor issues having three subdivisions, ifyou will. One $ras lot size ard the secord orp vJas access ard that could bedivided into three issues. Drive$rays versus an internal street. potential
variance request ard third, the maple tree that,s located in ttre property. IrdIike to address the lot size issue first. As you are all aware, the singlefamily zoning district provides for a minjrnum lot size of L5,6OO square ieet.
Ttrere are a nunlcer of adj acent prolErty owners in the area that rrere requestingthat the @uncil look to reducing the nunber of lots in this subdj.vision sothat the proposed lot sizes vrould increase ard be more cqn[Erable to the lot
sizes existirg in the area. The Planning Conmission d j.scussed this at length
and directed staff to bring, an issue back if you refer to the discussion,
there r.ras no action taken on this particular itsn. Ho$,ever, the Council should
be aware that the proposal does meet the minj.mr-un requj.rsnents of the Zoning
Ordinanc-e. All of the lots did contain 15,000 square feet as reqr:ired by the
Zoniog Ordinance. If these adj acent property owners v.ould sell theirprolErties or sdne tinre in the future if the properties were to be subdivided,the same requirenents $rould be imposed.
Councilman Boyt: How big are Ehose Lots?
Barbara Dacy: the adjacent lots to the east are, I r.rould say at least an acre
ard a half in size ard nraybe scnre of the property or,rners are here ard couldverify my estimate. As to the second issue of access, one of the issues was
whether or not a variance request was necessary for two drivevray accesses onto
Minne$rashta Par kvray wtrich is designated in the Ccrnprehensive plan as acoLlector- !€ asked the City ALtorney Eo respord to that issue discussed by
the Planning Ccxrmission. His letter is included in your packet. In essencehis opinion was that the ordinance prohibits access frcrn "irdividual lots"
meaning if there t"ere 5 driver^rays proposed for 5 lots, that r.ould beprohibited. Ho!,rever, since tlre proposed drivorrays are shared, that does not
i e-., rJ
Ii
t
I
I
T
Planning Commission Meet i ngJanuary 6, 1988 - page 2q
T RA TTO RD RIDGE SUBD IVI S ION LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ONAOPERTY ZONED RSE, RES I DENT I Er,-slTGrE-EAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE:
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREAT IONAL BEACHLOT.
#.1
I
f
A. SUBDIVISION OE 9.q4 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
C. WETLAND AL]EEA!]9N PERMIT TO COIISTRqCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHINEErse@sEiffiiirffiszffiffi
Larry Brown presented the engineering department.s staff report on theStratford nidge Subd ivis ion.
Headla: That sedimentation basin, erhen r was rooking at it, it rookedlike it would be G feet below the street level. fs €hat right?
Brosrn: The elevation at the bottom of the pond is 966 and theerevation of the roadway is approximately g72. This invert of thestorm sewer pipe is approximately half a foot, r.rell itrs gie.S .Uorr"this. During the 16g year storm, the maximu*'..p""iJy tn.i it,=expected to maintain, the erevation would be 968.- ttris is rrer. r berohrthe provisions of the roadlray so rde won,t be creatin! i lioure* there.The one probrem thaE does exist is the park and necreltio'n comrnissionhad proposed for a trail_easeme-nt along Minne$rashta eurfriy. During
_Ehe norm.al storm, say IO year frequen6y storm, you can fiia trait
L :.:.:?? l:.:_f:1:Iy readiry. rhere's nor many obsractes throush there.\t wlII be up ouE of the ponding area and wo t be a problem. Theproblem does cone in if a Lgg year storm does occur, ,i" *uV "t..eencroaching upon the trail but r seriously doubt that many' peopre aregoing to be using the trail during a L66 yeax storm.
Headra: Hoe, do you get the rrater from the sedimentation basin out?Just a culvert under the road?
Bror.rn: Yes, the Watershed has reviewed this and lrith a bafflestructure here, it will frow into Lake Minnewashta. certain provisionscan be made to bring this outlet back further and rip rap it out but rdon't think that wourd be very advantageous. rhe sed-imenlation istrapped in the basin and there won't bi anything...
Headla: Is all the water coming out of there going t.o stay on thepierce property? The grade in ttre r.and k.ind irr .ir.L. li-i".p on goingsouth. The drainage out of the sedimentation basin. 1o, '"L. it'"headed southeast. why didn't it go more east? rf you treal soutneast,it's going to continue flowing to Ehe south when -ia'i"-a"-i"'st the road.
Brorrn: I think they made provisions. The drainage that comes fromhere is trapped through the roadway system and st6rm ""r".- "y"t".. rtflows j.nto the sedimentation uasin ant then goes ."i tli..'
t
Planning Commj.ssion Meeting
January 6, 1988 - page 21
./readla: Okay, right.L ne east side of Ehethe south. Are they
Brovrn: That r.ras ny
there. It, doesn't get to the lake. It getsroad but then the grade tends to make it flowgoing to pipe it right down to the lake?
to
to
Ted: Yes.
conrad: There's a lot of property that could be developed around thereand I guess I still see a benefit of creating a pond. frot only forthis project but for others to the north and to lhe west. Why not? Isthe elevation prohibitive of redirecting the front properties to drainto the rear to a pond and how come thatrs not an alternative?
Brown: Basicry the initial submittar had the pond in this area andwe made them rerocate it to facilitate some of the naturar drainagepath. This area over here, BRw had analyzed that in their report. Ontheir sketch they had picked out specifi- areas, row rying areas, thata pond could be facilitated. unfortunately, r don,t hive -an overheadthat but it is in your packet. That was not one of the areas they hadpicked. Because they met the r00 year frequency, it worked in witn tnside slopes of these lots and the existing-drainage patterns, I feltthat it was adequate. That certainly is an alternative that courd beexplored but I felt that this pond...
understanding. Is that correct?
of
e
Conrad: TelI me a little bit about, if you had a pond back there, like
l-t canrE hold, what would you do with Uhe pond that vras there? lvould\ne assumption be that it could hold a lot of vrater or r"rould you stillhave the same type of outlet into Minnevrashta? without looking at thesite r have no idea what the hold i ng capac i ty wourd be back Ehere butwould you potentj.ally have Eo have the same type of outlet that youcurrentry have on the hording pond that you pranned in this partlcurar
map or could a pond be self contained? It f lo$rs in and it just staysthere.
Brown: You would have to have some sort of outlet. Eventually thatpond is going to reach capacity. I know Ehat the neighboringproperties are very concerned about this area. I think that was one ofthe major reasons for the placement of the pond over here. Not onlythat, obviously we're limited by the property boundary and Ehe slopesin the dj.tch area now. Like I said, I havenrt got jt down to brasitacks whether a pond is feasible through here. There could be someshifting of the proposed grades but I think you would have to outlet itsomeplace and Irm afraid that that alternati.ve would be bad for Lake
Mi.nnewashta.
Conrad: Ho!, does a study, Iike BRW, how did this get funded? The BRWportion of a}ternatives. What prompted a study and who funded that?
Brown: BRW has been one of our consultants, for a while, to explorethis, $re used BRW because we,re concerned with Minnehrashta parkway
jeing a collecLor street. we're worried about the aspects of access( rto ttrnnerrrashta parkway. There are certain problems, as yourreprobabry more Ehan aware of, of sight distance and speed on Mj.nnerrashtaParkway. For that very reason, we wanted to explore what restrictionswe needed for stratford Ridge such as thi.s entrince and also tofacilitate future deveropment. If this piece goes, iE.rs fairryinevitable that the surrounding pieces wirr a6 that so rre had to rookat.once these pieces start cominq in, how are we going to faciritateutilities through there, the roadway patterns.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 22
Conrad: Did that cone from your office or did theyou to do that?
Brorrrn: Yes, it
Conrad: Okay,doing that? Is
Brolrn: That I s
Conrad: yourre
yourre going to
Lar ry?
City Counc i 1 direct
came from our office.
and then how does that get funded? Who pays BRW forthat just a budget that the city has?
a budgeted item, yes. we often use consultants.
just talking to us about engineering facts. Jo Ann,be talking about other things. enyihing else for
Jo Ann olsen presented the pranning departmentrs staff report on theStratford Ridge Subdivision.
ls cnrad: WouId the applicant like to talk to us on $rhat i.ras justpresented and any other comments?
Ted Kenner, Schoell and Madsen: The two questjons Ehat Jo Annspecifically- brought up were the area of the property and we havecalculated the area of the property to be 9.04 atres. Thj.s apparentl-ydisagrees with the tax area wnicn is substantiarty ress. somlihing i.nthe 5 acre area- r have not seen the Eax statement, but it is actiariya 9 acre parcel. As to Lot l, Block 2 I understand by looking at it,it does not appear to have the Ls,qgu. rf you take tie dimensions thatare shown out of the plat, that does not calcurate out but those arethe dirnensions to the curves. rf you take the rength of the rot timesthe width of tbe 1ot, which is 140 feet long by f06 feei wiae, itcarculates out to be L5,L2a- so when the piat is finarry citcurated,that lot will be made to be a 15,6a6 or larger and it wi lt be basedvrith_ that configuration. r guess r don,t h-ave any other issues unr.essyou have quest i ons .
Headla: on the 9.04 acres, Jo Ann remember earry this falr when we hadEhat Halla's DroDerrv.qnd I asked the question, ih" u."" th.y "t.t"a,did that incruae tne nignwav. we were'iiriing .L""t-ri, rsil and yousaid no, that's not normally included. when i root ar itre lrithmeticon-.this proper ty, j f -I measure str ictly Lhe envelop",- f
-ao.a up v, j. th9.94 acres. That includes Minnewashta parkway. It i iui""'ott
(
Minnewashta parkway and the lakeshore, r come up with 7.5G acres lrhich
{: what the t.axable property was and thatrs really what yourre trying\o develop. If you take away the outlot, itrs rea-lly 7 a6res thatyourre developing. Do you agree $rith that?
Ted Kenner: It depends on how you figure it. I erould say thatdevelopable property is the entire parcel less the area that isMinnewashta Parkway. The area in Minner"rashta parkway is aboutquarters of an acre so you still have g.3 acres of land area.
Headla: So the 9.04 did include the highway?
Ted Kenner: OveralI, the
the
in
three-
Headla: I get 130. If
length is 140 feet.
I take this 100 and thi.s 15 and this 15, that,st10-L
Ted Kenner:
Headla: I rm
Ted Kenner:
lot vras set
AII I rm using is
using d imens i ons
the scaIe.
right off
Okay, that's the way
up is based on scale.
print.
it and that's the way the
I can see dimensions onunder. It does not meet
I've
the
based
HeadIa: I don't believe j.i-ts L5,A66. Untjlthe print that says that, I think you,re waythe minimum of t5,Agg.
Ted Kenner: Icalculations.
guess Irm confident that it does just based on my
Headla: What does
Ted Kenner: Thisat thj.s point.
preliminary plat mean?
j.s a preliminary plat.This has not been calculated
Can you
i t is?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 23
- ,a, ^".rn"r, ?hat is correct. you,ve got three-quarters of an acrebetween the road and the rake in there or about seven-tenths of an
- acre and that is not within the prat itself but it,s stilr rand areathat is developable and is taxed.
Headla: r give you credit for a little bit more area than that. okay,- r wanted to make that point. can r see your arithmetic on Lot l? rrvetried and tried and tried and r can not come up with the, if you couldjust sketch it. Give me the overalt dimensions and then let me go on
- to something else.
Head Ia: But if we approve thi s, what are vre rea 1l y approving?
- slide anythj.ng around like you want or are we approving this as
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - page 24
o1r{
Tedir
sen: They haven,t made
mensions with the final the final calculati.onsplat to match the two.
but we check the lot
You canrt change.
Headla: What do you really change on here? Irm not sure f reallyunderstand pr el im i nar y.
Olsen: The preliminary yourll establish the lot layout and the 1otdimensions and the square footage. The final plui,-ii-iu"t "o*"" inwith just the lot lines. That,l rlrhen you,ve aLne ttre tinafcarcurations. so with a preriminary pl-at sometimes you'ii get-a rotthaEts 110 wide and rhen the final iiit .o*" in and it.igti U.actually II2.
Headla: so yourre rearly just fine tuning some of the dimensions butthese lots arenrt going to slide around anymore. I guess I erant tomake very sure that does meet the minimum -reqoirern"rits. i don,t knowho$, they're going to achieve it. That'i aII I had on that. On thedriveway, on the outlot th-at. you,re suggestGg-, -;;.-;.;";;ng to bed9i"-s- any grading on that dririewaya elt you crranginq th-e rever of thatat all?
Ol sen :
blocked
Right along here.at aI1.There is concern that this driveway not be
The plan is to not do anything in this area. Just leaveKenner:
as is.r\-j.adla: So you wonrt be doing any grading in there and you aren,tchanging water flow at aII then?
Ted Kenner: No- rt wir-l only be constructed from Minnewashta parkv,rayup to stratford Drive where it goes into the development. That erirl befinished, the roaderay-up tg theie. Beyond that wili remain the graveldriveway that presenily- ex i s ts there. '
Headla: Fine, there Lras some concern and r just wanted cr-arificationon that. when yourre doing this, and this i; kinJ "il q"I"tion rhab.comes up at differenE times, therers only one lray into tliat house, whathappens if there is an emergency up t.here?. ts_tliere aI$/ays going to bean access to that place? . When you,re putting in that a0 -i;t rcad, hor,,is that person, in case thereis -.n
"..ig"."y, how does thit-nouse getserved ?
Ted Kenner: When you say that house, which are you talking about?
Headla: The one directly to the vrest.
Ted Kenner: HaIIgren, s?
Headla: yes.
(
Planning Commission Meeti ng
January 5, 1988 - Page 25
Ted Kenner: They would maintainat all times.
the driveway through there so they-(tuld get through
Headla: Even when you're building that 50 foot road?
Ted Kenner: Yes.
Headla: What about on the northeast corner where I thi.nk it's Mrs.- Campbell lives now, her property goes right into her driveway and Ithink that's been common knowledge in the area for some time. whathappens to her? Is she just out of luck noe, or maybe the builder can- EeII me, how is that handted?
Robert pierce: Thatrs been addressed.
_ driveway purposes.There is an easement for
Ted Kenner: Just one comment on that. Since that was drawn, we havegotten additionar information on the exterior boundaries and they wirlbe shifting a rittre further from her house on the north side anywayand.possibly right to the edge of the driveway. So the drive may notgo i.nto our property.
Headla: Do they grate that thing or what do they do?
Brown: There is plenty cf room for the 8 foot trail. where the
Problem comes in is actually t}]e 2g foot easement area thatrs normally
_required. There's a problen with overlapping the drainage easementwith Ehe trajl easement and that was my major concern. There is morethan enough room to get an I foot trail in there. That obviouslydoesnrt alleviate the possibility of reachj.ng :naximum capacity of the
-pond and occasionally runnj.ng over the lop of that trail. I thinkthatrs the problem at this point. As far as the question we ereregetEing at before about the pond bei.ng close to the residential
-nei.ghborhood right there, we have required ponds on roughly all thedevelopments. One classic example j.s over here on the Saddlebrook.That's probably the biggest ponding site that we have and that again is
Headla: How do you people feel about that trail going alongMi.nnewashta Park$ray and then that G foot drop-off theie? Then you've
-9oE a 5.fooE water. pond arong the parkway and then yourre going to havehomes Ehere. Is that going to be a problem for peofle on ihe bike
irail or the homes that are right there that have small ch j.ldren?
- Robert Pierce: At this point, I guess I don't realty know. Itrs al i ttle hard for me to visualize how the trail is going to go in until. Ireally see where it's _going to go. I do know thaC witl the proper
- landscaping and the right grades, I think it can be done and-made to).ook very nice. I guess it would be up to whoever is using the trailto use it in such a way that, if they're going at such a saeed thatthey canrt stay on the trail or vrhatever, I guess thatrs where problems
-r"rould come in but that could be anywhere along the trail.
(
PI ann J. ng Commissjon Meetjng
January 6, 1988 - paqe 2G
adjacent to the rearyard so I really don't
Headla: So if we set a precedent, itthan what werve done other places?
foresee any direct problem.
going to be any differentisn't
Brown: That I s correct.
HeadIa: I was Iooking at that hoping to have the erater go back theother way. The other one, rrm concer-ned about the qretlarid to thenorEhwest, but we can talk about that. My only other comment is, f lrasreally disappointed in r-he.BRw maps. rnef ius€ bi;a;.liy-r;nr rishtthrough the wetlands and they ar". suggest-i.r-g these ... ,i"i" the roadsshould go. Irm not going to belabor tne poiit except thaL I thought itwas inappropriate to do- you heard the d-i scuss i o;'toni;ht. we,re veryconcerned about wetrands and then something that the viliaje wilrsponsor, we blast a road right on through.
Brovrn: I think that can be addressed by, initially and Jo Ann canconfirm this, initialry we didn't think that area was a rdetland. As rstated before, r,rhen the applicant submitted this at first,- lhut *."when we ordered the overview by BRw. shortly thereafterwar-s, the areaback there in the northwest corner was analyied as a row class wetrand.So it's not a real obvious. factor when you'ie out there trompingthrough the site, that it is a wetland.
Emmings: I've just got a little bit here. On the condition 2, Jo Annit says Lots L through 5 and I assume that,s Block 2 that you,retarking about there so r guess rrd rike to, whoever makes fhe motion, rthink we ought to i nclude Brock 2 in Ehere so we,re sure we know whichLots 1 through 5 wetre talking about. Then, going to condition l,we're talking about the right-of-eray south oi r,oti 7 through ls wirl bedesignated as an outlot. Do r underitand the reason that'i being doneis to avoid the double frontage question?
Olsen: -Mostly it's just so the city would not have to maintain aclouble trontage. IErs indicated as street right_of_way right now...
Emmings: why arenrt we doing the same things then at least Lots g, 9and r0 0f Brock r that ererre doing on Lot 2 ior the double frontagelots?
olsen: Technicarly right now itrs not actuarry a double frontage r.ot.
Emmings: We are creating double frontage lots right?
olsen:just go
Itts possible that when streetsstraight down from Stratford to
are approved ehere thaE itthis driveway but. . .
wi. 11
Emmings: As far as the double frontagewi th that. I don,t think the plan is aProperty. I,m glad that they looked to
Iots, I donrt have a problembad plan at all for thesee how it would fit with the
(
t
(
development of the neighboring properti.es. r think that's been lookedat. I guess I donrt have any trouble thinking about a variance forthose because werve already said we want lot depth to be 125 feet andin fact t.hey may not need a variance at all if the City Council goesalong $rith that. I do however like the idea of having additj.ona-lIandscaping lrhen there are double frontage lots. The only thing Ihave troubLe really conceptuarizing in this plan is four of thoae lotsin Block 2, such as 2,3,4 and 5 really, it would seem to me there issome kind of mushy language in there that we recommend that the housesface the internal streets but I would think as a matter of fact, yourdwant to build those houses to look at the lake.
Olsen: What that means is.that it emphasizes is they must be clearedfor a driveway. What we erould consider the rear of the house theywould consider the front.
, Erhart: And that street exi.sts?
Olsen: No. I think qrhat they would probably do is put a service road
where this dotted line is.
Erhart: And that not being
up with double frontage Iots
double frontage lots.
good j.dea, for that purpose we end
us Option B. Option B gives us with
such a
gives
Olsen: But they're building this already.
Erhart: Really, the BRw plan is the one that gives us the variance.
Possibly you could have drawn up a street plan and prevented any doublefrontage lots.
Brown: If I could interrupt, I think as pointed ou! in the BRw report,that there is a large number of possibili t.ies that one could Lay thisout. Again, one of the other pojnts that was brought out in the reportis the abil-ity to develop this area is goj.ng to rely on a developer topackage several parcels of land together. That may not happen. Someof the homeowners have already expressed that no, my land will never bedeveloped. That may in fact happen but the object of this was not tolay out the specific lots or force anyone into developing, it vras jusE
such that we can address Stratford Ridge to accomodate that development
Planning Commission Meeti ng
Ja'nuary 5, 1988 - Page 27
-(,
Emmings: That makes it perfectly clear. Now I understand. I don'tcare which eray they go but as Iong as they have the access off theinternal street and theyrve got some add j.tional, when we say theyrregoing to have additional screening, thatrs on the parkway side right?I don't have anlrmore questions.
Erhart: On that BRW plan, on Option A, how are they going to get
access from Minnewashta Parkway?
Olsen: Option A is showing it to be accessed fron the north.
\_
(
Planning Commission Meeti ngJanuary 6, 1989 - page 2g
if it were to occur.
Olsen: Therers 90 foot street frontage andcomes out to 85.
Ted Kenner: It,s 90 at the building setback
Olsen: Thatts for cul-de-sacs.
Ted Kenner: Then we should make that lot 90
including the radius, tha t
line.
on the front then.
d, of course theno assurance tha t
Erhart: I think $rhat yo.u.9i.d il putt j.ng together a master plan for thearea was just grear.
- r Ehink tha1,s "rp1..
- whetl;' ;he; -di"o u goodjob or not, that one.I won,t make a iuaiment, on. Obviously, if anycompany should do this, I agree with-oaire, they shouJ.d ;;-i; and findout, before they lay. any pen to paper they ought to find out r,rhatrswett and in the area beciule tharis'jusr ai imfortant-.=-tiJ'e*isti.,9streets. rn my mind, r'm just. uryiig to understand the doubre frontedlots to some degree comes ibout u3 litiing pressure on the deveroper totry to stick to our master plan so i quess i don,t t u.r" i lrotlem withthe variance from that stanipoint. -r,'ois r and 2 of Block 2, they have7O f oot f rontage on one sid.e.- tt.t," tlf o, the mininrum al.owed.
Erhart: Lot I should be 90. Lot 2, that one being on an outsidecurve, you courd argue that it r^rourd be on the ""tl..i,-lut Lot 1, rthink -you've got to look at tnat' n-umler. And the extra r0 feeE is,- included in Lots 7 through fg of iiocf 1 right, because it,s double{. frontage? It is incluaeda --
Olsen: Not right nor,, but it wilL be. Right now it,s not. Theposition right is for Lots f through -S...
Erhart: If t.he plan is for them to be double frontething is in this case the aevef-pei iJ n=o., there isthat street will ever continue i5-g.-tn..rgh Ehere.
Robert pierce: There,s the possibility too that at a future date,depending on hoi./ rand. wourd;"";r.p ;;:und rhere, tt.r-itar-""cess maynever be used or it might strirt ov6r-id're"t.
Erhart: So I guess it really isn,t an issue. No more questions.
conrad: The size of-the properties on either side Jo Ann, are r.argeparcels on either side? worlh and "outt,ZOlsen: Yes, they are also narrov, to where, -as Larry nentioned, theyare goins to have to r.rork.together. r ini"x-it"-;;,"";;;;";.,to th";::::r:""5[':i:]'"::'ii3. tl",t';a-''..uaiii=ion- rirev- are iir r".su
Planning Commission Meet i ngJanuary 6, 1988 - page 29
-(
Erhart:in for aline is?
A.."_yog Ealking about the Charles Anderson propertysubdiv j.sion? And they would get access from wtrere-
is
your
com lng
blue
Olsen: I havenrt seen the plans.
Ted Kenner: I have talked to then and they are more interested indeveroping the property to the north. thiy are--r""x*g-.t-ihe ctr.rlesAnde.rson property and Ehe one just to the west of there vrhi.ch i.s ownedby the preasant Acres Homeowneis Association. Th"t ;;; iooii"g "tdeveloping those two parcels together tying both o? ito""-oif otPleasant Acres.
Conrad: I still have a problem. It sti1l looks to me like lre,reputting a whole 10t of stuff on a few acres here. r know that ourlegar consurtants say it meets the minimum "= r.ong u"'l;ey arr do bute,hen r see the bike trair and r see the holding poia una r ="" "o*.variances and double frontages, it al$rays means, usually when we have arot of stuff tike that it means we're putting too much -on a piece ofproper ty .
Erhart: Jo Ann are sre asking for a variances for double frontage onLot 7 through r0? Hord caD we do that srhen there's no street there?Werre not asking for a variance?
Conrad: we're not?rqr orsen: !{hat. you need right now is a variance to that additi.onar feetrequired on Lots I through 5.
Headla: What did you say Jo Ann? I didnrE follo$r.
olsen: Technically they're getting the variance for that additionar.I0 feet.
Erhart: And the reason for justification of a variance lras what?
olsen: rs that that 1g feet could not be provided vrithout alteri.ng.They can shift the street up here, that would provide more rot dept-hbut to provide that additi.onal l0 feet, Ehere is no alternative. 'they
would possibly have to renove this lot and shift it up. Again, r" r"i.just working with the location of thj.s street for accessj.ng theproperty to the north. we felt this r^,a s a good stEeet coniiguration.
Erhart: And the I0 feet is added to what?
olsen: The rot depth. Right now they wourd have Eo have r.6g feet.
Erhart: And werve sent on to the Council to change that to I25?
_Olsg1: Yes,.and if that does get approved, then all of Ehese Iots
t ,ourd meer without. the additional 1,0 feet.
Headla: Does it look like that,s going to fLy? Don,t know.
Larry l{enzel: Subject to what happens with this given parcel ofproperty..in respect to the other pieces of properiy with this masterlayout, that plan, how much of this is cast in- stoire? It appears thatwerre pretty welI constricted individually, o, ar"n-i" .-g.oop,according to t.he road systems that have been raid out as far as the]oI:: .Yourve. got some variances on this piece of p.op".ty-. How manybuil! in variances have they raid in for the rest of us that werregoing to.!a.ve to get comprilnce to even to think of the economics ofwhethe! this thing is going to be developed in I989 or the year 1006subject to the varue of whit we can serr our piece-of-ranJ anatherefore a house for. _rs this the pran thatis going io-te naintainedsubject to whether that's approved oi not approvlda -
orsen: No, the onry pran that wourd be maintained would be this one.The onl.y way that this. is ar-ter ing the impact of t.he surrounaingproperties is that it is designatiig where future roads wilr. beprovided to the north and the; it witt b" providing this whore lengtharong here and a road that goes straight to the south and hrest. Thatrsthe only ,thing thar.'s dictafin9 ar this time. -rrres;-pi;;" are jusrgoing to be used for generar uie to give us a better p-i"tore of whatthe street layouts could possibry ha-ve. staff is concerned rrith a rotf :l :..f:.:-.-.^" _._"::::"" onro Minner.,ishta earkway. w" ,"i. rivins to look\iE a way to provide service to all those lotj along here withoutnecessarily having separate accesses.
Planning Commission MeetingJanuary 5, 1988 - page 30
Larry Wenzel: Are they assuming that mos!be moved out of there? Thatrs [he way it of the
appears.
existing homes will
Olsen: Therers real].y no assumption, it was just kindplan. just to tay it on top. rhis was Iike j f 6veryUoJysubdivide. Thele are many possibilities.
Larry Wenzels Can I get a copy of those variances that you havelisted? The easement. foE thslrair that s going to io",'"" r perceivedit, along Minnevrashta parkway, ,"nn;ng-ttr" "rn"fl ,uy-.-"'tfiui," going tobe taken on what 1 the rdest side of l,tj.rinewashta narkJayZ ----'
Olsen: At this point it will be on the west side.
Larry wenzer.: And what are they going to do, just cut another swath inthere? Another 8 foot swath west tf tie roaoa
Olsen: Off of Ehe right-of-eray.
of an overa I Iwould want to
Eime theyrve taken
when you cut thi st
Larry Wenzel: If they do that, this js the th j.rdour stuff. Along here you,ve got a major hill and
Planning Commi ss j. on MeetingJanuary 5, 1988 - page 3I
,ur1y I-lost that huge tree from cutting in the road and it died from( :cK or vrater.. Then they put the new street j.n and they pitched itwrong and you've got arl the rrater coming down this .oaa lt g0 mphgoing right over a mickey mouse curb that they put in aiter it washedthe whole bank out once and out into tt. luk.l 'Are ttrey-g"i"g t.-prtsome kind of a storm se$rer on this side of the street trieri arong withthat so handle that kind of a probrem? Because yourre increasing thatgrade dramatically.
Emmings: Jo Ann, arenrt they just reserving an easement on this platfor a possible future traitwly. There,s no plan to build it.
Larry Wenzel: ftrs not connected to whatever, you approved thisdevelopment, it doesnrt cast that into stone and it is there andseEting a precedent?
Emmings: Just reserving an easement for a possibre future trair..
O1sen: The park and Recreation Commission has a trail plan and
Illley:shta parkway is designated ro have a trair so as deveropmentscome rn, we reserve easements for that. when it will be buili, fcouldn I t teLl you.
r r,arry Wenzel: I guess I get a litt1e nervous when I.eighbor John Zi.egLer of course isnrt here, but I seethat and I'n wondering how much thought process went
Olsen: We have not looked at it atwould be reviewed at that time.
this point. Those sort of issues
see, and our
someth J. ng I i. keinto that thing.
OIsen: Thi. s doesn't
area.
show everything. That mjght l"lave been a pondiog
Larry l{enzel: That,s all high ground.
Brown: As Jo Ann point out, the proposed plat has really nothing to dowith the approval of this. Li.ke I said, a number of Eheie plans couldhave been drawn up. you could have come in with five of thLse. Theonly thing about thjs plan is that if stratford Ridge is approved, ifMr. Anderson decided that he wanted to hook into sanitary iLwer if hewanted to develop, he may be able to facilitate the saniiary se.,rer anderater from the stratford Ridge deveropment. That was the onry reasonthat Ehis report was even looked at. To figure out hovr re cui, put inpiece of the puzzle if they so choose to develop. But this plai, asfar.as the lot Layouts, as far as even these parcels are devlloped, isstrictly up to the lot owner. It's just so if you do decide todevelop, you have a way of doing that. But as far as the lot layout,each parcel can come in and propose as long as they meet the L5,66g
9quare foot mj.nimum and in accordance to the ordinance. But this
laygut js arbj trary. It,s just so future development can Ue made tofacilitate if the need should occur.
r\
Headla: Just so you folks on the Commission understand where we,re:oming from, 666s of us had seen this. We didn't even know it wasgoing on. All of a sudden there,s ts/o opti.ons. What werre going topossibJ.y do with your home, with your prtperty, so it's "-iittf.shocking. You can rook at it objectivery uut for us, it's more of anemotional thing Ehe first shot.
Brown: I thj,nk also, as pointed out in the report before, some ofthese parcers will have trouble meeting the reluirements is far as lotarea by themserves and this report was a way oi informing tt"'n"ilhbiisthat if they so choose, they cin get togeth6r ana aeveroj ini" or-trive-somebody develop it for. them. if -they have a smar.rer parcer. rtrs justanother method of learningr. if they lrant to develop,'tney should beinformed as to whatrs out there.
Larry Wenzel: I think you're right and frm not disagreeing. It is ashock. when you see your name up there and alt thes6 lots-chopped upand your house doesnrt exist.
Mrs. Wenzel: And no road access.
Larry Wenzel: Each one of us, even though our piece is I0.5 acres,afEer Davers expranation, r'm not sure whit we,vl got aftJr risteningto erhat Lawsonrs might or might not. r donrt know who the devil itcomes from but in my particular case which is inmateriai io this, we'vegot a house here and a house here, which is fine because oi your faxe
'.
.rI..:: You'd o-robably get it blocked off and get two ironf water fotsL:19. !n" rest of it.you develop or whatever the case may be but thereyou've got access that exists from the main street now.- The hray thisappears, all of a sudden that's changed, even though it,s there. Itmj.ght not be and I guess thaE's what -makes you a littL" n.i.ror".
Erhart: WeJ.I, it may not be because the ordinance, I believe oncollectors, it's 390 feet separation for street access. so the \rhorepurpose of putting together this master -plan is a pran that everybodyhas future access and stirr meet the ordinance. -v5u Jo-it"t oypreven.ing situations like this developer- coming in and Jritini trocul-de-sacs with no future extension o-f che str6et. s. it"t the planarlorred us to do here is to vJork with the deveroper to ariow futureaccess of the one street to 90 up to the Mildred Kirkson property, ifthat person so chooses to deverop without having a airect'access ontoMinnewashta parkway.
Larry wenzel: yes, but many of the driveways arready exist and theyare t$ro distinct and separate pieces of prolerty, rroi, "un you t.rr *uno$, that this is going to change.
it doesn'tto Minnewashta.
Erhart: No it doesnr !, but if you !,ranted to deveJ-op,necessarj ly mean that you can put in a street ouElet
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - page 32
L
Pl ann i. ng Commj.ssj.on Meetj.ng
January 6, 1988 - page 34
fadla:
Emmi ngs :
HeadIa:
They have to come back again?
No.
If they don,t make it LS,0gg.
The right-of-way south of Lotsdesignated as an outlot.
is L7 1506. They can stearI hrould th j.nk without any
r econm end
"Recei ved
7 through L0 shall be
Emmings: Dave, look at the lot next doorenough over there to make that one :-S,ggAtrouble at all. If they do need it.
I just want to see it at :-5,Ogg.
WelI, thatrs what .the plan says. Staff has to make sure thatThaE I s irhat rre t re approving.
Headla:
Emmings:
happens.
Emm i ngs
approval
Decembe r
moved, Erhart seconded that the planning Commissionof Subdivision #87-32 as shown on the !1at stampedI4, 1987" and subject to the following conditions:
2
I
3
Lots I-5, Block 2 shalL provide an additionaldepth or an approved det;iled landscaping pLanscreening from Mi nner.ra sh ta parkr,ray.
10 feet ofproviding
The existj.ng building andsite upon approval of t.he
Provision of a 26 foot trail
Mi nner"rashta parkvray.
debris shall be removed from theappropriate permi ts.
easement on the west s ide of4
6
Type II er os j. on control,shall be placed along the
hay bales and snow fence,side of Lots l, 9 and 19.
staked hay
grad ing plan.
used Eo stabi lize
sta ked
south
A typical detail for Type II erosion conErol,bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the
7.Wood fiber b}ankets or equivaleot shalL bealI disturbed slopes greater than 3:1.
9
All streets and utilities shall be constructed into the City's standards for urban construction.accordance
The vratermain shall either be looped or increased to aninch diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed.
A11 erosion control measures shall be in place prior tocommencement of any grading.
eight
\
Iq.the
o
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - page 35
{
11.The
t.hepart
L2.The
the
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
report on the cond j.tional use permit
applicant shall enter into a development agreement withCity and provide the necessary financial sureties as aof this agreement for completion of the improve."ni".
applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions ofWatershed District and DNR permit.
13. ?he proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its minimumpossible erevation such that service from the north of theeasterly proposed cul_de_sac may be facilitated.
14. Drainage easements shalr be adjusted to cover the entireponding site should shifting oi the pond be necessary.
15. The curb radius as shown in Attachment f3 shall be replacedby a curb transition section as shown in Attachment *4.
All voted in favor except Ladd conrad who opposed and motion carried.
Conrad: The reason for my opposition is I stilI think there are toomany pieces of land on thi.s piece of property. r wourd recommend thatone parcel be eliminated and I think Lhat would solve a lot of myconcerns erith the subdivi sion.
Headla: on the buitding on the property, the Eire DepartmenE tarked toy-:19--"ii: they.were interested in uur-nins it. oia 6icr wi.,s.., rarly get a hold of you?
Robert Pierce: I guess I hadnrt contacted anybody at this pointbecause I wanted to get to this point befor. i ..i. any oth!rarran9ements.
Headla: Can r.re tell them to get in touch with you then?
Robert Pierce: Sure.
FOR A
Jo Ann Olsen presented the stafffor a recreational beachlot.
Erhart! Whatr s happened here in the procedural changes?
olsen: We confirmed with the Attorney and the zoning ord j.nance...
Erhart: we've been voting on the zoning ordinance since rrve been onthe commission- No$, arr of a sudden thit's not the way it is anymoreor have $re been doing it srrong?
(
Planni ng Commission Meeting
-January 5, 1988 - eage 36
-r - you've. been voting on variances Eo subdivisions and the 10trar as tne recreational beachlot, the zoning ordinancevariances should be reviewed by the goard 6f Adjustments.
sen:
.-.r t h.
states
No,
As
tha t
-Erhart: That ordinance specifically is different than the...
Olsen: Under the zoning ordinance.
-Rog.. Knutson: There are two ordinances. The subdivision and zoningordinance. Recreationat beachlots are in th" ";;i;;';;;;;."... rherequirements with a dock is 166 foot depth. If you want to get around-*hat requirement, it needs a variance a n-d the "oii."g o.aiiJ.,"" ".y"that goes to the Board of Adj-ustment and Appears. itr" -
"rilJ i v i s i on is aseparate ordinance- rt doesnrt have to go to the Board of AdjustmentJnd Appeals. you can decide that.
Erhart: Werre not chaning anything, we,re just following the rules on:his one. Itrs a lot easier for uJ.' The onry thing we,re dealing with-'here, is just simpry approving or disaplroving the beachlot as it fitsour beachlot ordinancez simpry that. The o;ly r."o" -*"-r,1ve to dear
_:].:l .r_" "."-"::.!i?try the ptan oi tne beachlot. rhen the only quesrj.on r-lave )s, rn proposing the change from steps to a ramp, .ia-yo, .rotjnviting 3-wheelers lo come driving iown trrat to our nice beach?
_led Kenner: That's always a problem when youtjme, I can see. what the sttff is suggestingI down there in case of emergency.
-Trhart: But in case of emergency, thenstretch.er and they can carry h j.m up the'arry hi.m...
Olsen: StreEchers have wheels on Ehem.
ha ve
for
a ramp. At the samesafety, if you need to
don' E
steps
they put thejust as well
guy on aas they can
_rhart: I don't know. I'm not an expert on eitherTavor the steps over the ramp. f don"t know if itrsa big d j.scussion. That,s the only thj.ng I,ve got.
neadla: Who looks at the tree plantings? Thereoaks there and I just want to muk" .ur-= that theourd have every reason to vrant to keep them too.
olsen: That erilt be approved by the DNR forester, Allan olsen.
onrad: The planning Commj ssion looks at a conditional. use permit,vhat are we rookino at? what are the condi.tion= th.f -*"ir-e- measuringthi s aga.i nst? rt ieems rike the conditions Ehat r.re're measuringgainst are not in our power to measure but Ehe Bo..J;i";;lirstments is.-asur j.ng.
one but I,d sureworth getting into
are some beauti fuloaks stay. I{el l,
(
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 37
Olsen: We Looked
beachlot . . .
at it meeting the conditions of the recreational
Conrad: But not
Olsen: You look
Conrad: And it
Olsen: When it
Adjustments.
the depth. Werre not looking at area size.
at whether it meets Ehe conditions.
doesn I t.
doesnrt, that's r"rhen you want it to go to the Board of
Erhart: The depth i.s required forjurisdiction. Let me correct this,for just a standard beachlot?
the dock but thatrs out of ourit does meet all of the conditions
t
Olsen: Yes. You have the lake frontage.
And 80E of the houses are located lrithin LtA60 feet? Okay.the PubIic Saf ety Direct.or to rev i ew the saf ety of th j s 1ot,
Minner^rashta Parkway. Did he ever do that for us?
Conrad:
We asked
cross i ng
Olsen: He commented on the stairs. Yes and no, people are going to be
crossing the street... He felt that the bigger issue was...
Conrad: And the steps si.mply just for access, ernergencj.es andhandicap? That's hard for me to visualize, a ramp. And werre not
concerned with where the beach is placed?
Headla: Does the buj lder feel he has to have a ramp?
Robert Pierce: No, I guess itrs really up to you.
Conrad: So, what are the conditions that $re're looking at?
Olsen: It meets the conditions of just a basic beachlot lrithout a
dock.
Erhart: Ladd, I think it is r{ithin our duties to make comments aboutthe plan. The layout and where the sand is. I think that's one of the
f ew things r.re do have input on.
Olsen: In the report I did review that we djd want more detaited plans
if they review the beachlot. I did not make that a condi.tion.
Conrad: Yes, I didn't see that as a condit j.on here. What,s staff'sopinion? I think this is a good outlot for recreation. I think theconcern we had last time Jo Ann was the 40 feet. The distance betweenthe lake and the road is 40 feet and is that accepEable in Eerms of howpeople are handled? Tf yold get 13 lots, or r,rhatever jt j.s, more thanthat, 15 lots, can that 4g feeE of depth, which we're not Iooking at,
\
Planning Comm i ss j. on Meeting
January 5, 1988 - Page 38
handle that many people? Originally, I th j.nk the I00 feet is simply toseparate, give people room away from property and I think with the roadthere and everything, I have no problem with that. I,m sure the Boardof Adjustments will accept that but there is obviously a clearseparation between the outrot and people's rand and therefore itrs notgoing to be a great deal of impact on those Lots 3, 4 and 5. Myconcern goes back to, are we allowing something, have we designed theright amount of space for people who are going to use that? 40 feet isreally not a $rhole lot for a beach. Especially, I,m don't know hoe/
much of that is useable for a beach.
Robert Pierce: l,laybe I can take this a step back, about the steps orthe ramp. I guess, if I had my way Ird rather probabty put steps inbecause of ease of maintenance and I thi nk they can juit nake it n j.cer
Iooking but again, it's not anything one $/ay or the other. It wouldproably just nake it look a little nicer with those steps. Then goingto the 46 fool , we have a major length of shorel j.ne there and the kindof beaches that I take my kjds to, a lot of them out on the lake, a lotof times where we go we are probabty, the sand beach depth and therewould be quite a few other boats, a lot of time that beach j.s not morethan just a few feet. And here, we would make it deeper than that plus
we would make it 8g to LDg feet...
HeadIa:
oI sen :
Head 1a :
ol sen :
Did you rrant to fit the point there, Jo Ann?
About the more detailed plans?
Yes .
Sure.
Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the plannj.ng
approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-17 for asubject to the following conditj.ons:
Commission recommend
recreational beachlot
L The recreaEional beachlot shall not havevariance to the lot depth requirement is
Board of Adjustments and City CounciI.
a dock unless a
granted by the
The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips
variance to the I j.m j tat j.on of overnight storage js
the Board of Adjustment and City Counc j.l.
unless agranted by
2.
Conrad: Yourre comfortable you can solve the problem that these
homeowners are going to put on the beachlot?
Robert Pj.erce: we i.{ant to make an attractive s j.tuation for everybody.It's to our advantage, as much as anybody's, to be able to havesomething that w ill be desirable and that they can see they're going toenjoy.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - page 39
3
4.
Jo Ann Ol sen
Permit.
an must be submitted to the City and DNR forany alteration to outlot A.
detailed plan of
AII additional standards established forbeachlot in the Zoning Ordj nance must be
A tree renoval p1
approvaJ. prior to
The applicant must submit a morerecreational beachlot.
a recreational
met.
the
AI1 voted in favor and motion carried.
presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration
Conrad:
Class Bpart of
Conrad: But in terms of i.ndividual Iotsubdivision, but in terms of the overall
make up trre 15,669 square foot minimum?
Can you build on a Class B wetland? Canwetland is not buildable, isn,t that rightarea that we use to calculate densities.
you build a house ?
and therefore is A
not
r
Olsen: Werve always used that.
Headra: Youtve always i.ncruded inetrands in your density carculations?
Conrad: wetlands are not buildable though Jo Ann.
Erhart: Yes, but you stitl include lhem in your overf,Il acreage.
Olsen: yes, I think we do. The deveLoper has done jt. I,m trying tothink, like for Hidden valrey. when we had that large h,etland in thatmarsh area down there, r believe that went i.nto the iet rlensi ty, we didnot include that.
si ze, notIot si ze.
the over a 1l
A wetland
plat orwill help
Erhart: The only rule we have is the setback from the buirding.
Robert Pierce: you have in the past because I knowsubdivision here and they i.ncluded t.he wetlands. It o f one
vrasnrt
other
this, itions of thewas a CIass.A wetl-and and the y grere included in the calculatl-ots.
Olsen: With thethat open ponding
Erhart: I'm notit is for the 2
Riley woods subd j.vision, itLake
area
sure
ln
it's
the Lake Riley Woods, we
appropriate for 15,gqOThatrs how I know I've
was then-
i ncluded
square foo tstudied it.
Even w i. ththat.
l/2 acre.Lots but
t
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS BwErrANp 4!!, Fo-R-Eb'N@@ wrrrrrl,-r0-rnrr or atms-ffir,auDl: =..-_
A cB F
I
D E
I
i:
e
2
lr'3
4
it
dTY OF
cF,AtfiASSAn
als€ r4P
?rru-tf torRrgt*1o+lv
ba>c*a loTe
n I:
blt1
r
L_
0 D
$
a
(
4,t\
L J,
ii
-;
!l
G,I
criaiatassEx E 6rEii€ oEPI
Lrt t, rarr r-
b
,
7
. ,. ' "
,,':'., .:, :
:, i' , i; i ;; i+f:i t"ili
I
4..
*
(-
March 7 1988
Joanne Ol senCity P l annerCity of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Dr ive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. 0l sen:
This letter is to verify the request to look at, and change
ordinances as needed to incorporate the parcels on the west side
of Lake Minnewashta concerninS, recreational beach lots and canoe
racks and docks.
(
Stratford Ridge Development has
canoe racks for each of the 15
dock with 3 slips for overnightto lots 3, 4 and 5, block 2.
I feel the present ordinance has overlooked the glique parcels
in this arei. Stratford Ridge Development has 550' of lakeshore
in excess of 31,000 square feet. On the north side, it is
approximately 115' deep and the south side is approximately 80'
dL6p. The proposed dock is located to the north side, leaving
plenty of screening to both neighboring parcels.
We also have made great effort' at great expense, to maintain
the integrity of the shoreline.
ery reasonable and should be granted
e developed in the high quality fashion
hould range from $200.000.00 to
nd lake usage. Without it, the houses.i
S100,000.00 to S200,000.00 in price.
Thank you.
asked for recreational beach 1ot'
homes in the development and one
storage. Those slips would belong
We believe our request iin order for this area tthat it deserves. House
$400,000.00 with the docwill most likely range f
svobsska
rom
€*,t 4,*
Robert Pierce
President, Stratford Properties
MAR 9 I9BB
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
i,i
Irlll
ro
- -.r3
,.PLE ASANT
ld
)
IIIllI
5
i-
I
r5
MAPLE iCIR,
ra IGR, tl
ESO
5
t6
tl
2
7
3
4
)
t2
,l
5 2,r
l3 t4
GLE N LE DRIVE
UJJ(I
lOr
9
lt
6
5 2
MA PLE ORIVE
.,.-PLEASA^J' ACRES HoME owilEis AssN
ar 94. p a:i
,l! A-i t?,41^l''it6,
.I vF(e
f,:;'
+
s
$
r)
l'
ti
;
le
l
CHARLES ANDE RSO^I
Mri.nflt0 rar r"orl 6
CITARLES H LAWSON
LAWNENC€ D TEI,JZEL
JOI]N ZIEGLER
Er t20, ?.9O
.-]i
AAREARA MAY XEAOLA
6' f!, ? 2'a
ll
cIr rro roatT
JOTTT J ZIEGLEF Ji
0oc flo a!942
,
EW
1I
I
Y
'f
N%
CITY OF
EHANH[SSTI[
P.C. DATE: April 20, 1988
C.C. DATE: Irlay 9, 1988
CASE NO: 88-2 Sign
Prepared by: Dacy/v
STAFF REPORT
Fz
C)
=LL
f,ko
kJt
U)
Variance Request to Install an Off-premiseAdvertising Business Sign
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
f 420 Flying Cloud Drivee Station site on north side of
tobitImmediately Wes(west of old Mo
TH 2t2t
Heritage Inn Motel
830 Ye11ow Brick Road
Chaska, MN 55318
i.i.ii a:! lfi i.;' {r' rie{{
-.r)'|:*4Z-*'
. -.;-_.. __ -
.. --- l
""'{/t,El-. -,- l'l
--t/r,$/-a.!, J..: ,N-
S-
E-
w-
WATER AND SEWER:
PEYSICAL CEAR,AC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
Eeritage Motel Sign VarianceApril 20, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-1 Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance states that anadvertising sign is "any sign which direct.s attention to a busi-
ness, corunodity, service, activity or entertainment not conductedsold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located".
Section 2O-L259 (l) prohibits advertising signs.
PROPOSAL
The applicant vrishes to construct an eight foot by sixteen foot
plywood sign to be located in Chanhassen on TH 2I2 lo provide
exposure to his establishment in Chaska. The applicant owns and.
operates the Heritage Inn l{otel. A schematic of lhe proposed
sign has been prepared by the applicant, however, it is mounted
on a display board. The applicant inteods to present this at ehe
meeting. The sign is to be constructed of plywood and would have
a whitse background with red letters stating:
"Heritage Inn t'lotel - 4 Miles Ahead - Chaska,/TH 212"
ANALYS I S
Because the proposed sign is specifically prohibited by the ordi-
nance, a variance is required to be granted by the City Council.
Section 20-1253 staEes thaE the Council upon the recommendaEion
of the Planning Commission "may grant. a variance from the
requirements of this arLicle where it is shoren that by reason of
topography or other conditions strict compliance {^Ii th the
requirements of this article would cause a hardship; provided
that a variance may be granted only if the variance does no!
adversely affect the spirit or intent of this article'r.
off premise advertising signs are typically prohibiEed by sign
ordinances. If they were to be permitted, one could J-itera11y
expect erection of numerous signs advertising businesses located
elsewhere along highways. The intent of the sign ordinance is to
enable the property owners to construct a sign on the premises on
which the business activity exists. Although it. is recognized
that the property oerner may not have direc! visibility from TH
212 to his property in Chaska, the city would be establishing a
dangerous precedent by a1lowing the construction of off-premise
signs within the city for other businesses located elsewhere.
While there may be existing billboards along the TH 212 corridor
and while some of Ehem may exist within the cit.y Limit.s of
Chanhassen, they are considered non-conforming struct.ures.Additionally, the proposed size of the sign exceeds the maximum
square fooEage of any tsype of sign in the sign ordinance. The
maximum size sign allosred by Ehe city for a commercial sign is 80
square feet with a conditional use permi!.
Heritage Motel Sign Variance
April 20, 1988
Page 3
The applicant states on the application that exposure is needed
on t.he highway so that the traveler can locate his business more
readily. The applicant. states that he needs more business to
"cover operating costs and to be able to pay the high property
tax lhat has been assessed". It is dif f icult co rrrrite t.his
report when the applicant's intent is merely to improve his busi-
nessi hobrever, the ordinance criteria state that the variance
should only be granted when that strict compliance of the ordi-
nance would cause a hardship and provided that the variance would
not adversely affect the spirit or intent of the ordinance.Unfortunately, the economic hardships cited by the applicant arenot applicable under the statutory definition of hardship. Theapplicant does have the ability to construct a sign on his prop-
erty in Chaska. Secondly, granting the variance would becontrary to the intent of the sign ordinance which is to control
and est.ablish appropriate standards for the construction ofsigns. Off-premise advertising signs should not be encouraged bythe city. Further, the size of the sign is such that it exceedsthe current ordinance standards for comrnercial signs in the sign
o rdinance .
RECOMMENDAT I ON
It is recommended thatfollowing motion:
the Planning Commission adopt the
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of sign variancerequest #88-2 to install an off-premise advertising sign on TH2L2 as iL does not meet the criE.eria for a variance and grantingthe variance would be contrary to the spirit and inten! of thesign ordinance. "
Should the Planning Comrrission recommend approval of therequest, it is suggesEed that the sign size be reduced sois consistenE with the maximum sign size for a cornmercialdistrict in Chanhassen.
City Managerrs Comment: Halla Nursery, Chanhassen Inn,
variance
tshat it
Prairie House have contsinuously explored means by which
could advertise along Ilighway 5 (HaIla seeking both TH
Hwy. 5). I strongly support Ehe Pl-anning Department's
of deniaf.
ATTACHMENTS
Application.
Brochure of motel.Detailed location map.Site plan.
Section 20-L253 and Section 20-1259 of Code Book.
and
they2I2 and
pos i t ion (n {(
I
2
3
4
5
( a"r".c** , /lr,n)r,+a€ fr^, //-tt or{NER:
I.AND DEVEI'PIIENT APPLIGATION
CITT OF CEANEASSEII
590 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, [{N 55317(612) 937-1900
ADDRES S 8ADDRESS
TELEPIIONE ( Daytime
REQUEST !
v
u)d-
tll I
. Zip Code
tdz_- 448:222_ rtsLE PHoN E -448 '703ar.p Code
_L
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment
Land Use Plan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site Plan Review
6
_ Sketch Plan
_ Prelininary plan
Final PIan
Subdivi sion
_ Platting
_ Metes and Bounds
Street,/Easement Vacation
Wetlands Permit
X pno;ecr ,l.poln ?FF7,<tqi.o 7/ s//UL s//F,<s 5i68,,
PRESENT LAND
REQT,ESTED LAN
PRESENT ZO NI NG
USE PLAN DESIGNATION
D USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED ZONING
I uses PRoPosED Sta.,J E
\ stzv, oF PRoPERTY
- /o'fuatq 77 LlE 7a'fror, ffz c,(/*
oNs FoR THrs REeuEsr de tx SOEE 'talr+41EAsEAl
/.t
7z<n'&+r<
rf af p?re .b/< t,v c:<< 4-s tuE 43E 2<-.tz=/ ?fF/oflt/*f* €r,ozztte7 b t-sCCz)/r1/77'Z E'7'/a4a€a.aE /:-77
a/-e
DE
*sc RIPTION (Attach7v2€€d,bE zb z'z?E€ Jzsr
Za;7> 7*Iegal if f'.,1,/E-SSzVe hrZa C"rzt/EE ?72 6f /*7-/ r,/-C-f,;-/e,*f ra-x fcI.EFAL
Ort<Jeelrl ,?Sse+se d ,
necessary )
Planned Unit Development
( rocarrou
City of Chanhassen
iil3 3t""t"pment Application
This application must be completed in fuJ.I ag! be typewritten orctearly printed and must t" i".ont"ri.i-oy all information and
iiiii?:!1"H':S,il":Eilt:"li:-:iii,:;:i*.." provis i ons .
- -a.io..
to deter,-rin. lf,.-ii..ific ordinance and ::^:ilh the city planner
appricabre to your-ipp-1. icat ion rocedural requirements
FILTN TNSTRUC TIONS:
FTLI NG CE R?TFTC ATTON :
Signed By
Signed By
F
The, undersilned representative of the aDDl i..^hi har^L..:x;i,::,i: :lu,i:5,:i;;:;: ";,::Jff.i":];:?l:.::l:.:,certi f ies
The undersigned hereby_ certi f ies that the applicant:::::ii:;: ro rnake trri.= appric.ii..-ioi.,the property
App I
ee ownei
Dat e
Date
x9 /?89
has been
herei n
Application Fee paid
City Receipt No.--r\
O - 3q>pLrrqs -s)c*-t S/tE
?r'og. ovtrr.Lt Sf L,/,r SOO'
449- 5.)o
wsLq(na_\ f Stc>-\
r This Appi.ication will bBoard of AdjustmenLs anmeeting.
ons ideredppeals at by thethei r Planning Coruoiss ion,/ecdA
- ,raia--ti.- .
Dale Application Recei ued
' '*+;,
. -...rra's*.SaEa
Clean Quality Rooms Comtortable Prices
Follow the Yellow Brick Road
2 Blks. otl Hwy.212
Minutes from Canterbury Downs, Valleyfair,
Chanhassen Dinner Theater, Rennaisance
Festival and Jonathan Industrial Park.
'Complimentary Coftee .Color TV
'DD Phones .Air Conditioned .Handicapped Facilities
.Restaurant & Lounte Nearby
Donald and Phyllis Krueger
Your Hosts
830 Yellow Brick Road
Chaska, MN 5ffif8
(612) 448-7030
Hbritagelnn; D[ote[.
H.ril.g. lnr
llor.l
Heritage Inn
Motel
Haritr!. hr
fot.l
2l
at
T
RATES (vary by season)
l BED 2 BEDSl person i27-t35
2 persons 332-i40 $35-i43
Each Additional Person-i4
(Ch,ldr.n under l2 frc!)
of Chaska
olfers guests
t
o Handicapped facilities
oRestaurants and
lounge nearby
. Direct dial phones
.Winter plug ins.Credit cards accepted
oln room movie rental
.Free continental
breakfast
oColor TV.Air Conditioned
.Free ice
.Vendin8 area
830 Yellow Brick Road
Chaska, MN 55318
(612) 448-7030
Heritage Inn
Motel
CIIASITA
Minnesota
i-r
l
I
I
/s
{\9''6s!'
TvIAYNARD C HAPPE
8X 91, P 464'ut tt
rl
l
I
BURSHSK,398 \\-
)
,.2'
-a'.1:.-l
....:\2
iEVERSON
'386
---*f:cq-s-o
'i.liilT"'
I:'-'\69-"'
ec1
1o9
i7l
t-'
1::3:"
".;IS.
I
r-t
1t{-
_c,4c
l. ?
_-Ns
/ !.tr5a, 9 '!\6 t
,z
t 3'UNITED
-l
H --i'e
-ap -u
"$,r::}:l:..
f* .zol
,5c'o-
a.
r o^oc]Si
\:
\._!
ItiT iroTEi |r^r|ltr r!6, P !t!
kra lt -r+q Ktc/r7A u,A l- 6o' *om CEtu 7f a e
It (I t lSrc (ar lb. y[l^1 ' b-h E-. Dc Ia
t
VERNON H. TEICH
8K 87, P 486
I
MASON, 384 - C.D
.8i'
... ! I......
-
-.1
I
.,
gi
CREEXWOOD
q
&ttj
z
I )
G\NfL.(
TOEGTPTL
7pa@seD
rs FA uF0
R.R
lo EER T
e e
L
b
(
t/
L
dPOHO
F
i
I
t
)vo
9cta.,o
/:/
L
R/CE
EKA
o'o
CITY OF C HANHASSEN
CITY OF SHAK OPEE
frTt7@rrt4 ar I
^)1"./@o'
./,
o
/-N,4rttxt rtl
AIL
I
I
I
1
ROY TtICr.
!r ll5. t aa !
VILL OF CHATIHASSENIt !l.t lla
/.,
.(
J.
{\}"
..r 122. .!ta.
ra
ANE
!
3
!
J
I
1
o
!' 2a
Ao
.4
I
I
;1
I
, HAPPE
l4l
I
.,,,
i
Y
I
{
t
I
'/i
N
T,
I
I
VERNO
8K8
H TEICH
P 486ln
.11:-'
lc:.er \l
$O
tcl
l| !*
t r1!
o
'zti
n -\6 {(
*ri -iLl
Y$%
?rl -Nta
-)o
c
1.1,. ro tt --
o
..-$t{{Io1r'11
;.1
)'
I(
.L:
q
1O f
a)
,.$,,1:1.'li"
B.
a -_/rii",
.!t t
..-/- - f--/-l
zro1",
prrn4p14iltr f,;
cit
t
.rl(-
-cra oo
I
i
i
I
I
3
z
-rc
\
I
lrloiG.z-o.
=;'
2.
I
#'
l
r!
=.:
II
.i
I
i
t!
,b
qteN
:
I
I:1.-u \
r"$
5
4
1 'n,,\
\I+t*.I
,'
t'.
\I
':1.,I
I
)
I
tt
-l \,1-.. rJ-.
iL l.
ij
I)-
2-4-\
s6
(
I
(
t
,t
,t
g
t
rldJ v+- F
Ltr
ItrD.alr
FT
I cr14Ft.P
F1
nt-J
?
F
F
l--IrI!--p
Pr
\s==
#
v)
+F
$
i,-t,/l
.0
I
t"
I
.:
Tc!I
lr
\
I
d
!
(
I
t'
I
:
I
I
II
I
I
t.l-
I
t:t-
!
-(n
ro
o
il
I
---,=\--
I
I
I
I
I
t
;
I
2:,i t"I
3 6^t.'.!
i;r
3ri
3.'i
I
,t,' I !
l;r iil:
II
I
,il
til
,
)
lii
,:
\
\-
..t
:t
t1
I
jl,t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEET I NG
APRIL 5, 1988
Vice Chairman Emmings cal led
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart,
Emmings, Brian Batzli, James
the meet j. nq to
Ladd Conrad,
Wildermuth and
City Planner
order at 7:35
Annette El1son,
David Head 1a
P.m. .
Steven
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara
City Eng i nee r
Dacy,and Larry Bro$rn, Ass i stant
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERI.IIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH A CANOE RACK ANDA DOCK WITH THREE OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF WATERCRAET ON LOT 37, SHORE ACRES,
ON LAKE RILEY, SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Name Address
Kevin Sharkey
Ken Wol ter
Paul and Sue Olson
Joy TannerLuciIIe Remus
Don S i tterDick Nel son
Jim Oeckoog
Ji 1l Koeugh
Richard Blumenste in
Gary and Kay Eastburn
Jack Harhreeno
380 Deerfoot Trail
341 Deerfoot Tra i.I
9239 Lake Riley Blvd
924 3 Lake niley Blvd.
9245 Lake Riley Blvd.
9249 Lake Riley BIvd.
360 Deerfoot Trail5I0 WesE 78th Street
9351 Kiowa Trail
9351 Kiovra Trail
9355 Kiowa TraiI
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on thjs j.Eem.
Kevin sharkey: Irm presidenE of the Homeowners Assoc j at j.on
Slope. You've seen this request before. we have modifiedbit. Irm here to clarify any questions you might have.
Hnmings: We'lI open it up for comments from anybody here who vrantsspeak on thj.s issue. I,d ljke to hear from the appticant's fj.rst,theyrre here and would like Eo say something.
toif
of Sunny
it a I i ttle
Emmings: We can hear from anybody else who wants to speak onsubject. I, personally, am particularly interested in hearjngpeople who live on the properties adjacent.
PauI Olson: I live adjacent to the property on Lot 3G.
Emmings: Which would be on which side?
this
from the
PauI Olson: Looking at the lake iE wouldside toerards the point. I guess I opposeis for 12 families to use that property.
be on the left side. The eastit because your proposed useageItrs original platting was R-I,
PubIic Present:
PI ann i ng
Apri I 6,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 2
map you canttof property
for all those
single family useage. If you look at the property, ontell but it's onl,y 50 feet wide. Thatrs a very smallto be trying to moving boats around on so I'm opposed
reasons.
the
pj eceto it
Emmings: Ird like to ask you, do you
depreciate the value of your property
door to you?
PauI Olson: Yes I do. That's my major concern.
were concerned about the boats.
feel , in
and your
opinj.on,to have
would itthat next
your
home
HeadIa: You mentioned about boats. You
How many boats were you concerned about?
PauI Olson: Irm concerned vrith the idea of a dock. To put a dockthere and you puE one boat or t.wo boats and they have to access off
either side. The property is only 50 feet across and coming aroundpoint, theyrre cutting me off virtually if they put too many boats
It affects my access to my property with too much traffic.
Headla: How would you
I'm Sti II
feel if they didnrt have boats there?
down
of
the
there.
Paul Ol son :
beachlot.
opposed because I'd view it's useage as a
Headla: So you're basically just opposed to the beachlot?
Irm opposed to the vrhole thing because of the valuation ofPaul OI son:
my proper ty.
Joy Tanner: l live on the adjacent Property of Lots 38 and 39. About l0
years ago I went to my first meeting regarding this matter. That was at
the time when we needed a variance for setbacks and so forth in the road
before the vihole landing was built. The developer at that point withdrew
his request and they've been after hjm ever sjnce. I was assured by City
Council and whoever, Planning Commission at that time, that iE was
absolutely against any intent of the ordinances in anyway \alhatsoever to
give the permission or a condit j.onal use permit or to call it a
recreational beachlot. Nothing has changed except the ordinance has
become more restrictive. I felt protected by the Cityrs ordinances. I
would lj.ke to feel protected again. The Sunny Slope residents have used
that lot as though it were approved. They've had a dock in as if it were
approved. They've started Eoing overnight all Iast summer. The summer
before as though it were approved. I've had difficulty getti.ng response
from the County Sherjffrs Department. on a Sunday afternoon vrhen theyr re
busy with drownings and things like that I can understand that but itts a
dif f icult situati.on and I would Ii ke t.o see a resolution of i.t.
Emmings: I lrould like to ask
rrould depreciate the value of
beachlot?
you the same question. Do
your property to have that
you
used
feel that i.t
as a
Joy Tanner:property and
Def initely. That vras my opj ni.on
we were assured that iE couldn't before lre bought
happen.
our
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 3
Headla: Did that dock present any problem last summer?
Joy Tanner: It did inweren't supposed to beordinance. And thereoff very late at night
on.
that it wasnrt supposed to be there and thereboats anchored there. If it js, it violates thewere comings and goings, noisy docking and takingwhich j.s real unusual on a quiet bay that we live
Jack Harweeno: I have a couple of lots to the east of paul who spokehere before and srer re building a home this summer so that's why I cametonight. I just have a question really. I don't kno$, that much aboutthis and I wonder, what is the utility of that lot? Was it intended tobe as a buj ldable, as a 5g foot lot or what are the arternatives for thepeople who are making the decision?
Emmings: Thatrs a good question. Ifleast from what I know of the historyexpect to see, probably it's only use
it's not used as a beachlot, atof this, I think we could probablyis as a res j.dential property.
Jack Harlreeno: But it is buildable at the 50 foot width?
Emmings: It would need a variance obviously. It,s a veryif they couldnrt put a house on it, they probably couldn,iwith it then, if itts not approved as a-beachlot-.
small Iot but
do anythi ng
Jack Harweeno: The history of itto have Lgg feet to build on?
was, how long has it been that you had
Erunings: I have no idea. Barb, can you answer that?
Dacy: LAg feet to build on as far as a house? As far as a beachlot?
Jack Harweeno: Yes.
Dacy: The beachrot ordinance i.ra s adopted in 19g2 which imposed the 10gfoot lot widths requirement. Then in 1986 the city amendea the beachlotordinance to require a 269 foot lot $ridth for a reireaEional beachrot.
Jack Harweeno: For recreationar beachLot which is what this applicationis for?
Dacy: Right.
Emmings: were you asking how much, if it has enough frontage, could beused as a residential property?
Dacy: Alright. The standard for any new lots in the single familydistrict is a 90 foot wide tot. Because this is a pratted lot of iecord,meaning that the plat eras filed r believe in the L9i,g,s, the city aoei--'allow 10ts to be buirt on if they meet 75? of that go foot rot lridth.obviousry at 50 feet that sould not make that requirement. they wouidneed a variance not only for the rot width but tlie rot area and more thanIikeIy for setbacks.
Pla nn i ng
April 6,
Cornmission Meeting
1988 - Page 4
Harr.reeno: So it really have no utility for those who own it exceptrecreational beachlot.
Dacy: Unless a variance is granted for a single family home.
Gary Eastburn: We live over on Kiowa Trail and all the residents of
Kiorra Trail were not notified of this hearing but I live approximately
right here. I have a concern in that over here the City Council has
already granted a recreational permit for Lake Riley Woods for a beachlotover here already. The concern that I've got and some of my neighbors
have is that the DNR has restricted this lake to an access with 15 boatsI believe is the restriction on it and they did that for a purpose initsel.f . To restrict the use of the lake. My concern is that on the leftof my 1ot there are three vacant Iots already and itrs owned by Sid
Mossen who has o$rned it for about 15 years. They use it as a
recreational Iot for four families. On the vreekend it is a zoo out there
vrith four families and each have 3 or 4 kids and there's 20 people
running around on my block next door. That's a nuisance to me as it is
so if I was to have another recreational lot on Ehe north side and then
one on the south side plus the public access over there, the value of alL
the lakeshore property goes down. I guess the concern Irve had, in 1976
I believe, or L977 was when they had the Previous hearing on this before
and at that time they denied access to that property as a recreati onal
beach and at that point in time they said that they would in fact allow a
variance for building on that lot and grandfathered in because jt was
since platted so I think there is value there for the purpose of building
a home on it. It is very distressjng to us, who have pajd a premium for
the lakeshore itself, it have the resjdents who are off of the Iakeshore,
be able to enjoy the same benef j.ts that we've paid extra money or
incremental money for when there is a public access that everybody has
access to on the east side.
Don Sitter: Irve been up here before. I'11 kj.nd of give you the same
speech. People that live on Sunny Slope are our friends and our
neighbors and we donrt want to create a hassle wjEh any of these PeoPLe.
Jac k
as a
Emmj.ngs: where do
Don Sitter: I live
you Iive?
about 5 lots to the west of this.
Emmings: on the l ake?
Don Sitter: Yes, on the deadend. My concern is Ehj.s. Agreed, there
are other properties on the lake that could eventually have Iake access
or beachlots conceived on their property, jt could be sold off. There
could be a real impact on the Lake. The 15 boat limjtation on the public
access, as I understand it, is up for discussion here jn about a week.
The DNR has ruled that that is ilJ.egal to have a 15 boat limitation and
they're going to open uP the public access to however many peoPle want to
launch their boats on the lake. I feel we have a real problem with this
poor little lake. Itrs a nice Ijttle Lake. It can barely handle the
traffic that i.t's got on there now and if Eden Prairie opens up that
public access to any number of boats, we have this beachlot with more
boats, the Lake Ri ley Woods and other property that coulal be deveLoped,
Planning
April 6,
Commission Mee t j. ng
1988 - Page 5
I think we're really asking for trouble with the lake. I think wetregoing to be back here again in the future asking for speed restrictionsand all sorts of other things that I'd really prefer not to get jnto. Ialso feel like the people at Sunny Slope king of got misled when theybought their property. They bought jt with Iake access property and Ifeer rear bad that they can't use that. r wourd like to proposE that weallow it to be a beachrot. Allow it have a dock. Arro$, ihem to have thecanoes but r wourd like to dra!', the line at the boat launching and theovernight storage of the boaEs. r don't know if you can change theirrequest or as it goes to council because r don't ieer very neighborrysaying $re donrt want you on the lake because r donrt thini thatrs theprocedures at all. r erould like, if they courd amend it. r don't knowif thatts possibre to do and give them some varue, something to use thatbeachlot for. Hopefully they can come to some kind of agre6ment and wecan arr rive as a cohesive neighborhood. rf we can put ahis issue to bedthis time. I'd like to take care of it.
Emmings: A coupre of peopJ,e have eruded to boats being launched acrossthe property or boats going in and out there and r berieve that ourordi.nance states that you can not raunch a boat across a beachrot.
Gary Eastburn: Could I ask one
ord i nance?
more question? I{ho enforces that
Emmings: Thatrs theviolations bas ica I1yout. It I s tough.
$54,Ogg.gg question.
calling the City and
It takes people hrhogetting the sher i ff
see
to come
Don Sitter: We' rea hard thing to do
supposed to call- the police on our neighbors? Thatrs
Headla: I think therers another alternative.owners to put up some pilings across there sovehjcle in there. Thatrs all you need.
Emmings: r think his question is broader than just boat raunching. rthink he's asking, how do you enforce all of th6se things?
Don Sitter: You bet. If they put 3 boats overnight and the 4th oneslips out there, what are we supposed to do. call the sheriff? Thatrscrazy. r heard a comment the last time we were here that this is a setfpoJ-icing policy and I have a hard time erith that. It is not a selfpolicing policy. peopre rike to get on the lake. r know they wir.r doanything they can to get out. The public, I,ve seen drive by their rotand start to back down. They'|ve come down my driveway and tried tolaunch boats. They think they can get on heie becausi the puulic accesswas firled so r guess that'!s the other part of the probrem. who enforcesthese regulations when we do set them up?
Emmings: I think therers no question that when beachlotsthere are abuses. Therers just no questi.on about it. It
Reguire the beachlotyourre not going to get a
are perm j. tted,
happens .
close up the
a precedent
discussion onsetti ng
Gary Eastburn: One other thing too before youthis thing. What is to sEop this from becoiring
PIanni ng
April 5,
Commission Meeti ng
1988 - Page 6
Gary Eastburn: Which one?
Emmings: The
an ordinance.
one that's being proposed today. Sunny Slope. Werve got
Gary Eastburn: You mean the 2gO foot limitation.
come close so I donrt think thatEmmi ng s :
thatrs a
Exactly and
concer n .
this one doesnrt
Gary Eastburn: One last point, what would be the DNR|s posj tj.on on the
overcrohrded situation that this might cause to Lake Riley?
Emmings: I have no idea. The DNR is
know if there really even js one.
an absolute mystery to me. I don't
Dacy: The number of boats stored at a beachlot dock are the same number
that r.routd be permitted if it lias an j.ndividually owned riparian Iot.
Three boats stored overnight. Nor,, granted, during the day somebody from
the Sunny slope subdivision could go over Eo the Eden Prairie side,
Iaunch their boat and in essense you could have addit ional boats out
there but I'overnight storagerr at that dock could not exceed lhree. DNR'sposition is probably going to be dj scussed more in conjunction with the
Eden Prairie boat access issue,
Richard Blumenstein: My wife JilI and I have moved in on Kio$/a TraiI
on Lake Riley last su[uner. We don't have much different to say than has
already been said before. we moved from Mj.nnetonka where we moved from avery nice house, which we traded for a house thaE was basically trashed
on the lake, and it was an even trade so Ehat we could live on the lake.
We feel hre sacrificed a lot and we're going to have to put a lot of moneyinto Ehis house to come up Eo the standard that $re were living before.
That vras our sacrifice to live on the lake. I empathize ,rith the olrnersat Sunny Slope. I wish there rras an easy solution for this but
apparently there really isn't. I guess we sort of feel the lvay DonSitter did who talked before sjtting in the back there about we wouldnrt
mind if had canoe storage and people could run their canoes out of theEebut we would not like to see launching because $re're concerned $rithadditional boat traf f ic on the lake.
thing? Becaues the Lake Riley Woods js one that, you can see thatdividing line there betr,reen Eden prairie and Chanhassen. Just to theLeft of that is another deveropment. David vogel owns that r believe andhers proposing 14 lots. Itrs been before the planning Commission. I
assume he too is going to want to have some way of having access for theoff lake lots for these people. So if you have one at Lake Riley Woods,you have the public accessr then you allovr this one over here, hers goingto want to have another one on there and how do you deny this person onejf you've allowed the previous one and the previous one before that.
Emmings: Simple answer. The ones we have coming in now comply !,ri th theordinance and this one doesnrt come close.
Plann i ng
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 7
Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded
in favor and motion carried. The
to close the public hearjng. AIl votedpublic hearing vras closed.
Emmings: We have choices here. We can go around and make our commentson this but I donrt think thatrs probably a good idea in Iight of thefact that we're going to have to hold the public hearj.ng open to the next
meeting but I think it probably would be, if anybody wants to give anindication of their general feelings on this issue or how they feel aboutit, at least with the input we've had so far, I think that rrould be bothfair and reasonabl,e to the peopLe who have shown up. If you don't wantto comment, fine, just pass but letrs go around and give a generalindication of how we feel about this thing. At least with the input
9re I ve gott.en so f ar.
Headla:Yes .
Similar si ze.Dacy:It ranges between 40 to 5g feeL.
Headla: Yes. To me, if we're going to be consistent, I think we've got
to Iet these people have a dock. I go down there and see house after
house, theyrve got a dock. Those people bought the land. They pay taxes
on it. So I called the Tax Assessor and asked him, what do you do on a
beachlot? They donrt even put any value on the beachlot. However, the
people who have access to that beachlot, their value of Eheir property is
increased due to the beachlot. The Assessor doesnrt ask you if you have
a dock or not. He charges them. Hers assessing them just like that lot
owner right on the lake. I think Mr. Sitter certainly, thatrs the
conclusion I came to. I really would like to see a dock in this
s j.tuation. I would like to see them have canoe racks. Irve got a Iot of
concern about the boats but we also have the situation that if you have a
dock, even if you dontt have a dock, those people can bring 5 to 6 boatsjust like the adjacnet property o$rners. They can bring 5 to 6 boats in
one day. You can't stop them. Theyr ve got a perfect right to be there.I was thinking more along, as I look ahead, if we allow some boats there,there's nobody policing those boats and theyrre really open for people to
come and rip stuff off. Pretty soon then, I would suspect people aregoing Eo !,rant a nightlight there. Now thatrs really an imposition on theneighbors. I donit think that would be right. So looking at the wholething, I would like to see the ordinance rer^,orded. I think we know much
Headla: Irm glad to see it deferred. Ird ljke to see what happens with
5. The outcome of that but generally, I think the public has a negativestereotype feeling on beachlots and I don't know hrhere that happens.Irve got three beachlots trithin a block of me on Minnewashta and every
one of them have been an asset to the community. The lakeshore is keptclean. The people keep it neat and I see this Iot very, very similar to
Minnewashta Creek beachlot. I stopped in there Sunday. That's a pretty
neat place. The grass is cut and theyrve got a grill. I think it adds
something to the conmunity. They've got a littLe bit of a sand beach.
When I went over to this particular place, I see the houses very closetogether. Barb, whatrs the lot rdidth on the adjojning lots?
Dacy: In this area here?
PIann i ng
Apr i I 5,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 8
more now. How to reword an ordinance or how to write an ordinance on abeachlot. I'd Iike to see us back off from this and rewrite thatbeachl-ot ordinance so the beachlot is considered to be consistent vriththe community $rhere they vrant it. Letts have some basis for the numberof feet they put in. 190 feet or 2qO or whatever. That's aII.
Wilderrnuth: I can sympathize with the people who own this lot, in theSunny Slope Association but I think the fact is, the description of theIot doesnrt in any way meet the ordinance. It doesn't meet the currentordinance nor did it meet the previous ordinance. r think consideringthe kind of use a beachlot gets, I think the ordinance is a good one ;ndr think basicarly it shourd stand vrith some minor modifications which$rerll be discussing later tonight.
Batzli: I agree with those sentiments. I think the l-ot is so small forthe use thatrs being proposed that r think t.hat's an unreasonabre burdento put on the adjoining land owners and r do think it would substantiallyharm the varues of their property. part of my problem is that it doesn'leven come close to meeting the current ordinance as j_t reads. Iunderstand that this is coming back and it is probably closer thanseveral years ago but I still think it's too small of a lot Eo putsomething like they are proposing in on a conditional use.
Ellson: I agree with Brian. I think Ird be more inclined to grantvariance to have another house so this size property j.s exactlt likeones on either side than I would allowing 12 families to come in onsmall property.
Emmings: On that issue, if I could just interrupt here for a minute,
seem to remember from the last lime we were here that the people thatIived to the west actually built on more than one lot are ihey not?own tvro Iots so your house is built on t$ro lots?
a
the
this
I
You
Joy Tanner: I have two lots,
Erhart: FilI me in again. Why arefeel they have rights to a beachlotby the developer? Did we have such
the owners of this lot, why do theyin the first place? They were tolda thing as a beachlot when this
Conrad: I agree $rith most of the comments to date other than Davers-The beachrot is a rear priviredge because it's an i.ntensification on afew feet of lakeshore. Therefore, to achieve that priviledge you have tomeet certain things and yourve got to be real sensitive to the neighbors.r happened to be around when that ordinance vras drafted and a lot 6f workr.rent into it and a lot of good thought. r don't see anyEhing that terlsme oEher than some smarr changes to it that ire good, Ehat Lhe ordinanceshould be changed. There are real good reasons for 2AO feet ofrakeshore. Rear good reasons and here werre so far away from the intentof the ordinance that I think there are other uses of that propertyshould be explored. Itrs real clear. There's just not any aouUt in mymind that this does not meet the beachlot inEent. Not even close andtherefore I think it,s wise to send a signal that we should pursue, theCity should pursue, the ovrners should pursue a different couise in usingthat land.
Pl ann ingApril 5,
Commj ssion Meeting
1988 - Page 9
development Eook p I ace?
Dacy: I would prefer that the applicant would answer Ehe question to
make sure that I s correct.
Emmings: Would you be willinq to answer the question?
Kevin Sharkey: Yes sir.
Erhart: During the t ime of development,this lot was to be used by the developershouses? Is that true?
did a home
or by the
owned...recall that
people who or.rned the
Kevin Sharkey: Yes, at Ieast four of the current owners erere told thatthey had the right to have a dock on the lake. The balance of us in
Section 2 it was implied to. We have it in a lrritten statenent with
Steve Burton so wetve been led all the way along that vJe could have...
Erhart: We didn't have a beachlot ordinance at the time? Did
anything at the time to prevent them from doing that?
Kevin Sharkey:
believe-
we have
Dacy: The beachlot ordinance vras enacted until, I think it lras MarchL982. It was my understanding at that time that there was no dock onproperty or there tas no active use of that Iot as a beachlot.
Erhart: who owned it?
Dacy: I donrt kno$r.
Erhart: Was Ehere a 'tlomeowner's Association at Ehe Eime?
incorporated in 1979 I
of
the
In 1982, yes there was. It vras
Joy Tanner: Itve been livjng next door to the beachlot, Steve Burton
orrned it. One of the f j.rst families there. And they asked us if they
could use our dock. ...and my former husband and I said yes.
Absolutely. Yourre free to use our dock vrhen your re}atives are here.
But when it's more than one family though, that's it. I don't recall how
long. . .
Erhart: Barb,
grandfathered
somehow the City doesn't feel that this has beenin.
Dacy: Thatrs correct. It would have been a different situation if there
had been an active use of that lot. If there was a dock out there. Ifthere was dock limitation, then it was a "beachlot". Ever since lheirfirst application in 1984r that's been the cityts position.
Erhart: who owned the lot in 1982?
Kevin Sharkey: The Sunny Slope Homeolcners Association did.
Plann i ng
April 6,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page I0
Erhart: Thatit's just tooagainst it.
up a few things for
to be acceptable for
I guess my
beachlot. I
feel ing is tha t
would vo te
clears
narrow
me.
a
Emmings: Me too. Agai.n, I think it's too bad the way this matter washandl,ed by the developer but I think the ordinance is very clear. Ithink the ordinance is good. There is absolutely no doubl in my mindthat it wourd depreciate the value of the neighboring homeowners and thatin itserf is enough to kirr it for me. rt's;lso one of the criteria inour ordinance under granting conditionar use permits is that it can notdepreciate surrounding property value. It would just, not only for theadjoining neighbors but also from peopre don't rive right next to it thatthey feel it wourd depreciate their property values and r don,t think wecould possibly grant it on that alone. I think from here then, giventhose comments, I think it's pretty clear which hray this wiII probably goif $re voted tonight. It probably isn't going to change a lot but I thi;kwerve got to hord the pubric hearing open so that notices can be sent outto aII the people who own lakeshore around the lake that are inChanhassen and give them an opportunity to speak and be heard on thisissue if they want to be. With that, I would ask that we have a motionto t.abIe this and continue the public hearing until the appropriatenotice can be sent out.
Erhart moved, BatzIi seconded
use permit for a recreationat
Slope Homeowners Association,All voted in favor and motion
the request for the conditionalon Lot 37r Shore Acres, Sunny
appropriabe notices can be sent.
to tabl.e
beach Iotuntil thecarried.
Dacy: Before the public leaves on this item, the varjance request hasbeen scheduled in front of the Board of AdjustmenEs and Appealson Monday, April 25th. If r"re have not sent the notjces out already, youwill receive a notice on that issue. The next meeting that this wilI-beconsidered would be April 20th so werll be sending out notices on all ofthe issues within the week.
PUBLIC HEARI NG:
TRAPPERS PASS ADDI?ION, PROPERTY
PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCT ION:
ZONED RSE, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND
- RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND
APPROXIMATELY L/4 i'lILE WEST OE HWY IOI,
B
SUBDIVISION 08 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
WETLAND AND DEVELOP WITHIN 2gg FEET.
Public Present:
Address
EAMILY LO?S.
POND WITHIN A CLASS B
Greg and Deb Cray
Frances OrBrien
Pleasant View Road
Ind i an HiLI Road
320
45A
Name
PlanningApril 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 11
James and Esther Holte
R.D. Stevens
Jim wehr 1e
Michael A. PfLaumPeter PflaumRick Sayther
330 Pleasant View Road
6 614 Horseshoe Curve
241 Mountain way
Lundgren Bros. Construc ti on
Lundgren Bros . Construction
Appl icant's Eng ineer
Emmings: If
what. . .
Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item.
Emmings: Does the developer vrant to make a presentation?
Peter Pf l aum:If you
you have
want a presentation.
anything that you want to present in reaction to
Peter Pflaum: There's only three issues. Itrs a pretty simple deal. Nopoint taking your time unless you have questions. There are three issuesthat r^re are concerned with. My name is peter pflaum and I,m thepresident of Lundgren Brothers. The three issues, I have to go from
memory but that I remember that we are concerned with. One dealt withthe tree issue. Itrs sort of hard for me, werve had such a goodrelationship with your communj.ty, I donrt know hov, to state this withoutoffending people, but to us it really $ras an insult to put restrictions
on us in taking trees down or your concern about it and let me explai.nr.rhy. We bought this site or controlled the site since 1979. The ontyreasoo hre rrere interested in the site really was because of the lrees.
On top of that, we planted probably more trees on that site than any ofyour developments in your community and we plan to plant :nore. First ofaII thatrs why lre feel itrs an insult. The reason r,re're there is becauseof the trees and rre planted a hell of a lot of trees out there. Inaddition to that, as a developer Irve always been a little bit incensed
when you require something of a developer you don't requj re of the othercitizens. I mean, after all, we are a property owner and we should betreated, you really discr j.minate. Irm not saying you, because it happensin other comnunities but it really bothers me as a developer when you
tell a developer he's got certain requirements he has to do vrith regards
to taking trees down yet the average citizen doesn't have any. To methat' s discrimination.
Emmings: WeIl, it isn't discrimination but let me just explain vrhat Ithink is going on here because I donrt thjnk itrs anybodyr s intent.
I don't know r.rhat you're doing out there and maybe none of the rest of
the people do either. That's sitting up here, I don't know who does or
doesnrt but the point is, thatrs something that I see on every one of
these that comes through on every development. Itrs one of those boilerplate type conditions that we see in all of t.hem and jt certainly isn't
directed et you or your company Personally, Irm positive of that.
Secondly, werve had experiences uith developers r"rho come in who have said
vre bought this property because of the trees, why the hell would we wantto take the trees down? ?he next morning they're all gone. That wouldprobabl,y seem stupid to you as a developer maybe who knows what he's
doing and maybe those others didnrt but werve had that experience. Don'ttake offense. Just understand it as an item of boiler plate.
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 12
Peter Pflaum: But the other side of it is, it is a major inconvenienceto us to have to go to some city official and take an inventory andsomething we object to violently. Not only that, I don't believe itrs
been a standard procedure because in the first tr.ro addj.tions of Trapper'sPass, to ny knowledge, werve never had it. I would ask your planning
Commission, I rdill object to the Council also, have them go out thera andsee if they've got any objections. I havenrt heard one objective fromthe residents or from the City. As a natter of fact, I,ve heardcompliments. Just the opposite and so I object and we will object. Whyshould rde have to do that? I do think if you're going to require us tod9 it, you should have it in your ordinance. you should require everycitizen who buys a house in your community, that you want to review hisbackyard because why should r"re be Ereated any different?
Wilderrnuth: There is a difference though. The residents lives on theproperty. You donrt live on the property. you.re a developer. you
develop and you move on.
Emmings: I don't want to get ioto an argument here. Wetreget into individual arguments here. you have to understandI see development after development.
not
that
gorn9
this
tois,
Peter Pflaum: Is this part of your ordj.nance?
Emmings: I don't think it's in the ordinance but it's been a conditionon every one of these over the last year or so and all that we're doingis saying, we donrt intend to insult you. That,s not erhatr s going on -
here. Itrs just boiler plate and I would differ with you too. There isa difference between one person developing one rot for his own home thanthere is a developer coming in and doing a reaLly huge development likeyourve done here. ?here is a difference. But anyway, go ahead.
Peter Pflaum: That was one point. The second point deals with thesidewark. There's a requirement that r^re put a sidewalk. First of arr r.rehad, as you knorrr, done quite a bit of developing in your community withno sidewalk in this project. Now yourre comi ng to ui and teLting us yourrant us to put a sidewalk in a part of the subdivision that Leada tonowhere. Maybe you should show them what werre talking about.
Rick Sayther: On this street and on Oxbo$, Bend.
Peter Pflaum: I have t$ro concerns. First of aLl, I don't think weshould be required to put a sidewalk in that leads to nowhere andbenefits nobody. rt just costs us money. second of arl, a portion ofthat street was already approved before under an additional llat with nosidewalk. Irm sure i,rhatrs happened is you have a new ordinance orconcern about getting sidewarks in the community but in a planned unitdevelopment such as ours, which is in it's sixth year of dLvelopment,which is 80? done, it doesn't seem Eo make much sense to take one portionof it and put a sideh,aLk in that reads nowhere. Really, the reason i{edeveroped out here, and r think the reason a lot of the residents are outhere, is they didnrt want sidewalks. Certainly in our project itrsinconsistent with everything werve done. so tLatrs why we object to that
PlanningApril 51
Comrnission l,teeting
1988 - Page 13
because we don't think it serves any purpose and it's a needless cost and
we don't think our residents want it. The other issue deals with thewetland. The only reason we thought vre wanted to dredge a portj.on of the
wetland to create a pond just to create an amenity to that end of the
site that really needs some help. The only reason I 'ranted to acquirethis piece of property was to develop another entrance to our site. Oursite has a serious problem and really I think a health and hazardouscondition in that. therers only one street that serves I don'! kno$, how
many units. I50 or some incredible number and they were in the flood, ifyou talk to residents, one of the big ponds there flooded and they didn't
have access. Most of you weren't around when we bought this property andgot it zoned originally but there was concern then, when we did theproject about how rnuch access there shouLd be on Pleasant Viesr. If you
Iooked at our original plat, the original planned unit developnent that
was approved and it was aLvrays planned that there would be connection
from our project through this piece of property noer. Maybe you could
show them where that is.
Rick Sayther: It may not be clear to the people back here but this
101, Pleasant view Road. The site that we're looking at now is over
here. The only access from Pleasant view now is near TH lgl and it
back into this big area to the west. when this was apProved, there
approved a stub street that deadended into the piece, the OrBrien parcel
that we're dealing with tonight \"rith the idea that there would be some
sort of a looped street system to thaE property.
Emmings: where does that road go to the north?
Rick Sayther: This is the shorevJood,/Chanhassen boundary and in the other
Galpin,/Near Mountain PUD there's another road that comes down-
Emmings: That TrapPer's Pass that stubs, that little stub theyrre
talking about putting a barricade across and that goes into, when that
land to the weit of thaE is developed, will- there be more entrances still
out into the existing roads?
peter pflaum: The point I was trying to get to and I got off the subject
a Iittte bit, the reason we wanted this site and the onJ'y reason we
wanted it was to develop another access to our property that was
originally intended as a way to have access to our property' The
reason I was concerned about doing something with the pond is I wanted to
dress up the entrance to the property. we had a private meeting with the
""ighU"i" ind r asked the neighbors, there are some of them here, if they
,orid obi""t or what their feeling was if we created a pond there because
if they iian,t lvant it, we wouldn't do it. My understanding Iras the
.,"ighU6." felt it was a good idea. 919 of the neighbors was concerned
wheiher, maybe more than one, if we did something to that pond it would
somehow affect flooding on their property. Rick studied that and he can
shor., that that is not i factor. AII we really wanted to do was just open
up a corner of the property so lre can have some open water so we can
Iindscape around it and just enhance-the property. we also want to do
quite a'n intensive lands-aping around the entrance because at that Point
in ti.me, just like we did in the Near Mountain entrance. Therers no
vegetation so we eranted to put some trees in. So thatrs all werre
is TH
feed s
was
talking
our conc
couldn I t
a l1or", us
That I s t
The treeare the
lre I re in
about but the reason is just Eo improve the property. I thinkern was, the way lhe condition is put on it by the staff, weIive with it because of the way that it was written wouid not
, to really improve it with the idea of opening up some water.he only intent was to do that. So those are the three issues.s., opening up some h,ater in the marsh and the sidewatks. Thosethree issues between us and the staff. Everything erse i ltrint<agreement.
Emmings: Just so frm sure I understand, are you sayingan application here for a $retland alteration permit an6recommending approval of that permit. Now, ii you getthe conditions that are on it, wiII that give y6u wiatare you saying. . .
Peter Pflaum: No, werte saying the conditions placed on it will notallow us to do vrhat $re want.
Emmings: What specific condition?
Dacy: Number I
that you've got
the staff isthe permit wi thyou want there or
and
by
tabl i sh
Produce. What we. f t I s
have
think 7littIena
n
tri thout
lly that, s
farmland.
DNR| s map
Michael Pflaum: Let me try to explain. I donrt have the Fishwildlife Guidelines before me but basically as I understand it,reading.it, the objectives that these standards serve are to esbenetrclal habitat for wildtife creatures and marsh vegetation.a nice. ecosystem that will be beneficial to wj.ldlit" ii-gen;rufare attempting to do here is take a sma1l piece of that ietiandabout 6t of that and make a hole there. Open !,rater so we don,t
Y:9.:::l:._growi19 up rhrough rhe warer. ihere,s goins ro be rL/z acyes ot wetlands undisturbed. Actually it,s !oin! to be aIess than that because ere are building our pond, our pothole, oportion of Ehat 7 l/2 acres. easicaliy about 7 I/2 acres remaiundisturbed. A l/2 acre is dredged io'fo.. an open water pondthe sharrow sropes and ungLaddy 6otbom ina so forth because reanot the aesthetic that we're tiying to make.
Emmings: And then rear specifically, how does that first condition causeyou problem with what you vrant to aoa
I'lichael pflaum: ftrs so- small to begin with that having an irregularshape is almost impossible to create] The second one his to do with sidesl'opes' side slopes are too shalrow. iou have very arunaint weed groh,thcoming up to the surface which does not create an open water ponar. rfvou have an uneven bortom, where it's risins -i"J-'riiii"gl-iio r,.r"irregurar weed gro$rth throughout ana-uasicairy, we,r" n6i tiying tocreate a rice paddy. we want to create " ponl'""J i".u.-tii rest of theland as it is.
Mr' Stevens: what constitutes as wetland is arr that r want to know andhowisthis7acresawetland?Thiswasfarmground.
Dacy: Yes, itrs to my understanding that many years...in any case, a rretland exists ooi ther" today. It 490
is it
on
was
the
Planning Commission i'tee t i ngApril 6, 1988 - page 14
Planning
April 5,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 15
and we had a gentleman from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife come out andevaluate the site. He confirmed that it is in fact a wetrand. Therethree things that determine a $retland. Vegetation, soils and if itsupports wildlife habitat. In the U.s. Fish and Wildlife person,sopinion, those three tests were met.
Dacy: Irm not disputing that. I just want to make clear that eventhough there may not be standing water at consistent time periodsthroughout the year, again, that there is hretrand vegetatiin, canarygrass, sedge grass, if there is peat and muck soils or wetter soilsthe typical hayden clay soirs that you find in chanhassen, then theand wi Idl i fe people. . .
are
Mr. Stevens: I have test borings here from I97g urhere at 15 feet itimpacted 8,000 pounds and no water appeared in the hole in four hoursthe adjacent property. The first lot just south of this one and thatthe wetest spot on the area. we had horses down on that for about 5years. We pastured horses in there. Mr. Hoyt has two evergreens inyard about 50 feet taIl that came out of that same sewer arJa you,retalking about and I think OrBrienrs farmed it for many years.
on
was
his
than
Ei Sh
Mr. Stevens: you probably have thosecreated. It wasnrt that way.
Dacy: Right, and we have to look atnot lrhat was 10 or 15 years ago.
Mr. Stevens: Hor^, Iong ago did they
conditions now but they wer e
whaE exists today at this point and
determine this $ras wetland?
it buildable next to
your house on the
Dacy: It was in Eebruary.
Mr. Stevens: How about my lot next to Ehis? Isthat pond?
Dacy: With a variance, potentiaLly yes.
Mr. Stevens: A variance for vrhat?
Dacy: Depending on where yourre going to placeproperty. ..
Mr. Stevens:
acre.
Dacy: If you I ve
area and you can
got 90 fee t
meet the 75
Ird like to split then into two Iots. Itrs 9,/loths of an
Mr. Stevens: But te can put a road in along sidelots canrt we? Isn't that in your ordinance?
of Iot frontage, L5,6gA square feet of lotfoot setback...
and split it for two
Dacy: Your re talking about...
Mr. Stevens: Werre l5O feet wide or so on the front.
Planning
Apri I 5,
Commission Meeting
L988 - Page 16
Dacy: You would have to create awith I50 foot lot width, you couldrunning on Pleasant View Road.
street r ight-of-way.into two 90 foot lots
fuIl
not
blown
split
ciEy
that
Mr. Stevens: wer re planning
Emmings: Sir, I'm going toin front of the Commission.
on putting it this way...
have to ask you to address the issue thatrs
the ] imi ts oftheir pond
boundary in
Mr. Stevens: I think it is the issue because if they put in that pond
and then I have to set back 75 feet from a wetland and they're callingthat a $retland noer, then the condition is changed.
Emmings: But yourre asking our staff to teII you erhether or not your11be able to divide your property and until you put in an application andthey have a chance.to look at it in detail, it's unfair foi ttrem to putthem on the spot. If you have questions like how far do I have to be setback from that pond or sonething, that would be appropri.ate but don't askus to do a review of your property here tonight. It Just can't be done.Itrs not fair to you or to us.
Dacy: With or without this pond, this boundary represent.sthe wetland today so even if they didntt create this pond,isnrt creating your issue. You have to deal irith this pinkhere as it goes through your s j.te.
Mr. Stevens: My question I guess was when did it become a
because it certainly wasn't when I bought the property? Itbuildable lots by the City and the sewer and water is in onpaying taxes and assessed for it and I certainty would likebui.ld on it.
wetl. andrras ca 1ledthem. Wet reto be able to
Jim Wehrle: I'm the President of the Near Mountain HomeownersAssociation. I guess therers just a few key points that we'd ljke tocommunicate. Those of us vrho tive in that j.mmediate area, especially
such as myself and my neighbors. Obviously as far as the trees go, werrepleased with the apparent resolution that's been reached with theagreement. To put something in wriEing to protect the trees. We're infavor of bhat but I'II second the thoughts that Lundgren Brothers havepassed along that they have done a pretEy good job in saving the trees,even though they haven't been required to. Secondly, I think my primaryconcern, speaking to you as an individual from this point, that thereunder no circumstances be, hopefully any resi.stence to allowing anotherexit out of our development for safety purposes. We found ourselves in asituation last July of not being able to get the Life Squad back intothat area and it is still the exactly the same exact situation today asit was at that point in time. i.re could not, if a flood came up out ofour ponds across the streets, the one real access street that comes backinto the area r.rhere I live, we canrt get any first aid as needed. I hada life squad truck stall out under 3 feet of water in front of my houseon July 21st, or whenever it was and I think there are getting to be so
many homes back in there and therers such linited access right novr, thatthatrs an absolute necessity for health and safety if nothing else, aswell as traffic flow. As far as the pond, I think all of us rrho built or
PlanningApril 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 17
bought in Near Mountain did so because it was a very nice planned unitdevelopment. It has a lot of nice ponds in it. I think Lundgrens did agreat job in putting in the ponds that are there now and I think this is
comparable to, my understanding of how they went about puttj.ng in thepond that are in there no$r. Dredged out an area perhaps 6 feet deep.I would think if they r^rere allowed to do r^rhat they're proposing here,that it would be a great enhancement to the vegetation aad/or wildlifethat may want to live in that ecosystem because it is dry, as has beendj scussed here, a considerable part of the year. That vrould see to itthat there was sone wetland available throughout certain parts of theyear. So not only aesthetically rrould it be nice but I think it wouLdenhance whatever necessities the wildlife had for that wetland. Lastly,I'11 just concur that we do not have sidewalks throughout the rest of -
that planned unit and there h,ouldn,t be any consistency with r.rhat isthere no$r. Itrs not a big deal to the homeowners association one way orthe other but I erill concur that it seems to be a needless expense that'snon-conforrning with the i{hoIe atmosphere of the existing development.
Emmings: Is what they're calling sidewalks here, is that the trail?
Dacy: Off-street trails.
Emmings: The portion of the trail
Park and Recreation Commi ss i on .
comment on this i tem?
system thatrs been recommended by theIs there anybody else who wants to
Greg Cray: I live on the second lot down from where that pond j.s there.I really like the development as itrs laid out but there again, the oneproblem that I have is the pond in general. That whole wetland area,there's no drainage out of there except for one very small tile line that
was put in by the City when they put the park in which is just to thesoutheast of that area. Right in there. The end of that tile line would
end up approximately in the middle of that pond the way it's drawn there.I want to make sure that therers some means for getting $rater out of thatarea. fike during that large storm last year, $re got a tremendous amountof $rater back in that area. Probably, I would guess 8 feet deep on asite over that wetlands area. The tile j.tself that vras put in was put inquite high in my thinking. It really would have to be extremely deep outthere before it would ever be of any kind of use for draining that areaout. I'd just like the City to take into consideration the possibility
of that tile being changed and enhanced to make sure that therers no
drainage problems and so on especially since I,Il commission the hillsidecould have an impact as far as the $ratershed and so on.
Emmings: How long have you lived out there?
Greg Cray: Approx imately 6 years now.
hearing that it's typically dry in there. IsEmmings: And we've beenthat your exper j ence?
Greg Cray:' It depends on the time of year. It generally has $rater. Atthe time we bought, it was dry. When I bought Ehe lot. The next springduring the time where I was building the house, it got quite a bit of
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 18
there and itrs gone anywhere
feet deep, depending on the
Ho r., does i t impact your lot?
dry you can r^ralk across itvra te r in
to5to8
Bat zli :
from so
wea ther .
Greg Cray: The big impacE it has on my lot j.s that my sump pumpquits running when it gets high. It just raises the r,rater table
whole area because therers no outlet.
Do you
No.
Do you
nev erof the
Emmings:
Greg Cr ay:
Emmings:
have anything fur ther ?
want to address this outlet question?
Brordn: Yes. I'11 address part of it and then I'm going to defer thisquestion to the applicantrs engineer, Rick Sayther. We've dj.scussed this6 inch tile line quite extensively being that the public has been quite
concerned about iE. Upon submission of the storm sevrer calculations forthe plat, I raised the question to the engineer, Rick Sayther, srhat
happens to t.his 5 inch line once the development is in? Are weoverloading that Iine and Rick explained to me that in theircalculations, and I went through and verified this, they completelydisregarded that line. The reason for that, in the event of a 16g yearstorm, they have provided enough storage in the ponding area to take careof their development aLone without any run-off f rorn the 6 j.nch l ine that
now exists out there. So they've provided more than adequate storage forit. This 5 inch Iine will adequately Crain it off obviously at a slowerrate than an 18 inch pipe would but the storage issue, I think they haveaddressed quite htell. As far as the neighboring structures, I'Il haveRick discuss thaE.
Rick Sayther: I'm Rick Sayther with sayther-Berquist. Werre theplanners and engineers for Lundgrens. After we had our neighborhoodmeeting or at our neighborhood meeting this gentleman came and was
concerned and I was too, not knowing rrhat the elevat j.ons were out thereso I sent my survey crew out to do a couple things. One was Eo locatethe edge of the vretland and the other was to shoot the elevation of thetile line so ere could see horr, high the water would get before it ran out.
We also vrent onto his Lot and I hope he isn't mad at us for it but wewent out and shot elevations around his house and shot the garage floorelevation. Itrs not a walkout so we couldn,t shoot the basement floorbut I vrould guess it's probably an I fooE difference between the garage
and the basement. Something like that?
creg Cray: Yes, it would be about that.
Rick Sayther: Okay, we shot the garage floor at 923.98 which is about924. The tile line right nor", would outlet the wetland at 912.7 so fromthe garage floor down to the tile is about 11 feet. The basement lrouldbe at about 915 or 915 so the basement level- is 2 or 3 feet above thetile line. In the LOA yeax storm, lre expect the erater to rise in thewetland up to the 9I4 contour which is that pink Iine on the drawing.
The theoreticaL LOt year storm which we got way more than last year.
PlanningApril 6,
Comm j. ss i on Meeting
1988 - Page 19
sayther: Therers water there most of the time jusc at the surface.
below. Our experience in the area vrith all the ponds that v'erve
have shown that that's a real practical way to create a pond'
Emmings: Is that with or without the pond or doesn't it matter?
Rick Sayther: That pond together with the other ponds will, serve to
reduce the run-off rate to whatrs there now. We're proposing a couple ofother ponds that arenrt colored that are the stuff on the top of the
drawing.
Emmings: So if you didn't have the pond, would the water be higher inthe I00 year storm?
Rick sayther: Ird say yes because we're increasing the total amount ofrun-off through the development process. If the tile line wasnrt thereat allr then that. marsh would continue to fill and there would probably
be a problem someday but even erith that small 6 inch pipe, it will have
adequate capacity to drain the water down. water will drop down to at
least the pipe elevation and then it may evaporate out and go dry like it
has in the past. The wetland. Or it may stay up at that elevation of
the pipe. It just depends on the season and the lretness. Itrs a good
thing the pipe is there and our calculations show that it would be
adequate for the future.
Emmings: If that is dry so much of the time, how will the pond have
rrrater in it all year round or aII summer long?
Rick Sayther: we believe that although the surface gets dry sometimes,
below the ground level 6 inches or less, therers water so if we dig down
4 feet, we'd have 4 feet of vrater in that excavation. Thatrs really what
we're doing. we dig below the surface level to have open water where now
the r,/ater is just standing in the soil.
Emmings: So youtre digging dor,rn into the water table and have you dome
something out there to test that notion?
Rick
JuSt
d one
Brown: If I may address one other thing. Prior to me coming aboard on
staff here at the city, as I understand it, therers been a great debate
over the 5 inch tile line that was placed out there by the City. Being
that it is now, at the present classified as a wetland and at the time
ti,it ttre tile iine was installed, we couLd not dra j.n the wetland dry so
the intent of putting the 6 inch tile line at a certain elevation was to
maintain some noisture in that $retland so that wouLdn'E be a
euthification of a wetland.
Emmings: Anybody el'se have any comments on this?
Mr. Stevens: Are you also aware that therers
parkland back over into that slew?
Brown: Yes we are.
a culver that drains the
Mr.
It
Conrad moved, Wildermuth secondedin favor and motion carried. ?he
to close the public hearing. Atl votedpublic hearing was closed.
Stevens: Although the contour of the park has changed quj.te a bit.used to drain the run-off into that area,
Peter Pfraum: we didn't do any of this in this particurar site. what rwas rearry referring to is, if you were to drive in Near Mountain, thiswhore area didnrt have any trees on it. Every tree in that subdivision.rf you went into this area right down here you'd probabry find, r donrtknow 7o-86 15 to 2g foot evergreens. r was talkinq aboui this area.Just.driving you can see. Thatts what r was referiing to. when r wastalking about woods, from this area where my hand is.tr tnis area iswoods- what r was saying, we deveroped alr this land in here in thewoods- we went out there and working with backyards, there lrasnr t anyrequirement, it was never a problem. It,s a ref,I hardship for adeveroper to have to come in and bring the city out there'and show them
Il:t-_t.:::: I:r:I:.goins to take down. r can see your concern if somebodynas abused something and r can arso see if it was an ordinance thatrequr red to every development.
Erhart: You stated that you plantedreferring to when you developed thetrees to landscape after you did thethis particular area?
Erhart3 This is something thatthere Barb, what does it exactlyshall be provided at the time ofI?
Dacy: Right. ftrs treesubdivision ordinance.
trees in this area. Are youother areas in there you plantedsubdivision or you planted trees in
started after...The condition number Iinvolve? It says tree removal planbuilding permit application for Lots
Dacy: Basicarry what that means is that when the certi ficate of surveyis submitted for each building permir appricarion. -;a l;;-;ime ofbuilding permit application for- individuut to^es
Erhart: What does that have to do r.rith the subdivision?
Dacy: rrrl finish. A certificate of survey wilr show where the proposedhouse pad is going to be and the finished fioor'"r"".Ii.r-.i tt,ut ""compared to $rhat the existing contours are out there on the property. sowhaE r.re wourd be asking the builders to do woura be-to--i.il"r on that pranwhere the construction area wourd extend to. How much of the rot $rouldthey be grading out during construction of the ii.gi""rJ.iiy no^" "o ,r"have a record that they are not going to be crear ""aai"q-ti" entire r.ot.
Erhart: rn our clear cutting ordinance, we have a clear cutting sectionin our subdivision ordinance right?
removal and conservation of vegetation in the
Planning Commission Meeti ngApril 6, 1988 - Page 2g
Planniog
April 5,
Comm i ss j. on Meeting
19 88 - Page 21
Dacy: No, I think rrhat you might
requirements for tree removal butidentified anywhere.
be referring to is shorelandthat specific diameter size is not
Erhart: In the subdivision ordinance?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: we do have
ordinance?
it as clear cutting provision in the subdivision
Dacy: The
prov i s i onsof remova 1
term clearcut is not stated in the ordinance but
in this section which allows the City to requireplans.
there
these
are slx
type s
Erhart: In the subdivision ordinance?
Dacy: Yes.
Erhart: Is there anything else in the process that requires the
developer to identify house Iocation?
Dacy: No, the certificate of Survey is the best method to do that
because the surveyor has gone out Eo the lot. Again, the develoPer has
suggested an alternative condition that $rouId be accePtable to staff.
Erhart: what I'm driving at is, this Particular paragraPh just started
showing up in the subdivision proposals about a year and a half ago and
yourre the first person who's really objected to it. I donrt remember
being on the Commission where we ever actually discussed this particular
thing. I think we just accepted it. Do you remember Ladd?
Conrad 3 Yes. It was Iike a PoIicY.
Erhart: Yes, we kind of accepted it but I don't know if jt was ever
really cLear what $re were asking.
Conrad: The detailed requirement of the developer, \'re base it on staff's
opinion of what is necessary for a landscape plan or clearcutt j.ng plan.
Erhart: Without spending a lot of time on it, if h'e thought it through
and this is what vre want to do, thatrs fine. If v,e haven't, I guess I
rrould suggest perhaps at a later meeting we do think through th j.s
particulii requirement and really understand the ramifications to
iubdevelopers to see if therets a possibility to accomplish the same
thing without placing much effort into it. Thatrs enough of that. The
othei thing is, the sidewalks, tbe trail system. Agaio, unless Irm
wrong, this j.s the first t j.me that I can recall seeing a subdivision come
in here r.rhere there rdas actually a request of the subdeveloPers to
actually put in the surface for the trail system. Am I wrong on that?
Erhart: It states that they will all be 3 inches or something, that areremoved for streets. . .
Planning
Apri I 6,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 22
Dacy: Yes. There have
have been required.
been other subdivisions where off-street trails
Erhart: Recently or a long time ago?
Dacy: Lake Susan Hills West. Curry Farms. Kurvers point.Park and Rec Conmission adopted their trail plan within thetheyt re just following through on Ehose requirements.
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: So wetre to understand that itthat $rerve got a trail plan, that werreas a part of the subdivision? If that'ssomething new.
is now city policy hereexpectiog developers tothe case, then I think
that nor.,do that
that I s
Dacy: r guess r would even go one step farther with the comrnission andsay that that recommendation is from the park and Rec commission andcertainly the planning Commission is welcome to comment on thatparticurar condition- However, the finar disposition or tnat particurarcondition shourd be up to the iouncir. r wourd feer uncomfortabre havingthe Pranning commission acting on what the park and Rec commission arid. "
Erhart: I'm not suggesting to do that. Again, I'm bringing up, werre
:,::llr^:: !:ll:y. for a prosram in rhe city ro do rhat so-iris probabryworEn our whrr'e Eo have Lori come in here and tell us erhat is lne gr.iascheme of these things. on the other hand, if this is something tfratrsbeen going for a Iong time and we just misied it, then you-"an ;rstignore than. what wis the purposei u.u ," requiring the deveLoper toextend the Trapperrs pass up to the end of the property or is thaE theiridea?
Rick sayther: r don't think the staff has required that vre run thestreet up here but we found that the buyers of the rots, the buirder orthe home buyer can'r realry rurrv ippieiiut" ho* that wilr iook after thestreet's built unless. the itreet g"is ruirt "o itii io.i-u""n the poricyof Lundgren Brothers to-build the-streei adjace6t to any 10t that,splatted whether it's goi.ng to be used-iight-at that tim6 or nor.
Erhart: Alright, we appreciate that. LastIy, dowetland questions until we get to that or jusi go?
Emnrings: you didn't really present your report on
Dacy: Betr.reen the discussion of the developer andpresentaEion is fine.
you want to defer the
that did you?
Laxxy , I think staff's
Emmings: Okayl then let's just talk about the whole thing nor,r.
Erhart: Where they've actually been required to put them in? Theasphalt surface?
Again, the
Last year so
Pl ann ingApril 5,
Commission t'Iee t i ng
1988 - Page 23
Rick Sayther: Thatts a creative idea. I think what's really going tohappen though is, it slopes all around that basin. The whole basin hasslopes of la. r and 203r. As the water firls in there and it gets to getL L/2 feeE to 2 feet deep, r think exactly what the Fish and wildlife-ishoping for wourd happen r.vith nost of the wetland. whether we do the pondat all' that condition wirr come to be. There wilr be a better habit,t.What rre really want to do with that little half acre piece there is tocreate a permanent open water area for the attractiveness of it.
Erhart: I Ehink you can accomplish both simply by expanding the size.Maintain your open area because you want 3 feet of water there to keepopen and just expand your grade off towards Ehe center. I understandyourre limited by road and you have Iot constraints. I just suggest thatas a compromise solution on this but again, certainly a pond is betterthan nothing at all. That is the real problem isn't it? The slope.Therers really no other problem. Itrs uneven to me. It's too smal.L tohave a rolling bottom. Muck, you're going to have it r^rhether you want itor not. That's the real problem.
Rick Sayther: The intent is to dig it
down.
to be 4 feet deep from the pipe
Erhart: Therers simply not enough run-off there to make essentiarly awildlife wetland. It,s seem the proposal is simply an aesthetic po;alwhich m alr in favor of. there simpry isn't enough drainage thire totake the 912 or the 9lr and create and improve a combination an aestheticarea and wi ldl i fe.
Rick Sayther: I believe that through time, after the development isfinished, since there will be more r,{ater going into the basin, that waterwill stand in there more often for longer periods and you'll probably getmore aquatic vegetation than you've got. The base ot it is a big, flalbottom basin. The srater stands in a couple spots and the water has toget I l/2 to 2 feet deep before it can run oul. I think through timeyourre going to have that position $rhere the r.rater is standing there 1L/2 to 2 feet deep over quite a big area. I think the wetlanAs willbecome more viable.
Erhart: That being the case, could we resolve, the reaL problen withponding is your slope. you said in a small pond you can'i make theincrease of water with a 10:r slope around the whole perimeter, correct?What about, letrs assume the area does become more ponded as time goeson, could we increase the size of the pond srightry to the west? Foregothe requirement for the I0:1 slope on the east hali of the pond butslightly increase the size on the west size to get the t0:r slope towardthe center of the bowl as an alternative.
Erhart: Ird say itts pretty straight forward beyond that so IrIl pass.
Conrad: Larry, on the streets when rre have a 10t slope on Trapper rs
Pass, rrhaE does that create? What kind of drainage problems does thatcreate when we have a slope thatrs a little bit steeper? Is that aconcern of yours?
PlanningApril- 5,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 24
Brown:At 10t
You I re
grade, no.
worried more about safety and access than you are withConrad:
dra inage?
Brown: Correct. The reason that you see the type of storm sewerthat is speced out, that you see conmonly around the City is forvery reason. At a 10t grade the water does not go shooting pastgrate but falls down into the curb box so that's not a concern of
casting
that
the
mine.
Conrad: For dra i nagefeel comfortable that
specifications, you've considered thethey can deal with that?
grade and you
Brown: Correct.
Conrad: As far as the pond is concerned, my onLy concern on the pond isthat it does dry out and r.re end up r^rith something that's not alrdays themost attractive thing. I think peter you had some problems last year
when we have the semi-drought before we had the semi-floods. I canrtthink of a solution for that. I guess I would not ask for an expandedponding site simply because when it does go dry, a pond can looknegative. In terms of how to keep it full all the time, I guess I don'thave a solution for that particular concern. Because of the developer t sgood track record in Chanhassen and the fact that they have to a degreereforested and have been really pretty sensitive to the environment, Ithink they should follow our pol j.cies but I'd sure encourage the staff tomake it a very easy review rrj.th the developer. I donrt know what kind ofguidelines that's sending and I guess I'lI ask Barbara. when somebodysubmits a tree removal plan, r^/hat does that entail? What is that? Iathat specifically detailing which trees are cut or is that a review, avralk through of the site with people from the developer,s company. Hor^rdo you do that?
Dacy: It basically shows what trees are going to be removed inof the construction for the grading and the construction of thedo not require a detailed i.nventory of each lot and each tree.plan to show us the area that trees are Eoing to be removed andbasically, it means kind of a circle on the site or around thebuilding pad.
the area
home. WeJust a
proposed
Conrad: So itrs a document that is submitted?
Dacy: Yes, that we keep on file. It gives the inspection staff and whenthe building permit is reviewed by all the departments, we can look at itand say, okay they're not cLearcutting the lot, they're not removing asubstantial amount of vegetati.on. It appears to be okay. Novr, to behonest and totally frank, 5 years from now that property owner could go
down and one day at a time take a tree down at a time and put down neisod and eventually clearcut the lot and we probably wouldnrt know aboutit but ere have gotten burned. There are subdivisions during buiLdingpermit review that it comes back to staff saying, why didnrt you catahthis and how could you aIIo!, such a thing.
PlanningApriI 6,
Commission Meeting
l98B - Page 25
Conrad: There have been some real bad situations and I think we agreethat there should be review of that. Irm trying to get a sense for, arethere degrees in this review because rrre knov, that the Near Mountain grouphas done a real fine job so to inpose a burden is not the point of thislittle exercise. To be consistent however, in how we treat people is toa degree important. So I ask the question again, are there degrees in
how we work vrith the deveroper and we review that tree removar situationor is it just an absolute? Are there no degrees in the depth that h,e goto in that plan?
Dacy: We can sror kthis. Yes, thereto work with them.
with Mr. Pflaum and $rorkare degrees available and
out some
rrre r.roUId
type of
be more
solution to
than happy
Brown: One clarification if I may. To address both Mr. Erhart'scomments and Mr. Conrad,s comments, the concerns about extending thewetland out, r think ve analyzed the f10ws that come down through thisstorm sewer pipe and pond and eventualry go out the 6 inch tile line. Tocreat an open water pond you need at least 4 feet of r.rater before thecattails wirr not grow. The rates just wourd not realry facilitateextending this pond out. Being that you have a shallow6r pond, itwourdnrt be an open water pond and it wourd be more inclinled ior youroperaion. Again, you have the scenario that commissioner conrad talkedabout, having the edges dry and having a barren surface out there which rdonrt think is desirable.
Erhart: I have a point thatof the shoreline so it's not
Ehe requirement isthe whole thing.only a 1,0:1 slope for 30t
Brown: My intention was not for the slope. Thatrs an entirely differentissue, but extending it out. They've maintained a certain rat- to keepan open water pond out there.
conrad: on the pond, r feel comfortable that the requirement of the Fishand wildlife service, condition (a), r donrt have a ieal strong feelingfor keeping it uneven and I think that condition can be slipped, in mymind. Irm not sure that the others, I havenrt been persuadea yet thaithe others can be si.ipped or sacrificed. Based on what I just saidLarry, because r am saying that (b) through (f) for rish and wildlife isimportant, did you just say that (b) should not be a requirement of theirpond ing?
Brown: No. I'm saying
they are restricted in
whole other issue.
Eotal overa I1as far as the
area of the pond,
I think it's a
that the
one sense
surface
slopes.
EIlson: The tree removalthe abuse and I certainlythere such as, unless itrsproved h j.msel f . If yourre
you ' ve proven yourself to
plan, I wasn't here when I guess you've had aIIunderstand it. Maybe you can put something ina developer we've worked with before who hasne$, then yourve got to go through Ehe...untilour City, you don't have to do it. Irm not
Conrad: Thatrs alI.
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeti ng
1988 - Page 26
necessary cornfortable with clearcutting but if staff is comfortable hriththat clearcutting unless approved, then I would be fine. Also, I agreewith the rest. I think hers been very good with the City and I'd rathernot bring him any more work than he needs. The part about the sidewalk,I think the Park and Rec Comm!.ssion, as you stated before, are justpretty much asking for this to be tagged along with everything from now
on but I don't really see a point if this is part of the whole planned
unit development and it wasn't done as a planned unit development thenj.t's no longer planned. It's all of a sudden something that was stuck in
there. It takes away from the idea of being planned. I could see
eliminating the sidewalks. I share Ehe same feelings with Tim about the
wetlands thing. I v,rould like to see them try to have grading like theresomeplace. I'd hate to eliminate all the major points that the Wildlife
Service has and then say, we think in a few years it will end up that way
anyway. They have a certain intent and there's really good reasons forit and they didn't just decide this for nothing. They've got thesepoints for real.ly good reasons. I'd Iike to see some sort of attempt at
a portion of it sloped like that if it could be. That's it.
Batzli: I had a couple of questions for Larry to start with. Is the
retaining wall only going along the deadend portion of Trappers Pass?
Rick Sayther: Yes.
Batzli: Is there
up to the s treet ?portion where the
a setback requirement on that or do they put that right
Hov, are they proposing to do that and is that a
Park and Rec Commission has required the sidewalk?
Park
Brown: The setback requi rement for the retaining waI1?
that you guys are going to have toBatzli : Yes. That's something
approve at any rate, correct?
Brolrn: Correct .
Batzli: Is that including if there would be a setback required? You
have in here that details for the construction of the retaining wall
shall be submitted. Are you comfortable with that? In case you need
some sort of setback from the road or something else that you're covered
there?
Brown: Yes. The plans propose that the wal-l be placed outside the
public right-of-way and that would address our concern.
Batzli: And the sidewalk, as it currently is being requested by the
and Recreation Commission, doesnrt go along right at that end?
Brown: It very well may be. I haven't reviewed the Park and
Recreation I s recommendations $rith that.
Batzli: On the barrier issue, are you talking about some sort of semi-
permanent barrier? what exactly are you thinking about installing right
there?
PIann i ngApril 6,
Commission Meeti ng
19 88 - Page 27
Brown: This issue has recently come up before the city Council r.rith the
imfamous Teton Lane feasibility study and we are now gatheri.ng
specifications and trying to adopt a standard for a permanent breakawaybarricade. You'11 be seeing this possibly in the future where it's
imbedded down in the ground. It's a sturdy sturcture Ehat wouldnttallow a regular car to go through it. Hor.rever, a fire truck could veryeasily snap it off at, the base and gaio access.
Batzli: Is aesthetics part of the
something 1i ke that?
study that werre conducting on
Brown: Definitely. There are several designs that are out there andhave been used for a very long time.
Batzli: I have a general question and anybody can answer it. Is theEish and Wildlife Service, after having alesignated or Department ofNatural Resources, after having designated somethj.ng as a C1ass BwetLands, there are six conditions that we list. They're established bythe Fish and wildrife service and how binding on us are those conditionsa
Dacy: we use the Fish and wirdrife service as much as we do DNR or thel'latershed District. They make recommendations to the city. The city'swetland ordinance goes beyond the requirements of DNR or ltre u.s. Ei;hand wildrife. rf that rretrand was not on the DNR'S maps, it is on theCity's maps because we cover all types of wetlands. So city staff isrecommending that these conditions be a part of the r,retrand alterationpermit and a recomrneoded condition of approval. rf the commission feersthat this is not appropriate in this case, that,s fine. Then you canremove all 0r some of the parts that you don't feer is appropriate inthis case .
Batzli: I thinkthe DNRrs but we
I heard you just say that our standardsincluded here their standards.
are tougher than
saying is, our ordinance covers wetlands beyondDacy: No, what I was
r,rhat Ehe DNR covers -
Batzli: That's all I have.
wildermuth: r think most of the issues have been pretty welr discussed.I guess Irm not persuaded that a tree removal plan doesn,t have to besubmitted. r think Barbara, between you and the deveroper you can reachsome kind of an accomodation for a simprified plan in view of the trackrecord that the developer has. I think the Fish and Wildl-if erecommendations should be observed. r think in view of the investmentinto the trail system that the City is going to be making, we shoulddefinitely stay with the trail system. I like to see this kj.nd ofdevelopment. I think it,s a real asset to the City. Large lotdevelopment with nice homes. Itrs going to be a real asset. There isone issue though that r would f.ike to bring up and that is, at some pointr.think werre going to need some help from these deveropers in givini ourhighway system a little further developed there. TH I0I is a piin nowand it's going to be even $rorse. I see this 32 home development, some of
Planning
April 6,
Ehe
Put
Emmings: In that regard, didthe County swapped some landover TH I01. It looked like
just see in the paper that the State andthat the County is going to be takingdidnrt come that far south.
understanding.
after some improvements areor both of them.
was an
being forced
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 28
other land that Lundgren has is zoned multi-fami1y. Thatrs going to
even more pressure on Pleasant View and TH 101.
I
andit
Dacy: That was only north of Hwy. 12 was my
Emmings: But the article seemed to say that
made, south. It sounded like Hennepin County
Dacy: South of Hwy. 12?
Emmings: Yes. Maybe I'm wrong about that but I tbought thatinteresting piece of nerrs that somebody was finally actuallyto take over responsibility for that. thing.
Wildermuth: I think at some point we're going to have to put the
on development in that area because of what's happening or what's
happening with TH I01. That's all r have.
brakes
not
Headla: Street Iights are going to be required?
Dacy: Yes. They are part of the development contract.
Headla: would you tell me again $rha t you're going to do vrith that $rhole
$retland area. Just give me a quick shot at it. Are those bullrushes ' is
that going to change?
Rick sayther: I guess I'm speculating a tittle on what nature wiII ilo
through time. our intent r.ras to put in a storm sewer pipe that would
drain the water from the streets and the frontyards and the driveways,
run the water doeJn into a 4 foot deep open water pond and the water would
then drain out through the 6 inch tile line the City built through the
ditch and the park and eventually to Lotus Lake. The rest of the wetland
we wouldnrt do anything to. This 7 acres plus the south there we
wouldnrt touch at all but I $ras saying that I thought through time it
would become a wetter wetland. I don't kno$, if that makes a lot of sense
but right now it's seasonally dry. In some seasons itrs dry. I think
through time, because alI development generates more water than no
development, it wiJ.1 tend to be a wetter weEland.
Headla: Larry, do you think that pond would be filled up? whatrs your
guess? when would that propose pond be filled up? It holds roughly
LgA,g0A gallons. when would run-off fill that up? one spring? Eive
springs?
Rj.ck Sayther: Immediately. As soon as it was dug it would be full. As
soon as you start digging with a backhoe, there's enough ldater in thesoil that it would fill immediately to the surface of the ground. some
of the ponds that we did last year in Shorewood Near Mountaj.n, we were
building ponds that were above the ground water level . Those we needed a
Plann ingApril 5,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 29
long time.
situaEion.
creg Cray: Itd like to make aarea is under water right now.that high.
comment. Ird say aboutItrs under $rater. The
we need the big rain to filt those up but this is a differentWerre actually working in a perched water tabled.
Headra: The reason r rdanted to know that is, when r drove through there,I really felt pretty much a sterile, naked area. WelI manicured pondsand I saw some geese in there. They r^,ere swimming period. you go tookat that erhole r.retland area, that was teeming with ducks, geese and amuskrat or something at the far end but they were in there feeding and rsuspect they were getting ready for nesting. When you have just i weIImanicured pond, outside of being a catch basin, it'l worthless towildrife and r sure would hate to see that wirdrife habitat disturbed orlost. It almost sounds like, from hrhat you said, if you put in that pondyoutre going to be draining the moisture back inio ttrit pind until itgets filled up.
Rick Sayther: I don't believe it would. The pond area that werretalking about is about 5? of the wetland area. A pretty smallpercentage.
90t of tha t
water level
pond
1S
Rick Sayther: I donrt think the water is up where you think it is.
Headla: It didn't seem likebalance, that that r.rhole areaon it and I don't know enough
seen anything here to give meupset that balance.
Brown: No, because the water
Ehere was not a perched wateEthat is possible.
it. It just looks like that pond, on thethere. I don't have a confortable feelingabout it to even say Irm right. I haven'iany confidence that we're not going to
Brown: If I may add a point. The rdater table at Ehis point, I thinkeveryone will agree, in that area is fairly high. ft's a perched watertable. Essentially what yourre doing is just removing the soil. Thevrater is arready there. Right now it's not rear evident because the soilis there. You remove the soil and you have a ponding condition alongvrith that perched $rater table. It's not as though yourre taking a diyarea, digging it out and letEing the runoff come j.nto that dry area.
Headla: So on the map there, like where it has 7.5 acres, your feelingis you arenrt going to drop that water tabre maybe an inch or a coupre ofinches at the most for the time being.
table right here is perchedtable at that point, then I
al ready .would say
If
Y€S r
Emmings: What does perched mean?
means that there is an i.mperviousthe rdater to go above normal, the
Brovrn: Perchedthat wi 11 aIlowof water.
layer somewhere downIake bottom or any body
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 3g
Headla: Barbara I Irm pleased at item 5. Ithing on the wetland. Thatrs going to giveeverybody. when the builder starts applyingdid you have any trouble there? Remember aIabout the tree plan?
just love to see that type of
us more cLout and helpfor permits at Murray HiIl,1 the discussions we had
Dacy: Oh, the six lot subdivision dor,rn at Ehe bottom of the street? I
sras emPloyed here.
Headla: No, theytre just putting IN now.
the house to create that
them
took outEmmings: Itrs the
entrance into that
Dacy: Okay, thatrs
one erhere they
Murray Hill?
cal l,ed Eight Acre wood.
Headla: Did any problems develop, is the builder and you communicatingerith what trees are going to be removed?
Dacy: Theyrve gotten plans and specification
received any building permits on any of those
what they have to do for the road and utilityyourve dealt directly with them.
aPproval . We haven',t
Iots yet. Theyrre doing
construction. Larry,
Bro$rn: For the firsE phase only they put in utilities. Right nor., that
project is being held up by the Watershed District but thatrs not
relevant here. A point to note, we have and I will not mention the names
to protect the innocent but we have run into problems, serious probJ.ems
with not having tree removal plans...
Headla: I just got to support item I on that tree removal. I think
r,rerve got Eo go all the way on that. Werve asked the same thing and r.re
had the builder here, I think he's outside now, erho went through that
whole bit. we didn't, at least Irm not aware of any problems with him. Ithink we've got to be consistent and requj.re that. I want to support the
one on the trail system. I think r{e've just got to ask the same thing of
him that $re ask of anybody else. Thatrs all I have.
Emmings: I donit have much additional. Brian has pointed out a section
of the code under required standards for PUD's. It does prohibit clearcutting of woodland areas and prohibits cutting trees over 6 inches in
diameter unless it's demonstrated there is no feasible way to develop the
site.
Dacy: That I s Sectj.on 2q-LL1 9?
Section 2S-594(b) .Emmings: No, this is
Dacy: Okay, Section
says the same thing.
Emmings: And it talks about the
they have to be so there already
20-L179 is part of EheIt $rould apply to the
landscaping ordinance and it
non-PUD areas aIso.
per lot
there.
and what si zeIt doesn I t sound
number ofare some
trees
things
Pl ann i ng
Apri I 6,
Commission Meeting
f988 - Page 31
to me like itrs a very formal requirement. Itm a I j.ttle torn on thisissue because I think a developer whors done a good job and has provenhe's done a good job ought to get some credit for thit but r donit thinkthat means we relax our standards. rt doesn't sound to me like i.trs thatbig a dear to put in a tree removal plan. you vrant to kno$, the general.areas of cutting and it sounds rike they can take a prat and just circleon those lots that your ve expressed concern about, circre a general areaof r.rhere there will be tree removal and that's all you rearly require.rt sounds like a pretty easy job to me. rt's not like taking a compreteinventory of arl the trees out there and then deciding tree by tree whichare going to go and which are going to stay. r think we've got to reavethat. in there. we put it in on arl of thei and r think we oright to stayconsistent on that so we dontt have problems rike werve had ii the past'ever again. On the wetland question, I think it,s a good thing to iut,if that pond wasnrt sitting on a wetland r think werd arr be arr for itand r don't think it.makes any difference that itis sitting there on awetland in this particular case. r think it's a nice thin!. r wourdnrtwant to own Lot r however and vrorry about kids coming and iarling downinto the pond but I don'! lave to Uuy a lot now so ii,s not a problem.Another. thing on the pond is it just seems rike such a differdnt kind ofalteration. werve been real firm about forbidding arteration to r.retlandsbut it seems to me when we,ve done that itrs been where they've wanted tofirl them or they vranted to put roads through them. Alteraiions of thaikind. This seems like a very different kind of thing. rt wourd be niceto hear what someone like Dr. Rockwerl woutd have to say about thisparticular one but it seems to me that some of these Fiih and wirdlifeservice items can be a way to create what they want Eo create there inthj.s particular case. That's alI I have-
Erhart: Steve, I think werve been doing a lotWhere there are alterations of Class B wetlandsponds and stuff.
Emmings: Where wetve put ponds in them?
Dacy: The best example that r can draw for you to draw a similarity isthe city's pond at the end of west 79th street. Remenber r4rhen the aitywent through itrs wetland alteration permit. The basic purpose of thatpond vras for storm r^rater retention and we courdnrt achieve lome of thesesix conditions because the HRA and the council fert it should be moreaesthetic and more appealing. They didnrt vrant to see the $retrandvegetation around the rim of the pond.
Emnings: So thatrs directly analagous.
Dacy: Right, so you have a similar situation andthat it is a fairly portion of the total wetland.
the other point being
I think in this subdivision right up here, there's a lot of
of these haven' t
where we've had
9re ?
hold i ng
Erhart:
ponds .
Dacy: Right, therers no question thatimplemented these cond j.tions.we have on a regular basis
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 32
Batzli: would it be a reasonable condition to request that they get somesort of a DNR opinion that what they're going to do wonrt adverselyaffect the wet land?
Dacy: Sure, that I s fine.
Batzli: Is that the sort of opinion that a DNR official would give?
Dacy: They may or may not need a DNR permit
there with somebody.
anyway.
From Fish and WiIdIife?Emmings: You went out
What did they think?
Dacy: Right. Prior to Dr. Rockwell leaving, both Dr. Rock$rell, vrent out
there with Jo Ann and Mr. Leech went out more recently in February and
they felt that the wetland was a marginal quality. It wasn't extremely
good but it vrasn't extremely bad and they felt that the proposed
alteration could be achieved but as typically, they have always
recommended the implementation of those six conditions.
Hnmings: Do you know if theytheyrre proposing, if it wouldof the vretl and ?
$rere asked if this rdas
have any detr imental
a pond like
on the balance
Dacy: To be honest, I knord that Mr. Leech did not have the benefit of
this detailed plan when he went out to the site. His main purpose was to
tell us the quality of the r^retland and where the edge of the wetland
vegetation was to advise the developers.
Emmings: Cou1d his opinion as to r.rhether or not the pond, as itrs
proposed, would be detrimental to the balance of the wetland be obtained
before this gets to the city council so they could take a Look at that?
Dacy: Yes.
Emmings: okay. Anybody else have anything?
A motion was made at this point. Discussion folLowed.
Conrad: Point 1, you don't feel Dave that you want to simplify the tree
removal plan at all? Yourre comfortable that the developer should go
through . . .
Headla: we're saying a tree p1an. A tree plan's a tree plan. Now the
people rrho work with the contractor, there's going to be some repoire and
I'm sure there's going to be give and take as they develop a tree plan.
If somebody comes in and they really donrt know what hers like, I'm sure
they're going to look at it a lot more seriously what theyrre doing than
somebody they've had repoire and worked \,rith for a few years.
Conrad: So you donrt r,rant to send a signal saying,
simplified tree plan?
just
effect
in writing, a
HeadIa: No.
Conrad: You think that staff can interrupt the $rords right
Headla: I thinkwj.th that person
recommendation.
right now it gives them enough leeway thatand do what they think is the spirit of the
compLex is and Ithis is because
norrr?
they can work
think Tim'sitrs really
Emmings: r agree with Dave on that, by the way. r don,t think we shouldchange. Thatrs a boiler plate condition and I think it ought. to staythat.way and let the staff work with the appticant, just like oave says.I think itrs very appropriate and it doesniL sound t6 me Iike we'rerequiring that much anyway.
Conrad: I donrt know what simplified versus
comment. is we should probably talk about whatgood but we don't knor^r $rhat we're asking .
Pagyi. And thatrs probably because you dontt woEk with it everyday.building inspectors and the pranners, werre out in the field alt theand we work with them and we can tell from the certificate of surveytheytre really going to be needing t.o remove alL those trees,
Conrad: Maybe Mr. Chairman you
come on what I s required.
can have staff educate us in the weeks to
The
timeif
Erhart: I'd ask staff to comethis requirement and whether orwerre not gaining anything butto move ahead.
back at some time and help us understandnot werre really putting a hardshi.p andas far as this proposal r I think we ought
Headla moved, BatzIi secondedapproval of Subdivis ion *79-2plan stamped "Received Marchconditionss
that the Planning Commission recommendfor 34 single family lots as shovrn on the4, 1988" and subject to Ehe following
I
2
A tree removal plan shallapplicaEion for Lots I-5,and Lots 7-14, Block 4.
be provided at the tirne of buildingBlock I, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot I,
perm i t
Block 3
The applicant shal I- construct
oxbow Bend and Timberhill Roadwaived.
trails along Trappers pass,
fees accepted and trail fees
off streetwith park
3
4
Cornpliance with the conditions of the h,etland alteration permit.
The developer shaIl enter into a developmentand provide the necessary financial suretiesj nstal Iation of these jmprovements.
Tbe developer sha1l obtain and compLy with all conditions ofWatershed District permit and the permit from the Department
5
contract with the Ci tyto guarantee the proper
the
of
Planning Commission MeetingApril 6, 1988 - Page 33
Planning
Apr i I 6,
Commission Meeti. ng
1988 - Page 34
6.
7.
8.
9.
Lq.
11.
L2.
Natural Resources.
AII erosion control measures shall be in place prior to theinitiation of any grading, and once in place shall remain in placethroughout the duration of construction. A11 of the erosion controlmeasures shaII remain intact until an established vegetative coverhas been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibilityof the developer.
l{ood fiber blankets or equiva!.ent shall be utilized to stabilizeslopes greater than 3:1.
All street and utility improvements shall conform to the Cityrsstandards for urban construct ion.
The applicant shall submit for approval by the city Engineer detailsfor the construction of the barricade on the deadend of Trappers pass
betlreen Lot 1 of Block t and Lot 14 of Bl.ock 4 r.v i th the plans andspecifications.
Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side of the
Class B wetland along the rear of Lots I through 9 of Block 4. TheCityrs standard detail for the installation of Type II erosioncontlol (staked bales and snow fence) shall be placed on the .gradingplan.
Details for the construction of the proposed retaining $ral1 along
both sides of Trappers Pass deadend shall be submitted as a part of
the plans and specifications review for approval by the City
Engineer.
Lots 15 and 15 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. l of the plan set
dated February 18, 1988 shall be revised to show the correct property
boundaries.
13. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such that it
forms a rrT" intersection with VaIhaIla and Iroquois Avenue.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along the
common lot line of Lots t and 2 of Block 4 which will serve as an
emergency overflow swale for the ponding site of LoE 2, Block 3.
15. AII appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front
and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage andutility easement for ponding site and storm sevrer facilities shall be
sholrn on the final plat.
16. AII private drives shalL access internal streets to the subdivision.
No drivelrays shall be allowed to access Pleasant Vierd Road.
17. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time ofplans and specifications submittal and design adjustments made
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 35
accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper conveyance of
stormwater under Pleasant vier^r Road.
A11 voted in favor and motion carried.
Conrad moved, HeadIa seconded that the Planning Commission recommendapproval of the Wetland Alteration permit #88-5 to permit developmentwithin 2AO feet of a Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to beconstructed within the Class B wetland with the following conditions:
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meetthe following six conditions established by the r.ish and WildlifeService:
a. The basin will have free form.
b. The basin wiII have shallow embankments with slopes of Ig:1 to2g.l for at least 30t of the shoreline to encourage growth of
emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wiIdlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variablewater depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wiLdlifefeeding in shallow lrater (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encouragegrorrth of emergent vegetation in areas of shatlow water andthereby increase interspersion of open water $rith emergentvegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing
i{etland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable
substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e.The basin wiII have water level control (culverts, riser pipe,
etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
2
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the
pond within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details
on area of construction for the pond within the wetland and how the
remaining r^retland $riII be preserved.
3 The erosion control fence shall be continued across
Block 4 to completely protec it the wetland from any
activi ty.
Lots 7 and 8,construction
4.AII structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots I-9, Block 4) must meet
the 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
The developer shall prov ide
of the wetland area on Lots
elevation.
deed restrictions prohibiting alteration
1 through 9, Block 4, beyond the 914
rE
5
Planning
April 5,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 36
The developer shaIl makethe wetland and make the
habi tat .
every effort in it's pond design to improve
wetland an attractive, useful wildlife
6
All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and motion carried.
Emmings:
back out.
Is staff going to have the Fish and wildlife come back out?
If you rrant to amend the motion, if you want to make that.
would you like me to add that staff bring the Fish and wildlife?
Or get an opinion from them. Maybe Ehey dontt have to come
Batzl i :
Emmings:
Conrad:
Wi ldermuth :
wetland that
Conrad: I
Emmings:
Bat zI i : I
knows what
rm comf ortabl.e that
Brian, do you want
guess I'd prefer
they're doing to
they donrt need to be
to state your rea s ons
that we inv i te
take a look at
invited.
for your vote?
I donrt think DNR or Fish and WildLife can do much with a
sma1l .
somebody ouE that actually
what we're propos i ng .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EOR OUTDOOR
SPECIFICALLY LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS ON
DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 608 FTYING
BRAMBILLAI S I NC.
DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE EOR SALE,
PROPERTY ZONED BF, BUSINESS FRINGE
CLOUD DRIVE, JAMES FREEMAN AND
Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown
Emmings: Has the appJ. i cantwith closing off one those?
Brown: The applicant, hredissatisfied with closing
received vrord that the applicant vrasoff one of the accesses.
presented
been asked
the staff
if herd be
rePort on thi s
willing to go
item.
along
Jack Brambilla: In regards to your little diagram there, you brought upthe question about the speed going by there. If you back up to the easiabout. 100. yards, there's a warning light there that will come on when thetraffic light vrhen you 90 to the teft there is 1it red. That $rarninglight will slow traffic down if the traffic light is for stopping. it'sa little problem corner there. I don't think the cars are going no 55mph there. People do slow down.
Planning
ApriI 6,
Commission Meet j. ng
1988 - Page 38
Erhart: Only the traffic that turns to the left here has toAIl the traffic Aoing to Chaska can go right on through.
lane that ' s beenproperty from mestraight ahead.
slow do$rn.
widened. Theto widened that
Jack Brambilla: There is a right handState come in there and purchased someIane to give it two extra lanes going
Erhart: This is actually a three lane
Jack Brambilla: Thatrs right. Right at that point.
Erhart: Yourve got more than two
When people go to Chaska...
road.
more conflicts there than yourve sho$rn.
Jack Brambilla: I've owned theaccident in front of my property
Heaven forbid.
Erhart: It hasn,t been open for use.
property and there's never been anfrom going into on that property yet.
Emmings: We'reCommission. you
and make yours.
not
9o
going to have arguments between membersahead and make your points and then Tim
of the
you go ahead
Jack Brambilla: Other than that,the driveway. I have talked hriththat. I do not want to give up athat point. It would really be adriveway. What we're using with acome in one driveway, make a turnridiculous .
the only thing was on the removal ofthe State, they had talked to me aboutdriveway entrance either on or off atdilemma for the property to lose a
.25-foot setback, if the people have toinside and go back out, thati s
Brown: Mr. Brambilla, does that mean that youthe one entrance marked in and the one entrance
are ln
ma r ked
full agreement withexit?
Jack Brambilla: If it worked properly. It has not beenit to work properly. I would be in agreement to the twoin and one out because that is the way that normal peopleentering that piece of property
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing.favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla: After the clarification on the fuel storage tanks,said the condition of the Eanks is not acceptabLe. Then acompliance with the Fire Code as to the use and location ofstorage tank. I donrt know what all that means yet.
tried. I
driveways,
would be
wan ted
one
AII voted in
the let te r
cond i tion isthe fuel
Dacy: Tthat he
have tosays. I
he intent is, compliance with the Fire code as to the use meanshas to come in and receive a permit. That meaos hers goin; toeilt-ref buy new _ tanks and conf orm eri th r.rhatever the Fir; CoSethink it's fairly clear that the existing tanks are rustej:..
PLann ingApril 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 39
Headla: Alright, thatrs the way. The existing tanks are unacceptable?okay, that's f ine.
Dacy: If you wanted to clean up condition I there.
Dacy: That was one of the issues from staff,s standpoint because outdoordisplay of merchandise for sale means exactly that and r.re felt that theapplicant had indicated to us that they wanted to put up a greenhouse.
We felt that that was going a step beyond the intent of that use. Anursery, wholesale or retail is not a permitted or a conditional use inthat d j.strict so we wanted to put the Planning Commission on notice thatthatis what the applicant is thinking of and they would have to process
another zoning ordinance amendment if that were to be considered.
Headla: Hers well aware of that?
Dacy: Yes.
HeadIa:
feel for
I'm going to let Tim address the road. Hers got a much better
that.
Batzli: I was going to talk about traffic but I think that's going to be
covered. I did have a question on why the appropriate sign permits must
be obtained prior to occupancy. Why wouldn't that be prior to their
installation? why are you requiring them to get sign perrnits prior?
Dacy: Maybe that was a poor choice of htords
sign permit before they Put up a sign. That
on my part. Yes, we need a
vras the intent.
wildermuth: I don't have anything .
Batzli: so youllinstallationrr?feel comfortable changing the "occupancy" to
Dacy: Yes.
Batzli: My other question was regarding the pumper contracE. You've
lessen the condition thatrs in the Section 1982. I think what I erould
Like to do is that Itd like to amend it eventually to read, the applicant
shal). comply with alL applicable codes, provide the City with the proper
septic tank pumping contracts at Ieast once every 3 years to make it read
as Section 1982 actually reads. Thatrs it.
ELlson: I can't see a reason necessarily to deny it because $re have
zoned business fringe like that. It does meet the requirements. I
like the fact that this area is zoned that way but I think it's a
terribly dangerous area but I would probably apProve just because of
way lretve goE it written and the fact that hets certainly giving us
condition that I s been aPProved.
ir
donrt
a
Ehe
Headla: I wasnrt really sure $rhat it was. I kind of got hung up on theIetter. Then is expansion a problen? If he ever wanted to do any
expansion at this site?
PI ann ing
April 5,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 4g
Conrad: No comments -
Erhart: With alL respect Mr. Brambilla, if I owned that piece ofproperty Ird be doing the same thing but I think we,re inio a biggerpicture Problem here and Barb and I have been doing a little r""6ir.t, onthis whole business fringe district down there. y6u,ve got a situationwhere,you have a 2-lane in many places, 3-lane and _Iani highway thatgoes for miles in the agricultural area, it's zoned agricultiraf in sdenPrair,ie and agricurturar in chanhassen and then again agricultural "a t;oget farther rrest out to before you get into chaski. rtis also downhirialr- the. way from Eden prairie arr the way down and the result is you tetrearly high speeds there. rt's nothing io see 65 and 70. uayue iignl atthe corner but do$rn that hirl and the iact is, with the growiigpopuration of chaska and shakopee, the racetrack and eveiythin! and therush hour trafficr lou llet 26,Ogg gafs ? day coming by there. By makingthis a BF district t{e'|ve encouraged businesi shou16 96 in tt,i" ";"r-t;I'we simply haven'it provided the s;fety standards to 96 along with it.rtrs like putting pryzmus on a freewiy and having a left tirn through themedian. rf hrerre going to make a business district out of this, th6n rthink-we ought to have provisions and prans in there for service roads.Therers no other prace where you'd ever have 65 mph traffic directry-accessing onto bulinesses. r think we're just nuts and r don't knowwhere MnDot's thinking is on this thing. fr. u." "n"oui.ging businessesat this intersection. r buy gas frequentry down there at the sA stationand r think itrs an extremery dangerous siluation. we,re adding to it.rtrs going to get erorse. we,re going to have more because thererspotentiar for other businesses down there. Right now, Barb and I rookedit up and r think we determined that everyone 6xcept one or two is non-conforming even as the BF district is wriiten. r;;e;; t'n working on aretter to the commission here to r'rave them realry ieview it. r,ve
- arready asked once and r feer t.hat we shourd rooi at it conjunction withthe comp plan. r t.hink it's real dangerous. r-Jonit"Lnow what to doabout this situation. we have to roori aE this thiog in a very seriousmanner. rrr,l vote against not because, r think you do meet our zoningordinance but I think it's a definite safety pro6f... -
Emmings: I donrt have anything to add. I think Timrs commentstaken. I think itts dangerous to Ehe point of being foolish butthink thatrs a reason that we can deny this.
A motion was made at this point with the folLor.ring discussion.
are well
I donr t
exit
plan
like
Emmings: Did you want to limit it to the west driveeray being theand the easterly driveway being the entrance?
Batzli: That would be my reco unendation but r suppose the HighwayDepartment and Larry have something to say about ihat as welt. Iwouldnrt r.rant to rimit them to that. r think that may be the bestright now but if the consensus is that they $rant to sle "orn.ttingthat, Ird be open for a friendly amendment certainLy.
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
I98 8 - Page 4I
Conrad: Was there discussion under future use, and I apologize for not
being here, but was there discussion as to providing the applicant rrith afeeling of whether we thought a nursery was appropriate in the future?
Did ere address tha t?
Emmings: No. Barbara talked about it.
Dacy: I had anticipated on putting the BF district issue for discussionon the next agenda on April 20th. Maybe it r^,ould be appropriate to
advise the appl.icant at this time that since Ehe Commission is wanted to
Iook at that in more detail, that vre can start that study so to speak,within the next couple of weeks and provide direction back to the
applicant at a later time so the Commission can take a broader approach
to the whoLe district.
Conrad: That makes a lot of sense but I guess it makes a whole Iot of
sense right nor., that we do that but if this motion passes tonight, Ithink the signal is saying that you mee! the ordinance but rde have great
concerns for how that area of Chanhassen is being developed. Werre not
saying that in the future we will be as open to expansion. we may be but
right now we canrt give you that signal.
uack Brambilla: I had one question. This property we're talking is
about 2 l/2 acres in size. I am after a permit for the whoLe 2 L/2
acres, not just the front so the useage of the proPerty out j.n back for
storing of plants for sale, everything should be, and we're talking the
v.,hole acreage of the parcel , not just the front. Am I correct? Did you
understand that also?
Dacy: Then vre may have a gross misunderstandinq because I thought I made
it clear that that site Plan has to show what you want to do on the
proper ty .
Jack Brambilla: Barbara, the rest of the property right now has trees
and Mr. Tykus has been farming up in the back side and if my renter r.rants
to put a product up there in bowls, the tree bowls, it should be that we
can use the proPerty that way that we're talking about. Not just
restricting it to the front 56 feet.
Dacy: Irm at a Ioss Mr. Brambilla because thatrs whaE was represented.
I sat down with your vrife. I sat down with Mr. Freeman. whaErs shown on
the plan is vrhat the Planning Commi.ssion has to look at.
Jack Brambilla: The main part of the business js out front. If I canrt
get a greenhouse applicationr I have to make aPplication for a greenhouse
but you mean to say he can't put a tree on the other side of the fence?
Dacy: That rdas not made clear to me as a part of the aPplicat j.on. Just
for the Commissionis inPut, I sat down erith Mr. Ereeman who is goinq to
be operating the outdoor sale and I said, show me what yourre going to be
doing on this site. He said, I just want tbe display area up in front.
Pl ann i ng
April 6,
Commission Meeti ng
1988 - Page 42
Jack BrambilIa: Thatrs mainly what we arebetter than 2 acres of land.
Emmings: Let me ask you a question here.submit a site plan which sho$rs the entireis going to be used?
Dacy: Yes.
Emmings: Thatts a requirement isnrt it?
Dacy: He submits a site plan showing whatproperty.
Emmings: And is
Dacy: Yes.
Emmings: And it
Dacy: Right.
Emmings: would
plan?
Jack Brambilla:
Emmings: Because if you get any approvalfor the front part of the property.
Jack Brambilla: Thenthere 171 feet back.
Emmings: But it doesnrt show
use of that property and thatto you that maybe you'd rat.her
after but we still have 2
Is the applicant supposed toproperty and which parts of it
wiII be occurring on the
this the site plan that they submitted?
doesnrt shor., the back part of the property?
you like us to table this so you can submit a new site
No, not tonight.
tonight it's just going to be
$re should change the site plan because it says on
that area and it doesnrt show your intendedrras not laid out to staff. Itm suggestinghave us table this.
Jack Brambilla: Today what I'm looking at is trying tothere and get this property working. It has been vacantI just want to kno$, here, are we going to have a Iot cfwe do want to use the rest of the property going up?
geE a ren terfor a longrestrictions
1n
time.if
Emmings: r donrt know. see, werve got a problem here. These things areassessed by staff and then brought to us for our comments. Now, becauseyou're bringing it up now aL the lrth hour here, staff doesnrt r,."" i"y-opportunity to assess $rhat yourre doing there. you shourd have made thatclear to them rrhen you brought in your application.
Jack Brambilla: He didpoint.put the foot.age on there but I understand your
of the property showing theyou intend to do with it.
Emnings: you're required to have a drawingentire propertyrs intended use showing whai
Brambilla: We did sendis Iisted there.
a copy of the Exhibit A which is the wholeJackplot
Jac k
site
Emmings: Thatrs not a site pIan.
have to 9o $rith what r,re had initially on theBrambilla:
pIan.I guess we
Dacy: As represented in Attachment #2 is what you will be basing your
approval on.
BatzIi moved, Ellson secondeil that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-4 as shown on the siteplan stamped "Received March 16, 1988" for outdoor display of
merchandise, specifically Iandscape products, on property located at 608Flying Cloud Drive and subject to the following conditions:
Compliance with fire code as to the use and location of the fuelstorage tanks.
I
2
3
The appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to installation.
Display areas shall not encroach on the 25 foot front setback.
The applicant sha11 comply $rith a1I applicable sewer and se!{age
disposal code and provide the city rdith the proper septic tank
pumping contracts once every three years starting on the effective
date of this conditional use permit.
The applicant shalI prepare with the city staff an appropriate
driveway access plan.
Display of merchandise is restricted to the area indicated on the
site plan stamped rrReceived March 16, 1988". The display area islimited withj.n the area designated by the fence and TH 212.
6.
AII voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried.
Erhart ! Irm opposed for the reasons stated.
Emmings: Traffic consj.derations?
Erhart: Safety.
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2A-263(6 &
7) OE THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH
REOUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK,/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT
PI ERCE .
Planning Commission Meeti ngApril 6, 1988 - Page 43
Pl ann i ngApril 5,
Commission Meet i ng
1,988 - Page 44
PubIic Present:
Name
Bernie Hanson
Larry Wenzel
Robert P i erce
Ernmings: Again, asfirst one, I've got
o$rner s pursuant to
Headla: It r spubl i shed .
412 5 Thomas Avenue, Minnetonka
6900 Minnewashta parkway
AppI i cant
preliminary matter on this one, justask staff if notice $rent out to aIIord i nance ?
you're looking at, requi resproposal, it requires that
as on thethe l akeshore
us
we
to, I^rhen
not i fy
to the Zoning Ord i nance .
lakes because the zoning
a
to
the
Dacy: Notice Lrent out to arl of the homeowners associations withrecreational beachlots but not the individual ripariin "r""i..Emmings! Then r'm going to recommend that we do the same thing with thisone that we did with the first one. There are peopre who probabry wourdcome tonight to speak about this. r think they shiuld qo '.heua and maketheir comments known and then we should hotd oien . fuuii.-ii"aring andcontinue it unril notice can be given because it is;;;;i"; ordinanceamendment that reguires notice to arl the property osrners a6utting theIake pursuant to Secti on 2A-43.
Erhart: Are you suEe? In whatdealing with a specific propertyeveryone on that particular lake
Emmings: This is under Division Two, Amendments
Erhart: Then we have to notifyordinance deals with all 1akes.
everyone on all,
got to be more than just the lakes. It has to be
Erhart: Did you publish notification?
Dacy: _ we did the public hearing ad and we prioriti.ze the homeownersassociation with the beachlots.
Emmings: It makes sense lrith the conditionalit make sense to have it here under the ZoningDoes having this provisi.on, which is in here?
use perm i t
Ord i na nce
section. Does
Amendments?
Dacy: I really think iErs a judgment call on the issue. If you wanttable it for us to contact everybody, that,s up to the Commission.
to
I 1oo k d i rectly
Cedar Cove. Iin. My neighborsli ke that wi thoutby the proj ect.
ENnings: Let me explain. I live on Lake Minnewashta.
:!-tlris. property just like I look right across at Reddrdn!t know Red Cedar Cove was going in until it wentand.I thoughg gee, itrs amazing they ca., do somethingsaying anything to any of us who ari directly affect6d
Address
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 45
This is 5gg feet of the lakeshore on our lake. Itrs right over there tothe right r^rhere ere all look and I got no notice. If I hadnrt been on the
Commission, Ird never woul,d have known this was going on and I know my
neighbors didn I t either.
Erhart: But weire not dealing with Red Cedar Cove .
with this piece of propertyEmmings: I rm
that I s closer
of that but werre dealingthan Red Cedar Cove.
awareto me
Dacy: I do kno!,
thing that we did
Erhart: Irm not arguing, I
every Iakeshore owner ?
the applicant is here. Maybe we could do the same
sunny slope.
agree but what do you irant to do? Invite
that
on
Emmings: Thatrs what I'm proposing but now Irm questioning rdhether 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. Itrs 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 beachloEs, this is coming in from a person vJho erants to do
a specific thing to a specific Piece of property and I think at Ieast the
lakeshore owners on that Iake ought to be here if they want to be.
Besides, thatrs what the ordinance says. I guess what I would like to do
i.s literally read the ordinance. Go ahead and do everything we can do
tonight. Hindle it the same way we did the first one and hotd the public
hearing open. I think there are people who would want to come.
Emmings: Here's what they've done. Theyrve given notice to the
homeo$rners association, for example Minnewashta Heights Probably has one
and Ehe 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 oo which the development is going to-o""-ur, that same notice. r'm not in any homeowners association.
Minnewashta Lovrs 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 l-ake or will affect the
usEage of the lake, the applicant shall Provide the City-r'rith a list of
propirty owners abutting the lake at the time of the application' The-ity snlff provide mailed notice to the Iake homeowners as in compliance
witi the pr;cedures above, which specify tbe procedures for notifying
homeowners associations.
Erhart: I didn't hear zoning ordinance.
Pl ann i ng
April 5,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 46
Emmings: That's fine if you think that's appropriate.it needs interpretation but if you feel IikL it does.ahead. Is there a staff report?
Emmings: Yes, the whole sectionThatrs what the whole section is in one zoning ordinance amendments.
I don't know thatwell, let's go
Robert pierce: Okay,that a month away now?
so thatrs the only lake werre concerned with. Is
Dacy: No, two $reeks. .can r say one thing? we just took the interpreta-tion that it was a zoning ordinance amendment thit would affect a1l lakesand that's why again, $re just notified the homeowners associ.ations. rnthe case of sunny srope, $re made a mistake. we shourd have notifiedeverybody on Lake Rirey. rn this case, we fert that a homeownersassociations $rith beachrots r.rourd be directly affected. you have broughtup another side of that concern that we did -not took at so that," ,tv.'---
Robert Pierce: What'|s done is done. r just want to know to eliminatemaybe a problem in the future so vre can get it to the next point. At anvrate, let me just go through a r-ittr.e biI of what $re. re pranninq -r,".J.-"'
ve gone to quite a few meetings so r might get somewhai directty to thehigh points- we're asking for one dock wlth fh.". or"rnigtri storagefacilities. The srips wourd berong to Lots 31 4 and 5 of the dockl Theyerourd go with those lots. werre al.so asking for a canoe rack. one cano!space for rots in there and there are 15 lots and each one wourd bearrowed just one. we're putting the dock on the widest side of theparcel tosrards the north. - werre reaving basically intact arl the trees.werve had them r-ocated and werve design6d our patfr down to in. t"k.
Batzli: can r propose that we do table it but we arlow the people whohave shown up to speak in public hearing, ask the City Attorney to giveus an interpretation on what exactly is required and Lhen go throuqh withthe appropriate noti fication procedure?
Dacy: r have nothing more to add unress you did want me to go throughit.
Robert Pierce: _r guess rrm not quite following where werre at with thisprocess- This is the third time, rrhich has colt thousands to me, thatthe notices have been. out to the wrong people and itrs getting somerdhattiresome. .r guess, r,rhere are we goin! ?rom here with t[at. is the CityAttorney, is that rrhat's going to happen?
Emmings: I donrt know what the City Attorney is going to say. What I,msaying is there's a provision in oui ordinanie "tricir iays that everybodywho lives on the lake gets noEice of this meeting so thly can have inpuiif they want to. They didn,t get it.
Robert Pierce: Is that Lake Minnewashta?
Emmings: yes.
PlanningApriI 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 47
around the trees in order to leave as much as possible. The beach area initrs natural state. We are having a sand blanket. We shorten it dor^rn
from our original. proposal considerably. On either end, to the north andto the south, werre leaving quite an area, basically untouched other thanto clean up the area. It gives a lot of a buffer zone to any adjoiningproPerties.
Emmings: I donrt mean to interrupt but I just have a
way down the slope, there was a lot of talk last time
whether it was a ramp or stairs. What is that?
thought that theyou were here about
Robert Pierce: f guess at this point it doesnrt really matter to us.werll work with staff or whoever might have recommenda t i ons . It's just
not a big concern. I think personally the tiered steps may look a littLenicer. That would just be my feelings on that but we're willing to look
at it. I think yourre pretty familiar, we have 550 feet of lakeshore
roughly and werre about I15 feet on the north side and about 80, itrssliqhtly narro$rer in the middle. Werve moved from the original proposal
that we looked at, most everything torrards the north. The dilemma werre
having here, the docks allow us to start on our development with a far'
far higher caliber of home. If $re are able to go ahead with that and
market it at thj.s point, ererre going to be looking at homes Probably from
the $2Ag,Agg.gg to $4gg,g6q.go ranqe. You canrt market that irith the
docks and the beach, we're going to be reducing, in my feelings, about
$lg6,ggq.60 per parcel for the finished product. r think it's
advantageous for all concerned, including the City, to have this area
start out in a nice fashion. Therers a Iot of Iand 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 knovrs 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 wilI probably carry through onto the other
parcels. r think for the City, for tax reasons, this would be a very
good idea. Also, it's just the same useage as far as overni.ght storage,
as Itm sure you're all aware of, one dock with three boats is the same
what one single family can have. Wetre trying to work with the City and
brjng our request into line. To step on as few toes and do it in a nice
r.ray that vre can for everyone concerned. I think as a whole, werre 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
aII the lakes. Apparently the change is to a requirement which is 100
foot depth by 2UU feet in lakeshore to come within the conditional use
variety for this type of piece of proPerty. Thatrs a lot of land. It
seems io me that the overlapping program here is that anybody to utilize
that as beachlot has got to be withio l,Ogg 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 2A,060 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 lg xo 26 to 30 cars parked on the
street illegally. Nobody did anything about them. couldnrt get anybody
to tag them, move them. They did finally Put up signs but that doesnit
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
I98 8 - Page 48
mean anything- They vrourd unload before dar^rn and pick up late at night.screeching tires and the whole thing. werve got another access just downon Littl-e Joe that's about another harf a broak with the access is adriveway.. The quantity of people who can use is unlimited. Then youcome to the othe side of the coin and you say, if yourre a landownLr ordeveloper or you're a group of peopre ina yoir'runt'to u[iiire it forpeopre that are owners within the area, you have to have alr this space.It doesnrt seem to fit. Somethingrs misling here. We do haverecreational beachlots on the rake. they aie much ress impact than apubric access. The only reason the public access on our siae ot the lakewas cl0sed is that the park went in on the far side and as soon as youstarted to charge on the far side, you put boulders in so they,d have togo there to unroad-. . That. dramatical.ry aroppea tne useate ot tt,. lake butsomething's not fittinq right.
Emmings: What would you Like to see the City do on this issue?
Larry wenzel: r don't think that you can take an overarr scale of squarefootage or linear footage- and appt| it to every condition on every rakebecause. theyrre not arr the same. The conditions are different. Thepopulation on the rake is arr different and r don't know it.t yoo .unjust put in a straight ordinance that fits everybody like that. Itdoesnrt make sense 6speciarly.when t;";;" got puuri- accesses and pubricaccesses in some cases are a-jacent- or very crose to what ihey want to dowith the beachl.t. Everybody has their own posi.tion but this isn'tfitting right for some reason. r have no objection to the beachrot theway Pierce is laying his out because right tiere, -r.ir.-s"t others andthey're more satisfactory than the puUlic access, as far as thelandowners that are there or the neighbors. That's not a probrem butvrhen you start tarking about somethi6g that,s arr of. "uaa"n i,s 2gg feetby lus feet or 26,00A square feet and you only get limiteJ amount ofspaces for utilization, that doesn,t .re""ss.riri make sense either. rfyou go half a brock away and.use the pubric i""1"" -".a -ioi-v"r. boat intoeverybodv's shore and beach it becausi they can;t ki;k y; lrt unyr.yfI"^.:hg rake. rt just doesnrt make sense. ,*erre so restrictive on theguy.that owns Ehe property but werre not restrictive in tire sense of whatwe do with the pubric access or the utirization of tne raiie. That's kindof where Itm coming from.
Emmings: And you,re expressing support for this plan?
Larry Wenzer: r think this pran in this particurar area, rrhich affectsme, is great. Thi.s might not fit, but r don,t think for instance ifyog_':e. going to say that he,s got to have 2q,qgg square feet, whichr think you're thinking about ihe ordinance changin'g to be, and.m notsure what that is.
Emmings: Rightwith a Lqg footinterpretting it
Larry Wenzel:that down.
now that is the ordinance. tt,s 2g6 feet ofdepth. -A11 the way along it is the way rightbut werre going to try ind clear that up.
Iakeshore
now we r re
In some places yourve got roads that come down and shorten
PIann i ng
April 6,
Commission l,lee t i ng
1988 - Page 49
I think they looked at that and this is the only place wherethat situation isnrt 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 Ianguage 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 L00 feet of lot depth where the dock is Located, thatrs the
proposal.
Emmings:
werve got
Larry Wenzel: No.
S2gA,6gA.A6 houses
thing that creates
Ird rather see $460,000.00 houses
because that helps everybodY. If
it, I rm al,I f or it.
Larry wenzel: hlhat if you don't have
Dacy: Then you vJould have to receive
conrad: Then basically we don't vrant
Emmings: Do you ovrn
Yes .
land betrreen the
Larry Wenzel:Sure.
Emmings: Do you have any other comments on this item?
Emmings: And how much frontage do you have?
Larry wenzel: 24g fee| and it's IO.5 acres total but I'm already into
two front lots. Itrs plotted that way now but thats doesn't necessary
mean that at one Point or another, I've got no benefit going eiEher way
if I develop because Iots on the front that have their own lake Property
in relation to a series of lots all sharing, Itm 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 wetve 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-rilht that lhese 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.
I00 foot anywhere in the section?
a variance.
a beachlot there.
road and the la ke?
than I woul.d
that I s the type of
conrad moved, wildermuth seconded to close the Public hearing. AlI voted
in favor and the public hearing was closed.
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 50
Erhart: specificarly the current ordinance does require that it arlto be 100 feet so if this thing was l,aaT feet long and there was onespot in that 1,Agg feel that wasntt lgt feet wide, you couldntt put adock in?
has
like a
too ?
be Lef t
comes
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: That seems a little silly doesn, t it? I think it soundsreasonable thing to do. Did you lrant to discuss the canoe thing
Emmings: Give any conments yourve got so he gets the benefit.
Erhart: Okay, we,re not going to vote on this tonight then?
Emmings: No, lrerre going to table it.
Erhart: You're sugges t i ngto the judgmental decisionin, is that co r r ect?
of canoe racks simplyconditional use permi t
that the numberat the time the
Dacy: That's correct.
Erhart: Thatrs all Irve got.
conrad: r have no problem with changing the amendment. r think that'sfine. r do think that for canoes, r-agiee with the .on""ft, r don't knowwhy we had rimitations on canoes befor6. r think ir re nlnt a milrioncanoes on a property, that.rs fine with me if thatrs the way they chooseto decorate their beachlot. - However, as part of the staff report, itsaid instead staff recomrnends that canoe iacks be. p"i*iltua use inrecreatj.onal beachlots. The number of canoes to be determined as a partof the condiEional use permiE review- r guess vre need some guidelinesaDd therefore rrm kind of happy werre tabiing tiris uecaus"-h...somebodyrs going to come in wiEh canoe racks that dot the shoreline andr'm not sure r.rhat those guideLines courd be Barbara. i "t.rt"d thinkingr.rhat they are. r think philosophicarry r aon't r."ow t;.t-;; need torimit the number. yet on Ehe oltrer tra-na, to say it,s qoino to be aconditional use and werre going to review it, h,; =no"ri-trie somethingthatrs going to guide that review. otherwise r doni a-;";t-;o see itbecause philosophically rrd say we could have a nirlion ""no"" so r donrtreally want to see this unless we have some standards to appry todifferent situations like the gentreman was describing. - i'-[i,ink staffshould do a little bit of analysis on the canoe aspect.
Emmings: That brings up another issue too. we carL these canoe racksbut they store watercraft. They don't just store canoes and r donrtknow, it rooks like you can put sailboaids on them, smarl sairboats, allkinds of things and r don'it knoe, if we want to get into thai but thatcourd be another issue.. Maybe you vranE to Eie fhe number of spots tostore something on a thing that rooks like a canoe rack to the number ofhouses?
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 5I
Wildermuth: Didnrt you say Ehat somewhere Barbara? Didn't you
equate the number of residents in the beachlot association with
number of available rac ks ?
try to
the
Dacy: That would be one idea because that is being proposed by the
applicant. Thatrs fine. I think maybe in the term canoe racks, maybe we
should change that Ianguage regarding to that section to be storage of
non-motorized watercraft because Mr. Chairman, you're right, itrs canoes.
Itrs sailboats and sailboards.
Emrnings: what about a 15 foot aluminum boat, rowboat?
Dacy: That's fine.
Emmings: As long as it iloesn't have a notor on it, they could go on
there too r i9 ht?
conrad: That I get real interested in because that.rs a whole different
animal wer 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?
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 a endment to the dock section, r would strongly
recommend that you don't include the lanquage where the dock is proPosed
to be located but actually where it is locaEed. I am assumj ng you want
the dock to be located at the lgl foot depth, correct?
Dacy: Yes.
Batzti: 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 prefe! that there be some, taking Tim's comment, that if you had
Lt060 feet of lakeshore and only one foot didnrt have the 100 foot depth,
change around to have 999 feet of it as 2 feet deep and yourve got l foot
of it that extends back 8 billion feet so you get the required square
footage. Ird like to see that there be some minimum amount having the
Lgg foot depths still. At least as a mininum. For instance, how much
land has to be on either side of the dock?
Ernmings: The setback? The side setback?
Batzli: Do you know what that is?
Pl ann ingApril 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 52
Dacy: There is a rrdock setback,,off the top of my head.
but I canrt recall whaE that is right
wildermuth: r think thatrs a good idea. r think Brian's conment is avery good one- r think maybe the distinction and the criteria for acanoe rack ought to be sonething arong the guidelines that he was tarkingabout with the number requirements or just fhe sticker requirement. Thatmight be the way to describe that.
Batzli : Since it r s being tabled,and I assume it,s going to be I0you have a minimum 100 foot depthand you donrt like it, Irll stiLlnext time.
Emmings: Tr.ro satellites?
Headla | 3g or 40 feet from the
Emmings: Have they been therepermitted on beachlots.
HeadIa: That's another
we donrt have them.
I guess Ird look at somethj.ng Iike thatfeet or 15 feet and double that so thatof 20 ot 30 feet. If you look at itprobably recommend something like that
Headla: I like what pierce has proposed. I certainly support it. Ithink the 2gg foor and the tTg foot dimensions are puiery'arbitrary. Ithink it's ludicrous that you should try to stop on; feriow because hedoesntt have 100 feet. you automatically stop him from getting ab:achfg!: -I have yet. to_hear any raEionale, whatsoever, what,s so magicabout 109 feet? why is Lgg feet better tha; 50 r"eia --itry--isn
' t it 200feet. or 300 feet deep? Until I hear thaE logic, you,re c'utting offsomebody. pierce has to screw around with ui for-how ront iust becausewe're using an arbitrary number of feet on the depth. r lnlnx thatrsunacceptable. This isn't a day where we just arbitrarily put any numberand. say,.that's good, let,s fly vrith it. I think we ..uif|-got to take alook at it. If you want to tie square foot per person p..'Iot, I thinkthat has some varue.. r hear a rot of opiniois on tn;." iui a.*n it, whydoesn't somebody go to somebody rike pllasant Acres and look at it.Theyrve got a big area, hov, muih of it is really used? in"y,rr. got uroad down there and they probably use 3g Eo 46 feet of it aia thiy,ve gota. vorleybarl court, they have a catamaran, a boat there, two saterrites,thatrs the area that they really use.
lake.
all the time because those are not
thing, they should permit them. It,s ridiculous
I think that's an excellent
Thatrs going to stop a lot of people
Emnings: Thehere. I like
only comment Irve got isBrianrs conxnent that the
I think hers got
dock setback, at
Emmings: rf r didn't know better r'd think you owned rand between theroad and the lake too Dave. you sound like those guys.
Headla: The requirement of no cars,requi.rement and that,s got to stay.from using it.
a very nice planIeast the area of
Planning
Apri I 6,
Comm i ss i on l,teet i ng
1988 - Page 53
the dock setback and maybe double ought to be the minimum area that hasto be 100 feet. Thatrs sornething that we should look at. This plan Ithink fits this property very well. I think it r.routd be ridiculous to
wind up with a result here where we denied all the people living right
across the road from that shoreli.ne, the ability to get dor.rn to the lake.I think it's a very minimal impact on the lake. I look at this. Irm
directly affected by it and it doesn't bother me at all. I think itis a
good plan.
Conrad: Itrs a
to do.
great use of a beachlot. It's a classic for what you want
Emmings: The problem with the beachlot thing to me is, if everybody
could bring in a plan and say, this is vrhat we vrant to do, I think we
wouldn't have any trouble saying yes, this one's good and that oners bad
but lre wind up with more Iitigation over beachlots Probably than any
other issue foE 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 ere can carry from one beachlot to the next. Thatrs the
problem. wetre all bending over backwards trying to get this one
ipproved 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 vrrite a standard like that. werll
approve it if we Iike it and we wonrt if we donrt.
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. Itrs
very hard to market them saying we're going to have a dock here. Irm jn
the process that looks good. PeoPle say, weII call me back later. I
guess that's where Itm coming from and maybe $re're closer here.
Conrad noved, Erhart seconded to table action on the zoniag Ordinance
Amendment to amend Section 2q-263 (5 & 7) of the Recreational Beachlot
ordinance until the Proper notification has been done. AII 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 OE MGM BUILDING) FOR BERNIE HANSON FOR THE FOLLOWING USES
TO BE LOCATED IN A l-9,648 SOUARE TOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING:
SMALL VEHICLE SALES
OUTDOOR DISPLAY OE' MERCHANDISE EOR SALE
SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE
AUTOMOTICE SERVICE CENTER
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on thj.s item.
A.
B.
D.
Pl ann ing
Apri I 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 54
Publ ic Present :
Bernie Hanson
Jim Hanson
Jim Lasher
Kathy Anderson
Loren Anderson
Jim Derhaag
Wes t
West
78 rh
78rh
Street
Street
West 78th Street
Box 503
480
489
BRW
BRW
449
P.O.
Chairman Emmings opened up the public hearing.
Erhart moved, Wildermuth secondeed to close the public
voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing
hear ing. A11
was closed.
Headla: On page 3, trees prov j.ded in phase 2 of the downtor.rn
redevelopmenE project. What does that mean? Which trees are
Dacy: Phase 2 of the redevelopment projects refers to the
West 79th Street and finishing up Market Blvd. into TH 5.that, we do have landscaping involved vrith that project.
Head1a: So money was alLocated for situations like this?yourre say j. ng?
those?
realignment of
As a part of
Is that what
where they hadbe in a conf I ic t
Dacy: Right. The project included trees along lvest 79th Street.
Headla: On the next to the last page,the diagonaL corregated metal siding.with the way we...
I loveIs that looking
going
at
to
Dacy: No. Two point,s. Number one, the Council
ordinance revision so that hasn.t become law yet.
vJhat is being proposed here is what we would likea metal exterior is concerned-
is still looking at that
Two, staff feels thatto encourage as far as
Headla: Thatrs what I kind of thought when I lookedstarted thinking, vrait a minute. Are we against thisand from what I see here, I thiok we should be for itto take a very careful look at the way rre worded thatdon't have any questi.ons, I Iiked it.
at it and then Ior are we for it
so maybe werve gotother part. I
Wildermuth: Irm glad to see Bernie and Loren that yourve got a homerather than having to go to the Hanus building there. The constructionis going to be, somewhere in here I read it was going to be timber andthe baked on enamel metal siding. In other words, it erill have a t j.rnber
superstructure rather than a streel superstructure?
Kathy Anderson: It will be typical wood frame construction.
Wi ldermuth: Barbara, why
plan?are you requiring a revision to the fol iage
Planning
April 5,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 55
Dacy: The
the parki ng
change.
ordinance reads that there should
areas and public r ights-of-ways
a 2 foot hedge betweent would just be a minor
be
soi
Wildermuth: Are there going to be any underground storage units?
Dacy: Not to my knowledge.
Wildermuth: They're all going to be above ground. I guess the onlyother thing that has to do with the site, again, and that is the tuini.ngradius in and out. If you look at the othei businesses along there,they've all got a problem with the radius. The width of the entryr^ray.guess I rrould hope we don't make that mistake here.
Dacy: The driveways are designed to our standard.
Wildermuth: Maybe our standard needsgoing to the dentist and the doctor,real problem turning those corners?
a little attention.the Iiquor store down
If you I re
there, it's a
Conrad: Why is that? It is a real val-idthat make it that difficult?comment. what are the specs
Dacy: When those buildings vrent in, to the best of my knowledge, wedidnrt have any specs. As a matter of fact, that was in the days thateverything in the cenEral business district was a conditional use permit.Everything. Now that werre a little more sophisticated now but now we dohave minimum width requirements and naximum width requiremenEs for
driveways and we can certainly take a look at that.
Conrad :
of f ice.
Just so we donrt make the same mistakes as at the dentist
Tim Erhart made a comment that couldn't be heard on the tape.
Emmings: Apparentl-y we' reconditional uses. Are you
site plan?
901nggoing
to talk
to make
both about
a separate
the site plan and thepresentation on the
Dacy: No, at this
Ernmings: Dave, doon the site plan?
point,
you want
tarry
to go
and I
back
are prepared to
and see if you
ansser questions.
have any comments
Headla:
had was,
Does that
just looking at the recommendations. The one question Ivehj.cle sales shall be conducted in the proposed building.they canrt talk to customers outside the building?
I was
smal I
mea n
I
Dacy: Thatrs a good point because, correct me if Irm wrong, because Ithink as a part of Phase 2 reconstruction of West 79th Street, we aregoing to correct Ehat problen between the separation of the street andthe entrances in.
Dacy: As a matter of fact Mr. Hanson asked me Ehat same question.intent here is that the small vehicle sales, that ere don'i have anof outdoor display which becomes a sale area. That sre have acongolmeration of a number of a vehicles and people congregating onsi.te. The intent is that it's an indoor use ind- it shorird-be k6ptthere. The only outdoor activity is to display these 14 vehicle!.
HeadIa: That was a clarification?
Dacy: Itrs the best I can do.
Headla: Give me a for instance of the area yourre trying to avoid maybe.Irm confused as to what yourre really trying to do.
Dacy: There's no question that rtm sure Mr. Hanson is going to wark acrient out and. say this is my John Deere riding rawn mow6r "na it 100ks9.99!: Then that person says, r,tl take ir. it,"" irr"V gi inside thebuilding and transact the actual sare inside. thev picr'up the equipmentfrom the rear portion of the building.
On the site, I did slip over onedevelop? When you Iook at it, it
The
area
the
in
tight?
for aso it
Dacy: I went out to the site previouslyappl.ication was in and therers-a distinitproperty and the subject property. This
Head la :
wetland
area .
Wildermuth: Is the number
came up vri th ?
Bernie Hanson: I d i scussedshort at times. IE,s not towhen I know I would like to
Wi ldermuth: When you get a
last spring vrhen Mr. Burdick'sdifferent between Burdick r sis not at all.
14 vehicles acceptable? Is that something you
thing. Does any of thatlooks like it's on the fringe
a I i ttle bitcertain t imes
compromise.
that?
you
Bernie Hanson: It wouldthing but when you.re incan display them.
Wildermuth: I guess Ird ratheroutdoor display area rather thanuse his own, if he wants to packthere.
that $rith Barb and I feel itrs
abuse the thing but there areexceed that. It was sort of a
shipment in or something like
to buckle down so
and
of
visual impacts
control on it
be for display. It's not going to abuse thethe lawn type business, you do need a place
Wildermuth: Is there any reason why we.re going
D?cy: The Cityrs primary concern was aesthetichighly visible area. We wanted to set some typeldouldnrt get out of control.
see us talk about maybe square footagethe number of vehicles. He can kinithem in tight, fine. Set a fee, out
of
of
Planning Commission MeetingApril 6, 1988 - Page 55
Planning
ApriI 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 57
Headla: Havenrt we Iimited others though by a number? Would this be a
new yardstick werre generating here?
Wildermuth: I donrt remember that this has ever come up has it?
Dacy: Not to my knowledge.
Wilderrnuth: I guess I'd prefer to see that. We talk about a square
footage rather than the number of units.
Ellson: What was the difference between each other?
and she was saying 14? Hol, far aPart were you that
compromise? I see what yourre trying to do, yourre
some more leevJay but was it that far apart? Are you
L4?
wildermuth: If Yourve got 14 Toro
area is.
Bernie Hanson: I think j.s a Person
took a dozen, I'm talking to mY son
the smaller ones or 15? TheY donrt
You were talking 24
thi s vras the
trying to give him
real unhappy wi th
Werre not trYing to exceed
these out there so people
a cluttered mess, because
we're trying to make it
be restrictive to the
restrictions on mYself. I
would like it. Like move
area si ze?
Groundmasters and figure out what that
put 5 or 8 of the larger Pieces and
Jim here, you think maybe a dozen of
take much space. I think that would
Bernie Hanson: No, the thing is, if you took, werre also into the Toro
groundmaster professional line, this is a large piece. when I say Iarge,
fhey have 6 feet maximum in height and 10 feet maximum. Norr that's a big
*owing piece of equipment. If you have half a dozen pieces this size,
that pait we could live with but then you get down to the walk behind
type iawnmowers, you can display a dozen of them easily al-ong side the
Uuifaing and I don't think thatis pushing or violating anything when you
Iook at the size of this building. we're talking on the west side along
here, if you Put a dozen walk behind lalrnmowers in a nice display along
the edge.
wilderrnuth: with a 2 foot hedge,you I lI
out at
never see them.
Headla: How many did You disPIaY your Present Place?
Bernie Hanson: That would be 20 units maybe.
that by any extent. Itrs just that you can put
can see them. Not to try and make it look like
rrhat eretre putting into this building and what
Iook liks. Then I have also allowed myself to
storage, which we haventt had. I put a lot of
guess if I could have a little leeway there, I
it up to 20 pieces or something.
Wildermuth: Ird be favor of that. I think r"re want it by the square
footage of area rather than the number of piecesl depending on what
showing or disPlaYing.
Emmings: How do You figure out an
PlanningApriI 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 58
be one way tothat could get
something. I
I i ttle hard to
can understand if
define too.
you say square feet,put
a
Jim Hanson: I guess our point is, we dontt, at any time, erant to make itl-ook.like a bone yard. we want it to be a crass act dispray. There willbe times Irm sure when $re will want to run specials and opei house and$re'lI want to park more equipment out on those particular one or. twodays. On a normal day, like we're talking, we might have large equipmentand r^re might have a dozen or more small mowers.
Wildermuth: Thatrs just my feeling. I feel we shouldn't be quiterestr icti ve so
Bernie Hanson: r rdould appreciate it if you hreren,t so restrictive.
Jim Lasher: r was going to try and offer a solution. what we can do istake a rook at the south side of Berniets structure, which apparently heovrns the space that he has for a multipl-e storage area and I-o6t< at miyuea distance from the front of the building out towards west Tgth streetand say it could be a maximum linit of where material could be outdoordisplay and leave it up to Bernie to decide, do r fit ro iirger items inhere or 15 snaller items. That,s the way to cal-culate, at least adistance. away from the structure where he courd visibly oislray outdoormerchandise. That's one way to sorve the sorution rati.rer tiran puttiog anumber.
Batzli: I have a question for Barb. Somewhere in these numerouscooditional uses, something. that says that the vehicles di.splayedoutdoors, there wonrt be other vehiires disprayea outdoois 'as werrthan for the automotive portion.other
Dacy :
Batzli:
Dacy:
Batzl
those
Irm sorry, which vehicLes for which use are you talking about?
The sma 1I vehicles.
Eor Bernie's Chanhassen Lawn and Sports?
i : Right . Those are I iin j. tedlimited to under these uses?
to the enclosed storage or where are
Dacy: The dispLay of small vehiclesfront of the building and along thebuilding underneath the canopy.
Batzli: And are they t imited somewhere to be stored?
Bernie's uses are limited to inside of his portion of the
more equipment andequipment beyond
D, the automoti ve
abouE the
Shouldn I t that
for
west
Dacy: Bor storage? well, inside the building he hasso on. There is to be no outside storage of iny otherthe display vehicles.
Batzli: I r^ras curious, if I recalI, therers in Sectionservice center. The applicant shaII submit informationfLammable, combustible liquid storage in the building.
Dacy: Probably unless Mrthat would be appropr iate.
Batzli: I would assume therers oil and gas and things.
apply equally to the small
Bernie Hanson: As far as whatthatrs in a fireproof cabinetsmall amount.
vehicLe sales?
. Hanson tel1s me otherwise. I would think
we
AS
have storagethe fire code
inside,
says so
any flammables,
that I s a very
Brown: The Fire Department at the present is putting together a program
vrhere they can have a floor plan in a command vehicle for each commercialsite. I believe the reason that the Fire Marshal.l brought this up is,that way if they are involved in an entire structural fire, they knowexactly where the hazardous materials are.
BatzLi: I guess I rdould include, just on this information, something
Iike your condition 5 in the conditional use permit for Motor Sports,
Inc., your last conditional use permit. Something like that regarding
small vehicles sales as well. I had a question about the site plan.
Prior to building occupancy again.
Dacys Okay, no problem.
ElLson: Do you
Bernie Hanson:
EILson: And do
Bernie Hanson:
seII used equipment?
Yes .
you rent equ i pment?
No.
Ellson: I just wanted to know that all the outdoor stuff is aII the new
stuff. A11 the shiny and new looking and not the stuff thatrs kind of
chipped paint or $rhatever. Not that you would necessarily do that but I
think people are concerned when you start getting things out in display
that you don't r.rant it to look schlocky or r.rhatever so I I d guess I'd Iike
to know that that stuff is aLvrays going to be the new shiny stuff or
vrhatever versus some of the stuff if you had a renting business, that
might be out there. I don't kno$, if we came up to a conclusion as far as
the number of vehicles. I would rather see it statjng the number of
vehicles than a square footage. Not only from the standpoint of your
interpretting it but from somebody coming out and just counting and
saying yes, indeed thatrs as many as there are so maybe change to say 18
or something like that which would give him a little more leeway. I
donrt have any problems with the site Plan. rt Iooks good.
Conrad: Barbara, whatrs the imPervious surface ratio for this site?
Dacy:
Bernle
Itrs belov, the maximum required.
Hanson: 51t.
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 6, 1988 - page 59
Dacy: As a matter of fact, as a condition of sale, the HRA has imposedlarger than typically required setbacks for screening.
Conrad: Barbara, one of your notes on page 4 of this particular staffreport says, therefore, the city should estabrish conditions to prohibitthe long term storage, etc.. In the conditional use permit O, you saidthere shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles awaiting repair in excessof 72 hours. Does that condition relieve your commeni on-page 4?
Dacy: Yes.
Conrad: So $rerve taken care ofus, thatrs taken care of that.that, the way that motion is worded for
wirdermuth: r wonder if the applicant can rearly rive with that, 72hours. sometime 72 hours is a pretty short time if you're waiting forparts. Can you Live with that Loren?
Loren Anderson: rt's pretty rare that it will be there for more than oneday waiting for repairs. There are times when you're waiting for partsthat it will take more than 72 hours... Erom that part of it, thaa's thetough part. . .
conrad: staff has somebody that circurates and counts cars? probabry wedontt have a problem. r'm comfortabre vrith 14 vehicles as stated in itrestaff report. Not becaues itrs better than 15 or 13 but r think r couldchange that if r saw an area designated for these vehicles. rf on thisplan you showed me where you wantid to put them. rf you had an area. rfyou had a concrete slab where those vehicles were goiig to go, then Idonrt need numbers- Then I could take a look at this plan ind say,thatrs not bad. rn absence of that, 14 is where r'm a-t on the nuirber ofvehicles. r don't have any reason to say 2a. rrm a f.ittle bit familiarwith retailing and that ki;d of stuff .nE t do.,rt know if you put z0o ifit makes a difference than if you put 4 or 5. r think what you want Eodo is attract people in, show lhem-you've got that kind of sluff. 6 to gvehicles out front is going to Uring them in. It's going to say, yourrein the business and you've got much more inside or on tne side or -
whatever, so rrm pretty comfortable with 14 and r donit think r need tochange that number unless you show me where you $rant them. Then rrlrtake a rook and say, it might be a better of doing it if you so choose.
Bernie Hanson: rf I vrent ahead on the drawing on the bui.rding, first offon the grass out in front, where we vrould plan to put the largerequipment. Be it either garden tractor or professionar equipment andlike I say,5 or 8 is maximum. Try to put them in a dispiay thatrsattractive, not just pile them out there. The remainder would be putalong the lr,est side of the building because therers an g foot wide'sidewalk there so we try to make a nice rooking display just arong theedge .
Conrad: That sounds real good.
Planning Commission MeetingApriL 5, 1988 - Page 60
Erhart: On the landscaping, that whole area around there $rhere we sho$redthe sugar maple, is that bermed or j.s that just flat?
Dacy: Itrs not proposed to be bermed.
Erhart: Werre requesting that they put in a 2 foot evergreen hedge.Thatrs not shown on this plan.
Dacy: Herers the shrub area. In this parking area $re wanted to extendthe hedge around the corner here and $rrap it around here. This is thesresterly entrance into the site. This is the curb area, the southwestcorner of the building over here and technically the ordinance says thatyou should have a hedge between the parking area and the public streetright-of-way. So this is where the hedge r.rould go.
Erhart: Then they really arenrt required to put the hedge all. along thewest s ide?
Dacy: Right. On other areas of the site,
did you mean that it only hadjust at that entrance there.
theyr re above and
one sugar maP1e.
beyond.
You I reErhart:
talking
What
about
Dacy: I think I may have been referring to this tree here.
Erhart: Is the City doing anything, Iike this architecture sort of fitsin with the theme of the downtown, like the MGM, thatrs just a flat roofbuilding isnrt it? Is anybody working with them to try and coordinate
these thi ngs.
Dacy: Our primary objective has been the north side of West 78th Street
and getting people on that side of the street relocated. I think also,
by example, I think once development starts taki.ng place, maybe some of
the exist.ing owners will take notice and it wj.Il snowbaLl.
Emmings: I donrt really have any additional comments. I agree $rith
Laddrs position on the number of vehicles. I think since that's what
staff came up with, I'm inclined to go along with it recognizing all the
whiLe that itts arbitrary but so is 18. Any number is arbitrary. Any
square footage requirement, seems to me would be arbitrary since we don't
have evidence that it makes any differnce so I'd be inclined to go alongwith the staff on that. Thatrs all.
Ladd Conrad l eft
remaining i tems.
the meeting at this point and did not vote on the
BatzIi moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommendapproval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 to permit small vehiclesales in the proposed 19,948 square foot commercjal building as indicatedon the site plan stamPed "Recej.ved March 14, 1988" and subject to thefollowing conditions:
Planning Commission MeetingApril 5, 1988 - Page 61
I
2
The smalI vehiclebuilding.sales shall be conducted within the proposed
Compliance wi th
+88-4.
the site plan conditions of approval for Site plan
3
All voted in favor and motion carried.
information about the flammable andin the building and meet the requirements
on
be enc I osedof a chainline, and
equ r pment
1ogs.
of
Inc .
The applicant shall subm i tcombustible tiquid storageof the Uniform Eire Code.
Headra moved, Erhart seconded that the pranning commission recommendapproval of Conditional Use,permit Request *98_3 for outdoor display ofmerchandise for sale rocated on the west and south sides of the proposeaL9,648 square foot commerciar building as indicated on the plan ;ta;pedrrReceived March 14, 1988" and subject to the folrowin! ""naiti"n",1. There shall be no more than 14 vehicles disprayed outdoors. No morethan 6 of the 14 vehicres sharr be located beti""., west 79th streetand the front wal1 of the proposed building.
2. The vehicles shall be displayed during hours of operation only.
3. The vehicles shall not be rocated in the parking or setback areas andshall, be located near the immediate vicinity of the building.
4. compriance $rith the site pran conditions of approvar for si.te pran
#88-4.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Ellson moved, Headla seconded that the pranning commission recommendapproval of Conditional Use permit Request #gg_3 for screened outdoorstorage to be located in the northeasc corner of the proposed Lg,a4gsquare foot commerciar building and to alIow a storagi aiea for onetrairer in conjunction with oeihaage Motor sports, rnc. as indicatedthe site plan stamped 'tReceived Maich 14, 19gg" and subjecE to thefollowing conditions:
I The area labeled on the plan as ',enclosed storage,' shallby an extension of the roof of the building, coistructionIink from the ground elevat ion to the bottom of the roofthe fence shall contain wood slats.
The storage area adjacent to the building is to be used forwaiting to be picked up or repaired and ior storage of wood
2
3 A detailed screening and site plan shall be subnitted prior toapplication for a building perrnit for the rocation and screeningthe goose neck trailer in conjunction with Derhaag Motor Sports,
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 5, 1988 - Paqe 62
PlanningApriJ, 6,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 63
4.Compliance wi th
#88-4.
the site plan conditions of approval for Site pl.an
AII voted in favor and motion carried.
Wildermuth moved, EIIson seconded that the Planning Commission reconunendapproval of Conditional Use permit Request *88-3 for an automotiveservice center for Loren Anderson to be conducted as indicated on thesite plan stamped "Received March 14, 1988" and subject to the followingconditions:
I
2
There shall- be no outside
excess of 72 hours.
storage of vehicles a$raiting repair in
3
4
There shall. be no storage of junked vehicles or other vehicles indisrepair in the parking area.
AJ,I repair activity must be conducted within the proposed building.
A retention system for the flammabLe and combustible liquids shall be
installed. This system must be in compliance vrith Uniform Fire Code'79.907 (a) , waste storage.
5 The applicant shall subm i t
combustible I iquid s torageof the Uniform Fire Code.
information about the flammable and
in the building and meet the requirements
6. Compliance wi th
#88-4.
the site plan conditions of approval for Site PIan
AIl voted in favor and motion carried.
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for Derhaag Motor
Sports, Inc. to conduct an automotive service center for one race carj.ndicated on the plan stamped "Received March 14, 1988rr and subject to
the following conditions:
as
I. A detailed screening and site plan shall be submitted prior to
application for a building permit for the location and screening of
the goose neck trailer in conjunction r.rith Derhaag Motor Sports, Inc.
2.There shall be no outdoor
needing repair.
storage of race cars or any other vehicle
3
4
A11 repair activity must be conducted within the building.
A retention system for the flammable and combustible liquids shall be
installed. This system must be in the compliance erith Uniform Fire
code 79. 997 (a') , waste Storage.
PIann i ng
April 6,
Commission Meeting
19 88 - Page 54
The app ). i can t shalI submit
combustible Iiquid storageof the Uniform Fire Code.
information about the fLammable andin the building and meet the requirements
5
5. compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for site pran
#88-4.AII voted in favor and motion carried.
srrE PLAN REVTEw FoR coNsrRUcTroN oF A tg,q4B seuARE Foor COMI{ERCIALBUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND LoCATED oNLor 4 AND PART oF Lor 6, BLocK r, FRONTTER DEVELOPMENT PARK (JUST wEsr oFMGM BUILDING) , BERNIE HANSON.
Discussion regard ingdiscussion.the site plan took place during the prior itensl
Batzli moved, ElLson seconded that the planning Corunissionapproval of Site plan Review #gg-4 for the conitruction ofsquare foot commercial building subject to the plan stamped1988" and subject to the following conditions:
1. AII sign permits shall be obtained prior to installation.
Light fixtures shall be installed so that there isadjacent properties or public right-of-ways.
rec ommendthe 19,048
"March 14,
no glare on
screened area for theauEomotive center.
additional
2
J
5
6
4
The site plan shall be amended to provide for agooseneck trailer in conjunction r"ri th Derhaag's
The landscape plan shall be amended to indicateIandscaping as shovrn on Attachment #II.
An additional fire hydrant shall be added to thethe properEy by the developer. The main shall besprinkler and hydrant demands for the property.
A plan which shows the exact watermainhydrants and sizing calculations shallthe city Engineer prior to issuance of
Location, spaci. ng of tbebe submitted for approvala building permi t.
The exit stair into the storage /repair area must beenclosure. The H-4 and B-2 occupancy require a oneThe entire building must have an app;oved sprinklingthe attic spaces.
Silt fence shall be placed and maintained along thesite prior to the commencement of any grading.
ln a one hour
hour separation.
system including
south side of the
7
8
north$rest
si zed to
corner of
meet the
fire
by
The developer shall agree to be assessed for hisof the cost for looping the watermain to the rdest
proportionate share
and waives any and
9.
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 65
all. procedural and substantive objections to the public
and payment thereof, and waives appeal rights otherwisepursuant to MSA Section 429.99L.
impr ovemen t
ava i IabIe
Lq.The developer shall prov ide
cent.ered over the watermain
City at no cost after final
the City a 10 foot
and shall ded ica te
acceptance.
utility easementthis watermain to the
11.Curb cuts and curb replacement shall be coordinated with the Cityrs
Phase II construction plans for the downtown.
plan included?
one.
on there?
AII voted in favor and motion carried.
Jim Wildermuth left the neeting at this point and did not vote on the
following i tems.
SITE PLAN REVIEW TO EXPAND CITY
AND LANDSCAPING RECONSTRUCTION.
Erhart: Therers no landscaping
Dacy: You should have received
nmmings: Are there sugar maPles
HALL 5,411 SQUARE EEET AND PARKING LOT
Dacy: There are existing sugar maPles I know.
the total extent to which this building can be expandedErhart: Is this
on this site?
Dacy:
north
mirror
No, this is kind of a first Phase
which is proposed expansion. what
image of t.he existing building.
of another expans i on
the ultimate concept
to the
is, a
Emmings: I was not happy I didn't get to see a floor plan.
Bror^rn: I think the reason that the floor plan was not included
strictly because it's not complete yet. There are still' issues
to be resolved. Everyone lrants to put in their input from city
they are slow but sure gathering aJ.1 those recommendations into
plan.
Dacy: The primary use are public safety and building inspecti.on
personnel in thaE exPansion.
Emmings: And space for library expansion in the basement.
Dacy: Right, in the bottom floor.
Headla: The fire department
addi tional equipment? They
any fire in thj.s
new equipment of
was
that needstaff andthe f loor
building iri thout
any kind?
fight
need
can
don't
Brown: Correct. yes, they canbe sprinklered also.fight it no problem. This building will
Batzli: Who did the landscaping plan? BRW?
Dacy: BRW.
Batzli: And they only put two sugar maples in there?
P.."y r The existing trees dorrn on coulter though are sugar mapres. yes,they are adding two but there are existing trees.
Erhart: When is the street plan going to get put in? Is that thissummer ?
Dacy: The remaining portj.on of the street?
Erhart: Yes, when you turn up past the bank and you can get in here.
Dacy: Yes, a couple weeks.
Erhart: Is there any plans for doing anything erith the old bankbuilding? WiEh that Iot rhere?
Dacy: No. We havenrt had inquiries.
Erhart: Who owns that lot, the bank?
Dacy: Yes.
Erhart: would the city ever be interested in purchasing that propertyout there?
Dacy: The city hasnrt, as far as it,s own needs arthough there have beensome inquiries from waconia Ridgewood Hospital for a pofentiar crinicsite and that $ras one site that was rooked at.. That,i been a good yearand a half before that issue has really been discussed.
Erharts Most citiesr lou end up being abLe t.o view city hall from sortof Ehe main street. If that. Iot hroulA get developea wiifr something else,you wouldnrt be able to do that. That'! why r asied if there was anyconsideration of getting an option on the lind or something.
Dacy: Not to my knowledge unless Don has something up his sleeve.
Erhart moved, Errson seconded that the planning commission recommendapproval of Site Plan Review #g8-2 for expansi6n of the City HalI for6,411 square feet with randscaping and paixing rot reconstr-uction basedon the plan stamped .Received lfaritr tn, 19ggrr and subject to thefollowing cond i tions:
Planning Commission MeetingApril 5, 1988 - Page 55
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 5, 1988 - page 67
Provisions of a handicapped parking space.
voted in favor and motion carried.
1.
Att
APPROVAL OE MINUTES:
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the planning
Commission meeting dated I'larch 2, l-gBB as amended by David Headla on pageI and Annette Ellson on pages 12, 13 and 17. Alt voted in favor exceptErhart and Brian Batzli $rho abstained and motion carried.
Headla moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the planning
Commission meeting dated March 16, 1988 as presented. AII voted in favorexcept Tim Erhart rrrho abstained and motion carried.
Erhart moved, EIIson seconded to adjourn
and the motion carried. The meeting was
the meet i ng .
adjourned at
All voted in favor
11:50 p.m. .
Prepared by Nann ophe i m
Submitted by Barbara DacyCity Planner
5
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
MEMORANDU!{
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
DATE: April 14, 1988
SUBJ: BF District
One of Ehe items that the Planning Commission directed staff to
fo1low through and study was whether or not the city should main-tain t.he BF zoning along TH 212. As you reca11 during the review
of the transportation e]-ement of the comprehensive p1an, MarK
Koegler presented fture l-and use and transportation analysis of
the TH 212 corridor (attached for reference).
WhaE needs to be analyzed in this review is what the property can
physically be used for if the existing zoning is noE permitted.
Another issue which needs to be evaluat.eil is the legal implica-
tions from changing the zoning from primarily commercial designa-
tion t.o an agricultural or in essence a holding zone pattern
where very littIe development is permieted.
I will be prepared to discuss in better detail these two issues
at Wednesday's meeting. SecondLy, if the Commission feels that
Ehe BF district is appropriate, Ehey may 'lsant to consider adding
other uses as was proposed by the recent Brambilla applicationfor a r e ta i l,/who Ie sa Ie nursery.
RECOM}lENDAT I ON
The Planning Commission shoul-d provide direcEion as to whether
not the proposed Comp Plan should be amended to stat.e lhat theCity should not promote any additional commercial development
thi-s area, and further, a zoning ordinance amendment changing
zoning from BF tso A-2 should be initiated.
ATTACHMENTS
I
or
1n
the
Excerpt from proposed plan draft.
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
U.S. 1691212 (Flying Gloud Drive)-
Corridor Stud
IOCATION AND LENGrII: Frqn Chanhassenrs eastern border (Eden prairie) to thewestenl bor&r (Chaska). ApproximateLy 2.7 miles.
FITNCTIONAL CLASSfEfCATION: Minor Arteria I
Plan ).
( 1987 Chanhasseo Conprehens ive
A\IER..E DArLY r*AFErc'
i3;333 1'33:lrf?:.31,'#;l3l* upon construcrloo or
lleu T.ll. 212.
.i.
DCSCRIPIIOI{: U.S. 159^.5. 212 is a combined roadway traversing the extremesouthern section of Chanhassen. The two lane, undivided lriqhday carriessubstantial trafEic since it is a segment, oE a route connecling westernt'linnesota to the T\rin Cities.
L
I
I
PRoR)SED LAND USE: southern Chanhassen is not served by sanitary serrer.consequently, no ner urban sca le develefl€nE. has occurred in -recent yeirs. Aseries of "grandfatheredn businesses exists east of the intersectioo oE u.S.
L59 /2L2 ard U.S. 1694.H. 101. Of these uses, some are conforming Eo thebusiness fringe (BF) zone while others are non-conforming
The larll use elemenE of the I9g7 ccmprehensive plan acknchrledges the existenceof Ehe crcoforming uses, however, land use policies disco:rage "eheir eipansion.Noo-conforming uses by ordinance are protribited from enrar-ging or eitendingtheir opera t.ions.
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IUPROVEITEMS: Currently, there are no major
transportation improvements planned for existing 169/212. Topography indfloodplain areas in eastern Chanhassen and western Eden prairie precfuaesignificant futtre expansion. The pending improvenent mGt affecting lxistingU.S. 769/272 is the planned construction of ne* T.H. 212. litren the new rortels built, it will substantially eliminate increased traffic aLorg the exist.ingroute. Existiog 169/212 is not adequa te to handLe exist,ing traffic flcHs.
fmprovements will be needed to reCuce accident rates and enhance public
saEety.
koposed lard uses alorq the u.s. 159 & u.s. 212 corridor have been identified
as a staternent of lorlg term ciEy policy. In this case, long term is definedas being post 2000, fDssibly 2020 or beyond. The City of Chanhassen does notplan to expard the business fringe (BF) zone, hence, development will notoccur prior to t.he availability of sanitary se,rer senrice. tong term larduses follow a theme of diverslty in order to ensure a future balance of
f tnction ard aesthetics.
When urban services become available, t.he north side of Ehe U.S. 169/212corridor ls expected to devere as medium abnsiEy ard high density'residentialr{lth the exception of the existing commercial area. prop€rty on the southsi& of 169 /212 is within land designated as part of the lin;esota ValleyNational wirdlife Refuge. one small existirg area of ccnnrercial (businesi
fringe ) exists at the Chaska bor&r.
.."--!.l-l-r. ..,a6.-..-.8
.!_J
o I
t
i/
t {_j
zrca I
7
!
$\
\L
I
Ltre
UILEf
L
&-
.Jt-rE-
i
Proposed Land Use
atct
lalC tAsau
I
-HD
R
R-MD P/S
P/S
_-rL
)
I
I
I
ILrae
l,r
l*L:
:l
--
I!__.
i"..--s.r.--'- .-